Mr Speaker, before the House adjourned last night, I was arguing that the present and the future are far more important than the past. If, however, one sometimes wants to or has to use history or the past, one should of course use the plain truth and reality, and also associate it in a logical fashion with the truths and realities of the present.

You know, Mr Speaker, I am a Calvinist. By birth and at heart I am a Calvinist. It is also true, however, that Calvin, in the circumstances of his time, laid a charge against a certain medical doctor, one Servetus, and that as a result of Calvin’s charge, and after he had testified in court as an expert witness, the doctor concerned was sentenced to be burned at the stake for blasphemy and for ridiculing infant baptism. However, what did Calvin do then? Calvin made an impassioned plea for them not to burn the doctor. He said: “No. Simply chop the man’s head off.” [Interjections.]

Now the Volkswag, the Conservative Party and their kindred spirits are maintaining that the National Party—now many of us are Calvinists—is making common cause with the Antichrist, with the Jew, with Islam, with the Buddhist and with goodness knows who else. They are accusing us of this and if one wants to follow a demonstration of CP logic, I suppose I, as a pure Calvinist, ought to say that you, Mr Speaker, should please not bum the hon member for Yeoville and Mr Rajbansi at the stake, but that you should rather chop off their heads. Yes, as the English say, go ahead. [Interjections.]

I say that when one wants to use the past, or history, one should use the truth and associate it with the realities of today. [Interjections.]

Last night I sketched for the house how the late Dr Malan totally altered his policy. Furthermore, I can indicate, using the same booklet I quoted from last night, Brandpunte No 5, what the late Mr J G Strijdom said in connection with a matter of this nature. He is quoted here, as reported in Hansard of 19 February 1936. He said that he admitted that this had been National Party policy in 1928. He added, however, that the Transvaal had been somewhat reluctant to follow it, and that there had been a few congresses on the subject. He then added, and I quote (Hansard, Joint Sittings: 19 February 1936, col 127):

Then came this jewel. I shall quote it, too. What did Advocate Strijdom say? He said:

That is, Hertzog.

Can hon members imagine this? Strijdom is telling Hertzog that he—that is, Hertzog— still stands by the “old obsolete policy” while he himself stands for the new National Party and therefore the new policy.

I made the point that all these Prime Ministers suited their policies to the times and the circumstances and that they stated this quite plainly. It is, however, very interesting that it was not the NP’s policy that those hon members are trying to follow at this stage. At that time the NP denied categorically that it advocated a policy of total separation. In a moment I shall quote from Hansard what Advocate Strijdom said. In the meantime I shall point out that the member for Benoni at that time, Mr Walter Madeley, moved during that same debate on 26 February 1936—his motion was labelled “radical” and “drastic”—that a new Bill be introduced (Hansard, 26 February 1936, col 193)—

The member for Krugersdorp at that time, Mr Martiens van der Berg—I later came to know him very well and we also became very good friends—seconded that motion, as had to be done at that time. Mr Van der Berg then said: (Hansard, Joint Sittings: 26 February 1926, col 210):

That was the policy of the Labour Party at that time.

I now want to quote from Hansard of 20 years later. Twenty years after 1936, in 1956, Adv Strijdom came along and stated categorically that it was a misapprehension that this was NP policy. He said such a thing did not exist. Adv Strauss quoted Mr M D C de Wet Nel from Die Volksblad where he said that the idea of a Bantustan should be rejected because it was just as dangerous as, if not more dangerous than, a policy of integration. Adv Strijdom repeatedly called it a misapprehension. He said that even before 1948, but particularly also since the assumption of office by the Nationalist Government, that party, the United Party, had purposely created the misapprehension that the NP had a policy of total territorial apartheid. Adv Strijdom went on to say that it was not NP policy and that he did not blame anyone that was so idealistic, but they as Government and Parliament had to be realistic and practical. He then added that for that reason they could not follow such a policy.

