Mr Speaker, this debate is a very important matter for all of us. South West Africa is about to enter the most important phase in its history. I therefore welcome the opportunity to hold a debate on this momentous and complex subject.

If we are able to establish peace in the south western portion of our subcontinent it will be of historical significance for the whole of Southern Africa. After years of conflict and violence we now have a ceasefire. The conflict in Angola has a long history and the dispute over South West Africa an even longer one. To assess the present situation it is necessary to have a good understanding of this historical course of events. Without it a constructive debate cannot be conducted. Without it, too, no balanced opinions can be expressed.

†The fundamental fact to recognise, is that South West Africa was never South African territory. South West Africa was under German rule at the outbreak of the First World War. The Union Government then in power undertook the conquest of the Territory. A military campaign followed. The German troops surrendered to the South African forces on 9 July 1915. From that date, until the inception of the Mandate on 17 December 1920, the Territory was under South African military government. South Africa’s conquest of South West Africa, as part of the war against Germany, caused explosive emotional reactions inside South Africa at the time. Indeed, it led to a rebellion which left deep scars on our political life for many years.

The Mandate system together with the League of Nations originated from the peace settlements after the First World War. In terms of the Mandate for South West Africa, South Africa was to administer the Territory as an integral part of South Africa but had to account to the League of Nations for its administration.

South Africa at no time had sovereignty in the traditional sense of the word over the Territory.

In 1946, General Smuts, as Prime Minister, made out a strong but unsuccessful case in the United Nations General Assembly for that organisation’s blessing for the incorporation of South West Africa into South Africa. South Africa, nevertheless, made it clear from the very outset that the United Nations could not be regarded as the successor of the League. This was the start of the differences South Africa has had with the United Nations for more than forty years. More and more the United Nations became the forum for forging a joint front against South Africa.

The United Nations and certain states sought to use the machinery of the International Court of Justice to have these differences resolved in its favour. The first advisory opinion of the Court sought by the General Assembly was delivered on 11 July 1950. In the Court’s view, although the Mandate of the League was still in force, South Africa was not under a legal obligation to conclude a trusteeship agreement with the United Nations—thus vindicating in part South Africa’s position.

However, the United Nations, according to the opinion, acquired the supervisory functions over South West Africa which were formerly exercised by the League. In addition the opinion was to the effect that South Africa was obliged to accept the jurisdiction of the International Court with regard to disputes concerning the Mandate. Also the competence to modify the international status of the Territory rested, according to the Court, with South Africa acting with the consent of the United Nations. In South Africa’s view the Mandate had lapsed, but South Africa nevertheless made it clear that it would continue to govern the Territory in the spirit of the Mandate.

The Court gave two further advisory opinions, interpreting the 1950 opinion, in 1955 and 1956. As all these opinions were advisory only and had no binding force, South Africa declined, for very valid legal reasons, to accept the supervisory role of the United Nations, while the General Assembly year after year adopted resolutions seeking to bring South West Africa under the control and supervision of the United Nations.

To overcome this impasse, Ethiopia and Liberia, with the backing of the Organisation of African Unity, in 1960 instituted contentious proceedings against South Africa before the International Court. These two states alleged that in a number of ways South Africa had violated the Mandate— their main charges related to the issue of the well-being of the inhabitants of the Territory. Inter alia it was alleged that South Africa by various Acts was attempting the “piecemeal” incorporation amounting to de facto annexation of the Territory, such as the inclusion as from 1949 of six representatives from South West Africa in the SA Parliament. South Africa’s legal team contested this charge. In addition, it is a historical fact that at the time that the Territory obtained representation in Parliament, an agreement was reached which gave South West Africa separate powers of taxation.

In contrast with the non-binding nature of an advisory opinion, the Court’s judgement in contentious proceedings is binding and its breach can lead directly to enforcement measures by the Security Council. The case lasted until 1966. Without ruling on whether or not the Mandate was still in existence, the court felt that the applicants had failed to establish any legal rights or interest in the subject matter of their claims and the Court accordingly rejected them. This was a great victory for South Africa. However, our opponents were incensed by their defeat and reverted to the political forum to seek revenge and to mobilise with new vigour all the eager forces which they could muster in extending and intensifying their campaign against South Africa.

The reaction of the United Nations to the Court’s judgement was typical of the cynical attitude that has consistently been adopted by the international community throughout on the South West Africa issue. First in 1966, the General Assembly by Resolution 2145, completely ignoring the Court’s decision and in a move altogether beyond its power under the UN Charter, purported to terminate the Mandate and place South West Africa under the direct responsibility of the United Nations. In 1967 it created a council for South West Africa with the ludicrous task of administering South West Africa until independence. In 1968 it renamed South West Africa Namibia.

In 1969 the UN Security Council recognised the General Assembly’s illegal resolution purporting to terminate South Africa’s right to administer South West Africa. Further resolutions calling on South Africa to withdraw and imposing actions against her were adopted by the Security Council which in 1970 addressed a request for a further Advisory Opinion to the International Court. In what was one of the most farcical Opinions ever delivered by the Court, the Opinion given in June 1971—which like its predecessors was not legally enforceable—was that South Africa was in illegal occupation of South West Africa and that all states should act accordingly.

In 1972 the Secretary General of the UN, Dr Waldheim, visited South Africa and South West Africa upon instructions of the Security Council. Subsequent to this, the South African Government, in a communication to the Secretary General in April 1973, stated its position, inter alia, as follows, and I quote:

• — in assisting the people of the Territory towards self-determination and independence, South Africa would fully respect the wishes of all the people of the Territory as a whole, and would not impose any particular constitutional system upon them;
• — South Africa did not claim any part of South West Africa.

The Security Council unilaterally terminated the Waldheim initiative at the end of 1973, despite progress achieved.

In December that year the General Assembly recognised Swapo as the “authentic representative of the Namibian people”. In 1976 this formula was expanded to read “sole and authentic representative”, and Swapo was granted UN observer status.

The period 1974 to 1977 saw constitutional negotiations in the Turnhalle by the leaders of South West Africa themselves—culminating in agreement on principles for a constitution and the initiation of steps intended to lead to the establishment of an interim government. But the Security Council set out its divergent demands in its Resolution 385 of 30 January 1976 and by 1977 the scene was set for a head-on confrontation between the South African Government and the Council.

This confrontation was avoided at the last moment when the three Western permanent members of the Security Council—the USA, the United Kingdom and France—together with the two other Western countries who were at that time members of the Security Council—the Federal Republic of Germany and Canada—approached the South African Government for wide-ranging discussions to determine whether South Africa’s position on the South West Africa question differed that much from the position of the five Western Governments. These discussions culminated in 1978 in the settlement plan which is generally but erroneously referred to as Security Council Resolution 435 of 1978.

Resolution 435 authorised the establishment of the United Nations Transition Assistance Group. The settlement proposal itself was noted for the first time by the Security Council in its Resolution 431 of 27 July 1978. What is of particular importance for this debate is that the salient elements of the settlement plan had already been agreed to in 1977 and were spelled out to the electorate of South Africa during the general election campaign of 1977.

*During the 1977 election the NP issued an election brochure entitled Vrugte van die Nasionale Bewind, with a foreword by Prime Minister Vorster, clearly setting out the NP’s policy inter alia in respect of South West Africa. All NP candidates made use of this brochure, and I want to quote a passage from it:

• - Suidwes sal so gou as moontlik maar in elk geval voor einde 1978 onafhanklik word;
• - Die Gebied sal as ’n geheel onafhanklik word;
• - Verkiesings sal landwyd gehou word om ’n grondwetgewende vergadering te kies op die grondslag van een mens, een stem ten einde oor ’n grondwet te besluit;
• - ’n Administrateur-generaal aangestel deur die Staatspresident administreer die Gebied tot onafhanklikheid en is verantwoordelik vir die opstel van regulasies vir die verkiesings;
• - Die Sekretaris-generaal van die WO kan homself tevrede stel dat die verkiesingsregulasies billik en regverdig is en dat geen intimidasie gepleeg word nie;
• - Diskriminasie gegrond op kleur word verwyder;
• - Aangehoudenes en politieke gevangenes, indien daar enige is, sowel binne as buite die gebied, sal vrygelaat word. Dit beteken dat die ongeveer 1 000 persone wat teen Swapo-leier Sam Nujoma in opstand gekom het en in Tanzanië en Zambië aangehou word, ook vrygelaat moet word.
• - Alle Suidwesters mag na Suidwes terugkeer om vreedsaam aan die verkiesings deel te neem;
• - ’n Paneel van juriste kan deur die Sekretarisgeneraal aangestel word om geskille te besleg wat mag ontstaan oor byvoorbeeld die regverdigheid en billikheid van die verkiesingsveldtog; en regulasies, die status van veroordeelde gevangenes, ens.

One of the cornerstones of the approach of successive South African Governments in respect of South West Africa was that South Africa did not prescribe to South West Africa in the constitutional sphere and that the inhabitants of the territory would decide their own future without outside interference.

†In a statement in Pretoria on 20 September 1978 my predecessor as Prime Minister, Mr B J Vorster, said:

He then reiterated the principles previously accepted.

*By this time of course the settlement plan had been accepted by the National Party Government and also by the NP caucus. I myself was strongly opposed to certain parts of the settlement plan. My colleagues who were fellow members of the Cabinet at the time will be able to verify this. However, I resigned myself to the Cabinet resolution and after I became Prime Minister I honoured my predecessor’s international undertakings. That did not mean that I no longer had any reservations.

I could also quote from the statement which I made in Parliament on 6 March 1979:

†Attempts to salvage the settlement proposal by creating a demilitarised zone and by holding what was intended to be a confidence-building preimplementation meeting in Geneva in January 1981 failed. Two factors now assumed relevance. The first was the escalating Cuban presence in Angola and the second was the increased interest taken in South West Africa by the United States after the Reagan Administration took office in January 1981. In June 1981 the Deputy Secretary of State, Mr William Clark, visited South Africa and South West Africa. After protracted discussions which nearly resulted in an impasse, it was agreed that should the US succeed in bringing about the withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola, South Africa would co-operate with the Western Contact Group in removing the remaining obstacles to the implementation of Security Council Resolution 435. I personally strongly advocated this attitude.

By September 1982, after adoption of a new phase-by-phase approach by the five Western countries in the Contact Group, the only major obstacle to the implementation of the settlement plan was the continued and expanding presence of the Cubans in Angola. The linkage between the two was not, however, accepted by the Secretary General of the United Nations in his report following his visit to South Africa and South West Africa in August 1983, or by the Security Council, which adopted a resolution rejecting linkage on 28 October 1983.

As a result of the Cuban presence and Swapo bases in Angola, the situation in South Western Africa became a flashpoint, because of the need for the South African and South West African forces to act against Swapo in Angolan territory. This gave rise to Security Council consideration as well as proposals for disengagement of South African forces from southern Angola.

South Africa’s conditional offer on 16 December 1983 to disengage was followed by mediation by the United States Undersecretary for Africa, Dr Crocker, in the Cape Verde Islands and in Cape Town in January 1984, but problems that arose necessitated further meetings. These took place between Angola, the USA and South Africa in Lusaka, and on 16 February, 1984, agreement was reached on South African disengagement, the exclusion of Cubans and Swapo from southern Angola and the establishment of a Joint Monitoring Commission to monitor implementation.

In the event disengagement proceeded much more slowly than the envisaged 30 days (with the Joint Military Committee to remain in existence for a further 30 days), mainly because of Swapo activities. After a series of ministerial and JMC meetings between South Africa and Angola during 1984 the South African withdrawal was eventually completed on 17 April 1985. Angola declined to create or participate in any successor to the JMC as suggested by South Africa.

During this period attempts to bring about a cessation of hostilities, including a meeting between the Administrator-General of SWA and Swapo in Cape Verde on 25 July 1984, came to naught because Swapo insisted on prior unconditional implementation of Resolution 435. There were also developments during October and November 1984 on possible Cuban withdrawal from Angola. The main problem was the relation between Cuban withdrawal and the implementation of Resolution 435.

In the Territory the Multi-Party Conference (MPC) which came into being on 12 November 1983, with a view to “devising a political and constitutional system acceptable to the people as a whole” held discussions with me and members of the Cabinet in Cape Town on 27 January 1984.

In my policy speech of 31 January I stated:

I emphasised that the problem in South West Africa/Namibia could in the final instance be solved only by the people of the Territory themselves.

The MPC published a Declaration of Principles on 24 February and a Bill of Fundamental Rights and Objectives on 18 April and, in May 1985, had a meeting with Swapo in Lusaka. Consensus was reached on many fronts but not on Swapo insistence that the presence of Cuban forces in Angola be regarded as an extraneous factor or on the dissatisfaction of the MPC with the United Nations’ lack of impartiality.

On 25 March 1985 the MPC presented proposals to the South African Government of legislative and executive authorities for the Territory and of a Constitutional Council to draw up a constitution for submission to the electorate.

In response I stated in the House of Assembly on 18 April 1985 that—

I signed the proclamation establishing the new Transitional Government of National Unity in Windhoek on 17 June 1985.

On 4 March 1986 South Africa proposed that 1 August should be set as the date for commencement of the implementation of Resolution 435, provided that prior agreement could be reached on the withdrawal of Cuban troops. Neither Angola nor the Secretary General responded positively.

*What has happened since then? After heavy losses at the Lomba Rivier in Angola, Angola began to realise that a military solution was not possible. This opened the door to further negotiations.

The Gorbachev factor is probably important too. It does not necessarily mean that the Russians have abandoned their plan for world domination and have become the world’s friendliest neighbour. What it does mean is that Mr Gorbachev has realised inter alia that the Russian economy cannot afford extremely expensive involvement in remote regions of the world. The first and most heavily publicised example was Afghanistan. There is little doubt that the Russians support the effort to establish peace in Angola and South West Africa, but they do not want to be humiliated. However, it is not clear to what extent the Russians can influence President Castro.

This is not the first time that a solution to the South West African situation has been in sight. Experience has shown that we must not expect too much too soon. There are serious issues that will have to be negotiated. A difficult part still lies ahead. The latest negotiations between Angola, Cuba and South Africa indicate progress. We are now adopting a step-by-step approach. This means that one aspect or problem is approached and disposed of at a time before the next subject is tackled.

Early in June, as hon members know, representatives of the three governments, after earlier meetings this year in London and Cairo, agreed to a new set of principles in New York. These principles for a peaceful settlement in Southern Africa are very important and must in fact, according to a resolution adopted by the governments concerned in Geneva, be processed in the form of an international agreement.

What has been achieved by way of agreement is very important for South Africa because total Cuban withdrawal—I emphasise total withdrawal—and the independence of South West Africa have been clearly linked. This was an objective of South African internal policy we had been striving hard to achieve for a long time, while for years the linkage aspect was denied and opposed by almost the entire world, apart from the USA. To put the matter simply it means that South West Africa can only become independent when agreement has been reached on the total withdrawal of the Cubans from Angola, a principle to which the Cubans and Angolese have now committed themselves.

As hon members know South Africa submitted a proposal in respect of the implementation of Security Council Resolution 435 and Cuban withdrawal at the latest meeting in Geneva on 2 August. In it it was proposed that elections in terms of Resolution 435 should take place on 1 June 1989, by which time the withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola must have been completed. In this way South Africa took the initiative.

The time-table for the withdrawal of the Cubans must still, however, be negotiated, and this must be done before 1 September 1988. This is the hardest nut to crack. Delegations from the four countries concerned are meeting at this very moment in Brazzaville to try to iron out this problem. Consequently I do not want to make any further comment today on this critical subject.

Another important event is the ceasefire in the operational area. This is an indispensable first step on the road to peace. It is a token of the earnestness and goodwill of all the participants in respect of achieving a peaceful settlement, and it saves lives, including the lives of South Africa’s best young men.

South African goodwill has been demonstrated in that we have begun to withdraw our forces from southern Angola. Our proposal that the Cuban forces shall have withdrawn completely from Angola by the date on which the elections take place in South West Africa seems to me to be obviously logical and fair. South Africa is not trying to gain an unfair advantage in this way, but withdrawal must take place in such a way that at any given moment, none of the parties involved can outmanoeuvre any of the others.

Another problem which lies ahead is the obvious favouring of Swapo by the UN. It was a serious obstacle in the past and is still one today. The Secretary General will have to act in an absolutely impartial way in his involvement in the independence process in South West Africa. Swapo will have to be dealt with on an equal footing with the other parties in South West Africa. All parties, including Swapo, will only be able to participate in the constitutional process if the attainment of political objectives by violence is renounced.

I find it gratifying that the Transitional Government of South West Africa is adopting a positive attitude to the latest developments. It is the policy of the RSA Government to inform and consult the representatives of South West Africa and this my colleagues of the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Defence and I have done personally in respect of the latest series of negotiations. Independence is the desirable final goal, but not at all costs. It must be in the interests of the population of South West Africa and must meet with their approval.

Another possible obstacle which may not be overlooked is the internal situation in Angola. This situation was described as follows by Dr Crocker during his Press briefing on 9 August 1988—

One of the most important aspects of the present negotiating process is the question of finance. South Africa wants to know who is going to finance the implementation of Resolution 435, who will subsequently take over responsibility for the financial support given annually to South West Africa by South Africa and who will take over the loan guarantees for which South Africa at present accepts responsibility on behalf of South West Africa. The amounts involved are exceptionally large and South Africa will have to receive replies in this connection.

Owing to time restrictions I have only been able to deal with a few of the main points of the history of the South West African dispute and the present South West African-Angolan issue.

Quite a number of books have been written about this matter, and even more will still be written. What is important for us today is that the Government can state with justification that it has for decades adhered to its undertakings given to the people of South West Africa and has at the same time honoured its international undertakings.

We shall continue to insist that the people of South West Africa should be free to decide their own future without internal or external intimidation. We still say that we do not lay claim to one inch of the territory of South West Africa. Cuban withdrawal from Angola is now accepted in principle. A ceasefire has been brought about.

The day on which the territory becomes independent on the basis of the voluntary choice of its people and the Cubans have withdrawn from Angola, South Africa will be able to say: The struggle was not in vain. We have contributed to the peace and stability of Southern Africa.

Mr Speaker, against the background of the sketch presented here by the hon the State President, I should like to begin with a few statements.

There is no one among us here who, in South Western Africa or wherever, desires war for the sake of war or wants to annex the territories of other states. The permanent presence of RSA forces in Angola has never been our aim.

Secondly, we in the CP share in the compassion for the families who lost next of kin in the struggle, and we also say that the sooner an honourable peace is concluded, the better.

We are and always have been totally opposed to a communist-orientated government in South West Africa, and it is with alarm that we take note of any step which could increase the danger of South Africa being hemmed in on all sides by communist elements. We have always said that it is not only the population, but also the peoples of South West Africa themselves, who must decide their own future, and we are not prepared to throw South West Africa to the wolves.

We are saying that since South Africa has already paid the price in the form of the lives of hundreds of young men and millions of rands in South Western Africa, the obvious justifiable questions are, amongst others, the following: Was it a futile exercise? Of what use has it been to us? Have we been humiliated in the process? Could we have done anything to check the communist influence and expansion of power? Could we have helped to ensure freedom and peace for the peoples of South Africa and South West Africa against the revolutionary objectives of Cuba and Russia and against the UN’s enforced unity for eleven peoples in one country under a Swapo government, or are we plunging them, in conflict with one another, into a long-drawn-out struggle against oppression?

Another question is whether we have been able to help Dr Savimbi and Unita achieve an honourable settlement in Angola and whether we have been able to ensure that Swapo and the ANC, together with other communist forces in Angola, do not remain a direct threat to the peoples of South West Africa.

I think that it should be said to the credit of the South African Defence Force that at one stage in May 1988, according to a certain Mr Ponomarev, even Russia had to acknowledge:

I think that the true value of the successes achieved by our Defence Force in Angola still needs to be gauged.

†There can be no doubt about Cuba’s and Russia’s ultimate objectives in Southern Africa. Two years ago, at the third congress of the Cuban Communist Party in Havana, Castro said it was because of the growing significance of Africa to Russia that Cuban military involvement in the region was bound to increase substantially. In other words, Russia behind Cuba and Russia and Cuba and the UN behind Swapo as sole recognised representative of South West Africa.

What is more, according to the Maldon Institute based in Washington:

That is therefore why the number of Cuban troops in Angola increased to about 54 000. Castro even boasted of having rejected a South African request for a guarantee of non-intervention in South West Africa. He said he rejected it because Pretoria was “no longer in a position to request anything south of Angola”.

That may be idle boasting. In May 1988 Castro reiterated Cuba’s commitment to the revolutionary causes of the ANC and Swapo and, I presume, not for the sake of reconciliation and stable government in Angola, but for the destruction of South Africa.

*According to the Russian defence publication, the Red Star, the present negotiations were simply aimed at South Africa’s permanent withdrawal and the termination of South African aid to Unita. The publication states:

That is why, in May 1988, Sam Nujoma was received as a head of state in Havana. That is why he negotiated the escalation of Swapo operations right into South West Africa.

I am convinced that the war in Angola and on the South West African border, seen from the Russia and Cuban point of view, is a facet of the communist expansion of power. The RSA is the ultimate target. What I am also saying is that to promote this expansionism and achieve the goal of the revolution, Russia and Cuba have had to decide on one of two alternatives. They could also accept both simultaneously. A political method or the military option, or both.

In thinking about that, we would do well to remember what the Taiwanese learned from bitter experience and what one of their leaders stated in the following terms:

At the moment Russia and Cuba are falling in with a political and diplomatic solution, supported, of course, by their build up of military power. In my view the aim is still the same, and that is something we must take into account. The aim is defeat for South Africa, the withdrawal of South Africa from Angola and South West Africa, a communist-orientated government throughout South West Africa, a UN-supported Swapo government for South West Africa and an ANC government for South Africa.

In other words, Sir, not only must South Africa get out of Angola, but also out of South West Africa. That is very important as far as they are concerned. Instead of the peoples of South West Africa—I emphasise “peoples”—exercising their own right to self-determination, according to Sam Nujoma all the non-White peoples must be reconciled under Swapo. What he wants to do with the others, he does not say. One asks: What about the peoples who do not want to be swallowed up under Swapo rule?

The question now is whether reaching a settlement with Cuba and Angola, and the implementation of UN resolutions on South West Africa, will protect or guarantee the freedom and right to self-determination of the peoples of South West Africa. As far as we are concerned that is a very pertinent question. Have we reverted to the sins or atrocities of the colonial powers of the nineteenth century, i e forcing various people to live together in the same area? Must we have a repetition of what has been happening in Burundi for so many years?

Sir, we have the UN resolutions, and when we speak of Resolution 435, I merely want to point out that Resolutions 385, 431, 432 and the settlement plan of the Western powers have all been incorporated in Resolution 435. In those resolutions we find a repudiation or rejection of the idea of the self-determination of the peoples of South West Africa. Those resolutions speak of South Africa’s illegal occupation of South West Africa, South Africa’s brutal oppression of the inhabitants of South West Africa and South Africa’s efforts to—and I quote—“destroy the national unity of Namibia”. Whatever that may be.

Those resolutions demand that South Africa immediately terminate its homeland policy, because that is contrary to so-called national unity and territorial integrity. They demand the release of so-called political prisoners and the return of political exiles, as the hon State President indicated. In other words, an open door for Sam Nujoma to Windhoek to take over control there. That is how we interpret this. They demand the demobilisation of the Citizen Force, the commando’s and ethnic forces, the dismantling of their command structures and the total withdrawal of the South African Defence Force. They also demand that the troops at Grootfontein and Oshivelo be pegged at a maximum of 1 500, and thereafter they must get out of South West Africa. The implications of the implementation of those demands is that the front would be shifted from the Kunene River to the Orange River.

There is no provision, as I see it, for disarming terrorists or disbanding Swapo regiments, and some Swapo regiments have Cubans co-ordinatin g and integrating them. There is no provision for disbanding those troops, and no provision for monitoring Swapo bases in Angola and Zambia. We should like to be informed differently.