I do not have enough time now to quote Dr Verwoerd as well, but hon members themselves can take a look at the discussion of the Tomlinson Report. I refer to Hansard: Vol 91, col 5310, 14 May 1956. I am briefly going to quote what Dr Verwoerd said there after all:

The figure of 6 million Blacks, who will be in White areas by the year 2000, is very interesting. Dr Verwoerd then went on to explain the policy of the Bantu authorities, and he said the following:

What I am telling hon members is that in 1959 Dr Verwoerd took the plunge and said that our policy then was that Transkei could indeed become independent. Therefore, if hon members say that they are following the policy of Malan, Strijdom and Verwoerd, they must specify which policy, because those leaders had various policies at various stages. I say it is illogical to quote people in such a way.

Allow me now to tell the hon members what NP policy is. If, for example, I examine a patient with stomach-ache and find that he has colitis, that is, inflammation of the colon, and say that the treatment is conservative, I will have him admitted to hospital, prescribe antibiotics, say that he may as well eat because no operation is necessary, and sign the prescription. After a couple of days I find out that the man has developed acute appendicitis. Now I want to tell the House: Whether or not I have put my signature to the paper, and whether or not Hippocrates said this or a Professor Dercksen said that, the fact remains that if I continued to treat the patient conservatively, he would die. I must apply more drastic treatment because he now has acute appendicitis. I myself will vouch for that standpoint and that policy. In the future I shall clearly spell out present and future NP policy here again in this way. I shall not be afraid to state present policy; I shall do so in a straightforward way.

Mr Speaker, the hon member who just sat down will understand if I do not follow him in the trend of his argument. I must be very frank: I do not think that what Mr Tarzan van den Berg who was the hon member for Krugersdorp said in 1936, or what Mr Walter Madeley said in 1937, or what Dr Daniel Francois Malan said in 1951 or what Mr Strijdom said in 1957 has anything whatsoever to do with the situation in South Africa today. [Interjections.]

That was what the hon member said!

The longer these gentlemen look backwards the less South Africa is going to look forward. [Interjections.] The hon member carried on and on. [Interjections.] It is unfortunate that a big part of this Budget debate has involved a slanging match between the NP and the CP—not on the future of South Africa but who said what 10, 20, 30 years ago. I believe we are in a desperately serious situation. On all sides of this House we should be examining the situation in South Africa today as seriously as we can and making our projections for the future.

I want to get back to the hon the Minister of Finance’s Budget Speech and aspects of the Budget that were covered in the debate that is taking place. The hon the Minister’s speech—as behoves his general manner— was relaxed and in a sense bland. His speech reflected no trauma, no anguish, no crisis and no real sense of real urgency. The hon the Minister did identify problems but it was a calm and relaxed speech.

His Budget too, as an indicator of Government policy and earnestness, we believe is far removed from the harsh realities of today. His Budget Speech and the Budget itself do not reflect the enormous economic pressures that are building up against South Africa from outside, something which is of tremendous significance for all of us who are concerned about the future of South Africa. It does not reflect in serious terms the disturbing factors inside South Africa that are undermining investor confidence, disrupting our economy and preventing its natural growth.

Debate from the other side of the House has not so far reflected the disruptive anguish of the whole of the past year of South Africa’s history, a year which saw the imposition of the state of emergency, turmoil in the townships and the wholesale destruction of property. Contributions to the debate by hon members on the Government side have not reflected the reality of the bannings, burnings, bombings and killings. It is against this background that we believe we should be looking at South Africa and where we are going.

The report issued yesterday by the Commissioner of the South African Police covers the year which ended on 30 June last year, before the state of emergency took effect. In that year more than 446 people were killed of whom seven were members of the security forces. There were over 10 000 incidents involving petrol bombs, arson, damage, looting and hand grenades. Physical damage to property in the year before the state of emergency amounted to just on R60 million.

According to figures issued by the South African Institute of Race Relations which deal with what has happened since then, some 1 400 people have died in one way or another in the past 19 months, and the rate of deaths has risen from 3,8 per day during the state of emergency to 5,2. It is against this background that we have to evaluate the Budget and the earnestness of a Government which, I believe, is losing the essential battle in South Africa for the hearts and minds of the ordinary people. The Government has already lost its grip on the civil administration in important areas of the country. We have to look at this Budget and at this Government against the background of a deeply and fundamentally divided South African people facing more life and death decisions than ever before in the history of this country.

The hon the Minister’s Budget does not reflect the sharp, stark and urgent reality that the political pendulum in this country has over the last period swung away from evolution towards revolution. That has been the swing of the pendulum over the past year. My role in this debate and the role of hon members on my side of the House is to try to hammer home to this Government, in the hope that it will understand, that a desperately dangerous situation has developed in South Africa; that fundamental structural changes have to be made if this country is going to be saved, and that there is a desperate urgency to the situation which has developed.

The hon the Minister gave the impression that, while there were problems, time was not the factor and that there was not an urgency as far as time is concerned. Let us not be deluded by the relative peace and quiet which there has been in the White areas of South Africa. Let us not be lulled into a sense of false security or optimism by sporadic spurts in the gold price or other economic windfalls. Viewed in its historical perspective the politics of this country have already entered a revolutionary phase. The revolt of the masses of the people of our country against the system, against the statutory authorities and against the structures underpinning it has started, and has developed a remarkable impetus during the past year. This is the ugly situation and I do not think it behoves us or the Government to bluff ourselves.

We must look at the indicators which point to this. We must look at the collapse of local government and civil administration in many areas of the country, and the emergence of informal structures and organisations which are taking the place of the formal structures and getting their legitimacy from the power of the people. We must look at the school system which no longer operates at the command of the State but operates at the behest of the pupils and their community.

We have to consider the inability of the authorities in many of the townships of South Africa to protect ordinary citizens from ordinary crime and criminals. They are unable to provide crime protection facilities, and they are not able to provide protection for other people against political intimidation. In fact, many of the townships in South Africa have become no-go areas for State officials except when operating under the protection of the firepower of a Casspir.

We must also face up to it that there is massive disregard to the point of defiance of the laws and regulations and decrees made under them. The State President must be aware of this. It is in fact ironic that 25 years after the Government banned the ANC, the people of the townships for all practical purposes unbanned the ANC. That is the reality. They have been de facto unbanned by the people of the townships.

We and the Government must take note of the militancy and of the tone and the timbre of what is being said and done in South Africa. The Government must take note of the level of resistance which there already exists to elements of the laws and apartheid in South Africa. The Government must realise that we are not dealing with a situation where the hon the Minister of Law and Order can, through his Commissioner, send in the Police, and that the Police and security forces can simply go in and arbitrarily impose the will or the structures of the State on the people. They are not able to do this; on the contrary, every attempt at coercion merely raises the level of revolt and plays into the hands of the very people who are exploiting the present situation for revolutionary purposes. Coercion in fact plays into the hands of the revolutionaries. I think the hon the Minister of Law and Order should take serious note of this.

There are of course certain long-term factors which have given rise to the present situation in South Africa, and I will deal with them. Over the past year, however, the mood of rebellion has been intensified by two additional factors which are entirely of the Government’s making and for which the Government is entirely responsible.

The one factor, whether we like to admit it or not, is the political impact which the actions of the Police and security forces have had on the Black communities. It is not a question of what our perception is, sitting in our cosy White homes and White offices. The question is: What is the perception of the Black people in the townships? There is no doubt that with very few exceptions, the actions of the Police and the security forces have radicalised Blacks still further and consolidated them in their hostility toward both the system and the authorities which enforce the operation of that system. That has been the culminative effect of action over this period.

There is a second short-term impact made by another aspect of Government performance. The failure of the Government to fulfil its reform exections has in fact stimulated the rebellious spirit in South Africa. This Government’s stop-start manner of dealing with apartheid, its reactive rather than initiating behaviour, and its lack of a bold conceptual lead away from the old order based on apartheid, have proved a major stimulant of the mood of revolt that has developed over the past year.

These twin factors of a short-term nature have added to the long-term factors which have given rise to our present situation. Let us therefore understand that one thing is certain. The revolt that is taking place and the revolution that is beginning, cannot be turned back simply by the Police and security forces, no matter how well armed or equipped they may be. The more the Government relies on repression or coercion, the further it takes White South Africans into a state of internal siege and external isolation. The more it represses on the one hand, the more it attempts to coerce, the further we sink into a situation of siege and isolation from which we will find it increasingly difficult to extricate ourselves.