We are also asking: What about the Cubans who are integrated into the Swapo regiments and battalions? A figure of 13 500 is mentioned for the joint forces of those two elements.

There are, however, more absolutely alarming manifestations. A report that a Swapo government is acceptable to this Government has appeared in the Press. The UN troops—six or seven battalions, two of which are from Africa, and I think one from India and one from Eastern Europe—are of course a major cause for concern to us, and we know what those UN forces are capable of, as happened in the Congo. Then there is a UN contingent of 2 300 to handle the election, and this when the UN regards Swapo as the only lawful representative of the people of South West Africa. We have serious doubts about the objectivity with which this contingent would handle the election.

What is more, Sir, if the Cubans must withdraw— according to the proposal only after seven months, or whatever, after the commencement of the implementation of Resolution 435—our contention is that a vacuum would then be created. A vacuum would be created—South Africa having left—which would be filled by the UN and whomever it pleases. We are saying that when the UN troops are in South West Africa, and South Africa’s troops are south of the Orange River, it would be virtually impossible for us to ensure that the Cubans actually withdrew, and our question is: Who is going to monitor them?

We are saying that even if the Cubans were to withdraw from Angola, they still do not need to withdraw from other African states; they are already there. Thousands of military personnel from other communist countries would still remain in Angola. No wonder—let me link up with that—that influential members within Mr Ronald Reagan’s party in America say:

He is referring to America—

Sir, we think that that is where the implementation of the UN resolutions will lead.

Mr Speaker, we are encouraged by the rays of hope that have emanated from the historical perspective of the hon the State President this afternoon as well as the indications of the possibilities that may still take place. I think at a time like this it is essential for this country to listen to the voices of the prophets of hope rather than the prophets of doom like the one we have just listened to. [Interjections.] I believe that the adage is still true that it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. I think we have had enough of the darkness for more than 10 years, and we should now turn our sights to the question of what awaits us if events materialise as we hope they will.

The 24th of August is certainly an important date in my own life because as a result of the lack of perceptions, and particularly other people’s perceptions, I resigned from the Cabinet on 24 August 1987.

While the debate centres around the future of Namibia/South West Africa, centres around peace and security, and involves the presence and later withdrawal of members of the SADF, I consider it important to put the record straight with regard to my own attitude and that of the Labour Party towards the SADF.

In my statement I again referred to a perception, and the response from certain quarters is again an indication that someone else’s perception is never understood unless that perception agrees with one’s own. I have never accused the SADF of undergirding apartheid. I spoke of the perception, thereby meaning perceived as or seen as. That is true in the minds of many people. They see it as such and because they see it as such, I said that it is important for us to look at what is happening in this situation.

My party and I have at all times had the best relationships with the Defence Force in South Africa—at ordinary soldier level and at leadership level—and we have had nothing but praise and admiration for them. We have said loudly and clearly in our House that we do not need conscription for the so-called Coloured community because there are more applicants than the army can accommodate. We have expressed appreciation for the SADF’s contribution towards the building up of character and strength of personality and so forth. Therefore I do not owe the soldiers of South Africa an apology—I give them my wholehearted support and praise.

What is needed in the Namibian-South African situation is the creation of a situation which will bring out a sense of loyalty without having to coerce people into a situation of loyalty. I believe the Namibian situation underscores what we have repeatedly said, namely that while we have for ten years made our presence felt there and beyond its borders, the same is also true within the South African context. We must now seek to remove the cause rather than continuously deal with a result. Victor Hugo is still right when he says: “If a man sins because of darkness, the guilty one is not he who sins, but he who causes the darkness.”

Unless we try to understand each other’s perceptions we scuttle the possibility of negotiation and the finding of peaceful solutions and settlements.

The question of Namibia-South Africa has been in the minds of many people for very long. I am reminded of a debate that took place in the old Coloured Representative Council on Monday, 11 September 1978, when a pertinent question was asked by Mr David Curry. He wanted to know who had forced Sam Nujoma across the borders of Namibia. He went on to talk about the need for getting together and, as we saw it then, the need for a national convention. The response of the Prime Minister at the time was: “Nooit sal hierdie Regering ’n nasionale konvensie belê nie!”

*I am merely mentioning this, however, to prove that over the years consideration has been given to the whole question of people—the people of Namibia. I do not think that the question of peoples is relevant. When we are speaking here we are thinking of all the people of Namibia. Then he goes on to state:

That was 10 years ago—

Then he asks: Where are they now with their hard-line approach? I quote further:

†I am not thinking in terms of losing a war, but I am thinking in terms of what has happened over a 10 year period because of a lack of understanding of other perceptions. My plea this afternoon, as I support the hon the State President and the Government, and in particular the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his department, in a difficult situation and meeting a difficult challenge, is that we must avoid at all times and at all costs becoming our own enemies. Or have we perhaps already become that?

Someone once said:

Justice a procurer for peace—

I believe that in seeking solutions in South West Africa/Namibia we must seek to gain the support and understanding, the hearts and minds of all Namibians. I believe that can only be achieved if justice prevails.

*I was particularly struck by a quotation in this morning’s Burger about what the hon member for Graaff-Reinet said in the House of Assembly. I want to quote what he said, according to that newspaper:

The same applies to Namibia. If there is not a willingness to give and take, the whole situation is lost. We are glad that there has been a movement away from the obdurate view of “that is how we want it and that is how it will be”. When a process of negotiation has been initiated, other standpoints can also be considered. Since this is true of Namibia, our finding common ground must also become a reality here in South Africa; otherwise all is lost.

†In September the tenth anniversary of the birth of Resolution 435 on independence in Namibia will be very much in the minds of the regional participants in the struggle for control of that land. For the Angolans the civil war which has raked the country since 1975 is no nearer to a solution, despite the presence of up to 50 000 Cubans and the Soviet advisers. Unita wants a government of national reconciliation as part of that process and wishes to be dealt with by Luanda as an equal partner in all negotiations. However, the Jose Eduardo dos Santos government sees matters differently, and so Unita’s fate is very much in the balance.

For South Africa the war has proved to be a huge financial burden in addition to budgetary subventions to Namibia. Until fairly recently it may have appeared as if time was on South Africa’s side. Swapo’s military capacity was shackled. However, over the past few years a defence line has been constructed stretching from Namibia on the coast to Cuito Cuanavale, some 800 km to the east. Having become used to the news of military victories over the years, the South African public is unlikely to cope with costly reverses. The key to a complete resolution of the conflict—as a senior US administration official has noted: “Everything is contingent on everything else”—is independence for Namibia in terms of Resolution 435. However, South Africa has attached two major preconditions for its implementation, as we have already heard this afternoon, namely the staged withdrawal of the Cubans and the scrapping of the United Nations’ recognition of Swapo as the sole authentic representative of the Namibian people.

There is also, of course, still the question of ANC bases in Angola. Resolution 435, for a start, reaffirms the United Nations’ responsibility for Namibia; reiterates South Africa’s occupation as not wanted there; and calls for a transfer of power through fair—and we underline—free and fair elections under the supervision of a United Nations Transition Assistance Group. It also endorses a time-table for the transfer, prepared a decade ago by the five members of the Security Council when they first mooted Resolution 435.

In addition—and this is what South Africa must attempt to sell at home and in Windhoek alike— the Schedule to Resolution 435 provides for the repeal of all discriminatory legislation and the release of all political detainees. This is certainly welcomed, and we express the hope and desire that we will learn from the Namibian situation, namely that instead of continuing to put discriminatory legislation onto statute books, the repeal of all discriminatory legislation must take place and that all political detainees must be released. One welcomes the whole question of the safe return of those who are in exile. If it can be done there, I think it ought to be done here.

Hear, hear!

Under the supervision of a United Nations’ special representative and Untag the Schedule also provides for the phased withdrawal southwards of South African troops and the restriction of bases of all Swapo forces; within 12 weeks the South African forces should be reduced to 1 500 men and the military section of Untag will reach its maximum deployment. At the start of the 13th week a four-month election campaign is to begin. Then, one week after result is certified to the satisfaction of the United Nations, a constituent assembly is to be convened to write a new constitution for Namibia, a constitution for Namibia by Namibians of all colours, cultures and races.

*There is the possibility that the implementation of the guidelines will put Swapo in power. When that happens, we must regard it as the will of the people of Namibia within the context of a free election. It will have to be accepted by all South Africans, whether we like it or not. Since the conflict in Namibia was sparked off, thousands of people—and this is something we shall be commemorating for many years to come—have already died, Blacks on both sides of the border and also Whites on both sides. We nevertheless commend those on both sides who were willing to strive for the establishment of a new government in the territory of Namibia/South West Africa.

In regard to the possibility of Swapo coming to power, according to a report in Die Vaderland of 3 August 1988 the CP expressed itself as follows, and I quote:

I think we also heard this once again this afternoon—

So says the CP.

According to a statement by the hon the Minister of Information, Broadcasting Services and the Film Industry it is the South African Government’s view that the people of Namibia must direct their own affairs, and I should like to interpret that statement to mean that the South African Government is prepared to accommodate and to accept a Swapo government after a free election.

†Mr Speaker, at a time like this, when we think of the ten years of loss of life and loss of opportunity, loss of time, loss of human resources, and the wastage of financial resources, we hope that with a new situation developing in Namibia those resources will now become available to create an atmosphere of peace, not only there but certainly also in our own country.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I want to say that despite the current expressions of optimism we should continuously bear in mind that any settlement in Namibia will be incomplete until South Africa likewise removes all apartheid and all South Africans enjoy full citizenship.

Mr Speaker, after many years the emphasis regarding South West Africa is once again on negotiations. This is so for three reasons.

The first reason is because South Africa is committed to stability in our part of the world. Our Government has said on many occasions that they are prepared to talk and to negotiate with all of our neighbours. This is what they are doing in Brazzaville today. I want to congratulate them on this standpoint. I believe the hon the State President is applying his own advice, viz to put South Africa first. For their efforts to search for peace in Southern Africa they deserve our support. After all, a negotiated settlement of the Angolan and the Namibian issues has been our goal all along.

The second reason why we can meet during this session to discuss the negotiations regarding Angola and Namibia is because all the parties concerned realise that our country is a regional power. In our search for peace in Southern Africa we must take cognisance of the facilitating role our Defence Force has played. For this we must have great appreciation. They provided the platform from where our negotiators can talk about ways to settle the problems caused by the war, for example the presence of Cuban troops near our borders.

For about the past eight to ten years or even longer the combined Cuban and Fapla forces have tried to drive the Unita movement from the territory in which they have traditionally been. It has failed this year. It failed in previous years.

This has led to a third reason why the parties concerned came together to talk about the regional conflict. They have come to realise that they cannot solve a regional problem with foreign interference. Today there is far greater realism. The Soviet Union, under Secretary General Gorbachev, as our hon State President has said, initiated a deliberate campaign to strengthen his country’s economy. Everybody is talking about what he has done and what he wants to do. This means that they no longer want to be embroiled in a regional conflict which drags on and on.

As I have said, we are glad that South Africa is currently negotiating with the Americans, Angolans and the Cubans. This shows that even the Americans realise that South Africa is a regional power and has to be recognised. What are we negotiating for? Why are we participating in talks in Brazzaville, Cairo and in other capitals? We do so because we want peace. However, we have to be very clear about the kind of peace we want. The kind of peace that we are looking for must be a lasting peace. This is important because if there are unsolved problems remaining such as the financing of the United Nations Peacekeeping Force, Untag, and part of Resolution 435, and guarantees on Namibian loans, peace will not prevail for long.

We want the kind of peace that ensures stability. This is because instability, whether it is political or economic, will endanger the peace and lead to the breaking out of conflict once again. We also want peace that will ensure growth and progress. There are many countries in Africa—like Zambia for instance—and elsewhere where there is peace but no progress. That is not the kind of peace that we are looking for. That is not real peace. Neither is it a lasting peace because without growth and progress conflict will soon boil into the open. We are all from Africa and therefore we know our continent. We know that we have to be realistic about conditions and expectations. As realistic people we know all too well that our continent’s problems and those of our region will never be solved through foreign intervention.

*As long as the Cubans and their Soviet masters are active in our region, no solution is possible. If Southern Africa wants the kind of peace that results in stability, growth and progress, the Cubans have to leave. We are all agreed on this. We must and we will solve our own problems. On numerous occasions we have told one another that we are peace-loving people. To threaten us and to implement sanctions and boycotts will simply make matters worse and not solve anything. We hope and trust that the negotiations will result in a true and lasting peace.

We have shown our willingness to negotiate and our seriousness about negotiations which could lead to the implementation of Resolution 435. Now the international community must also give proof of its serious intent and sincerity.

Mr Speaker, if South Africa or any government since 1920 had wanted to avoid the consequences of the people of South West Africa deciding their own future, that government should have incorporated South West Africa and made it part of the territory of the then Union of South Africa, and subsequently of the RSA. But then South Africa would have been confronted with incalculable consequences in the international arena. The concept “South West Africa” therefore does not appear in the Constitution of the Republic. The Republic consists of four provinces. I do not know whether the CP has added a fifth province in a constitution which it has drafted.

As far as this Government is concerned, and all previous governments throughout history, since the time of Gen Hertzog, South West Africa was never a part of the territory of the then Union of South Africa or of the RSA either. If one adopts the standpoint that one can prescribe to a country with a separate international status, where does one draw the line?

Then the separate international status of Transkei and Venda must also be unacceptable to the CP. However, they helped to give that country its independence on the basis that the people in that country should decide for themselves. Where must one draw the line? Before long the CP would also want to prescribe to the Americans whom they should elect as president and, if they failed to elect a president which met with the CP’s approval, threaten to give them a licking. Those are the illogical consequences one would find oneself in as a result of such arguments. In contrast to their meetings, where we are not present, today the CP must pay heed to the actual facts of history. After today they will no longer be able to distort the facts as cheerfully as they have done thus far.

In the first place, after South Africa had conquered the territory militarily in 1915, peace negotiations were conducted at Versailles. Initially, as in the case of Britain and certain other countries which conquered German territory— this is the point I want to make—we were also keen to incorporate the territory constitutionally. President Wilson of America vehemently opposed this. The whole Mandate system is a compromise which was reached at Versailles, in the sense that in the case of a C-Mandate, of which South West Africa is an example, one could, for administrative purposes, govern it as an integral portion of one’s territory, but one was never permitted to incorporate such a territory constitutionally. In fact, a fairly heated argument developed between the then government of Gen Hertzog and the League of Nations about the concept of sovereignty. Eventually, on 16 April 1930, Gen Hertzog wrote a letter from Cape Town to the Secretary General of the League of Nations in which he said that he accepted the report of M Beelaerts van Blokland and M Procope which was submitted to the League of Nations and in which it was stated that two experts had found that—

Gen Hertzog acknowledged this in writing. I know the CP is forever hankering back to the distant past because it is afraid of the future, but I never knew they would go back on Gen Hertzog’s word, given in 1930. South Africa must take note of this.

That is not, however, all there is to it. After the Second World War, in 1946, Gen Smuts consulted the people of the territory. Not only did he consult the White people; he consulted everyone. Ultimately he introduced an incorporation proposal to the newly established UN on the basis of an overwhelming majority of opinions expressed by all the people of South West Africa.

His motion for incorporation was rejected. Gen Smuts’s Government then categorically declared that South Africa would no longer proceed with incorporation, but would administer the territory in the spirit of the Mandate, because his Government adopted the standpoint that the Mandate had lapsed. It said, however, that it would continue to administer the territory in the spirit of the Mandate. The South African Government would therefore voluntarily undertake the obligations, originally imposed upon it by the Mandate, of ensuring the optimum prosperity and welfare of the people, but refused to report to the UN, as we previously had to report to the League of Nations, because we said that the UN was not the automatic successor to the League of Nations. When Dr Malan came to power, he maintained precisely the same standpoint.

Not one of South Africa’s representatives, neither Dr Dönges nor Mr Eric Louw, nor anyone who ever went to the UN, quoted section 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter when South West Africa was discussed. What does that mean? We have always said that section 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter prohibited the UN from interfering in the internal affairs of an independent state. In regard to South Africa our representatives consistently raised this issue. When South West Africa was discussed by the UN, no one ever did so because South West Africa was not an internal affair as far as South Africa was concerned.

One Government after another, that of Dr Malan, Mr Strijdom, Dr Verwoerd, Mr Vorster and subsequently Mr P W Botha, acknowledged that South West Africa had a separate international status, independent of that of the Republic, and that the Republic of South Africa would not prescribe to South West Africa how it should solve its internal political problems or what its constitutional future should be, as the hon the State President explained here today very comprehensively and in great depth.

To illustrate to hon members how consistently we maintained this standpoint over the years—and I hope that after this there will no longer be any question about this in the internal politics of South Africa—let me point out that in the court case against us in the World Court in the sixties, a case brought against us by Ethiopia and Liberia, one of the specific charges against South Africa was that it systematically wanted to incorporate South West Africa.

†I think the charge was formulated in the words: “South Africa was incorporating South West Africa in a piecemeal way”—piecemeal incorporation. They indicated a number of factors. One was the inclusion of six representatives from South West Africa in the South African Parliament from 1949 onwards. There were also other alleged actions on our part which, according to Ethiopia and Liberia, substantiated their charge that we had, in fact, incorporated South West Africa. Dr Verwoerd instructed the legal team to strenuously resist this charge. We went through all the history books and records and made it clear to the court that the South African Government had never had any intention of incorporatin g South West Africa and that the South African Government, particularly after the Odendaal Commission Report was published, had consistently committed itself to respect the separate international status of South West Africa.

*Now the CP says it is going to make it a fifth province. What do hon members think the world must think of this State if one government after another, since 1920, has kept to a certain commitment, only to have a new government suddenly reject that State’s international undertaking? Simply to acquire a few votes, merely because it has a sentimental, patriotic and popular ring to it! For that reason and that reason alone! There is no other reason. It has not been well thought out. They have not considered what the international consequences for a country would be if the world began to think that its commercial contracts and ties meant nothing and could simply be torn up and thrown out the back door.

To rub it in even more clearly, in 1967 we issued an official publication on behalf of the South African Government. The text of the political and constitutional portion of that publication was one of the last documents that the late Dr Verwoerd himself approved, even though it was only published in 1967. He personally approved the text. I know, because I dealt with that matter. In it the South African Government stated—I am now taking hon members back to 1967:

This standpoint was consistently adhered to. What is very interesting is that in 1971, at the World Court opinion proceedings, we were authorised by the Government of the day, as a legal team, to propose that a plebiscite be held in South West Africa. I am now referring to the 1971 government. I take it that at the time the NP caucus approved such important matters. We were authorised to ask the court to arrange a plebiscite in South West Africa, a plebiscite in which everyone could participate—not only the Whites, not only the Ovambos or the Hereros, not only the Basters or the Namas or the Damaras or the Himbas or the Shimbas or the Kavangos or the Caprivians or the Coloureds or the Tswanas or the Bushmen, but everyone!

The question we would have put to the people, the inhabitants, of South West Africa—some of us have already forgotten, but listen to this—was:

That is the question which the South African Government wanted to have posed to the inhabitants of South West Africa in 1971. Hon members know who the then Prime Minister was and who were members of the Cabinet at the time. With the full co-operation of the entire NP, the NP caucus and all its erstwhile members, the legal team was authorised to put it to the World Court in those terms. According to the CP’s way of thinking, what a reckless act on the part of that government, because listening to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly today, one realises that he was not attacking the present Government. He was attacking Mr Vorster, Dr Verwoerd, Mr Strijdom, Dr Malan and Gen Hertzog! That is what he was doing. In essence he was saying that Gen Hertzog should have incorporated the territory, because if only one had had the territory incorporated, would one have been in a position to exercise the kind of powers he wants to have exercised. What he is saying is that it makes no sense if one does not have full sovereignty over South West Africa. It does not make any kind of sense whatsoever. What is even worse, however, is that he comes here today, uninvited, and pokes his nose into the affairs of South West Africa. [Interjections.]

I have just received a written document from Mr Dirk Mudge, at present the Chairman of the Cabinet of the Transitional Government of National Unity for South West Africa, a document in which he welcomes the progress made in the present negotiations. As far as I know, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly does not have a seat in that Cabinet. I do not think he has, but today he takes it upon himself to tell the inhabitants of South West Africa, as it were, what they must do and what they must not do. Has he asked himself what the leaders of South West Africa want? What do they want? What did he himself say when he served in the Cabinet?

Today the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition comes along and complains about the consequences of Resolution 435 which he approved! He and the hon member for Lichtenburg categorically approved it. I have proof of this. Every one of my colleagues who served under the then Prime Minister can make a sworn statement in support of that. We could also consult the Cabinet minutes. That is irrefutable proof that he and the hon member for Lichtenburg approved the constitutional principles which the five Western powers placed before us in November and December 1981. The whole NP caucus approved these principles. I know, because I dealt with that matter in the caucus. It was approved.

But that is not all. In 1977 those hon members joined us in contesting the election in the Transvaal and in the rest of the country, and they did so on the basis of an NP publication, Vrugte van die Nasionale Bewind. They distributed that in their constituencies. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly disseminated it in his constituency as official NP policy and said that he stood by that policy, because it contained a foreword by the late Mr Vorster which proudly states: “Dit is die vrugte en beleid van hierdie party”, en it states: “Een mens, een stem vir Suidwes”. In that document it was stated that the territory in its entirety would become independent.

There is no way in which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, or any other members of his party who were then members of the NP and candidates in the general election of 1977, can get away from that or deny that that was what they supported. [Interjections.] If they deny that, the country must draw its own conclusions about how long that party can be trusted, about how long it will adopt the course it says it is adopting today and about what it is going to do with our country tomorrow once it starts with its devious manoeuvrings [Interjections.]

Let us, however, see what Mr Dirk Mudge wrote to me yesterday:

His written communication to me starts off by saying that the parties in the Transitional Government of National Unity—

That is the Chairman of the Cabinet of the transitional government established by us in South West Africa. He wrote that; that is what he says. What does the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly do? He stands up here in South Africa and tells Mr Mudge, as it were: “Look, you do not have the right to speak about your own country. It is not for you to say whether you welcome these international negotiations. Let me tell you that we do not welcome them, and you better listen.” [Interjections ] That is the effect of what the hon leader said in this Parliament today. There is no other logical explanation for it. That is precisely the kind of shortsighted attitude that we and successive Prime Ministers have cautioned against throughout the years. One must not simply try to make events in South West Africa applicable to the Republic and one must not simply want to make events in the Republic applicable to South West Africa. That is also a principle which the leaders of that territory have laid down throughout the years.

Recently the hon the State President reminded me of how, in Dr Malan’s time, the inhabitants of South West Africa—even when they came to this Parliament—consistently insisted on a separate financial dispensation for South West Africa. All of us who knew the inhabitants of South West Africa, know this. We know that since 1920 they have displayed a peculiar character of their own. Those are the simple facts of the matter, and I again want to caution that we should not conduct South West African politics in South Africa. Least of all should we do so in the three Houses of Parliament or in joint sittings or meetings. We can, amongst other things, speak about the financial side and the implications of the separate international status of the territory, because those are responsibilities of this Parliament, but I want to appeal to all parties in all three Houses: Let us leave South West Africa’s politics to the inhabitants of South West Africa.

It was South Africa’s obligation to protect the territory against foreign aggression, and that has been done successfully. Throughout the years South Africa has, by way of the private sector, the State and semi-State corporations, invested and allowed billions of rands to flow to South West Africa to support it economically, to help it build up its infrastructure.

Those are obligations we undertook in 1920. We have religiously met those obligations, and after the League of Nations disbanded in 1946, and in our opinion the Mandate had lapsed, we continued to administer the Territory in the spirit of the provisions of that Mandate. What is the position in terms of the settlement plan which forms the basis of Resolution 435. The Administrator General, whom South Africa appoints, remains in control of the administration of the Territory until it has gained independence. That is a positive element.