Not only will the cost of this intensifying siege and isolation, whether measured in terms of the economy or in terms of human lives, become increasingly uncomfortable, but one by one the options for a negotiated settlement on a reasonable basis, which could provide real protection for the rights of minorities, are simply also going to fade away. We are going to destroy the options that have been available to us. If the Government allows South Africa to continue as it has been doing, we South Africans, Black and White, will be left with no options. Instead, we will face the grisly prospect of having to live under one form of tyranny or the other. It will not be an option—it will merely be one form of tyranny or the other, decided upon not by ourselves but by other people.

This need not be the scenario for the South Africa of the future. I do not believe that this need be the scenario. In spite of all that has happened, and in spite of everything that is happening today, I believe that the vast majority of South Africans would still prefer to live together in peace.

Added to this, South Africa has the resources and the human material which can make it possible for South Africans to extricate themselves from the situation in which they are going to be trapped. However, if we are going to extricate ourselves, and if we are going to avoid being trapped, then the Government must be more willing than it has been in the past to try to understand the fundamental nature of the situation that is developing in the country. Having done so, it must be prepared—without the dithering and prevaricating which we have witnessed in past years—to take urgent and far-reaching steps which are essential if we hope to bring South Africa back to some form of normality.

There are three areas where, in the months ahead, I believe the battle for the future of South Africa is going to be won or lost. This is not going to be a battle of the Police Force; it is going to be a political battle. One of the areas is that of apartheid, and whether this Government is prepared to scrap apartheid for once and for all.

The second area is that of basic living conditions for the masses of the people of this country, and whether the Government has the imagination and the skill to embark on a vast socio-economic reconstruction of our society.

Thirdly, it is going to be won or lost in the arena of political power, and it remains to be seen whether this Government has the courage to negotiate a new democratic and a non-racial constitution in which all South Africans can share in real political power. These will be the three areas in which the battle for the future of South Africa will be won or lost.

The action of this Government in these three areas—not in the distant future but in the days or months ahead—will determine the way in which we are going to live in South Africa for many years ahead. It will determine whether we are going to have a Government based on democracy or a Government based on tyranny; whether we are going to have an economy based on private initiative or an economy based on Marxism; whether we are going to have a society which respects the freedom of the individual or places the individual at the mercy of the mob. That is what we will have to decide on in the course of the next few days or the next few months.

I am not going to argue that it is a simplistic problem or that there is an easy way out. The South African society by its very nature has within it opportunities for great progress and, simultaneously, it has the dangers of severe conflict locked into its very composition. These contrasting prospects of progress and conflict for the future rise from the multicultural and the multi-ethnic composition of our people. Yes, it is a factor which gives us great prospects for progress, but it also holds great dangers if not handled correctly. They arise from the unevenness which there is in the development of our people. That causes strains in any society. They arise also because of the process of urbanisation which has taken place and is going to take place at an accelerating pace, which not only brings people from the rural areas to the cities but also brings the First World component and the Third World component of our nation into a close interrelationship in the sensitive, highly competitive, economically active areas of our society. We are therefore bring two worlds into the cities where the competition is the fiercest and very often the instability is the greatest.

This fusion of two worlds, this bringing more and more people from a subsistence rural economy into a modern urban environment, would provide explosive risks in any society. However, in South Africa these risks, which are there and will be there by the nature of our society and the process which is taking place, have been compounded by the attempts of the First World minority—the White people of South Africa—to try to regulate the urbanisation process and simultaneously to try to maintain their position of dominance and privilege by the application of a policy known as apartheid. That has compounded the problem, and if there is going to be any hope of peace in South Africa—if we are going to beat the revolution, as I believe we can—then we have to face up to the fact that apartheid, not only in the form of segregation but apartheid with its domination and with its minority privilege, must be brought to an end immediately. We have to accept that in the South Africa of tomorrow no South African citizen can demand any more rights or any more privileges than any other South African citizen.

When one looks at the situation against this background and on this basis, Mr Speaker, I have to emphasise the three areas in which we believe the battle is going to be won or lost. We in the PFP believe that on the first battleground—the battleground of apartheid—apartheid with its laws, its regulations, its procedures and its structures, must go once and for all.

Enforced separation and discrimination based on statutorily defined group membership must be brought to an end. On this, Sir, there can be no compromise because there can be no peace under apartheid in South Africa. [Interjections.] The Government will say that they are eliminating aspects of apartheid, that they are getting rid of areas of discrimination and that they intend to go still further. Let me make it quite clear, Sir, especially to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, that apartheid cannot and will not be eliminated in South Africa as long as there is a Population Registration Act or any other Act incorporating compulsory race classification. [Interjections.] As long as we have compulsory race classification we have apartheid. In fact, if one does not have apartheid one does not need compulsory race classification. As long as there is that compulsory race classification apartheid will remain, and as long as—in the words of the hon the Minister of National Education—this government system intends to create different structures and different systems for the various race groups, we will not get rid of apartheid in South Africa.

If the hon the Minister of Finance really wants to scrap apartheid, he must persuade his leader, the State President, to get rid of the ridiculous, costly and unnecessary structures known as “own affairs” structures operating within the system. Moreover, he must stop the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning from going further and setting up a vast number of non-viable, racially-based local authorities throughout South Africa. [Interjections.]

A second issue over which the battle is going to be won or lost is that of the socioeconomic reconstruction of our society. I believe that the Government should undertake a vast programme of socio-economic reconstruction. There were references to this in the hon the Minister’s speech, and provision has been made for it in the Budget. What the hon the Minister was doing, however, was merely echoing what the State President said way back in January—and nothing has happened since the State President made his speech in January! [Interjections.] I have no doubt that, at the end of this session, we will refer once again to what happened after the State President’s speech in January. [Interjections.] We are waiting with bated breath to find what, in fact, is going to happen during this process of “real, effective reconstruction”. [Interjections.]

The provisions that have been made are hopelessly inadequate and the mood of this Government—I say it in all sincerity—is far too complacent when one considers the vital role that socio-economic reconstruction has to play in bringing peace and stability to South Africa.

I should like to use a simple illustration to try to get a point across—and I address myself to any one of the younger hon members on that side of the House. If one of those hon members were a young Black man living in a township on the fringes of our cities or in a squatter camp in either the urban or the rural areas, would he be a moderate or would he be a revolutionary? Would he be a free-marketeer or would he be a Marxist? Would he stand for peace or would he resort to violence? [Interjections.] I ask those questions because we are dealing with millions and millions of people who are being faced with that ineluctable choice. They do not make that choice of their own volition; society demands that they make that choice.

Let me put a further question to those hon members. If one of them were to see in the South Africa around him all the inequalities and inequities of wealth, status, opportunity and power, how would he react? If one of those hon members was part of a community with an unemployment rate of more or less 30% how would he react? If he suffered the insecurity of laws which discriminated against him and at the same time he suffered the insecurity of living in a society racked with internal division and instability, how would he react? If he saw how others lived who did not have his Black face and where they were getting while he was trapped in his Black ghetto with hopelessly inferior facilities, how would he react? If he was bullied by thugs in his community and at the same time harassed by the police; if he, by the application of the laws, was made to feel an inferior citizen in his own country; if he felt the sting of apartheid laws and at the same time he was wooed by Black demogogues who offered him status, dignity, opportunity and even power in a new South Africa which they described to him, where would he stand? Would he be a moderate or would he be a revolutionary?

I have no doubt that if any one of us asked himself that question in that environment he would not be a moderate; he would join the revolution. That is the reality of the choice which is being forced on millions and millions of Black people in South Africa, and if we have any hope of turning those young Black people away from revolution we have not only got to scrap the apartheid system under which they are forced to live but we will have to undertake a socio-economic reconstruction of the very society of which they are part.

This is going to involve a massive upgrading of the living conditions in the Black townships far beyond anything which has been contemplated by the Government so far. It is going to have to involve the total removal of every restriction which denies full access to the opportunities which can be offered by the free enterprise system in South Africa. It will have to involve the scrapping of all restrictions in education, employment, entrepreneurship and the ownership of property. It is going to involve the lowering of the thresholds through massive deregulation to enable those people from the Third World to cross those thresholds into a new environment with its new opportunities which are provided by the modern First World economy. It is not only going to require removing barriers but also positive action designed to ease the process of urbanisation on the one hand and to undo the damage and the inequalities and the inequities which have resulted from decade after decade of apartheid in South Africa.

I understand that the hon the Minister has made provisions; there are provisions and they are good but they are inadequate. That does not, however, reflect the mood of this Government.

One had only to listen to the debate of the past four days. What feeling of earnestness and seriousness was forthcoming from the hon Government members in respect of the urgency of the need for economic reconstruction?