If we look at the constitutional principles which the five Western powers submitted to us in 1981, and which were approved by the Cabinet in 1982, including the two hon members who are members of the CP at present, but who were members of the Cabinet at the time, we see that it is categorically stated that:

That is the constituent assembly which has to be elected—

At the time we regarded it as a reassuring provision that there has to be a two-thirds majority to have the new constitution of South West Africa approved. I now want to say here today: Neither this government, nor a CP government, nor a Prog government nor a Labour government or any other government can, after a voluntary nation-wide election has been held, and less than a third of the population are in favour of a specific constitution, thwart or suppress the will of more than two thirds, because then one would be looking for trouble. It is as simple as that. But to come along and say we want a Swapo government is absolute nonsense. It is untrue. We have never said that. It is one thing, however, to say what one would like to have, but it is a different kettle of fish if it is a matter which the people of South West Africa must decide for themselves. That is why we must encourage them, as quickly as possible, to prepare themselves and to negotiate a new dispensation for themselves in which democratic principles can be maintained.

According to the five Western powers, these principles have also been approved by Swapo. Thus, in the further negotiations, they will have to be incorporated in a future constitution for South West Africa, ie that there must be a separate judicial system; that elections must take place by way of secret ballot; that freedom of speech, of movement and of the legal process must be guaranteed. Also that:

So it goes on. Fundamental rights and principles which the five Western powers, which negotiated with us and the other parties at the time, said that they had clarified with all the parties concerned. With further reference to Resolution 435, the Police Force in South West Africa can remain. The Administrator-General formulates the regulations for the election after consultation with the Secretary General. We are going to insist on impartiality on the part of the Secretary General’s staff. That is why the hon the State President also extended an invitation to the Secretary General. We do not know whether he will be able to come—he is a very busy man—but negotiations will, in fact, be conducted with him to settle the problem of the UN’s bias in favour of Swapo up to now, and this will have to be done to the satisfaction of the parties of South West Africa. That is an undertaking we gave.

With the European governments, the American government, and also the Secretary General we broached the question of financing, which the hon the State President dealt with. We are going to discuss this issue further.

The position is therefore that the most important elements of the settlement plan were approved years ago, as far as back as 1977-78, and they were supplemented by certain constitutional principles in 1982. I can take hon members back to the South West African court case in which Ethiopia and Liberia brought charges against us. I can take hon members back to Gen Smuts’s unsuccessful effort at incorporation and Gen Hertzog’s acknowledgement that we did not have sovereignty in the traditional sense of the word. I can take hon members back to 1920, when the Mandate was granted, a Mandate which provided that we could not incorporate South West Africa, that we should report annually to the League of Nations on the Administration of the territory and that we could not unilaterally amend the provisions of the Mandate.

It makes no difference what one calls one’s administration—if one began, in 1920, with a territory in regard to whose administration one had to report annually to the League of Nations and in regard to which one did not have full sovereignty, it is no use complaining, in 1988, about what one should and should not have done.

In fact, the NP’s predecessors were, as the hon the State President implied here today, opposed to the erstwhile Government conquering German South West Africa at the time. That is no secret, and we do not want to dig up that history again today, but the fact of the matter is that our people said that our standpoint as Nationalists was that we should not conquer other countries; that was the way the great “empires” did things. That was how things were done by the colonialists who took possession of other countries and then prescribed to them.

If hon members had listened today to the speech made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, they could only have come to one conclusion: At the time he would have been in the vanguard of Gen Louis Botha’s forces which invaded German South West Africa. [Interjections.] He would have been at the forefront in conquering the territory, because his entire speech today was riddled with colonialist sentiments. He would prescribe to them.

It makes no difference what the transitional government says, and it makes not difference what Gen Hertzog or Dr Malan or Mr Strijdom or Dr Verwoerd or Mr Vorster undertook; he will do as he wishes and act on the strength of his party’s point of view. Whether the people of South West Africa like it or not, and whether there were international obligations or not, he will tell the world that the day the CP comes to power, all treaties, all commitments and all undertakings on the part of the State of South Africa, will go by the board, and in so doing he will have reduced his country to a third-rate banana republic.

Mr Speaker, I have so little time, but after such a fine speech I should actually have remained seated. I do want to say a few words, however.

In the first place I want to congratulate the Government on the peace initiatives in South Western Africa. In particular I want to congratulate the hon the State President, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the team which has done the negotiating thus far in the various capitals.

I also want to congratulate the participants, the RSA, Angola and Cuba on what they have achieved. However, it is my dearest wish that these negotiations will be a resounding success this time.

Having said this—I want to mention this to the hon the State President—it is a cause of concern to me, particularly in consequence of what the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs has just said, that those of us debating here in this Parliament must not interfere in the affairs of South West Africa, and that those people must decide for themselves what is going to happen to them. I merely want to ask how the internal parties and Swapo are being involved in this negotiation process, apart from the fact that the Government is reporting to the internal parties on what has happened, particularly because it deals with the implementation of Resolution 435. Is their involvement still a thorny diplomatic problem or can the hon the Minister tell us that their involvement will come clearly to the fore one of these days?

I want to ask the Government not to be deterred by the cry of despair of the CP and the AWB regarding the implementation of Resolution 435. Once one has accepted something in a position of trust between one government and another, it must be implemented come what may. The Government must pay no attention to the charge that it is obsessed with peace, as the hon CP member for Potgietersrus, Mr Schalk Pienaar, postulated. On some other occasion I shall remind the hon young member of the evidence he gave before the Erica Theron Commission, of which I was a member when he was still a student, and how vastly this differed from what he proclaimed and what he said about South Africa today. At that stage I rather liked the young fellow, but I simply cannot understand what is happening to him now.

What has been achieved thus far should perhaps have taken place sooner, and as the State President said, more lives could then have been saved. The most important fact is probably the impact which this negotiation process under way in respect of South Western Africa is going to have in this country. We are seeking this kind of peace here just as assiduously.

In general one gains the impression that the Government is prepared to hold discussions with foreign communists and oppressors. Internally organisations are being restrained and individuals who want to move in that direction or who want to disagree with the Government are being restricted.

In this country—this is a fact—we have a conflict situation which can be aggravated by the situation in South Western Africa. We have already experienced bomb attacks by the ANC on soft targets, as happened again yesterday in East London. This is what we have been told.

We read yesterday’s announcement by the clergymen, at the instigation of the SA Council of Churches, to boycott the forthcoming municipal elections. When I say what I am now going to say I am not a communist nor am I a foreigner nor do I belong to an extra-parliamentary group. I am a peace-loving South African. I am making this appeal, and I believe this, to give the situation in South Western Africa further momentum and to create an atmosphere for a negotiated settlement here.

I want to appeal to the hon the State President to release Mr Nelson Mandela unconditionally— today, if at all possible—so that he need not return to prison when he is discharged from hospital. If this cannot be done, we should be told precisely why it cannot be done, and not simply be given the same reasons we are at present acquainted with.

Mr Speaker, in the few minutes available let me state the attitude of the PFP. The PFP supports unreservedly the objectives of the peace agreement. These include, firstly, the cessation of hostilities and the total withdrawal of all foreign forces from Angola; secondly, internationally recognised independence for Namibia through the implementation of Resolution 435; and thirdly, proposals to form the basis of peaceful co-existence between the states in Southern Africa.

We realise that there is still a long way to go, and that many practical problems will have to be overcome. Nevertheless, the agreement which has been reached thus far is in my opinion the most positive and hopeful development in Southern Africa in many years.

Against this background we congratulate the key negotiators, in particular Mr Neil van Heerden, Director-General of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Gen Jannie Geldenhuys, Chief of the SADF, and Dr Chester Crocker, American Assistant Secretary of State who has applied himself assiduously to the task of peace in Southern Africa in spite of setbacks and seemingly insuperable difficulties.

We believe that the agreement thus far is of vital importance and we want to see it followed through with determination, skill and, we hope, success.

There are four prime reasons for our view. Firstly, if the only objective of the agreement had been peace in South-western Africa that would, in fact, have been worthwhile in itself. For 15 years both sides have been locked in a costly, bloody, escalating war. Thousands of lives have been lost. Billions of rands have been spent. Hundreds of developmental opportunities have been forfeited in a situation in which, ironically, either side is capable of winning battles from time to time, but in which neither side is capable of winning the war.

South Africa, after 15 years of conflict, has come perilously close to being sucked into an increasingly costly debilitating and sophisticated war on foreign soil from which it was becoming more and more difficult to extricate itself.

There will be other occasions on which Parliament will be able to discuss the lessons which we can learn from the 15 year long Angolan conflict, but at this stage suffice it to say that for a whole range of reasons peace in South-western Africa is worthwhile in itself.

The second worthwhile objective is internationally recognised independence for South West Africa/Namibia. The uncertainty and ambivalence of the future of Namibia has gone on for too long to the detriment not only of the people of Namibia but also of the people of South Africa and the Southern African region as a whole.

Ten years ago it looked as though we were close to a settlement led by the then Prime Minister, Mr Vorster. There was substantial agreement between the UN, the South African Government and the Western Five Contact Group over a settlement plan, but the reality is that it did not come to fruition.

One can ask what the reasons for that was. Once again there will be many, but two important ones are the partiality of the UN in recognising Swapo as the sole and authentic representative of the people of SWA and the tendency of the South African Government to give South Africa’s own perceived security interests priority over South West Africa’s independent interests. There has been a clash of interests and, in the circumstances South African security interests have prevailed. We can only hope that as a result of the peace initiative these two issues will be relegated to a position of lesser importance.

I say to the South African Government that there will be difficulties, but I hope that they will not once again lose the will to settle this prickly pear of Southern African politics. I ask them for heaven’s sake not to be put off by the shortsighted racist cries of the CP. I urge them to adopt a positive attitude, both towards the settlement and the consequences of the settlement, and, in fact, to whatever government may emerge in South West Africa/Namibia as result of the settlement.

If the hon the State President, as the then Prime Minister, could sign a peace accord with President Samora Machel at Nkomati, I believe it should be possible for us to find a way of living together with our new neighbours in SWA, whether they are led by a Swapo government or not.

The cost of a settlement is an issue, but they must bear in mind the cost of not settling. It is a far greater issue. The cost of a Resolution 435 settlement is a one-off cost. The cost of no settlement is the cost of a continuing war. It is the cost of a continuing South African administrative responsibility in Namibia and it is the cost of a vast amount of international goodwill.

The third worthwhile objective in this peace settlement is that there is an element of providing an expanded framework for peaceful co-existence among the nations of Southern Africa.

The fourteen principles which were first hammered out in New York and which have now been agreed to, go beyond ending the war. They go beyond independence for Namibia and they involve concepts which affect the whole of Southern Africa. I want to quote from them:

While I hope this will be obeyed and followed by other states I must say that I would be ashamed that if in spite of this agreement South Africa itself did not respect these principles which it has agreed to and stated.

Mr Speaker, the final and most important objective, as I see it, is an indirect one: That is the objective of providing a more hopeful and enhanced opportunity of resolving South Africa’s own internal problems. The vast financial cost that we have been incurring in a war can now be transferred to provide for the critically important socio-economic upliftment of our own people— for education, housing and developmental infrastructure here in South Africa. I believe that the events to the north can create a climate of reconciliation and compromise between people of different ideologies who have been engaged in violent conflict. Surely if that can happen elsewhere it should also affect South Africa to our benefit. If in fact representatives of the South African Government can sit down and reach an accord with the Cubans and Angolans; if the NP Government can accept with equanimity the prospect of a Swapo government in Namibia; if the Cubans, after 15 years, can agree to withdraw from Angola; and if Swapo says it wants to live in peace with South Africa, this surely must have a bearing on our internal politics when we are caught up in a conflict of our own. Reconciliation externally must certainly enhance the prospect of reconciliation internally here in South Africa.

Above all, recent events show that negotiation can work, and that even in unfavourable circumstances negotiation can succeed—that tough, patient, goal-directed negotiation is a critically important part of ending violence and bringing peace internationally and nationally within South Africa. We in the PFP hope that the peace process will continue to a successful conclusion.

But more than this, we hope that South Africans, whatever their political views may be, will take note of what has happened and take heart from what has been achieved. If Presidents Castro, Dos Santos and Botha can reach an agreement on peace in Angola despite their ideological differences; if Ministers Botha and Malan can accept the concept of a Swapo government in Namibia; and if Sam Nujoma can declare that he wants to live in peace with South Africa, then surely it must be possible for South Africans to find a way of living in peace together inside of our country. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, having listened to the hon the State President, all of us must agree that South West Africa does not belong to South Africa, that it did not belong to South Africa and that the time must now come when this territory finds its rightful place in the family of nations. The developments that have been started must lead to a situation where there can be free and fair elections in South West Africa; where the democratic process will develop without interference from anyone; and where the people of South West Africa, irrespective of their language, colour or religion, will find one another and set up a government born out of discussion and dialogue among themselves. The sooner that comes, the better it will be for all of us.

Mr Speaker, the conditions that have been outlined by the hon the State President are reasonable because they are the essential prerequisites to having free and fair elections in South West Africa. South West Africa has cost this nation in both men and money. I think that the sooner we can divert those resources for the development of our own country the better it will be for all.

But I also see in this development a new era dawning in Southern Africa where South Africa must find its rightful place and play the role that the Good Lord has placed before it. South Africa is the leader of Southern Africa, and the sooner we resolve these outstanding issues, the sooner that role can be played, and to play that role in a positive way we must resolve outstanding issues here at home in South Africa.

I see a wide vista of opportunity for South Africa—power transmission; water resources; technical collaboration; making available the scientific knowledge that we have for the good of the people of Southern Africa so that disease and poverty may give way to progress and prosperity. That is a God-given duty that we, as the advanced country in this region, must accept as a challenge and help to deliver the goods that all people, irrespective of the political system obtaining in their country, desire, ie peace, prosperity and progress, and we have a mammoth contribution to make in the realisation of those goals because we have the know-how and the expertise.

That challenge we must not run away from, and in order to go forward, carrying the entire South African nation, let us make adjustments here at home. Let us not pursue policies and legislative processes which do not have the support of the majority of the people. Let consultation and consensus become a reality so that one group does not impose on the other something they desire which the others do not want to have.

I think what has happened in the past few days is not confrontation but is a demonstration of our concern and a message to those who are in power to take us together—to think about people who are prepared to participate in these institutions and to think about the problems they face with regard to those who do not want us to participate in the process of peaceful reform. Make it possible for all of us to come forward and participate but do not impose on us constraints and restraints which will cause us to defeat the purpose for which we have come here.

We have come here to participate in negotiation politics. There are people outside who do not want us to participate, but some of the things that are being done will naturally help those people outside to restrict the support that we may be able to generate in the months and weeks ahead.

I believe that the disposal of South West Africa— or the release of South West Africa from our trusteeship when the due processes have taken place—will naturally release funds which can be put to use for the betterment of all South Africans. I believe, having read a statement by Mr Sam Nujoma, that he also realises that South Africa is a country that can help South West Africa also. He has now changed his stance in regard to the economic set-up in his country, and some of the fears that might have been generated a decade ago seem be not to there any more because they are beginning to realise, as in Mozambique and in other parts of Southern Africa, that free enterprise is the chemistry for the successful development of an economy. It is happening in China; it is happening in the Soviet Union, and I believe that the Soviet threat must not be overplayed insofar as South West Africa is concerned because the Soviet Union, it would appear, is playing an important role behind the scenes in order to ensure that the peace process in Southern Africa will be successful and that South West Africa can have free and fair elections so that the people themselves can determine the nature of the government and their political philosophy.

I want to emphasise, Mr Speaker, that in the developments in Southern Africa and South West Africa there is a tremendous challenge. In that challenge South Africa must find the opportunity to make its contribution. To do so, however, there are issues that have to be resolved that affect the Indian community, the Coloured community and the Black community, and if we are prepared to address these problems sincerely and realise that as the Government have a constituency, we also have a constituency to which we are answerable, and without being able to carry our constituency we cannot speak and address ourselves as responsible parliamentarians, I believe that the dawn of an exciting era is in the offing. We as South Africans, collectively, must rise to that challenge.

Mr Speaker, in reply to the poor effort of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs I should like to say that not one of the present CP members who are in Parliament today had a hand in approving the acceptance of the implementation of Resolution 435. Neither Parliament nor the NP caucus approved that decision; the Cabinet approved it and Parliament and the caucus took note of the decision which was reached by the Cabinet. That decision was taken in 1978 when not one of us was a member of the Cabinet.

Secondly, the Government is now clutching at Vrugte van die Nasionale Bewind as proof that we supported it. Vrugte van die Nasionale Bewind was distributed before Resolution 435 was adopted by UNO. It was based on the Turnhalle decisions and expressly stated that all options were open, whereas Resolution 435 does not leave all options open.

Finally, I want to say that if the Cabinet discussion—the only discussion in which this matter was the subject and at which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and I were present and had an opportunity of speaking—becomes public, it will be clear that we thought the Government had made a mistake when it accepted Resolution 435.

I want to broach the second point, namely the acrobatic leap which the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs made by using the standpoints of former Prime Ministers that South West Africa was not part of South Africa as justification for the implementation of Resolution 435 and a one man, one vote election under UN supervision. Not one of those people had anything remotely resembling this in mind.

On 1 October 1935 Dr Malan said: “Suidwes se eindbestemming lê by die Unie.” In 1947, after his application for incorporation had failed, Gen Smuts said: “Net die swaard kan Suidwes van Suid-Afrika skei.” Gen Smuts consulted the people of South West Africa in 1946. He did not hold a one man, one vote referendum; he held a referendum among the Whites and they decided that they wished to be incorporated in the Union. He consulted the other peoples through their leaders. Gen Smuts did not carry this out in a uniform manner but in different ways.

In addition, the mandate of the League of Nations itself, which is a C mandate, provides that South West must be governed as an integral part of South Africa and no prospect is actually held out of those C mandate areas being regions which will ultimately become independent. These are provisions applicable to C mandate areas.

I want to add that the CP believes only in peace which will be lasting and permanent. Peace which has its origin in capitulation and weakness is no peace but extended war and the CP does not believe in this. I am afraid that this peace plan represents peace which stems from capitulation because the peace plan loads the scale overwhelmingly in favour of the communists to help Swapo win the election.

If one examines the procedures which are set out for this election, it becomes clear that it is a one man, one vote election under UN supervision. The special UN representative will have 7 000 UN troops and approximately 2 000 or more UN officials to assist him. These people will have official immunity so no law will be applicable to them. The special representative has to approve everything which the Administrator General does. The Administrator General has only about 300 policemen with small arms at his disposal who will be unable to maintain law and order in that territory. For all practical purposes the election is therefore under UN control.

Secondly, the SADF is to reduce its numbers to 1 500 at Oshivelo or Grootfontein. There is no clause or proposal in the settlement plan of the West that South African troops are to be entirely withdrawn from South West Africa. The South African Government gave way at the negotiating table and that proposal was written in there. [Interjections.] No, Sir, we shall not give way.

The SWA Commandos, the Citizen Force and ethnic units must be immobilised, their command structures disbanded and they must hand over their weapons. This is not written into the settlement plan of the Western Five either. This was argued at the negotiating table and the South African Government gave way.

There is no provision that Swapo is to be disarmed and that its bases outside South West Africa are to be monitored. The South African Government gave way; it did not attempt to negotiate this. [Interjections.]

Furthermore, as negotiations stand today, the Cubans will be in Angola during the election campaign while Swapo is integrated with them.

As a further point, the election will take place under UN control. The UN has a record of partiality in this respect and it is partial to the Communists. This was proved in Korea where the UN favoured the communists. This was proved in the Congo, where they openly favoured the communists, while the UN issued daily statements and said that they did not interfere in internal politics and were merely there to maintain peace. While they were saying this, four major onslaughts were made on Katanga over a period of two years in which UN soldiers took part and through brutal, barbaric violence those people were forced to surrender, to be incorporated, while internal leaders had agreed on a federal solution for the Congo. They were forced by UN troops not to accept this.

The fact that the UN remains prejudiced in favour of Swapo is illustrated by the UN decision that Swapo is the only true representative of the people of South West Africa. This decision has not been revoked and this is something on which the South African Government should not give way, but I am afraid that this Government is yielding.

Further, the communists have in no way relinquished their objectives—they are saying this loudly and clearly while negotiations are in progress—namely to put a Swapo government into power in South West and an ANC government in South Africa. On various occasions Swapo has said that, if it should lose the election, the struggle will continue. This has not been withdrawn; this stands.

The Russian defence ministry says in its own publication, Red Star:

And they said this recently.

On 22 May 1988 it was reported:

They said this in May of this year, Sir, while negotiations were in progress.

On 30 May of this year it was said:

I now say that South Africa has capitulated at the diplomatic table while the war was won on the military front. Proof of this is that the hon the Minister of Information, Broadcasting Service and the Film Industry was reported to have said:

That is the proof. I now want to say that this gradual but radical shift in South Africa’s attitude on South West Africa has taken place since the present hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs appeared on the scene. He is leading South West Africa securely and directly toward a Swapo government. [Interjections.]

These matters have consequences for South Africa. The way is wide open for the communists and the UN to favour Swapo and the South African Government has already accepted a Swapo government in South West Africa. This does not discourage South Africa’s enemies. This instils new fire and enthusiasm into the enemies of this country. In addition, South Africa is left with a diplomatic defeat to its name and it is in a weaker position than it was previously. The renewed pressure on South Africa is increasing.

The acceptance of Resolution 435 and the initiative which the Government took to implement this did not ease pressure on South Africa. What was the reaction of the USA Congress? Renewed and intensified sanctions against South Africa. That pressure will increase still further after the implementation of Resolution 435. That is why we say that this peace with which the Government is occupying itself will not be peace in the true sense of the word but peace according to the communist definition, namely a communistic dictatorship for South West Africa and this means an extended war for South Africa. This is why the CP will never support this type of peace. This is not a peace plan; it is a plan of war designed to destroy South Africa, and the communists say this openly and clearly. Hon members hear them saying this but they do not believe it when they hear them doing so. [Interjections.]

The second consequence for South Africa is that the Government envisages a government for South Africa which is similar to the transitional government in South West Africa. The Government envisages such a government by means of the National Council. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, it is a privilege for me to be part of this historic debate. Hon members know as well as I do that South West Africa is not a part of South Africa. I do not want to look at the historical aspects as to how we got there, why we got there and what we did there. I want to confine myself to the events of today, the decision of today.

There are some of us who still cannot accept the universal principle of one man, one vote. I want to say to them that my party and myself are committed to South Africa first. We have no commitment to communities and groups. It is unfortunate that there are still some Rip van Winkels within our communities.

South Africa is going through a process of change, which means that we are experiencing revolution. However, there are some people fast asleep while this is happening.

*This is a great day for my party and myself in the sense that the decision that has been taken about South West Africa is the correct one.

†We have no business there. If we are going to look for a communist behind every bush then we must examine ourselves. Is it not because of our own failures in advertising and selling the capitalist system, the free enterprise system, that we look at every prospective opposition as a communist? I have no fear that the people of South West Africa will decide for themselves and will decide correctly. The future of South West Africa belongs to them. It is their right to decide. However, we South Africans form a part of the Southern African region. We are an African people. We have a responsibility towards the Southern African region in the first instance and to Africa in the second instance. If we do not engage ourselves in ensuring growth in the region there will not be growth in South Africa.

I want to share with hon members some of my recent experiences in South America. Contrary to some of the reports I was not put out of South America. There is only the greatest respect there for the latest decision. I want to assure hon members that South Africa still enjoys a tremendous amount of friendship in the outside world. That friendship will, however, decline if we listen to the prophets of doom. We will continuously have to take brave decisions in the interests of South Africa, and not in the interests of groups. [Interjections.]

The destiny of South West Africa is that of the people of South West Africa. What was said to me in South America in no uncertain terms, however, was that the support for this type of decision would depend on what happened.