Nothing!

When we look at the allocation of money for housing we find that some R650 million has been set aside for this purpose. However, figures given to me in this House during this session show that the known shortage of houses for Blacks—that is leaving out the TBVC countries—is just on 400 000. This means that well over 2 million Blacks are completely unhoused. This is also leaving aside those people who are living in substandard housing and squatter camps all over South Africa.

The hon the Minister will say: “Yes, but will it require money?” Of course it will require money, not just public funds but money which is generated by the private sector and the sweat equity of individuals themselves. Of course it will require money.

But it will also require more than money. It will require of this Government a quality of imagination and a temper of will which this Government certainly has not demonstrated to date. One will ask if it will require sacrifices. Yes, it will require sacrifices, but they will be far smaller than the sacrifices we will be compelled to make if we do not act now.

In the past the cycles of South Africa’s development have very often been initiated either by export-led growth or by import substitution. They have been two of the generators of economic development in a cyclical situation.

We on this side of the House believe that the imaginative and positive handling of an urbanisation process could be utilised as a third major strategy for getting our economy off the ground and for the expansion of our national wealth. [Interjections.] We do not believe it is a danger; we believe it is a tremendous opportunity.

Of course, none of these economic objectives will be achieved if our economy and our people are held back by a massive, expensive and top heavy Government structure. This is what is happening in South Africa today. In spite of all the talk about rationalisation, government in South Africa just grows and grows to the extent that it has become the biggest growth industry in this country today. One just has to look at statistics referring to government at parliamentary level. In the present tricameral system there are three separate Houses, various sets of officials, standing committees and officials working in own affairs departments. We have 308 MPs, 60 President’s Councillors, 32 Ministers, 10 Deputy Ministers, Chief Whips, Chairmen, 6 Deputy Chairmen and 28 Whips. That is what we have already.

We used to have one Minister concerned with health sitting in this Parliament. Now we have four. We have four Ministers responsible for agriculture, five for education and six for housing. What is going on?

If, because we want to be non-discriminatory, we bring Blacks into this parliamentary system on a reasonably equal basis, we will end up with a parliament of 970 MPs, 189 President’s Councillors, 103 Cabinet Ministers, 88 Whips and so on. That does not include the independent states which we have spawned with the 43 Cabinet Ministers and 401 MPs.

I am discussing this matter because the South African taxpayer is the largest contributor to this bureaucracy, whether it exists in South Africa or in the TBVC countries. It is therefore not surprising that the latest statistics show that 40% of South African Whites are not employed in the private sector but are locked into the bureaucracy of government. We are never going to experience socio-economic reform this way.

Is a teacher a bureaucrat?

No, but it is interesting that while the number of White teachers has not increased significantly over the years, the number of Black, Coloured and Indian teachers has. The number of Whites employed in the central Government of South Africa has increased at twice the rate of the growth of the other population groups. We are not dealing with the provincial administration; we are dealing with the central Government of South Africa.

This finally brings me to the third area in which the battle is going to be joined and in which it is going to be lost or won. We believe that it is more than critically important—it is almost past the hour—for this country to evolve a system for the genuine sharing of power by all the people of this country. I want to make it quite clear that we are not talking about cosy consultation; about selective co-option; about exercising delegated responsibility and about an unwilling cohesion—that is not the sharing of power. What we mean by power-sharing is joint decision-making on all issues by properly elected representatives in shared constitutional structures at all levels of Government! We believe that there are options available to us in that context, but that there are no options outside that particular context.

The Government has handled the constitutional process in an appalling way. I want to say to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that he is a workaholic. He works darn hard and I accept that, but he has also become a Mr Short-term Fix-it. He is actually quite clever with words and negotiation, and he tries to fix everything, but that kind of negotiation and that kind of quick-fix is not a substitute for a real and lasting constitutional system that is going to work. To coerce people into accepting structures that they do not like is, I believe, a disaster for the very structures and system one is trying to continue.

So, one thing has become certain and that is that nothing which is created at local or regional level—and we accept that it is important to have government structures at local and regional level—can in any way be a substitute for full and direct participation by the people of South Africa through their representatives in the decisions of the central sovereign Parliament of this country. There can be no substitute for that. It is all about participation as full citizens in the sovereign central Government of South Africa.