The decision to withdraw from Angola was just as brave. I have no doubt in my mind that we can live with our neighbours because they are Africans like us. I do not believe the Cubans have left an indelible impression on the Angolan people. Neither do I believe that communism will overrun South West Africa. I believe that if there is a future for the south-western region of Africa it will be within the free enterprise system. Then, however, we ought to be a good example of what free enterprise is all about.

Nothing worthwhile has ever been achieved without sacrifice or without compromise. Too long, however, has a small group of people in this country had too much power. This is the kind of compromise I am talking about. We must realise that over and above our group interests the interests of South Africa are of greater importance and that we should compromise with a greater South Africa, not with smaller communities.

If we want to be brave and bold the door is wide open for us to take the decisions which will take South Africa along the road where it will be in a position to take up its rightful place in the world community. There is no doubt in my mind— previous speakers have said this—that we are a powerful nation. We are economically powerful but, more important, we have developed the type of expertise which very few other countries have developed over the years. All those assets will, however, be of no use to us as long as we are still regarded as being totally unacceptable by the rest of the world community. Let the example of the South West African question and of the Angolan question serve as forerunner to the kind of South Africa of which we will all proudly be a part.

It will not cost much. It will, however, take bravery. There is a future for all of us in this country, and while we applaud the bravery of the recent decision to implement Resolution 435 there is still a greater resolution to be implemented in this country. That resolution revolves around the whole question to which the whole world is expecting an answer from us—the question of one man, one vote and of one vote, one value. We can no longer encourage domination. [Interjections.] If we want to have peace in South Africa it is not going to be dependent on South West Africa. However, we have problems right here on our doorstep simply because we have not introduced a system of one man, one vote, and we have not given recognition to the individual.

Sir, it is not too late. We have time on our side and, more important, we have people on our side. The greater majority of Black people in this country are committed to South Africa and not to a foreign power. We must stop looking at people as representing the enemy because of their colour. People are people and all South Africans have the right to develop fully in the country of their birth.

Peace in the southern corner of Africa is dependent on the kind of input we are prepared to make. However, even before we can implement peace and prosperity in the rest of the Southern African continent, we must develop that kind of goodwill in South Africa. It is important that we should learn from the mistakes of the past and build a South Africa of which all of us can be proud. We are an African people. I believe that all of us are proud to be part of this fantastic and wonderful continent. We have a responsibility, not only to South Africa but to the greater African people. The development of the Southern African region is dependent on the kind of input this Parliament is able to make during this time.

We are living in exciting times. Suddenly we are living in a period of challenge, the most important period in our South African history. It will depend on the kind of contribution that we are prepared to make here. However, even more so, it is also going to depend on the kind of sacrifices that we are prepared to make. The time of privilege is long gone. Equality is the in-thing. Whether we like it or not, tomorrow equality is going to rule the roost. Whether we are prepared to make the sacrifice or not or whether we are prepared to lift a finger or not, equality is inevitable.

The example of our own politics will have a great influence on …

Order! The subject for discussion is the negotiations on peace in South-western Africa. The hon member must confine himself to that subject.

I come back now to South West Africa.

Would the hon member please give me an opportunity to finish? I would appreciate it if the hon member would deal more specifically with the subject.

Sir, the politics that will be followed in South West Africa after the implementation of Resolution 435 is going to be determined by our own politics. Because we are neighbours there is no doubt that there are going to be influences from our side in regard to the direction in which South West Africa is going. This is because of the South African Government’s influence on South West Africa over the past 20 years. We cannot merely set right the politics in South West Africa by means of a decision, irrespective of its courageousness—and I do respect the boldness and the courageousness of the decision! However, we will have to learn to walk the road together after that decision has been implemented. It is important because we are going to have to help those people. It is important that we have to set an example. It is important that our local South African politics should have the kind of influence that will make it possible to improve not only the situation in South West Africa but also in the entire region. It is important for us to make the kind of input that will make South West Africa’s economy independent because that country has been under our control for so long.

We will have to make that kind of contribution to improve the economy of that country unless we are afraid of the influences of Sam Nujoma and the communists. Only then will we reap the reward for what we have sown in South West Africa. The decision is correct but this decision will only have the kind of effects we expect it to have if we in South Africa set the correct example.

Mr Chairman, the urgency surrounding a solution to the South West African problem prompts me to utilise the one minute allocated to me in this debate.

This is an opportune moment to highlight the enormous economic consequences that will result from South Africa’s possible withdrawal from the territory. The severest critics of South Africa’s presence in South West Africa cannot escape the reality that the South West African economy has largely been propped up by South Africa for many years. Of equal significance is the fact that the military presence in northern South West Africa has brought with it not only security but also prosperity and employment from which the local population have derived considerable benefit. Therefore, any withdrawal of South African troops will have a devastating effect on the economy of that region. This will inevitably filter through to the entire economy. One cannot overlook the fact that the cost of implementing Resolution 435 will be enormous. These funds could be better utilised and utilised more effectively in financing developments in the country if a government of national unity could be agreed upon as a first step.

Mr Chairman, I have listened attentively to this debate, and it is a particularly great privilege for me to participate in it. Together with the 12 islands opposite the coast of South West Africa my constituency forms part of the territory of the Republic of South Africa. The Walvis Bay area was annexed by Britain in 1878 and became part of the Cape of Good Hope, later of the Union of South Africa and eventually of the Republic of South Africa. Six years later, in 1884, Germany annexed the rest of South West Africa. Between 1922 and 1977—ie for a total of 55 years—Walvis Bay was controlled from Windhoek.

From 1948 to 1977 I was privileged to experience the weal and woe and the growth of South West Africa and of the NP with the people of that territory. Later I was a member of the Legislative Assembly and from 1970 the MP for the Omaruru constituency of which Walvis Bay formed part. Hon members will therefore agree with me that I should be fairly well acquainted with that area and its people.

It is a large land, a beautiful land, a land of extremes, with droughts and abundant rain, a land with deserts and mountains. I am fairly well acquainted with the people of that territory. I can attest to the progress which has taken place in South West Africa since the NP took over there in 1950. I can attest to South African aid and involvement over the years. The infrastructure in the area—the network of electricity, roads, water schemes, health services, schools, hospitals— represents fine, living monuments of the service which South Africa rendered to South West Africa.

Next I want to refer to the Odendaal Commission, because in 1962 the Government saw fit to request the Odendaal Commission to investigate possible further assistance to South West Africa with regard to its development. In the first place this led to 11 million hectares of additional land being added to the traditional Black areas. Recommendations also made provision for the transfer of functions to the central government, but it is significant that at the request of and in consultation with the government of South West Africa the following functions were excluded: Education for Whites; health services in the White area for all population groups; roads; local government; public works; personal and income tax; licensing of business premises, vehicles, entertainment and so on; and all other matters which were not taken over by the central government. Hon members can therefore see that South West Africa was always given the greatest possible opportunity to decide for itself on matters affectin g it.

As regards constitutional development, I should like to quote to hon members from paragraph 1556 of the commission’s report:

Paragraph 1557 mentions inter alia that the commission recommended an extensive development programme, which would require financial contributions from South Africa for many years. I am continuing to quote:

I submit that to an increasing extent South Africa did and is still doing this. The hon the State President spelt out in a very fine way the history of South West Africa, followed up by the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who with his department does great work in South West Africa and who also needs our intercession regarding the discussions in Brazzaville.

I am thinking here of the hon the Minister of Defence and his department. Where would South West Africa have been without the support of the Department of Defence? I personally dread the day when the Defence Force withdraws from South West Africa. I fear there will be large-scale unemployment.

The National Party of South West Africa was never indifferent to the threats of boycotts and court cases against South Africa because of their presence in South West Africa. The Turnhalle Conference originated under the direction of Mr A H du Plessis, the then leader of the National Party. I want to repeat that this was under the direction of the National Party of South West Africa. The consultations were unexpectedly good, so much so that a draft constitution was published in a document which hon members may have in their possession. In this regard the hon member for Bethal did tremendous work. He was the law adviser for two of the population groups there and I now ask myself whether the hon member still stands by the recommendations he made at that stage.

Although the National Party of South West Africa was never happy about all the provisions of Resolution 435, it is interesting to note that many of the Turnhalle Conference’s decisions were in accordance with the provisions of Resolution 435. I repeat that the hon member for Bethal had a tremendous share in this. I refer hon members to the settlement plan of 1977, to which the hon the State President also referred.

In 1977 the Government of South Africa held this up to everyone in South West Africa. I was one of those who went from platform to platform to spell this out to people throughout the length and breadth of that large country. This settlement plan was accepted by everyone in South West Africa. I repeat, it was accepted by everyone, except the HNP. If South West Africa feels unhappy about Resolution 435 and certain provisions in it, it is after all in good company.

I am particularly grateful to the hon the State President for confirming here today that he shared that unhappiness, but as a democrat he resigned himself to it. We honour and pay homage to him for his sincerity and honesty. It is perhaps less well-known that the head committee of the National Party of South West Africa requested their leader, Minister A H du Plessis, to return to Windhoek to take active control of the Turnhalle Conference, particularly after signs of tension became perceptible in the NP.

The then Prime Minister left it to Minister A H du Plessis to decide for himself on his future as a Cabinet Minister. I personally held discussions with the then Minister of Defence, now the hon the State President, on this. His advice to us and Minister A H du Plessis was: “Stay here. You have no better platform than the Cabinet to promote the interests of South West Africa.” We thank him for that too.

It is history that the rift in the NP has been so great that to a great extent the ground has been cut from under the feet of White unity and bargaining power. The fine motto, Unity is Strength, was not heeded. Now we are facing the naked truth again. If I remember correctly, the first date for the implementation of Resolution 435 was 1 November 1978. That was 10 years ago. Ten years later there is still quarreling and dissension in the internal politics of South West Africa, and groupings and regroupings are still taking place.

Walvis Bay, the tiny enclave surrounded by South West Africa, is feeling the shockwaves. We live with the war-ravaged country. We are also the target of oppressors and cowardly murderers who plant bombs for innocent victims. We in Walvis Bay are grateful for the helping hand of the giant of Africa. We are grateful that with this aid we can work to establish a fine image of South Africa.

When I express my love for South West Africa today and express my sympathy for those people, I hope that hon members will understand. That is why I am still appealing for patience and understanding today. Be tolerant if it looks as if South West Africa is kicking against the pricks. Hon members do not know the fear, uncertainty and feeling of powerless desolation when one realises that one must take one’s leave. Hon members do not know how it feels to have to take one’s leave of certainty and the familiar; to take one’s leave of one’s fatherland, one’s leaders, one’s heritage, one’s flag and one’s national anthem. I therefore ask for understanding for the soul-searching of our people in South West Africa.

I specifically ask for the understanding of the CP. Do not make it more difficult. Do not interfere. Do not create false expectations. Why does the CP now want to try to persuade leaders in South West Africa to establish the CP there? Is it because Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche is breathing down the CP’s neck? I want to tell the CP that there was a time when they could have done something. I now turn to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon member for Lichtenburg, the deputy leader of the CP.

The hon member for Lichtenburg hid behind Resolution 435 here because he was not in the Cabinet, but I want to tell him now that there was a time when he and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition both served in the Cabinet. Then they could have done something, but they did nothing. Now it is too late. All they can do now is to leave the people of South West Africa in peace so that they can work out their own salvation.

The hon leader tells us what should not be done, but he neglects to tell us what his recommendations and proposals are. He does not tell us what he wants to do, but he incites the people and creates false expectations. [Interjections.]

For that reason I also want to tell the leaders of South West Africa to stop quarrelling among themselves in the interests of the beautiful country, South West Africa. I am saying this specifically to the four White leaders, Messrs Pretorius, Mudge and De Wet and Adv Van Zyl, with whom I was associated for many years. There is so much at stake. They must join hands with the Black and Coloured leaders of South West Africa, and fight for the democracy, the civilisation and the religion they are helping to establish there. They must join hands with South Africa and accept assistance, and with the blessing of the Almighty all will be well. Particularly now that there is a hope of peace, this opportunity must be seized. After all, there is no one in South West Africa who does not want peace.

I thank our hon State President and his Government for the tremendous work, the assistance and the undertaking that total Cuban withdrawal is still their standpoint. I thank them for their standpoint that impartiality must be maintained by the UN. I thank them for their love of and their understanding for South West Africa and its people.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to follow the hon member for Walvis Bay in contributing to this debate on the peace initiatives for South Western Africa. I fully understand the sentiments expressed by the hon member, because he lives in the situation and he is appreciative of what the hon the State President and the South African Government are doing for a peaceful resolution of the South West Africa/ Namibia situation.

For 68 years, the South African Government has administered South West Africa under the mandate given by the then League of Nations. As is the case in any other country, development has been very important to the people of South West Africa/Namibia over the years, as has been the positive contribution of the South African Government. We should add to and not subtract from those achievements of the South African Government.

As South Africans, however, let us look at the issues dispassionately. Let our political ideologies not ride roughshod over the issues. In an attempt to win support, the CP is looking for skeletons where there are none, and therefore they should not make an issue of South West Africa in their search for South African support. We are all human beings, and we have a humane duty to discharge in South West Africa/Namibia.

Over the years South West Africa/Namibia has become an international issue, and this is the first opportunity that we, the people of colour who are participating in Parliament, have had of making some contribution by saying what our thinking is on the matter of South West Africa/Namibia.

Any nation in the world which aspires to independence will dedicate its efforts to that independence, and we, the neighbours of South West Africa, have a duty to perform to see that the South West African people get what they want in a peaceful and evolutionary manner.

There are examples in the world where an absentee landlord government of a country is not going to govern that country for many years to come, as happened in South Africa.

We were ruled and we were subject to absentee landlords, as it were, for many years. Now that we have exercised independence, we are going forward with reform for what is best for our country and finding answers to our problems. But in finding answers to our problems we must never isolate ourselves from the international scene. It is absolutely imperative that we take cognisance of the international scene for we cannot go it alone in the world, Mr Chairman.

We need to apply our minds to a solution to our South African problems as well. We must not run away from the reality of the situation that we have problems. We need to address those problems so that we can find one another.

The economy of this country, as I am aware from the experiences of the past, is not what it should be. It is not as buoyant as it should be. Any measures to further aggravate the situation are going to be detrimental to the South African scene. My colleague, the hon the Minister of Finance, has a difficult task. He has a commitment to fulfil—the rescheduling of the debts— and we must not do anything through our actions to prejudice the hon the Minister of Finance in relation to the obligations of our country.

I would also like to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the hon the Minister of Defence and the valiant men who have performed duties for South Africa on the borders, in the operational areas and in Angola for their sacrifices so that we in South Africa who have not really experienced the effect of the war have been able to sleep in peace. Those are the valiant people whom we should be saluting. It is for them and for South Africa that we must look to a peaceful solution.

I want to say quite categorically that if we want peace in the southern region of Southern Africa then we must endeavour, we must make every effort to find peaceful solutions for our people in South Africa.

It is often said and repeated that a nation only survives on its own will and on its own feet if it is a peaceful nation. Peace can only be obtained in this country—and I repeat this at the risk of repetition—if we reach out to one another because of the problems we have in this country. We must address these problems.

We do not want any further sanctions against this country because of our own actions. I want to say it because it is very closely interrelated that we in South Africa do not need before us in Parliament Bills which will further polarise our people in this country and get the international world to escalate their efforts against South Africa with sanctions and economic boycotts. We just cannot afford them.

It is my plea this afternoon that in these peace initiatives for South-western Africa we recognise our own problems and address them in the best way we can so that we too can say to ourselves we are on the road to peace and we are walking together hand in hand for a South Africa full of promise for all of us. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, that peace in Angola and South West Africa/Namibia is at present a strong possibility is very gratifying. The Government deserves every credit for its decision to withdraw from the two countries, so do especially the officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the officers of the Defence Force who are continuing the process of negotiation so successfully at the moment. Not only is South Africa helping to effect the removal of foreign surrogate forces from our continent, but its international status can only benefit from the rational action being taken in the two countries. That is why it is so important that South Africa should go all the way on the road on which it has just begin to take its first step.

South Africa must be out of Angola within the shortest possible and reasonable time, and also within the scope of its own best interests, and South West Africa must become free. The shortterm costs of peace and the implementation of Resolution 435 will be high. South Africa has invested millions of rands in the war over quite a number of years, a long period, and therefore it remains worth while for it to contribute to the implementation of peace according to its means. Nevertheless, peace in this area will immediately release large sums of money which can be used far more fruitfully for internal purposes, not only in terms of the tremendous backlog that so many of our people are experiencing with regard to housing and education, but also to help stimulate internal economic growth.

In agreeing to Resolution 435, South Africa must realize that it has to accept the government that will come into existence after the election, even if it is a Swapo government, something which is after all possible. In any case South Africa recognised the Marxist government in Mozambique and even entered into agreements with it. Consequently, there is no reason to believe that the same is not possible in South West Africa. Besides, Swapo’s Mr Sam Nujoma has already indicated that he would not allow ANC bases in Namibia if he were to come to power. In that way the road has already been paved for a possible basis for closer operation between Pretoria and a free Windhoek.

The hon member for Walvis Bay probably made the frankest and most moving speech here when he referred to the uncertainty that existed in people’s minds and that that fact would have to be appreciated. It is true that there is a great deal of uncertainty for most of us in conventional certainties, but if we accept that these certainties in conventional terms do not really exist and we are prepared to work together from a position of uncertainty, a new security will be achieved. That applies not only to South West Africa/Namibia— it applies everywhere.

Mr Chairman, today the people of South Africa are demanding freedom. Many of our young men have lost their lives, not in the defence of South Africa and its borders, but because the Government has used the Defence Force, firstly in acts of aggression in Angola, and secondly in the occupation and continued occupation of Namibia.

I want to tell the hon the State President and his Government that they have no right to sacrifice the lives of young men on the altar of reckless adventures in Southern Africa. It is no wonder that the resistance to compulsory military service is still increasing. However, to ban the ECC will not end this resistance. The debate on national service will only be concluded when this Government stops using the Defence Force to pursue its own selfish political objectives in Namibia, Angola and wherever it may be doing so in Southern Africa.

The people in Southern Africa demand freedom, not war. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am pleased that in 1988 this Government has given us at least one thing that we can regard with approval and that is that the Government has seized the opportunity of trying to bring peace to the north-west of our country.

We recognise that the Nationalist Government inherited the problem of South West Africa from the United Party Government of Smuts, and that this Government failed to give independence to the people of that territory, is tragic. Yet one also recognises that for nearly 30 years prior to 1948 the Government which was largely influenced by Gen Smuts failed to honour the fiduciary obligations of the trustee power. Neither in the 30 years prior to 1948 nor until approximately 15 years ago was anything purposefully done to uplift the Black peoples of South West Africa.

In recent years it was remarkably the army which to a large extent did what the civil administration had hitherto failed to do. Gen Magnus Malan obviously saw that an army could not do its work properly if the general populace were completely hostile to it.

There is a Tamil adage which says: If you make an enemy of your entire populace, you will perish root and all. There is an obvious lesson in this for the whole of South Africa. No people can be held indefinitely under suppressive oppression. Their political rights, their human dignity, the safeguarding of personal freedom, all of which must come if the UN Resolution 435 is to be implemented honestly, all these cannot be for that territory alone. They must also be put into effect among all our peoples in our own country.

I am implacably opposed to conscription because if it is wrong to compel any person to risk being killed, it is in my humble opinion quite immoral to compel him to kill a stranger.

Our soldiers in South West Africa and Angola, White, Brown and Black, conscripts and volunteers, troopies or officers, have obeyed orders. No criticism can reasonably be levelled against the SADF as such, although the inevitable black sheep should never have been given presidential pardon, for that is what the abortion of judicial processes amounted to.

All of us in this House today will be glad that our forces have or are in the process of returning from Angola, but more needs to be done. They must be brought home into the bosom of their families. To us who are non-racialists, when any person, be he Vermeulen or Naidoo or Mkize, dies from violence, each of us dies a little.

South Africa must not perpetuate the cardinal error committed by Gen Smuts in 1946 or thereabouts when he caused our country to flout the UN decision to put South West Africa into proper trusteeship. That has cost us dearly in money and material, and very tragically in lives lost and limbs shattered, and thus was invited the world spotlight and the opprobrium of international humankind.

It is worth noting that countries such as Nigeria, Ghana, Tanzania, Botswana, Swaziland, Lesotho, Zambia and Kenya, where violent revolution was obviated by the sensible conduct of the former colonial powers, avoided communism but that in Angola, Mozambique and Zimbabwe the successful revolutionary forces were heavily Marxist.

If South West Africa goes to Swapo, it is a reneging by successive Governments of South Africa of its trusteeship obligations to the peoples of South West Africa that may well be responsible. Within South Africa apartheid and that wicked, filthy thing called the Group Areas Act and other repressive legislation are the best friends and allies of communism within our own country.

In rejecting the constitution accepted by the South West Africa transitional territorial government our Government stood in grave danger of making the SADF an occupational force. God forbid that, Sir. South Africa must cease looking like a colonialist exploiter.

Mr Chairman, any move which can bring real and, hopefully, lasting peace to the Southern African region must of course be welcomed by all loyal South Africans.

I do not believe it is necessary at this stage of this debate to review the history of our involvement in South West Africa/Namibia which stretches back to the First Great War, or to review our involvement in Angola which is of much more recent vintage.

We have certainly been intimately and directly involved in South West Africa/Namibia in terms of the mandate given to us—and accepted by us— by the old League of Nations. This was a situation which at that time was supported and encouraged by the international community, but as we know to our cost, as time has moved along it has increasingly been challenged and questioned over the past few decades, both politically and juridically.

The reality has been that we ourselves have long since conceded that our mandate has lapsed or been terminated—we were reminded of that again this afternoon—and the problem in recent times has been more the manner and the timing of our withdrawal rather than the legality of our continued involvement in South West Africa/ Namibia. I believe that all realistic South Africans, no matter what our political stance on that issue may have been, have realised that the stage had to come sooner or later when we would be withdrawing from South West Africa/Namibia.

It must be recorded that throughout this time, for better of for worse, South Africa has carried out its mandate in administering the territory given under its charge. We have had the benefit—it is true—of the arrangement, but we have also borne the financial and other responsibilities in respect of our involvement in South West Africa/Namibia.

It must also be said that our highly controversial involvement in Angola has of course flowed directly from our reaction to the growing objection to our continued occupation of Namibia, both from the point of view of the local population and the point of view of the international community. That really was the cause of our involvement in Angola.

As a result we have been involved in a conflict situation far beyond our own borders which has cost South African lives, which has resulted in a major military commitment involving tens of thousands of young South Africans over the years and which has cost this country countless millions in material terms.

I believe that all South Africans should therefore be relieved at the prospect held out by the recent initiatives which we are discussing, of this uncertainty and this situation of conflict coming to an end. It is absolutely vital that that prospect be turned into a reality as soon as possible.

The process of peace which has been set in motion must not be allowed to falter. If it does, the cost in human and material terms to this country and to the whole region will be inestimable and we could be plunged into an era of bloody conflict which could devastate this subcontinent and all its inhabitants for decades to come. The stakes are as high as that.

If we fail now to bring the process which has been commenced to a successful and speedy finality and to bring normality to the region, we may well miss the last opportunity we shall have to influence events for peace in this situation on this subcontinent for decades to come.

While one recognises—we have been reminded of this often in recent weeks—that the peace process has only just begun and that there may be many hurdles and pitfalls ahead, we in the PFP believe that this country must do everything possible to ensure that the present initiative succeeds.

We would therefore urge South Africa’s representatives to pursue the general principles of the settlement proposals with a sense of urgency and generosity. We would urge that they should side-step any temptation to engage in nit-picking over inconsequential details, that they should avoid dragging their feet in getting us out of Angola permanently and that they should end our involvement in Namibia as soon as possible.

South Africa has long since indicated our acceptance of the terms of Resolution 435. It is known that there have been some doubts about some aspects of the Resolution 435 package proposals, but if our publicly proclaimed acceptance of Resolution 435 was not mere posturing and empty rhetoric then the moment of truth has now arrived for us and we must show ourselves to be fully committed to the spirit of that resolution and to be ready to play our part positively and enthusiastically in the implementation of its provisions.

Mr Chairman, I do not preclude the possibility that there may be a need for amplification of some of the details of the provisions of Resolution 435 after so many years have passed. How ever, I have no doubt that if the will is there on all sides, the spirit of Resolution 435 can bring the urgent settlement which in turn can bring about the long desired independence for Namibia.

If that is achieved, then, Mr Chairman, the benefits to South Africa will be considerable and will be measured in terms of firstly, the relief of tension in the entire subcontinent of Southern Africa; secondly, the removal of the growing economic burden carried by South Africa in administering and defending Namibia; thirdly, in the bringing of our young men who comprise our security forces back to South Africa and within our own sovereign geographic borders; and fourthly, in enabling us to concentrate our talents and energies more on the resolution of our own internal problems in order to bring lasting peace to all in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, the prize is considerable. The prize is peace. We must go for it, I believe, with all the sincerity, energy and ability at our command.

Mr Speaker, when we talk about South West Africa/Namibia today, there are a few realities that we have to face level-headedly and realistically. In the political game truths are lost and sometimes distorted. One of the truths is that the South African Government and the South African Defence Force have demonstrated over the years that we are in earnest about going out of our way to assist the people of that area and to support them positively. South Africa has done so, and is still doing so, for certain reasons.

Since the end of the Second World War we have been living in turbulent times. Those who believe in and are working towards freedom in democratic systems are involved in a worldwide struggle against the forces of anarchy, violence and terror. South Africa is in the midst of this struggle. The onslaught on freedom does not come only from behind the Iron Curtain. To an increasing extent it is coming from quarters which themselves have become the victims of those who want to destroy freedom and democracy. With a distorted sense of humour, Marxist dictatorships are being renamed so-called people’s democracies. The struggle to enslave people politically and economically is being renamed a liberation struggle. The condition of political enslavement is being called freedom.

This is the background against which South Africa has been involved in South West Africa over the years. South Africa is in the front line of this struggle. Mr Speaker, it is a matter of security, of survival, of freedom, of democracy and of civilised values. For these reasons it is untenable when our case is made out to be unjust. We are in South West Africa/Namibia because we have taken out an insurance policy there in our own interests and in the interests of the people in that area as well as those of the whole subcontinent. It has always been our policy to keep Marxism and “people’s democracies” from our doors. We are not going to go back on this course. We say this because South Africa has an unnegotiable belief in the self-determination of peoples—not only in our country, but everywhere in the world.

Our presence and our involvement in South West Africa are therefore concerned with protecting and assisting the freedom loving people. That is why the struggle is worth the trouble and the money. That is why it is inappropriate to speculate now about a possible Swapo reign in South West Africa/Namibia. The Red flag in Windhoek is irreconcilable with the RSA’s ideals for South West Africa/Namibia. Nevertheless we do not prescribe to South West Africa/Namibia. We do have interests that we have to take care of, however. [Interjections.] That too.

On 27 May 1977 the late Mr John Vorster said in the House of Assembly (Hansard: Assembly, vol 69, col 8716):

Let us also tell one another and the world unequivocally today that South Africa is not claiming one square centimetre of the territory of South West Africa. That has been our policy for South West over the years.

As far back as on 18 April 1978, the then Minister of Defence, our present State President, emphasised here in Parliament that the SA Defence Force was in South West Africa at the request of the people there to protect them against terrorism and aggression. In essence, therefore, the SA Defence Force is a peace force.

That is also how the hon member for Yeoville put it (Hansard: Assembly, vol 73, col 4823):

The position South West is experiencing at present was made possible inter alia by the presence of the SA Defence Force and the SWA Territory Force. Apart from protection and the containment of Marxist expansionism, infrastructures and value systems which are being entrusted to South West have been built up.

Ultimately they have to make a choice. It can be a choice between freedom or Marxist enslavement; between progress or retrogression. We do not wish South West Africa to take the painful course of deterioration that was taken in countries such as Zambia, Mozambique, Angola and Ethiopia.

We therefore have an interest in South West Africa/Namibia’s becoming independent with a developing infrastructure, and with the prospect of free development. The record of Marxist governments and one-party states in Africa is that of people who destroy the norms of civilisation, instead of building or maintaining these norms. During the past years South Africa has built in South West Africa/Namibia. We therefore have a direct interest in not permitting what we have built simply to be destroyed.

Through its action, the Defence Force has saved the lives of thousands of people who would otherwise have been the victims of unscrupulous, cowardly and systematic terrorism. Surely the saving of the lives of innocent people has justified the involvement of the Defence Force over and over again. Over the years the Defence Force has worked for stability. That is why infrastructures were created, and those hon members who have visited the operational area from east to west know what I am talking about.

In this way the Defence Force and the SWA Territory Force created an atmosphere and prepared circumstances in which political and diplomatic development could take place. The Defence Force prepared the way for us and the democratically minded people of South West to talk from a position of strength and conviction today.

Let us also be frank, however: The internal division and dispersion in the political sphere has weakened South West over the years. Consequently the South West parties have to reach out to one another in the interests of their country’s security and that of the people. The present divisions among them are for their account, and they are responsible for creating a favourable political situation.

Against this background I want to make certain observations on Resolution 435. The possibility of implementing Resolution 435 is a fact. There are tough nuts to be cracked in the negotiations on this process, however, including the Cuban troop withdrawal, the financing of Resolution 435 and the impartiality of the United Nations. South Africa is adhering to certain guarantees, which are in our own interests and in the interests of South West Africa and our subcontinent.

Consequently there is no ground for cheap accusations that we are giving South West Africa away or selling it out. Surely one cannot give away something that does not belong to one. South West Africa is not and has never been part of South Africa. Over the years we have fulfilled our obligation to the standards of civilisation and the quality of life of those people as well as their security and our own interests.

Resolution 435 provides for an election in South West Africa, and certain conditions are linked to this as well. I want to comment on the fear syndrome that Swapo will have a runaway victory in an election in South West Africa. Two statements are of importance here. The first is that many people have short memories. An election was also held in 1978. More than 80% of South Westers voted in that election and showed what could be done. Once again I emphasise that one must not see only problems, but should face realities and challenges and deal with them head on. If the democratically minded parties of South West Africa co-operate, they can move mountains. One does not give up before beginning to fight.

The second statement is that an election in terms of Resolution 435 does not deal with the establishment of a government, but with the establishment of a legislative assembly which has to draw up a constitution. That is the beginning of the process of government. Once again the ball is in the court of the pro-democratic parties and they must show their mettle and their strength.

This brings me to Angola. Delicate negotiations are in progress in Brazzaville at the moment. We have often said that a fight-and-talk situation is unacceptable to us, and that remains true. We are conducting these negotiations because we are in earnest about stabilising south-western Africa. It is in our interests to conduct these negotiations, and we are doing so from a position of strength. A joint military committee has been established to deal with the practical implementation of the cessation of hostilities. Reports indicate that things are still going well.

In the meantime the South African Defence Force is prepared, as always. We maintain a sober, realistic attitude without being provocative and aggressive, but if it is necessary to protect our interests and those of South West Africa/ Namibia, the South African Defence Force will strike—it will strike forcefully and will inflict damage. If South West Africa’s security is threatened, the Defence Force will take action and do so effectively, as always.

South Africa has stated unequivocally, time and again, that our interests—our security interests and our interests with regard to civilisation—and our relations with states receive preference. These interests must be acknowledged by other states and must also be respected by them.

For those reasons the export of revolution, whether in the form of propaganda and intimidation or in the form of violence and terror, is irreconcilable with our ideals. Swapo will therefore have to contend with our strength and purposefulness wherever and whenever they commit acts of terror in South West Africa/Namibia. We are inexorable.

Swapo has been weakened militarily. Our security forces have a phenomenal record of success against that terrorist organisation. Certain statistics speak volumes. More than 9 000 Swapos were wiped our between 1966 and 1987. The figures would probably be much higher if one added the number of those who fled after being wounded and died later. That gives us a military success ratio which cannot be surpassed anywhere in the world. No organisation which has such a poor record can lay claim to the image of being brave fighters. That is why I say once again that the pro-democratic parties must join forces.

The SA Defence Force and the South West Africa Territory Force not only have a fantastic history of military success, but also a record of being stabilisers and builders. I should like to pay tribute to our soldiers, and in particular to the South West Africa Territory Force. We must remember that 62% of the security forces in the operational area are members of the South West Africa Territory Force. It is a force which has grown by more than 3 000 during the past 10 years since Resolution 435 came under discussion.

In addition, with regard to Angola, our media in particular can take note that a process of orderly withdrawal is taking place. I want to make it clear, however, that the SA Defence Force has never had and does not now have an occupation force of thousands of troops in Angola. There have never at any time been more than 3 000 members of the Defence Force in Angola. We have always granted very limited assistance. When and where we took action, it was in the interests of our security and the protection of human lives, democratic systems and values.

South Africa has come a long way in our search for stability and co-operation in Southern Africa. Ten years ago, when Resolution 435 came under discussion, it did not lead to this situation. I want to repeat what the hon the State President emphasised this afternoon, however, viz that there is still a long road of negotiation ahead. Resolution 435 is 10 years old and has not been implemented yet. Ten years ago the Soviet Union under Brezhnev was at the height of its revolutionary expansionism. In Africa Angola, Mozambique and Ethopia fell into the Soviet’s lap. There were visions of a Southern Africa under a communist umbrella, with South Africa as the supreme prize. Now, in 1988, there are promising indications of greater realism in the Soviet Union, and I hope that President Castro takes an example from this.

We must also be realistic in this regard, however. Negotiations do not mean peace. In any case, the ANC is still in Southern Africa and it gets freedom of movement and free bases in many countries. The onslaught on the Republic of South Africa has not diminished in any way, therefore; in fact it has intensified. The power build-up in neighbouring states is proceeding, completely out of relation to what is necessary for their own defence or their own security.

That is why I am asking for realism; also with regard to intercession for the scaling down of national service, or the treacherous campaign against national service. This is not the time to want to cut down on money for defence. In brief, the demand that the SA Defence Force must always be prepared, that it must always be a winner, means that we cannot suddenly make changes to systems. If the SA Defence Force were to be asked to strike, it would have to strike hard and accurately.

The underlying principle is that our national security must remain our first priority. No South African may be irresponsible in that regard. There is no room at this time for loose talk that can play into the hands of our enemies. South Africa is our fatherland, and it deserves more loyalty and respect than it gets, particularly from South Africans inside and outside our country.

I said that national security was the first priority. The main task of South Africa’s security forces is to ensure national security. That is why the SA Defence Force consists of many components of society. One of these is national servicemen. Then there are the Permanent Force and Citizen Force commandos. All population groups are included; in other words, all South Africans. Together they are responsible for the security of our country’s long borders. They do excellent work. They are accepted by the public.

The SA Defence Force also has the instruction to fight terrorists and remove them from their hiding-places. This action is also taken effectively and with motivation. Terrorism is a phenomenon in many countries of the world. It is deliberate murder, mutilation and the intimidation of innocent people.

The purpose is to enforce a political and economic system as a form of domination and of enslavement. Terrorists—I am referring in particular to the ANC-SACP alliance—are too cowardly to fight the security forces, and that is why they use targets such as restaurants, buses and so on, where all South Africans get together. That is why they are not guerrillas.

National service is exactly what the word says. It is the rendering of service to the fatherland, to its people and to their security, so that they can work, sleep and eat in peace. That is why we as members are privileged to be able to debate here peacefully in this House today.

In these circumstances, in which the RSA is experiencing an intensifying onslaught of revolution, whoever elects to side with those who are evading national service is condoning the violation of the laws of the country. What is more, this amounts to support—even if it is indirect support—of terrorists.

Terrorists and their cohorts make no distinction between Whites, Coloureds and Blacks. Their landmines and limpet mines are aimed at everyone whose desires peace, prosperity and progress. Differentiation between political points of view and national security is always essential. By electing to side with those who are evading national service and siding against the security forces, people are playing right into the hands of the terrorists who want to murder and mutilate people and enslave them ideologically.

What people say must relate to the realities. In the first place there is an oversupply of volunteers from certain communities who want to do their national service. These members serve South Africa with great bravery, dedication and distinction, side by side with all population groups in the operational area. People must be careful that what they say is not a slap in the face of our soldiers of various population groups. I reject every insinuation that our security forces do not act in the best interests of our people and of our country. Such insinuations are undeserved and uncalled-for.

They act as instruments of the State, and upon the instructions of the State, not of any political party. It is a fact, not a perception, that they serve the country. The cowardly attacks by terrorists and their cohorts on defenceless men, women and children, on all South Africans, is clear proof of their hostile and undemocratic endeavour towards revolution.

The instructions of the SA Defence Force are to ward off and combat these attacks, no matter what form they may assume. The security forces deserve everyone’s thanks and appreciation for this. The atrocities of terrorists are seldom if ever pointed out. We all have a duty in this connection. By electing to side with those who evade national service, one is siding against stability and order, which are essential for the extension of democracy and for meaningful participation in the restructuring of our country.

I want to conclude. My message to our subcontinent today, and specifically to Angola, is that South Africa is prepared to make its knowledge, resources and technology available to all the countries in our region. We have the ability to get a railway line such as Benguela going again, if Angola gets its internal house in order.

We are in earnest about this, and we have the will to assist in effecting stability, prosperity and progress, but we shall not negotiate with regard to our security and interests. That is a priority and an anchor on the road ahead. As the Minister of Defence I can say this, because the military and I are often described as having the attitude of a hawk. In essence the Defence Force is a peace force, a force which serves South Africa’s interests as an instrument of the State in the way judged best by the authorities or the government of the day. I want to express the sincere hope that the present negotiations will lead to lasting stability and peace. That is our objective, and we should do everything in our power to achieve it.

Mr Chairman, the subject matter of this matter of public importance is the state of the economy in the light of the fiscal, monetary and other measures taken by the Government and the South African Reserve Bank since the adjournment of Parliament at the end of June 1988.

Mr Chairman, perhaps I owe hon members an apology for the fact that after an afternoon in which there was hardly a note of discord—perhaps only one or two—and after a somewhat pleasant dinner they are now obliged to come to this House to debate what I believe are serious matters confronting the country. I apologise that they should be here on a Wednesday evening but I do not apologise for raising this subject. With great respect, Sir, I believe this is a subject which the Government should perhaps have raised and should have initiated because there is little doubt that there is considerable concern in South Africa about the state of the economy.

In these circumstances I imagine that if there had not been this concern and if there had not been this problem, the Government would not have found it necessary to take the monetary, fiscal and other steps which it has taken. Perhaps the matter is highlighted by a statement by the Director General of Finance, which, if correctly reported, reads as follows:

Despite this he says there is a firm resolution to honour the debt obligations within the standstill net.

Within the past 24 hours the Governor of the Reserve Bank is on record as saying that the year ahead will not be an easy one for the South African economy.

Mr Chairman, this is not a happy situation in which we find ourselves because this country, once proud of its impeccable credit rating in the international community, was faced by a sudden refusal by overseas banks to renew loans. A debt standstill was imposed in respect of certain of its debts and a formula for repayment was negotiated. Yet, despite that formula, there is now a foreign reserve crisis.

What I believe is even more significant is that the economy itself has become a prisoner of the balance of payments—that the foreign debt crisis has put a cap on growth which hinders the country in its endeavours to solve its socioeconomic as well as its political problems—and yet, despite this what I call unaffordable sacrifice that has been made in respect of the repayment of our foreign debts, there is still a foreign reserve crisis.

The truth is of course that the action of the bankers against South Africa was not motivated by normal creditworthiness criteria; nor did many of the bankers themselves act of their own volition but found themselves subjected to political pressures, and so the benefits from doing business with South Africa were outweighed by the hassles and the threat and boycott factors from elsewhere. The connection between politics and economics is nowhere more clearly illustrated than in the foreign debt situation, and if we do not take cognisance of the fact that our economic future is linked to our political future we will never solve our economic problems.

The question which I believe must be posed I pose specifically because I think it is a very real question. It is a question that has been posed in other countries which have been faced by foreign debt problems albeit problems of a different nature. What, in fact, comes first—paying our debts to our foreign bankers and our foreign creditors or safeguarding the interests of our people?

Sir, I say that the case for a renegotiation of the terms, which we have admittedly agreed to, is a strong one. There is no doubt that we need the banks for trade. However, we also need economic growth in South Africa. We need stability and we cannot afford massive unemployment. I believe that there is an understanding for our situation among the bankers of the world. While we must act honourably in regard to our debts— I am not suggesting we should act dishonourably because I think our record is too good for that— we must find a way in which we can perhaps pay over a longer period and can cope with our problems because our solvency is clearly without doubt. There is no question of South Africa being insolvent. For instance, our ratios of exports in regard to debt are correct. They are in fact very satisfactory. Therefore, we appear to be a debtor nation in that sense but a debtor nation with very good credit ratings, good ratios and, to my mind, an ability to renegotiate these terms. I should like to ask that we actually renegotiate these terms before we find ourselves in an even more difficult situation.

We, from these benches, certainly have taken the view that when the Government’s economic plans have been correct, we have backed them. This was demonstrated by our backing the hon the State President’s economic package at the opening of this parliamentary session. On the other hand, however, when circumstances require, there has to be a critical analysis of a situation and a submission of workable alternatives.

The country has now come under stress. It is probably at a crucial turning point. The brief interlude of reasonable growth, the downward trend of the inflation rate and the revival of business confidence are under some kind of shadow at this time. There is no doubt that difficult times lie ahead of us, both here and abroad, times where sound economic conditions could help solve some of our political problems. It is tragic that at the very time when we need a healthy economy, our economy is under stress. Last year was hailed as a good one. We accept that the rate of inflation has come down and we are happy about it. However, it is still and has been an abnormally high rate when compared with our trading partners. Even though we have had growth in our gross national product—which had been positive in per capita terms—and relatively low interest rates when compared to the giddy heights of the past, when we compare ourselves with our trading partners we do not shape very well. That is why last year was described as one of relatively good news while this year and the ones ahead look like being years of relatively bad news.

We have to do something about it. It is no use just accepting that everything is going to go wrong. The reality is that our duty is to find out whether the times which lie ahead cannot be made better by the correct policies. Regrettably we also have to analyse whether the steps that have been taken were the correct ones and whether they were taken timeously.

The one problem which faces us clearly at this time is what I call the politisisation of the economy. This phenomenon is seen externally in the need to continue to spend large sums on security and also in the actions that are being taken from abroad against South Africa. This is also seen locally in the political objectives of some people connected with the economy, particularly those in the labour field.

We have to look at the fact that the struggle in South Africa is actually three dimensional—between the proponents of peaceful change as opposed to violent change as well as the forces of reaction. All three of these forces are in fact at work. The objectives of the participants are similarly either a democratic political and economic system or a non-democratic, socialistic, economic system or a minority tyrannical rule. Those are the three dimensions which face us, both in regard to method and to the objective.

In this struggle the economy plays a meaningful role. At this time the forces for peaceful change with democratic objectives are severely hampered by some factors over which they have no control—such as the population growth and the increase in the labour force—and some over which we have control, such as unacceptable high levels of unemployment the unacceptable historically wide gaps in wealth and income, and what has also happened over a long period of time, namely the lowering of the per capita wages and salaries of our people.

Lastly, there is the question of completely inadequate increases in productivity. Added to this, from abroad we have a hampering of our efforts due to trade sanctions, boycotts and disinvestments as well as the inability to obtain foreign loans to which I have already referred.

One of the problems which has existed in South Africa is that to seek to apply theoretical fiscal, monetary and other remedies without due cognisance of the realities and peculiarities of the South African situation can only lead to disaster. This has resulted in incorrect decisions being made. The fallacy which still pervades much of our economic thinking is that an economy such as ours, which still at this time depends for more than half of its gross national product on imports and exports, which cannot obtain new foreign capital and will increasingly be subject to sanctions, can operate in an open-market situation as if these abnormal circumstances did not exist. The reality is that they do exist and so the further reality is that we cannot obtain new capital. The reality is that we are prisoners of our balance of payments and that if we follow the open, orthodox approach of the past, we will continue to run into problems the moment we have a growth rate of 3% per annum. A 3% growth rate, however, is utterly inadequate for our economy.

If these are the realities, we have to accept them. We have to find solutions and grow internally without excessive dependence on imports. What is needed is a dramatic effort in regard to job creation policies and inward industrialization. We must stop tinkering with and get to grips with the problems.

The measures which the authorities have applied up till now are mere pallatives and are no cure for the real economic ills of South Africa. We go from recession to mild upswing and down again without any real long-term solutions. I have supported and I still support the hon the State President’s buy South African campaign. However, what is actually being done other than merely to talk about it? We have spoken about it for years but there must be incentives to buy South African. The community must be encouraged to buy South African products. I have tried to indicate over the years, and I want to repeat it that, in order to get this economy going we need to take the people who need jobs and create jobs for them by improving the quality of their lives, by building the things they need and by creating a better standard of living for them. If we create these jobs, they will spend their wages on three things, namely food, clothes and shelter. All these things are manufactured in South Africa. By doing this we will create more jobs for South Africans and at the same time get out of the problem of being dependent on imports. Someone, however, has to take the lead and do something about it.

When we look at the figures we see that the total increase in employment over the past five years was 0,5%. However, over the same period the number of economically active persons in South Africa increased by 13%. This is a recipe for disaster because the pool of the unemployed gets bigger and bigger while the ability to solve the political problems of South Africa becomes more difficult the more people are without jobs. I can quote statistics at length but I think most hon members know these figures.

The question that needs to be posed, is: To what extent have the authorities really tried to tackle the broad structural problem instead of merely dealing with the pallatives? To what degree have they really been able to deal with the immediate cyclical situation?

May I here point in passing to three little things. Taxation reform is still unimplemented in the main. Privatisation is largely a drawing board concept without it yet having shown what is going on. Thirdly, deregulation is still a long way off. Perhaps hon members will permit me to say that the only signs of deregulation that I have really seen in Johannesburg are the hotdog vendors and the shoeshine-people. There, I was disillusioned the other day when I saw two of the hotdog vans being pulled into the centre of Johannesburg by a Mercedes Benz motorcar. That, in fact, is what I have seen of deregulations. I can show this to hon members. It is a farce. [Interjections.] In fairness, it was not the Mercedes Benz of the hon the Minister of Finance. I know his Mercedes Benz and it was not him with the hotdogs.

I want to deal, for example, with the cyclical situation. The money supply targets were fixed last year, and the hon the Minister made it very clear this year when he presented his Budget in respect of this year’s targets that we in fact have to do something about the money supply. However, while he was delivering his Budget Speech and talking about the restrictions in the money supply, hon members would be amazed at the rate at which the money supply was growing. We find ourselves in a situation where the money supply was rising—and I can give hon members the exact figures because they are available—at a rate close to 25% per annum while he was telling us that we had to restrict it. Does the left hand know what the right hand is doing in this situation?

Let us be realistic: When we talk about money supply targets, at the moment the money supply targets were announced, everybody who announced them must have known that they were incapable of realisation. The reality is that we were told to take early action to avoid harsher steps being taken later, but while we were being told that, in fact the early steps were not being taken; on the contrary, it now appears that as a matter of policy, steps were delayed and the initial reliance, after a deliberate delay, solely on the interest rate mechanism, obviously exacted its toll.

I must say, with great respect, to the hon the Minister of Finance that he must stop worrying about a vote that he has already lost on the platteland. The reality is that these gentlemen on the right have got that vote and by playing with the economy and placing it in jeopardy to try to get those votes back, one is actually jeopardising the whole of South Africa. I think the sooner one realises that one has to accept that those people have some of the votes in South Africa, the better it will be for all of us, because the reality is that we must know that in South Africa there will be people who will be reactionary, people who want to move faster and people who are in the middle and are moderate. However, one cannot sacrifice an economy in the chase for votes. The stakes are too high for us and I appeal to the hon the Minister to do this.

It says here, and I quote what the Governor of the Reserve Bank said:

However, I want to say that perhaps he is taking the rap for political decisions which were made elsewhere, particularly because of the pressure of certain lobbies in South Africa to which I have tried to refer. Perhaps he is taking the rap because in fact he has a certain philosophy which is not shared by everyone in South Africa in relation to this.

Let me deal with some of the particular measures which were introduced. Can somebody please explain to me the rationale behind the fact that when one increases the petrol price because one has an exchange rate problem—which we accept and one has to deal with it—one at the same time takes the opportunity of extracting another three cents per litre from the taxpayer? Can somebody explain the rationale of that to me?

Can somebody tell me why these import levies were introduced, for example, on machinery which we desperately need to create jobs, machinery which we might not be able to get in the future because of sanctions? Can the hon the Minister tell me why we have to have import levies when people already have the goods on the water and have committed themselves financially? Surely that cannot be right. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the first point the hon member for Yeoville mentioned, the one concerning foreign debt, surprises me. Suddenly our newspapers contain reports—I do not want to mention names—about our inability to pay our debts. I think that must stop.

In all honesty, when one looks at our interest as a percentage of the value of our exports, one will find that it has decreased rapidly since 1984. At that stage it was more than 10%, whereas now it is 7%. The idea that is being created, that we cannot pay our foreign debt, is an erroneous one. I think it is an incorrect approach, because we can do so. I would not say that everything could be paid at once, but our foreign debt is among the lowest in the Western World, not to mention the Third World countries. I think people must stop creating that uncertainty among banks that are helping us. I am sorry the hon member for Yeoville raised that here tonight. I am very sorry.

[Inaudible.]

I want to go further. The hon member said here that we should negotiate. How must we negotiate? After all, we negotiate with the people. We are in close contact with them. Some of these people were in South Africa recently. Does the hon member want us not to repay our debts? Does the hon member want us not to repay our interest? That is not what he said here; he merely launched an attack.

I want to go further. I listened to the hon member when he spoke about everything that was ostensibly wrong. The hon member knows about this article in the Sunday Star. There is something in this article which amazes me. I should like to quote two sentences:

The hon member should rather look at the figures. Over the past two years our gross domestic expenditure has been increasing. For the information of the hon member, if he read the Governor of the Reserve Bank’s report, he would have seen that our real gross national product over the past eight quarters had grown by 5%.

Do not be afraid of success!

No, we are not afraid.

I merely want to say that in any normal cycle there is upward and downward growth. We have really had a period of prosperity during the past two years. There was 5% real growth. There was 3% real growth per capita. Show me what other countries can say that. [Interjections.] No, those figures are omitted. Those figures are not mentioned. Am I correct?

I was talking about the national product. You were not listening.

No, it is 5% and 3% per capita. The hon member did not mention that. I want to continue. To me it looks as though the hon member has a terribly short-term view. He spoke about labour. If we look at the 1988 figures, we expect a real improvement in wages and salaries.

I find it very interesting that the hon member said we must be dynamic now. We must have a strategy. Has the hon member not examined the overall economic strategy of the Economic Advisory Council yet? What do they say there? We must look at inflation. They published a report about that. We are expecting a report from the Director-General of Finance shortly. There was talk about finance and taxation. We have had the Margo Report. We have had the White Paper. We have begun, in the Budget, to implement many of those recommendations.

Yet the hon member said again, as in this article, that we should move more quickly. I should like to spend more time on him. I want him to tell us how we must move more quickly. Must one introduce VAT quickly now, without preparing the ground.

We are still waiting for the draft legislation.

Yes, we referred to August. Incidentally, I have it on my desk. We are going to get to it. I said it would be August, and it is August. We have already completed the first provisional pieces of legislation. The hon member wants things to go more quickly, but at the same time he says we should consult. What he says is in conflict with his own views. [Interjections.]

I want to stir the hon member for Yeoville up this evening. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister must not stir the hon member for Yeoville up too much. He does not need it. [Interjections.]

We know one another very well, Sir.

Later in his speech he said something about the measures we had announced in June, and I assume it was the surcharge that he was unhappy about. Tonight I want to ask him frankly about his history with regard to this subject. Is the hon member in favour of import control or is he opposed to it? Mr Chairman, you must permit me to hear the hon member’s reply to this, because this is a very interesting question. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I assume the hon member is in favour of import control. [Interjections.] We must take into consideration—this is also interesting—that while we were experiencing sanctions against us, our economy suffered severe damage because of four years of drought; there is no getting away from that.

There were political problems too. We know what is going on in Washington at the moment. We have a problem in respect of our mineral exports, and we know the effects of coal exports to Denmark, France and Canada. Yet this country is showing a real growth rate of 5% in its national revenue. It has been showing growth in its exports over the past three years. It has been very stable over the past 12 months.

What happened last year? What is going to happen this year? What is going to happen next year? [Interjections.]

I shall reply to that. There was an immense increase over a period of three years, because we rode the wave of prosperity with our exports during the other countries’ period of prosperity. It is true that the other countries are experiencing a recession at present, and that is why there may be a problem now, but what is most important is that despite sanctions— they said in Toronto that Finland, Denmark and Canada had cut exports with regard to us by 7% or 8%—this economy is showing almost maximum capacity with regard to its exports. [Interjections.]

Were it not for the fact that part of our exports had swung towards the interior—the hon member knows about the absorption element, viz that if things are going well internally, many exports swing back—our exports would have been much higher. [Interjections.] I therefore think we should be very proud. We have reason to be proud.

What is most interesting, however—actually there is a lot of criticism in this connection—is that it so happens that our private savings have increased over the past few years. People always say we do not save, but then the books are cooked a little, because not everything is added together. Services also increased recently.

We have experienced a normal cycle and now we have once again reached a point of adjustment. It is typical of our economy—the hon member knows that—that when we reach the end of our cycle, we tend to import too much.

We still get poorer every day. [Interjections.]

When I look at motor vehicle sales over the past seven or eight months, and if I have to mention to the hon member the expensive vehicles which are imported, I must ask whether our statistics are always correct. [Interjections.] Yes, there are people who are suffering; I do not deny that.

Thank you for that!

There are people who are suffering. As hon members know, many of our people who were involved in agriculture have suffered. Some of our people who worked there had to move to come and work in the cities. The whole process of industrialisation, which the hon member supports, is a process of adjustment.

We have our importers, and there is no getting away from that. That fact is as old as the hills. Our importers have begun to speculate.

[Inaudible.]

No, the hon member had his chance. The importers began to speculate because of expectations that the exchange rate would weaken. It is a fact that they were afraid of sanctions. We have friends in certain countries who said they did not know whether they would get any of our products again. They imported excessively. During the past week numerous importers came to see me about the surcharge. I asked them to explain to me why they were losing so much. Surely it is not normal to import so many video sets. What they came out with in the end was that they had expected either that complete import control would be implemented or that quotas would be implemented for the other side. After all, the people are out to make a profit. They imported excessively, we took action against them, and now they feel aggrieved.

There are cases that one has to consider, and the hon the Minister will talk about that in a moment. In my opinion the package we introduced in May, as well as now, really cannot elicit much criticism. People also have figures up to a certain stage, and the hon member knows that.

In comparison with 1984, we do not look only at interest rates. We imported too much, financed by credit. No one will deny that. Worst of all is that we imported durable consumer products which we do not always need.

Who granted the credit?

I merely want to tell the hon member that by importing too much we damaged our own industries. The hon member will agree with me on that point. Our credit overflowed into imports and I can backtrack over the past 25 years for the hon member. It always happens.

I want to mention an important point. We increased the interest rate, but we also came forward with the surchage, which is going to help in the end.

The hon member for Yeoville attacked us about the 20% capital. He must read that statement very carefully. It said that it was for technological reasons, for another stage of improvement and for a few other given reasons, and that is why we are granting exemption of that 20%. In all honesty, the hon member knows that we have factories in South Africa in the electronic, electrical and mechanical spheres which are not fully in operation, because of the dumping that takes place here.

If we could divert that question about the 20% to our own factories, we would not have such problems. We would be promoting our own factories, and that is why the hon the State President said in Bloemfontein: “Buy South African.” The hon member agrees with me.

We must make our people more aware of “buying South African” in this overall onslaught against us. Everyone is angry with us at present because we do not want to permit Finnish sardines. Soon they will probably start talking about Russian cars as well. Surely the hon member remembers the Russian cars. They will probably be angry with us about that too.

What about the Airways’ cheese and the Airways’ Perrier water?

I agree with the hon member. By means of these adjustments— which I think are sound adjustments—we must make “buy South African” our main theme. Let us get our industries to work at full strength, thus enabling us to reduce inflation. That is why I feel it is a good thing that the hon member requested this debate. I think our people must stop being disheartened. Despite all the sanctions and all the problems, ours is truly a success story. I think that with this package of ours we are following a policy which will promote the South African economy.

I want to conclude. I agree with the hon member that we must have an overall economic strategy. I began with that and mentioned that we were involved in such a strategy. In conclusion I can repeat what I said. We hope to continue to implement the Margo Report’s recommendations. The report about inflation has basically been completed. Lastly I want to mention that an excellent report by the Board and Trade of Industry will also be available shortly. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is rather difficult to get going after the … I do not believe I can call what took place between the hon member for Yeoville and the hon the Deputy Minister a debate. At one stage it sounded more like a dialogue. However, I shall do my best. [Interjections.]

I think the hon the Deputy Minister, to use legal jargon, overstated his case a little in his reaction to the hon member for Yeoville’s speech. The hon the Deputy Minister also tried to depict how well things were, in fact, going. The debate this evening is, in fact, to discuss the crisis measures which the Government and the monetary authorities have just had to introduce …

Because there was no crisis!

Yes, if everything is so good, why is it so bad? [Interjections.]

That is what the discussion is about, and what I am saying might perhaps duplicate what the hon member for Yeoville has already said. I want to agree with the hon member for Yeovile inasmuch as our economy, for many reasons …

Is that why you do not have a beard? [Interjections.]

I wonder whether these frivolous hon members are really interested in this debate. [Interjections.]

I agree with the hon member for Yeoville that our economy has, to a certain extent, become a prisoner of our foreign debt, of capital outflow, and is in addition suffering at the moment from a balance of payments headache, all of which are inter-related. I am, however, grateful to be able to say that at the moment the prisoner is out on parole. I hope that once the parole period is over he will eventually be released.

We are all familiar with the circumstances in regard to foreign sanctions, disinvestment and whatever else can be enumerated, things which we cannot ignore, and which must necessarily have an effect. We all accept that we are living in unusual economic circumstances. It is therefore perfectly natural that in order to eliminate those extraordinary economic circumstances it will, from time to time, be necessary to adopt extraordinary measures. I do not believe that we can solve our particular problems by means of classic measures. If one may criticise, the hon the Minister set out the monetary authorities’ objectives to us at the beginning of the year and told us that the target was an increase in the money supply to a maximum of 16%, and I would have expected that the watchdog in this regard would have been the monetary authority, the Reserve Bank, but my criticism is that that authority permitted that money supply to overshoot the target by a considerable margin. It is not 16%, but rose to 25%. I find it interesting that in the presidential address of Dr De Kock of the Reserve Bank yesterday, or the day before, he said the following:

Are you in favour of that?

I am coming to that now. He continues:

If I have ever in my life read an unequivocal admission of guilt, this is it. I think it is quite right that the admission of guilt should be made, but in discussing the package of measures which have been adopted, we are satisfied that the authorities have now eventually been convinced that in our situation one cannot merely adjust interest rates upwards or downwards in order to solve the problem. The new package is a mixture of interest rates and hire-purchase credit control and restrictions, and in addition now the surcharge changes. Are we satisfied that it is a good combination? Time will tell whether it will ultimately be the correct mix.

Sir, allow me now to consider certain practical consequences of the measures which the hon the Minister announced. In his initial statement on the surcharge changes, the hon the Minister said that the primary aim was not the generation of further income for the State, and I accept the hon the Minister’s word, but the nett effect will most probably have that result.

In addition—I should like to have a reply to this from the hon the Minister—it is surely a necessary conclusion, as a result of the tremendous increase in imports over the past few months, that the State’s income from customs duties should be considerably more in this financial year than was budgeted for. That is the conclusion I should like to draw.

Like the hon member for Yeoville, I find it strange that the authorities have almost simultaneously come up with a new fuel levy of 3 cents per litre. I would appreciate it if the hon the Minister would react to an article which appeared in the magazine Finansies en Tegniek and refer to this matter. I shall quote from it briefly:

We should like to know whether the allegations are true or false. Is it true that the top officials of the departments involved did not have any say, and were not even asked to make a contribution?

I must refer to the effect which the increased diesel fuel price will have on our agricultural industry in particular, namely an increase of approximately 20% in the diesel fuel price for the agricultural sector. I am not doing this lighthearedly, because the agricultural industry and, in particular, the summer-grain areas, are very, very far from pulling through. In fact, indications are that things are also going rather badly in areas where it has gone really well until this harvest.

I refer, furthermore, to the announcement in which the hon the Minister referred to agriculture. He was discussing the surcharge which also applied to the importation of agricultural products. The following was said in the announcement:

A veritable Babel of confusion has arisen because it now appears that there are imports which are directly involved in agriculture and which will, in fact, be subject to surcharge. [Interjections.] I am referring, in particular, to the purchase of livestock overseas. In particular I am referring to brood-stock, which has a direct bearing on agriculture, and upon which a surcharge of 60% is being levied. [Interjections.] Hon members do not believe me, but it is stated in the Gazette which is published by the hon the Deputy Minister. The importation of all livestock carries a surcharge of 60%, and hon members would be surprised to know how many agricultural leaders and individual farmers have telephoned me during the past few days. One man told me that he had bought animals overseas, had paid for them, that they were on their way and that it was costing him R100 000.

Surely that is an exception! I shall deal with it. [Interjections.]

What are you going to do about it?

I would be glad if the hon the Minister would deal with it, because this man is now saddled with an account, not of R100 000, but of R160 000, and that causes us … [Interjections.]

That is just one man! [Interjections.]

It is not only one! There are many problems.

Order! I am not going to allow this debate to degenerate into a free-for-all. Only one hon member has been called upon to speak—the hon member for Barberton.

This does not only apply to agriculture, and I am grateful that the hon the Minister has now given the undertaking that he will give us clarity on this situation this evening. I want to refer the hon the Minister to the latest Land-bouweekblad, which points out that tractors and certain other agricultural machinery are still very much subject to a surcharge, not of 10%, but of 20%. I should also like to have clarity on that.

However, this does not apply to farmers only, and earlier this year, during the previous session, I referred to the necessary evil of legislation by means of regulations, proclamations or Press statements. I want to repeat what I said then. I do not think it is fair, and methods must be devised in cases in which people, as in this case, import goods in good faith which are on their way—in transit—and who now suddenly have to pay a new tax for which they made no provision whatsoever, nor could have made any provision, because it did not exist when the transaction was entered into.

In my opinion it is unfair and unjust. I think if the changes have to come, the solution must be found in a specific direction. I want to emphasise that I am not criticising the Government’s conduct in curbing excessive imports because we are in favour of it. However, if a person has acted in good faith he must, in fairness, be given an opportunity to avoid being penalised by the new measures. We are also awaiting the hon the Minister’s reply to that.

As far as interest rates are concerned, these measures were tried in the past and have now been tried again. The single most important component of expenditure in the agricultural industry in South Africa today is the payment of interest, and once again it is the economic sector in our country which is today probably experiencing the most difficulty and which, with this increase in the interest rates, will ultimately pay the highest price in the form of bankruptcies and of people who cannot make ends meet.

Sir, my time has almost expired. [Interjections.] I agree with everyone who asks me why we have to import unnecessary luxury goods from overseas. When I am flying South African Airways and I find that the jam which is put in front of me for breakfast is peach jam which has been imported from Belgium … [Interjections.] Now I ask: Do our farmers no longer plant peaches in South Africa? Do we no longer make peach jam in South Africa? Is it in any way necessary for us to import such luxury commodities from overseas? The hon member for Yeoville mentioned exotic cheeses. [Interjections.] At the outset I mentioned that our economy found itself in unusual circumstances. Why do we allow such absurdities to occur?

The hon the Minister also saw fit to increase the import duty on a luxury item, namely preassembled cars, from 100% to 110%. I find no fault with that except that in my experience, a man who is prepared to import a luxury car costing R250 000 will have no problems with a further R25 000. It will not deter him—not that kind of individual. [Interjections.] Sir, I am not speaking of myself. I do not have 250 000 cents. [Interjections.] But why do we still allow goods of that kind into South Africa? I think that the Mercedes-Benz cars which the Ministers drive are far too luxurious in any company in South Africa. Why do we allow such items into South Africa?

Despite the fact that the hon the Minister announced his intentions at the beginning of the year—his goals in respect of the money supply— matters have been allowed to get a little out of hand. I think the hon the Minister will agree with me when I express the hope that the new measures will have the desired effect. Ultimately we did have an upswing in the economy, but it was not the kind of upswing which the country really needed. It was not led by exports. The upswing was mainly thanks to the creation of credit and expanded consumer expenditure. What we need is the encouragement of South African production—I associate myself with the other hon members—and the purchase of South African goods.

Order! There are too many loud conversations in a certain part of the House.

All of us, on the opposition party side and on the Government side, must make it our solemn duty to encourage our people to support what is ours. In that way our economy will receive the necessary infusion enabling it to proceed to produce at full capacity. In that way we shall be able to create the necessary employment opportunities for the thousands of people who are asking for work. [Interjections.]

Well done, Casper. That was a great speech!

Mr Chairman, when the hon member for Barberton began his speech, he spoke about crisis measures which the Government had adopted, and right at the end of his speech he looked at the Minister of Finance and said to him: “The hon the Minister must admit that matters have been allowed to get a little out of hand.” [Interjections.] Now I do not know, Sir, which of the two statements he wants to endorse—whether these measures that the hon the Minister announced on 12 August were really crisis measures, or whether they were corrective measures. [Interjections.] I think that if he were to think about it a little, he would realise—after he had calmed down a little in his speech, he also came to this realisation—that these measures, which the hon the Minister of Finance implemented, were really necessary in the interests of the protection of South Africa’s balance of payments.

The hon member spoke about “buying South African”—buying South African products. I think the hon the Minister of Finance made it quite clear, when he announced these measures, that the actual surcharges that were being levied, had been implemented to prevent goods with a high import component from entering South Africa.

What about bulls?

Yes, Sir, let us talk about bulls. [Interjections.] The hon member spoke about the 60% import duty which was being levied on animals. Of course the hon member knows that this is in accordance with the wishes of the stud-book associations. One can import semen and the ovums of female animals without tax, and you see, Sir, that is the modern way of doing things. [Interjections.] One no longer imports bulls! [Interjections.] During the time of the Great Trek and just after the Great Trek, Sir, animals were still being imported. [Interjections.] Nowadays, the modern way of doing things is, as I have just told him—to import the semen and the female ovum, and that is tax-free.

No, you are making a mistake! You are making a big mistake!

No, I am not making a big mistake—the hon member can look up the facts; he can establish the facts, even from his friends at the Landbouweekblad, whom he likes to quote, or from his friends who phoned him because they had to pay a 60% surcharge on imported animals.

The hon member then referred to the increase in the money supply above the limit of 12% to 16% which was imposed by the Reserve Bank. He said that these limits had been considerably exceeded and he was correct. But surely the hon member knows why those limits were exceeded—to have the money supply available in such a way that interest rates did not rise excessively. The hon member now tells us …

Why are they rising now?

… that he would rather have wanted to see it remain between 12% and 16% and that interest rates had risen earlier, because that is the only other conclusion one can draw from that. This is my question to the hon member for Barberton. Would he have liked to see interest rates rise earlier, or would he have liked to see them rise as they have risen now— only at a much later stage?

Cas, now you must listen!

When these things are done, and when one criticises certain economic measures that the Government is implementing, a few points are usually singled out as being objectionable, and the package as a whole is not considered.

What you are saying is too complicated for him; he does not understand it.

The hon member then mentioned the question of the increased price of petrol and the effect that it was going to have on farmers.

And the tax!

The tax …

I want to ask the hon member if he knows that for a long time our interest rates in South Africa were negative. In the official document before the House, in which the hon the Minister’s statement is contained, it is said that we experienced a capital outflow of R2,7 billion as a result of the fact that our interest rates compared unfavourably with those of our overseas trading partners.

Surely that is not the only reason!

It is not the only reason. If one has money to invest, one will certainly invest it at the most positive interest rate that one can get. [Interjections.]

Now it is a question of South African interest rates having been increased too late. It was too late, and when they were increased, the hon member still said that the interest rates were too high and that the farming sector would suffer as a result.

You are a “boerehater”! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Carletonville should not talk about “boerehaters”. I think his national anthem is still “By the rivers of Babylon”. He does not know what a “boer” is. [Interjections.] I have just as much sympathy with the agricultural sector as anyone else. However, if one considers economic factors in isolation, and single them out for criticism without viewing them as a part of a package that the Government is implementing to keep the economy on a healthy footing, one is making the biggest mistake that any person can make with regard to the economy of any country. One must look at all these matters in terms of a package.

To return to the petrol price, I want to mention that the strengthening of the dollar over the past few months, and the weaker gold price which was experienced as a result, have all been conducive to our rand being able to maintain its exchange rate against the dollar at a lower rate.

What about the 3c tax?

If the hon member would excuse me, the hon the Minister will reply to the hon member with regard to the 3c tax. For that reason, the petrol price had to be increased. However, the hon member must take note of the fact that although the value of the rand against the dollar is low, we not only import petrol, but also export products. Are we not in a more competitive position as an export country with the lower rand value than we were when we were below the $2 mark?

Ask Cas; he is a wool-farmer!

Yes, the hon member for Barberton is sitting over there. He is a woolfarmer. He knows what an advantage the lower exchange rate of the rand holds for our exports. However, this hon member singles out only one small matter that is a result of this lower exchange rate, namely the increased petrol price, and he makes a great fuss about it. That is typical of CP propaganda. On the previous occasion, when the petrol price rose for the same reason, they alleged that the Government had lost control of the economy. When the price dropped later by more than 20c per litre, not a word was said about it. Then nothing was said about control over the economy or anything of that nature. That is the kind of propaganda that we are accustomed to from that side of the House. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, clearly there is a vast difference between ourselves and members of the governing party regarding the seriousness of the economic situation. If one listened to what has been said one would gain the impression that matters are not serious, and I would seriously dispute that. As a matter of fact, I would agree with what the hon member for Barberton said when he stated that in his view the hon the Deputy Minister had overstated the Government’s case.

I just want to point out as well that his statement that the hon member for Yeoville had said that South Africa was not able to repay its foreign debts is not correct. What the hon member for Yeoville did say was that we should be considering renegotiating the repayment terms in order to relieve the pressure on our balance of payments.

Are you trying to explain his speech?

You do not listen properly.

Economic fortunes have fluctuated with frightening speed. In February of this year the hon the State President stated in his Opening Speech to Parliament, and I quote:

The present balance of payments crisis reflects the extent to which the economic situation has deteriorated within a matter of six months. The hon member for Yeoville called for this debate as a matter of urgent public importance. He has analysed the broader economic issues and problems and, I believe, has proposed meaningful actions to address these. Of course, the balance of payments position reflects the undeniable fact that “the world wants its money back from South Africa”, to quote from the Cape Times’s editorial of this morning. In short, pressure groups in our major trading partners have found the policies of this Government so abhorrent that through sanctions, disinvestment and the withholding of credit they seek to bring this Government to its knees. The net effect is that our balance of payments is under extreme pressure and that we will have to place far greater reliance on developing our internal economy through inward industrialisation.

Such a move would be tactically correct and we believe imperative as a practical solution but it is nevertheless a sad reflection of our country’s position vis-á-vis the rest of the world.

The Governor of the Reserve Bank, Dr De Kock, stated in his recent address to the annual meeting of the Reserve Bank, and I quote:

Of course he is right! The fragile state of our economy, the parlous state of our balance of payments, our inadequate growth rate and continuing inflation—albeit at a lower level—are all direct results of political uncertainty and the failure of the Government to resolve major political issues.

Our people are growing poorer not because South Africa is fundamentally weak; on the contrary, this economy has enormous potential which, because of political considerations, we are not able to exploit. The reasons for calling this session of Parliament, namely the Bills dealing with group areas and squatting, will make things a lot worse. Government’s haste to steamroller this legislation, by-passing the other two Houses and once again referring legislation which only it will support to the President’s Council will directly retard our economic fortunes. This fact has been recognised by organised commerce and industry and senior businessmen who have recorded their objections to these measures. They have rejected them in principle but also, no doubt, recognised the damage such legislation will do to our economy.

While we must recognise these facts we nevertheless have to do something positive to address these problems. It will not suffice to do nothing and the hon member for Yeoville has proposed what I believe to be a practical plan.

However, I wish to deal with another sensitive subject which has serious short-term, but more particularly long-term, implications.

I refer to the warning of the National Manpower Commission that the size of the country’s management corps has shrunk too low to cope—that we are not generating sufficient appropriately trained personnel to cope with the mobilisation of resources and the productivity necessary to sustain the level of economic growth required to keep pace with our growing population.

I want to quote a few statistics. The National Manpower Commission predicts the following shortages by the year 2000: People with degrees or similar qualifications, 250 000; managers and entrepreneurs, 100 000; and professional and technical posts, 450 000 or nearly half a million. Two factors contribute to these shortages, namely the outflow of young graduates and professionally qualified people and the collapse of the pattern of immigration traditionally relied on to fill between 25% and 40% of the increased requirement for high and middle level management. This is a critical issue that we have to address. Yes, some may wish to criticise those who leave. Some may question their loyalty and commitment to our country. Others may feel personally aggrieved and adopt the attitude that such people should go if they wish and that we are better off without them. However, I do not believe that such emotional responses help South Africa. We cannot afford to ignore this issue. We have to be practical and we have to examine the underlying causes. Obviously a major factor is political, and the solution thereof lies in the hands of the Government.

However, there are economic factors which have to be taken into account. It is often these factors which cause people to leave. Firstly, I believe immediate attention has to be given to the prevailing situation regarding personal income tax. The rationalisation of our income tax system, as envisaged by the Margo Commission, has just not come about. The Government has accepted many of the recommendations entailing additional revenue, but few concessions have been granted which will entail any loss of revenue. We now have what I believe to be an even more onerous and complicated tax system. Concessions have been phased out, but have not been counter-balanced by a reduction in income tax. An oft-quoted reason given for people leaving South Africa is, quite simply, a decline in personal income and better prospects elsewhere.

Secondly, as with inward industrialisation, I believe that far greater emphasis has to be placed on encouraging the flow of Coloured, Indian and Black workers into the high level manpower pool. We have to rely on our fellow South Africans instead of on immigrants. This is not only a Government responsibility. Clearly the private sector must play its part by providing opportunities and ensuring that all employees are given a chance to reach management positions.

The one encouraging statistic given by the National Manpower Commission is that Black, Coloured and Indian workers now represent 32% of that high level manpower pool—up from 25% in 1965. This once again clearly illustrates that despite apartheid in the political and social spheres, the economy has no colour bar.

Finally, I wish to make an earnest appeal to those South Africans who contemplate giving up and leaving. Despite political uncertainty and economic decline there has to be hope for a peaceful and a prosperous South Africa. We have to work for a better country in which they too will have a role to play.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pinelands said at the beginning of his speech that the Government was not as serious as the PFP about the economic situation in South Africa. Their seriousness must probably be sought in the over-eagerness displayed by the Cape Times this morning in reporting that this debate had taken place yesterday evening. [Interjections.] Nevertheless, I want to leave the hon member at that for the moment. I want to come back to a few statements that he made later.

The question that arises is what we are dealing with in the economy at the moment. There are certain tendencies which we must pay attention to today. For that reason, I believe, it is fitting that we are discussing this motion here at the moment. There is a relative acceleration in the growth rate—something that we looked forward to and which occurred. It had to occur, and we are grateful that it happened in this way. The economy needed this injection. With it came a recovery of consumer confidence. An earlier absence of consumer confidence did not allow spending to get off the ground. Along with the increase in the growth rate, consumer spending has increased quickly and significantly during the past two quarters. It was as if the consumer had a suppressed need to spend, a need that he is now satisfying. The spending pattern is actually high in comparison to that in the corresponding quarters last year, namely 10% higher—10% more than during the same period last year.

Along with that, private investment also grew by an average annual rate of almost 9%. However, this growth in the spending pattern has certain inherent handicaps that must be constantly monitored, and if they were to have a negative effect on the overall economy, remedial measures would have to be introduced.

It was this result that necessitated the implementation of the measures of 15 August. One of the results that emanated from the increase was— this has been referred to often this evening—the absolute increase in imports. Calculated on a seasonally adjusted annual rate, the import of goods in the second quarter this year rose to the impossible level of R38,3 billion. In other words, there was an increase of 40% on the figures of the second quarter last year.

That is an impossible increase in imports. In a growth phase of the economy it is probable that imports will increase. We readily accept that. It is logical, but if it results in an impossible disturbance in the current account of the balance of payments, it is quite simply necessary to implement corrective measures.

Firstly, just a few figures to illustrate the disturbing effect of the increase in imports. During the last two quarters of 1987, the annual surpluses on the current account were R5,5 billion and R6,1 billion respectively. Suddenly in the first quarter of 1988 it swung to an adjusted annual deficit of R410 million, and in the second quarter it showed a slight improvement by way of an annual surplus of only R960 million.

In the past such an increase in imports could, to a large extent, be made good or rectified by capital inflow. However, it is no longer that easy or that simple. Therefore, we must deal with the fact that a disturbance in the current account has occurred here. As a result of the difference between our domestic interest rates and those of our trading partners, we had a drain of more than R3 billion on our reserves. One way of limiting the problem of excessive imports is, therefore, to introduce import control or an import quota. Even the hon member for Yeoville does not seem to like that idea.

Therefore, the Government decided that a differentiated surcharge be introduced in the place of the 10% tariff. That is a differentiated scale of 0-60%. This step—this is very important—is not necessarily aimed at collecting more money; on the contrary, if the income from the surcharge were lower than the expected income, this measure would have succeeded, because it would then mean that we had succeeded in reducing the higher import rate. Which imports do we want to address by means of the differentiated surcharge? Among food items the measure will be aimed at nuts, chocolates, tinned mussels, salmon, etc. Among consumer items, it will be aimed at articles such as television sets, jewellery, silk clothing, tobacco products, etc. There has been quite a reaction with regard to the newly implemented surcharge, especially with regard to the situation—the hon member for Barberton also referred to it—in which contracts had already been entered into.

I wanted to ask the hon the Minister to deal sympathetically with the submissions in this regard, but it is clear from the announcement, which accompanied this measure, that channels exist to the Board of Trade and Industry through which such matters can be addressed and to which submissions can be directed, especially with regard to capital goods for capacity utilisation, the establishment of new businesses, technological needs, etc. I am sure that these matters will be dealt with sympathetically.

Furthermore, I want to refer to the repayment of our debt, to which the hon member for Yeoville referred. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I will refer in passing to the previous speaker’s address during the course of my speech.

I think the most noteworthy part of the debate this evening is the fact that the opposition had to ask for it. If there was ever a demonstration of the arrogance of the NP Government, this is precisely it. [Interjections.] Let me explain what I mean. We are all aware that in the early days when the first parliament was established, the prime reason for that was because of the amount of money that was being taken in tax by the people then in power. It was money taken from the people of that country by their rulers without any representation whatsoever. During the course of history, the prime function of parliament became the passing of funds for the running of a country. And yet, Sir, what do we have in this country at present? We have a situation where, during the recess of Parliament, the hon the Minister of Finance imposed surcharges which are going to affect every taxpayer in the country adversely. In addition, he has taxed the users of petroleum products with an additional 3 cents per litre. I will come back to that later on. This he did without any reference to Parliament in terms of the powers—I agree—Parliament has given him. Then, Sir, we come back for a joint sitting of Parliament. All three Houses are sitting. However, does this Government call for a debate to discuss the very taxation that they have imposed on the South African public? No, Sir. They do not. They call for no debate whatsoever. It is left to a member of the opposition to make representations to the Speaker of Parliament—which fortunately were successful—to enable us to debate the extra tax load that has been imposed on the South African public. [Interjections.]

That is a disgraceful state of affairs and an indication of the degree to which the Government has lost touch with all the people of South Africa. What do we have in its place? We had a joint meeting today about the peace negotiations in South West Africa and Angola. That undoubtedly is very important. I have no argument with that. However, it was used for the hon the State President to give us a history lesson, for the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs to give us a laugh or two and the for hon the Minister of Defence to rattle some sabres. For that debate to have ended on the note on which it did end makes me believe we have reached a low point. [Interjections.]

I do not see the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance here, but he told us this evening about the great success that we have been achieving. I want to refer to The Argus of tonight and an address by Dr Gerhard de Kock, Governor of the SA Reserve Bank. I quote:

Is that a record of great success? I want to quote further from the same address:

One must therefore ask why these options are not available to South Africa. Why do we have to go into a recession when we have only had a growth in the gross domestic product of 3%? Yet it is enough to put us in a situation where we have to close the doors and the windows and tax the South African public. It is because of the policies of this Government. Every voter in South Africa, when he has to pay more for his television, video or any other pleasure in life, must know that the high cost is due solely to the policies of this Government. If it were not for the international pressure on South Africa, we would be able to hold our heads high. We would have a booming economy instead of having to batten down the hatches. The public should be made aware of the fact that they are paying.

One of the reasons the hon the Minister of Finance gave for these measures is that he has to curtail the spending of the private sector. I submit, with respect, that what the hon the Minister and the hon the State President need to do is to curb public sector expenditure. That is the real villain in expenditure in South African terms today. I want to point out to the hon the State President—I am glad to see that he is present— that in Britain the Minister of Finance, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer as he is called there, is No 2 in the Cabinet second only to the Prime Minister. Regrettably that is not true in this country. I feel sorry for the hon the Minister of Finance in this respect because it is the single most important job in government after the job of State President.

Therefore the hon the Minister of Finance should be No 2. He should be the most senior Cabinet Minister, instead of which the biggest spendthrift in the Cabinet, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, likes to refer to himself—and I have heard him do this—as a senior Cabinet Minister and to others of his colleagues as more junior Ministers. He is spending the money of the taxpayers of South Africa like water. This is why the hon the Minister has to impose these additional taxes.

I just want to point out what the three cents per litre on petrol means. The figures of the Department of Transport for 1985-86 refer to a five cent levy on petrol, together with seven cents on diesel, which produced no less than R404,78 million during the course of that year for the National Road Fund. That National Road Fund no longer exists. It has been taken into the maw of government. Are hon members aware that in customs and excise we take four cents per litre on the price of petrol and that in tax we take 22,9 cents of the price of a litre of petrol? I have the figures from a table from The Financial Mail of 19 August, a few days ago. If we apply the figures for 1985-86, every cent that goes onto the price of petrol in taxation brings R81 million for the Government. Thus, if sales in 1985-86 are representative of sales this year—and I would submit that probably the sales this year will be higher— the 26,9 cents that is now taken on the price of a litre of petrol amounts to a sum of R2 177 million that is being extracted from the taxpayers of South Africa in the tax on fuel—R2 177 million!

Much of that was not intended when the relevant legislation was passed to be put into the Exchequer. There were dedicated funds. There was a dedicated National Road Fund, which had money flowing into it from petrol. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central has now elaborated fairly fully on the fuel prices, with specific reference to the relevant tax structure. However, I think that in order to put the matter in the right perspective, it would be a good idea to take a quick look at the fuel prices in general before I refer specifically to this aspect.

The efforts which the Government has been making since 1980 to combat inflation, are probably not illustrated more clearly than in the regulation of liquid fuel prices. The reason for this is that pump prices can be maintained at reasonable levels. The success of this effort is clear if the ratios of fuel prices since 1980 are compared with the consumer price index over the same period. In the said period the increase in fuel prices was 45% lower than the increase in the consumer price index. In other words, as regards the constant cent per litre price, the price of fuel has dropped by 45% since 1980.

If we now consider the 3c increase in the fuel tax to which the hon member referred, I think it is a good thing to look at the composition of the basic price structures, compared with the tax levy of international pump prices, and if we then compare this and express it in South African cents per litre, it is clear that fuel is still being underutilised as a fiscal measure in South Africa.

I should like to take up a little of the House’s time to look at certain of these comparisons. If we consider what the position is in France, we find that no less than 78% of their fuel price—and expressed in cents per rand this is 192c—is in respect of taxes and levies. In Germany there is a pump price of 142c. No less than 62% of that revenue goes to taxes and levies. If one looks at New Zealand, one finds that no less than 49% of their pump price is allocated to taxes and levies. If one looks at Australia, one finds that 45% of their pump price of 108c per litre is allocated to taxes and levies. One can go on like this. In the UK no less than 68% is allocated to taxes and levies. Let us see what the position is in South Africa. South Africa represents the lowest percentage of all these countries I have mentioned, namely 41%. I do not know what the complaints of that hon member are. In spite of the 3c increase in the fuel tax, our fuel remains the cheapest, in comparison with all these countries I have mentioned. [Interjections.]

No one in this House ought to doubt that constitutional development and renewal in South Africa are very important. For those of us on this side of the House it is also important for these changes to take place in an evolutionary manner. In the same way there ought to be no doubt that political reform can only take place within the limits of South Africa’s economic and financial capabilities. In other words, constitutional development is dependent on the economic and financial capabilities of our country. This remains one of the basic realities of South Africa. Any government—whether it be the CP, the AWB, the PFP or the NDM—will have to deal with this reality too.

Because the economic and financial capabilities of our country are so important, if there are certain restrictions which make it impossible to maintain the maximum economic growth rate, the Government must take the necessary steps to rectify this. It is important for a new formula, which gives better results, to be sought and implemented. The package of measures announced by the Government in August of this year to stabilise the economy constituted such a rectifying step.

The considerable increase in imports, and to a lesser extent the disappointing performance of exports too, were the direct consequence of the extraordinary increase in the total expenditure on consumption and investment. The financing of this resulted in an excessive increase in bank credit and money supply. I do not have the time to refer to some of these aspects. It becomes very clear if one simply studies the latest economic annual report of the South African Reserve Bank.

Against this background the Government was compelled to implement the announced package of measures. On behalf of this side of the House we want to express our thanks and appreciation to the hon the Minister of Finance, the hon the Deputy Minister, as well as his advisers. They have not used a sledgehammer. They have left enough room for a controlled economy, which will stimulate growth. We thank them for this.

A difficult time awaits us in the economic sphere. South Africa is facing a great challenge, because we must, at all times, not only keep our economic abilities constant, but also expand them. I want to appeal to all reasonable South Africans to accept this challenge, along with those of us on this side of the House. Let us put the interests of South Africa above our own interests. If we do this, we will emerge as victors from the fray.

Mr Chairman, the long-term trend in the economy is towards a slower growth rate. We have seen minor revivals or upturns, but they are lasting for a shorter and shorter time. They mainly benefit a very small section of the population. As we heard earlier, there are a few people who can import more expensive Porches. The hon the Minister can juggle with figures, but if one really goes around outside, one sees that there are many people who do not share in these upturns at all.

At the moment approximately half the Blacks are younger than 15 years. Education, housing needs and other urgent problems which have to be addressed are not reflected in the kind of statistics we are discussing this evening, and this is where the actual division in the economy is found. We have only spoken about the making of money, but we are also concerned about its distribution. The Government’s approach is to stimulate the economy and then quickly suppress it again, and this simply cannot work.

Fundamentally the matters we have discussed here only apply to the formal sector of the economy, but there is also another sector, namely the underground economy or the informal sector, and in this connection all we have heard about is deregulation. In the long run nothing much is happening. [Interjections.] That sector of the economy is the only one which is really growing, but what one sees is that there is no co-operation between the formal and the informal sectors. The method which the Government must consequently adopt is to deregulate that market as quickly as possible. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Greytown has stressed the importance of taking the informal sector into account, and there I must agree with him.

The excuses of the hon member for Newcastle as to why we are so much better off in respect of what we pay in tax on petrol did not ring true at all. The hon member for Yeoville has raised this matter as a matter of urgent public importance, but there seems to be no sense of urgency on the other side of the House. I do not think that they realise just how serious our situation is at the moment. Frankly, I think that they are insulated from what is going on. They are on the gravy train, they are fat cats, and they do not feel it. They do not know what the man in the street is feeling. [Interjections.] They sit there in absolute comfort, without knowing of the suffering and the difficulties that so many South Africans are experiencing at the present time. [Interjections.] They laugh. South Africa is not laughing at the moment. [Interjections.] South Africa knows that we are in a serious situation. I want to tell the Government that unless they mend their ways and decide to take the whole matter seriously, they are going to be in trouble in the municipal elections, and they know it. They know they are going to do badly. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Pinelands got to the nub of the problem that confronts us. Because of the unreasonable political policies pursued by this Government, our economic situation is deteriorating all the time, and the results are catastrophic for certain sections of the community.

So we are deterioratin g in plus figures every year!

I wish to make plea to the hon the Minister on behalf of a group of people who could be termed the forgotten people. I am referring to the elderly, those people who live on fixed incomes in this rampant inflationary period which we are experiencing. It is they who are bearing the brunt of our falling living standards in that they are the people who have had to exist at a bare subsistence level. As inflation catches up with them, they find it more and more difficult to keep their heads above water.

The failure of this Government to contain inflation and to give attention to the serious situation of these people has meant that many of them cannot keep their heads above water, and their lives are plagued not only by deprivation, but also by starvation.

It has been said that one of the hallmarks of a civilised community is adequate care for the aged members of that community. I want to tell this House tonight that our society fails this test miserably, in that this Government has shown a callous disregard for the plight of the aged.

The Government’s record is disgraceful in this regard too. [Interjections.] How can anyone forget the comments of a former Cabinet Minister, whose assessment of what was needed to keep body and soul together was so ridiculously low that the whole of South Africa was filled with disgust at the fact that any man in his position could be so insulated from reality? [Interjections.]

Hon members on the other side are insulated from reality at the moment. [Interjections.] That hon member over there should realise what is happening in his own constituency. [Interjections.]

He should realise how the people of Pretoria are feeling about the cost of living at the moment. I believe the people of Pretoria are going to show their discontent with this Government.

Don’t worry, they will raise the Public Service salaries soon!

This Government just does not care about the elderly anymore. They do not care about our senior citizens. They do not understand the suffering that is being undergone by so many of the old people. [Interjections.]

Order! I appreciate the fact that many of our hon colleagues are witty. However, let us give the hon member an opportunity to continue with his speech.

Thank you, Sir, for sparing me from this great wit that we are getting from the other side.

So many of our old people have worked hard all their lives and through no fault of their own have seen the value of their savings being destroyed by inflation. They are the ones who are suffering. What is the Government doing in these circumstances?

Nothing, nothing.

Firstly, they peg the old age pension and give them a belated lump sum payout, and all that did for most of them was enable them to catch up on a debt situation. They peg the old age pension which is already disgracefully low. It is at a level which is totally inadequate to sustain any decent level of existence.

Then as a big deal they introduced Senior Citizen Bonds paying 15% interest which is taxable. Inflation is running at the moment, I think I am right in saying, at 12,4% and looking as though it is going to move upwards again. Senior Citizen Bonds make a net profit of 2,6% at the moment and that is before tax.

People who have saved all their lives are seeing those savings being whittled away, becoming smaller and smaller each year and so their situation worsens.

Shame on you, Barend!

I am glad to see that the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance has returned. He was missing for a time and after the terrible speech he made I am not surprised that he was hiding his head in shame somewhere.

He was misleading the House a little earlier. When I commented, to loud cries of derision from the back benches on this side that we were getting poorer all the time, he was not prepared to listen to that.

I would like to quote from the current South African Reserve Bank annual economic report which specifies changes in real salaries and wages per worker in the non-agricultural sector. I must tell him that the agricultural sector is even worse. It does not keep pace with inflation.

In 1986 the real change in salaries and wages was—3,8%—a decrease. In 1987 the real change went to 0,5% decrease. Then we come to 1988. All the statistics so far cover the best time of the year when we were supposed to be doing tremendously well and this report states that there was a renewed decline in real wages.

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

Yes, I am happy to listen to the hon the Deputy Minister.

If we compare the real income per capita in the Western world, can the hon member tell me what the comparison is between South Africa, the UK and the United States of America? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon Deputy-Minister has already asked the question.

The hon the Deputy Minister is so interested in making comparisons but I work on the basis that comparisons are odious. I am a South African. I am worried about what is happening to me; I am worried about what is happening to my people. I want to know what is happening to my people. I must tell the hon the Deputy Minister, who has a smile all over his face, that he does not care about our people. He believes that we are so much better off than other people in the Western world. I must tell him that he is deluding himself.

We are becoming steadily worse off, we are getting poorer and poorer all the time, and I want to tell South Africa that as long as they go on voting for this Nationalist Party we are going to get poorer and poorer and poorer. We have a record over the past decade of getting poorer all the time.

I wish the electorate would come to the realisation that as long as they continue to support these political nincompoops … [Interjections.] … we are going to be worse of.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I submit that the word “nincompoop” is unparliamentary.

Do you want to be only the last part? [Interjections.]

Order! The Hon Whip is right. The hon member must withdraw the word.

It is perfectly apparent that they cannot possibly be nincompoops, so I withdraw it. [Interjections.] I am searching for a word that can describe the political incompetence and inadequacy of the people on the other side. I think “incompetent and inadequate” will probably do. [Interjections.]

One of the unfortunate things about the present situation is the escalating food prices. I wonder how long it has been since any of those hon members went and looked at prices in the supermarket. [Interjections.] I wonder when any of those hon fat cat members had to deal with an inadequate budget to feed their bellies.

Order! Perhaps this is an opportune moment to indicate that the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, if this is the newly designed dynamics of the PFP we are in for a pathetic show, because one thing is absolutely clear: With that kind of speech and with that kind of content it is clear that what is normally said about the PFP is true—one cannot flog a dead horse. [Interjections.] It is absolutely pathetic! The hon member made a speech with no content and with no real argument. If that is the new image that the PFP wants to portray the voters will find them out quickly enough. [Interjections.]

“Alles vir Barend”, let us hear it!

It must have been awfully boring for the hon member for Yeoville tonight, already having made the speech last night, according to the Cape Times, and already having had to sit through the entire debate last night and having had to discuss his entire speech, not only with the reporter of the Cape Times …

I never spoke to a reporter.

… but also having had to discuss it with the various newspapers.

We have been accused tonight of being an arrogant government … [Interjections.] … for not asking for this debate but leaving it to one of the opposition parties to ask for it. Now, with all due respect, what new and constructive contributions towards the financial debate in South Africa or the debate on economics have come to light from the opposition side tonight in this debate? Nothing, absolutely nothing! [Interjections.] The hon member for Yeoville said nothing new tonight to what he has been saying in the newspapers over and over again.

You never listen!

If we from the Government take exceptional trouble, every time there is the slightest reason for it, to communicate the entire circumstance through the various media and we take all these steps in order to enlighten the public and to explain to them what we are doing and why we are doing it, and nothing new comes from the opposition in addition to what they say to the newspapers, why then was a debate necessary and why is there an accusation in the process that the Government was arrogant not to have requested the debate? It does not make sense. However, now that we have had the debate, now that we have in Hansard what they have been saying to the media, let us respond to it and let us try to make the best of the situation.

The hon member for Yeoville said that we are an economic prisoner of the balance of payments. The hon member for Barberton also referred to it. That is not new! It is a structural problem that the South African economy has been grappling with for 40 years, since the Second World War. It is also a structural problem which other developing countries have been grappling with for as many years, if not more. It takes the best possible brains in the IMF and the best possible disciplines in order to try to design a plan and in order to apply those plans in various countries in the world. I think the figure that comes to mind is that there have been structural adjustment plans under the supervision of the IMF in more than 60 countries.

It is nothing new, Sir, it is a problem that we have been grappling with in the sense that stimulation for economic growth has come from various sources in the past. It came from an inflow of capital while the Free State goldfields were being developed; it also came from a dramatic rise in exports during the Korean economic explosion. Every time we ran into the problem that the balance of payments current account gave us a certain ceiling above which we could not allow our economy to grow and a period of time which we could not exceed in allowing our economy to grow in the past.

The kind of economic growth that we have been having is the direct result of fiscal and monetary policies designed to stimulate an internal revival of the economy because the inflow of capital does not happen now as a result of various circumstances and the export markets have not allowed us to again seek our salvation economicgrowthwise through the avenue of exports.

On account of our not being able to obtain IMF cashflow assistance and not having access to other capital markets, we have now to put on the brakes on our economy at a much earlier stage than was necessary in the past.

Recent experience has shown what we have been expecting all the time—that in current circumstances the maximum that our economy can grow right now on the basis of a healthy state of affairs is between 2% and 3%.

I challenge the hon member or any other critic of this Government to say to us that with the help of our advisers we have not been able to finetune this economy to the extent that it is possible—and it is difficult in our case because we have such an open economy—and to say that a fine job was not being done. I want them to state this for the sake of my advisers and the advisers of my other colleagues.

I want to state that if from opposition circles in this House recognition is not given to that fact, I know that recognition is given worldwide by authoritative commentators and people who are knowledgeable about the South African economic potential and the constraints within which this economy has to operate.

It is a fact that any healthy economy would have suffered if the world had banded against it as the world has done against South Africa; any healthy economy would have done it.

Why have they? You have done it!

I have not got the time to discuss that because we have already done so in the past but we can do it again if we have a political debate. I want to concentrate …

How many Rubicons are there?

… on the fact that this economy operates within certain constraints and that we are doing an excellent job of work within those constraints. It is a simple fact that the constraints do not permanently injure the innate ability of this country to respond to the needs of our burgeoning population. We have still retained that innate ability.

*Sir, this is inherently a rich country which is waiting to have its potential developed. There are certain constraints on this, and I hear sounds from the side of the CP. The hon member for Barberton said that the prisoner was out on parole and that he hoped this prisoner could ultimately be freed. I want to tell him that, if CP policy were to be applied in this country, that prisoner would never come out on parole but would be hanged.

There is no way, if we encounter international political problems regarding access to capital markets, in which the Official Opposition would have anything in its entire life but endless problems and no access even to trade financing. That is the absolute truth of it.

†Mr Chairman, I want to come to the international debt situation and I want to say with great respect to the hon member for Yeoville that if I heard him correctly—and I will check his Hansard—I think that he was irresponsible in his formulation tonight with regard to his references to our international debt situation.

I tried to write it down verbatim. He said something to the effect that the repayment of our international debt is an unaffordable sacrifice. Then he said that instead of paying foreign creditors we should be safeguarding the interests of our own people.

If that particular statement is correct and and international creditor reads it, it means that there is a suggestion that we must abrogate our responsibilities.

You are misquoting me. [Interjections.]

No, wait a minute; the hon member must give me an opportunity.

You are misquoting me.

If I am misquoting the hon member—I shall also check his Hansard—I am sorry, but that is the way that I wrote it down. I would actually prefer to misquote him because I would not like that message to go out of the Houses of Parliament, not even even from the PFP.

Did I not say that we should honour our obligations but that we should renegotiate? Did I not say that?

I am getting to that and that was what I meant when I asked the hon member to give me an opportunity. What I am upset about—the hon member must give me a chance to explain it—is that the perspective is that the inference here is that it is such a large amount that we could solve many of our problems by renegotiating it.

What are the facts? We have negotiated under the chairmanship of the Director-General a most advantageous international standstill agreement for South Africa, responding in advance to our expected growth rate and the demand that a relatively high rate of growth would make on our balance of payments. The profile is correctly forecast; in other words, the higher our growth rate is, the lower our repayments, and our obligations now until renegotiation of the debt are only $150 million every six months. A renegotiation of $300 million a year cannot solve our problem. That is the perspective. [Interjections.] That is not a sensible argument.

We paid a lot more than $150 million in June and you know that.

Order! The hon member for Yeoville will have the opportunity to reply on this matter. He can do so later.

The fact is that a renegotiation of the capital outflow can at best affect a maximum of $300 million a year and, in the international scheme of things, that is not a large amount. That cannot help us to adjust structurally the whole ceiling that our present balance of payments situation puts on us. If the hon member wants to respond to that he has the time to do so. The question is therefore not why we are making this unaffordable sacrifice, but whether saving the repayments will solve our problems. The reply to that is “no”. The very fact that we were able to negotiate a very favourable international debt agreement is based on the fact that South Africa has always meticulously obliged in terms of its international commitments. That is the very reason, and I would not like any international creditor to have the idea that we intend abrogatin g our responsibilities in any way whatsoever.

That brings me to the other point that the hon member made, which is a complete misinterpretation of an interview with the Director-General which was published in Business Day. In this particular interview the reporter asked the Director-General what the amount of publicly issued bonded debt maturing in 1990 was in view of the fact that the renegotiation of the international standstill agreement would have to take place in June 1990. The Director-General’s reply to the reporter was $951 million in 1990 and $844 million in 1991. In other words, at that time, in June 1990, when the time comes to renegotiate the debt standstill agreement the amount still in the net will be $10 billion. This reporter asked the Director-General: “Can we accumulate sufficient foreign reserves to repay all this?” Obviously the Director-General said “Certainly not.” Certainly not, because in the meantime we shall stick to our commitments. However, when we have to renegotiate at the end of that commitment period, the reason why we will have to renegotiate will be because there will be something left.

But that is not in the report.

I know, Sir, and I am not blaming the hon member, I am just saying that these are the facts pertaining to this particular interview which the reporter preferred not to reflect in that light. The heading of that particular article is therefore grossly misleading, but is softened a bit if one tries to read the rest of the report intelligently. However, the impression is inevitably created, according to the report— correctly concluded by the hon member for Yeoville—that the Director-General said that we would not be able to meet our international commitments because we would not be able to accumulate sufficient reserves. That is manifestly untrue, Sir. It says expressly in that particular article, which I have here, that the DirectorGeneral said that we would stick to our international commitments and that we would be able to meet them. I would like to put that on record and to urge the hon member to accept those facts. I would further like to ask that particular reporter to put his article right because that kind or article is not conducive to maintaining the international confidence that our debt standstill negotiations committee has been able to set up and maintain over this extended period of time.

The hon member said that last year was good and that this year looks bad. I cannot understand his logic, Sir. Last year, despite our constraints, we grew at 2,5 percent. This year, despite even further constraints as a result of the fact that our economy grew too fast at times, we still foresee, according to the Governor of the Reserve Bank, a growth rate of 2,5% which, in terms of international perspectives, is an outstanding achievement. That is about how fast our vehicle can travel firing on three pistons instead of the eight which we have available in this economy.

The hon member is absolutely right—he did not devote a lot of his time to this—in respect of the need for structural adjustment in South Africa. The fact is that as a result of the fact that we do not have access to the international finance resources we must put the brakes on our economy when the annualised surplus of the current account is in the vicinity of R3 billion—R3 billion, instead of, as it used to be, minus R3 billion to minus R4 billion rand. That means that the brake must be put on so as to turn the graph of the current account of the balance of payments above the zero line. Now that, Sir, inevitably places a ceiling on the growth potential of this economy on a healthy basis—I maintain on a healthy basis—while containing inflation and looking after our currency as far as we can within these constraints. It places a ceiling on the economy of between 2% and 3% growth over the next five years, unless we do something about the basic potential which we have. That means a major structural adjustment in our economy.

*Mr Chairman, we require a structural adjustment to alter our tendency to import—which has formed part of this economy for 40 years—when we attain growth rates of 4% to 5%, and to be able to have an adequate economic growth rate over a longer period under these difficult conditions. One may ask what we are doing about this. We have a strategy which has been designed for us by the State President’s Economic Advisory Council. At present that strategy is being developed into an economic development programme by our Central Economic Advisory Service. [Interjections.]

In the second place, as part of that comprehensive strategy, plan or approach, it is not only the longer-term macro-economic development programme which has to bring about a total change in the inputs and outputs of this economy and has to examine expenditure, taxation, the stimulation of industry, etc. In addition, we have a short-term problem.

Under the leadership of my colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister, at this very moment a team of top people is already engaged, both in the private sector and academically, and with the co-operation of departments, in examining a number of fresh reports which are available—he referred to a number of brilliant reports which are about to be finalised—in the context of the macro-plan, as it develops, to promote it in the context of the Economic Advisory Council’s strategy as a short-term business strategy to solve South Africa’s short-term problems, but within the wider context. These are not goals which one achieves overnight. One requires a number of experts to do this, and we still have a shortage of manpower. Our progress is too slow to our liking, and I am holding discussions with various people to improve the manpower situation in order to move this along more rapidly.

Once one begins to understand this, one also understands the entire matter of deregulation. I want to concede immediately that we are progressing too slowly, but the first tier of government is not responsible for all regulations in this country. Second-tier and third-tier government have issued a number of regulations over decades, and how frequently have we not made appeals and how many investigations have not been carried out to see which regulations are an obstacle in the way of economic development at the second tier and third tier, too, so as to have them brought to the attention of the authorities. To be able to deal with this, the hon the State President obtained special powers from this Parliament simply to sweep such a regulation from the table, subject to a debate during the following session of Parliament. There are many shortcomings, and I grant the hon member …

How many times did that happen?

Sir, there are many things. There are a number of pages, and there are a number of pages of other regulations regarding legislation currently under consideration.

Only one!

No, Sir, it is not only one. I shall see that the hon member for Yeoville gets them.

It is one proclamation!

One then sees that deregulation has a very specific place in the overall, comprehensive plan because deregulation—in other words, the informal sector—will ensure the greatest single volume of employment between now and the end of the century. One then understands that it is absolutely untrue to say that we have done nothing about the creation of jobs. In this time of absolute economic lows and problems which we are experiencing, this Government has spent more than R1 billion on the training of unemployed people and job creation. I think that represents 100 million work-days—I cannot lay my hands on the figure now, Sir—but more than 800 000 people have been trained, and I do not know how many millions of work-days have already been paid in consequence of this informal job creation. This is not something that we can measure, and the hon member who referred to this just now is right, but it forms part of our efforts not to be satisfied with an economic growth rate of between 2% and 3%, which we can push up to 4%-5%, providing it is in a manner which is not import-intensive or import-orientated.

When one begins to view the picture in this light, one sees where privatisation fits in, because one cannot carry out inward industrialisation—in other words, develop the nature of economic growth—if one cannot capitalise properly; if one cannot finance it.

Now where do we find this? We cannot obtain it overseas and in times of growth some of our own savings can still flow in the direction of the payment of our foreign obligations—including our trade obligations. One has then either to make use of trust money, which one does not like doing because this is an enormous cash flow as far as pension funds and insurance companies are concerned. As a Government, one does not want to make use of this, but what one is able to do is to furnish those people and the general investor with the opportunity of acquiring a share in those business undertakings which are being handled by the State at the moment, but which belong to all the people of South Africa by implication.

What does one do then? One then sells those shares and uses that money for capital purposes, and not for current expenditure, and one applies that capital in the total programme of one’s inward industrialisation.

That, Sir, is the macro-picture we are engaged upon. We are not stupid and we do not sit on our backsides doing nothing. Nevertheless we are not engaged in something for which one can give a daily score, and I want to ask the hon member and other critics not to think the cricket match is over if we do not provide the score every 15 minutes.

You have been bowled out!

We cannot provide a running commentary on progress in macro-matters in the first case and, in the second, on what progress is being made with a privatisation process which has to be handled with the utmost prudence because one is not only dealing with capital, but also with people.

We cannot comment either on all the other things we do from day to day, but it is time to understand that the Government is fully cognisant of the problematical aspect surrounding the entire question of the economic squeeze we are in.

What are our options? Surely we are not going to give in and tell foreign countries that we are prepared to accept these half-baked political solutions which they want to dish up to us! Not one of those solutions, which we have been offered from outside, and most of those from within, will place us on a road other than that of merely being another African state. And we do not want to be the next African state as regards our political system or our economy.

In consequence of this, we are resisting this international pressure. When they applied the oil squeeze, we stockpiled our oil reserves and started manufacturing synthetic fuel. When they applied the nuclear fuel squeeze, we evolved our own process. When they applied the armaments squeeze, we started manufacturing our own weapons. Instead of passing legislation against our purchasing weapons, they are now passing laws to prevent our sale of them. That is how South Africa reacts when the international political squeeze is applied, because we will not accept their political solutions for us.

That is why we are resisting and trying to use what we have at our disposal to manage this economy and to apply all its resources so that we can not only survive this crisis, but ultimately implement the solutions in South Africa which originated here and about which we as White people of Africa, together with others, decided at a roundtable conference. That is the type of approach one should have. Nevertheless it does not mean—I want to emphasise this—that we accept that our economy has to grow at that low rate. We are working on something and we shall come up with the necessary plans when the time is ripe and we are prepared to do so.

This is why I really wish to dissociate myself most strongly from people—it is an ugly Afrikaans word but it is so descriptive—like “smartvrate” (gluttons for punishment). A glutton for punishment! That is someone who derives enormous pleasure, among other things, from looking woeful and going through life every day in deep depression over his difficulties.

If we can shake off these aspects which hamstring us in our economy, just think what could happen to us if we could start moving freely into Africa, which is our hinterland as regards our trade! Then we could come into our own. Then we could have the advantage of distance and expertise over all our competitors and ultimately Africa, and especially Sub-Sahara Africa, would become consumers. They would start feeding themselves. They would become consumers, and from whom would they buy? From us. Of course, the conditions are such that we have to open those routes and those channels, and we in the Government realise, too, that that is our hinterland.

†The hon member said we must do something dramatic. I maintain that we have done a lot of dramatic things. Perhaps we can justifiably be accused of not having boasted sufficiently about it, but that does not detract from the fact that we have done the basic things that are within our power to do in order to get our economy on an even keel.

*Other hon members spoke about the money supply, but not one of them mentioned its velocity of circulation. Not one discussed the velocity which is a fundamental part of the formula! Even if we ended this fiscal year with a high percentage growth in the money supply, if its velocity of circulation declined in consequence of our measures, the inflationary effect of this would be far less than it would have been if the velocity had been high too. Not one of them, however, even mentioned that cardinal variable in the equation. Hon members complained about the 3c. I think the hon member for Newcastle dealt with the entire matter of petrol most expertly. Here is the graph, and I shall ask the hon the Deputy Minister, Mr Bartlett, to give this graph to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. On this one sees how a number of countries use fuel as a fiscal measure because, in the process of using it as such a measure …

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

No, if I have time afterwards, I will answer the hon the member’s questions.

*These are countries which do not have our balance of payments problem and still find it necessary to permit fuel to find its relative level and to retain it. They use this as a fiscal measure. Secondly, these are countries which do not experience a boycott problem as regards oil. We are the only country with this problem. When the hon member for Newcastle furnished the figures, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central said: “Tell us about the United States”. Good heavens, can we compare the economy of this country with that of the USA? [Interjections.] Surely we cannot conduct the debate on this matter at such a level.

I also want to say something about that report in Finansies en Tegniek. I am not prepared to discuss the procedure of decision-making in this House. That is not discussed. I am therefore not prepared to reply to the question and say whether it is right or not. When all is said and done, who is governing? We have the best advisors, but ultimately we are politically accountable, not only for cost implications, which are the negative aspect, but also as regards the soundness of our economy. We are accountable as regards the place fuel has to take in our country. I can merely say that I have not needed to go back to my top officials and advisors and ask them whether the petrol price is too low or not. The Central Economic Advisory Service said, some time ago, that we should conduct a further in-depth study of the structural problems which are caused in this economy by the fact that the price of fuel is too low within the overall relative price structure of all items. This is not something which a government likes to hear. If a government is also conducting a campaign against inflation, and the economic and fiscal structure does not even permit it to grant its officials salary increases, and it then has to face a structural problem such as the price of an article which is too low and which affects everyone in the country, it has to proceed with the utmost caution. Nevertheless I find it no problem in any decent, informed company to justify the three cents taken for fiscal purposes. No well-founded reason can be put forward against this—not as regards the fairness of the structural adjustment concerned and not as regards the fact that the Treasury gets either.

†I want to remind the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central of the fact that we have done away with the earmarking of funds because it makes nonsense of a priority system and we are managing our fiscal affairs on the basis of priorities. However, once one has earmarked a particular aspect of revenue that particular earmarking overrules all one’s other priorities regardless of the problems that one may face at a particular stage. The hon member must concede that.

*I think the reaction of the general public to the increase in the price of fuel was good.

A few points were raised here on the adverse effects of the surcharge on people with goods in transit. We have continually told such people to put their problem to us, furnish proof that they have goods in transit and that we would then view this most sympathetically. There have been cases in the business world, however, of the prices of goods having been increased the moment the surcharge was imposed. If one simply granted an open exemption on all goods in transit, such traders would not only pocket the higher price on old goods, but in addition receive a discount on their merchandise which is still at sea.

The fact is, it would give us the utmost satisfaction if, from the fiscal point of view, we did not receive a single cent from this surcharge, because our objective is not to make imports more expensive, but to induce people not to import merchandise at all. For the first time we have a differentiated plan as a result of the brilliant work which was done by the Board of Trade and Industries. We could tackle this problem on a differentiated basis. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, first of all I want to express my gratitude to those hon members who participated in the debate, and for the opportunity we have had to debate this matter. Having said that, I must say that I am actually a little amazed at the hon the Minister of Finance. He succeeds with a great degree of enthusiasm in creating the impression when there are problems in the economy, when mistakes have been made, when incorrect approaches have been adopted, when delays have occurred in taking action that this is in fact a virtue, and turning it into something for which we should be thankful. I think that requires an unbelievable …

Chutzpah.

No, chutzpah is not the right word. It requires an audacity which really deserves admiration. [Interjections.]

Let us talk about a few things. He talked about the repayment of the debt. He knows exactly what I have said. He knows exactly that I spoke about the creditworthiness of South Africa which has to be maintained. He knows that I spoke about renegotiation and not about repudiation. He knows it, because he sat there and listened. Then he talked about the small amount that has to be repaid. However, I want to remind him of a few figures. From 1985 until the end of 1987 debt was repaid from R65,8 billion to R43,6 billion, and of that amount the first two payments in terms of the debt standstill arrangement amounted to no less than R2,3 billion. What sort of figures is the hon the Minister talking about? How could he talk about the kind of figures that he was talking about when we are talking about R2,3 billion that had to be repaid in the net during that period, let alone what had to be paid outside the net? [Interjections.] I want to say with great respect that one must not juggle with figures. The reality is that R2,3 billion was repaid within the net from 1985 to 1987. That is a fact.

Do you want to renegotiate the past?

No, I am talking about negotiating the future, you silly boy! [Interjections.]

I was talking about the future R300 million …

I am talking about the future. I am talking about the reality of the restraint of payments which the hon the Minister knows himself. The whole concept of what we have been talking about for years, of what I have been arguing in this House for years, is that the structural changes have to be made. We have been arguing about this so much that the hon the Minister is bored with it, because he has read it in the newspapers, he has heard it from me and he will hear it again. Now suddenly he is talking about structural changes, while I have been talking about it for years and years, because we know this is the problem. [Interjections.]

We have been doing something about it while you have just been talking!

The fact that he is doing it is a good thing. Those structural changes need to be effected.

Order! I request the hon the Minister to allow the hon member to continue with his speech. The hon member may proceed.

I actually enjoy this.

Order! In that case the hon the Minister may make as many interjections as he likes! [Interjections.]

I am not complaining; you can do what you like, Sir. [Interjections.] Really, I do not want you to stop him. I actually love it. Let me deal with another thing. He accused everybody of not talking about velocity. If he just bothered to read his own Governor of the Reserve Bank’s report, he would have seen that it says:

He is talking about velocity—

How can he argue that nobody is considering velocity? I want to say with great respect that the hon the Minister has great skill in picking a little point out, choosing that little point, setting it up and knocking it down, and then sitting back and saying: “Oh, I have done a wonderful job.” [Interjections.] I say it is absolute nonsense.

Let us take another example. He is very proud of the fact that a 2,5% growth in the gross domestic product is forecast for this year and that we might reach it. That is, in fact, a nil per capita growth in South Africa. It means that we are not going to be one cent better off if his ambitions are realised.

He is proud of nothing!

Maybe he has got reason to be proud of it, but let us be realistic. The South African economy cannot afford to grow at only 2,5% if we are going to solve the socio-economic and the political problems of South Africa. [Interjections.] The crux of the matter is that we have to find the jobs.

He knows better than anyone else because he has more statistics than I have. He also has many clever people working for him. I have no one working for me. [Interjections.] He know the numbers of unemployed people are increasing every single day. He knows he is sitting on a time-bomb of unemployment. [Interjections.] He knows it, Sir. [Interjections.]

He is running on only three cylinders! [Interjections.]

With great respect, Mr Chairman, I would rather not run on three cylinders.

He does!

I want to run on six cylinders. I want to run on full cylinders because this country has to prosper if it wants to solve its political problems. That is where the difference is between us. I do not believe it helps to make excuses. I find it unbelievable, however, that we should have this situation in which the Government finds it necessary to introduce this new levy, to allow interest rates to go up, to have hirepurchase restrictions imposed … [Interjections.] Yes, all of these things are found necessary, and what happens is that the hon the Minister makes a virtue out of it. He says there is nothing wrong. And the hon the Deputy Minister is even worse. He is even worse than the hon the Minister! [Interjections.] Yes, he is even worse than the hon the Minister, if that is at all possible! [Interjections.] As far as the hon the Deputy Minister is concerned South Africa needs nothing! We are doing so well that, as a matter of fact, the hon the Deputy Minister cannot understand any of these objections at all. He cannot understand it, Sir. This, I must say, is a most remarkable performance by the Government. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I move:

In so doing I am motivated by my association with the hon member Mr Seedat when he was a Whip of the ruling party. He never erred in his judgments. He was always cool, calm and collected, and he never abused his powers and authority as a whip in allocating times. I am convinced that Mr Seedat will do honour to this House as its Leader.

Mr Chairman, I concur with what the hon member for Camperdown said.

Mr Chairman, from this side of the House I would like to congratulate the hon member Mr Seedat on his appointment as Leader of the House. We respect him for his sense of impartiality and for the responsible person that he is, and we are confident that he will apply himself to his duties as Leader of the House with absolute devotion, dedication and distinction.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the PPSA in particular, I want to extend my congratulations to Mr Seedat and I trust that, being a member of my party, he will discharge his duties in the required manner, impartially and with justification.

Mr Chairman, I think we have been here long enough to observe the qualities displayed by different people, and I think this hon gentleman has been conspicuous by his carriage. I believe that he will discharge the responsibility he now assumes, with honour and dignity. We wish him well.

Mr Chairman, having observed the former Leader of the House and having noted that Mr Seedat was a Whip, undoubtedly his present job will be far less onerous than his previous job, but I trust that it will not be a complete sinecure!

Mr Chairman, while I extend my congratulations to Mr Seedat, I want to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the previous Leader of the House, Mr Naranjee, for the sterling work he did in this House.

Hear, hear!

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, as my first duty, whilst thanking hon members, I move without notice:

Agreed to.