The issue of direct participation of all citizens in government at parliamentary level overshadows almost every other aspect of political life in South Africa. Yes, we have to get rid of apartheid to create the climate in which we can negotiate and we have to have socio-economic reconstruction so that we can have the stability in which a government can operate, but we cannot duck the single central issue, and that is: How do Black people and people other than those already involved, become directly involved in the central Government and participate in decisions at a level of national sovereignty?

Next Thursday and Friday we shall be debating the Vote of the State President in this House, and so, we will wait for another seven or eight days—and I believe that South Africa will watch the situation with tremendous interest to see how the State President responds to this particular issue— how he and his Government propose to deal with full and equal participation of all the citizens of South Africa in the central sovereign Government of South Africa.

We just want to say that for the sake of South Africa we hope that the State President can break away from traditional Nationalist thinking. We hope that he can break away from the thinking that has shackled that side of the House to the past, because if he can break away and face this Rubicon for the third time—but do it properly and not evade the issue—I believe that he can change a situation which has been one of despair for millions of people in South Africa into a situation of hope for the future.

Mr Speaker, in this House the late Mr Vorster once told Sir De Villiers Graaff: “One can say many things about Graaff, but one thing one cannot say about him is that he has ever had anything original to say.” That is exactly what we again had here today from the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.] I am very grateful for the opportunity to be able to speak here this afternoon after the hon the Leader has spoken, because I should very much like to speak very frankly to him and to his party. In a country like South Africa, where a high premium is placed on democracy, the Official Opposition and the role it plays are of the utmost importance. When a country is going through a decisive phase, however, as is the case in South Africa at present, the Official Opposition’s role becomes even more important. In today’s debate I want to put the Official Opposition and its new hon Leader to the test. In these difficult times, however, they have already been weighed and found to be wanting. Moreover, they are on a dangerous, destructive course, a course which is a danger to South Africa. Let me indicate why I am being so harsh with them.

Great question-marks hang over the Official Opposition after its leader, Dr Van Zyl Slabbert, previously praised to the skies by the Prog Press as the new Jannie Smuts of South Africa, suddenly deserted, leaving his party in the lurch. [Interjections.] Shortly afterwards that party suffered another shock when Dr Alex Boraine, the leader of their most authoritative body and of their left-wing power clique, also turned his back on this democratic Parliament to link up, on the outside, with extra-parliamentary action groups of the far left. [Interjections.]

The PFP’s own Press, which has carried and bolstered the Party throughout the years in the hope that it would one day get somewhere, subsequently called out despairingly: “Whither now, the disarrayed PFP?” and “Shaken PFP is at crossroads,” The influential and authoritative newspaper, The Star, writes the following about the PFP:

Another newspaper, The Daily News, rubs the salt even deeper into the wounds when it reports that Dr Van Zyl Slabbert’s resignation “may have wrecked any chance the PFP had of getting into power politics in South Africa.” To crown it all, Dr Slabbert, their former crown prince, acknowledges that the PFP has become so irrelevant that the party no longer has any influence on the present course of political issues in South Africa. [Interjections.] To put it in a nutshell, it is astounding that Dr Slabbert now blames others, the Government and Parliament, for his hopeless failure, his inability and his dilemma, instead of seeking the fault in himself and his party. Dr Slabbert and the hon members of the PFP sitting here must accept the blame for the fact that their party has become so irrelevant, so slack, that today they enjoy so very little of the support of the South African electorate. [Interjections.]

Now they again have a new leader, who is actually an old new leader, in the hon member for Sea Point who has just spoken. His own Press states: “Eglin rises like a Phoenix”. The hon member stood up here this afternoon, but we saw nothing of the renascence. [Interjections.] We must give this hon Leader of the Official Opposition every credit for the fact that after his great humiliation, when he was recklessly pushed aside as leader, he was again prepared to accept the leadership of that party. Time will tell, however, whether the second error is worse than the first.

Who would, however, like to be in the hon Leader of the Official Opposition’s shoes? He has a thankless and superhuman task. [Interjections.] Firstly the hon leader will have to rescue a sinking ship, a party which its previous leader himself said had become irrelevant and in which its own Press has lost confidence, as I have just quoted to hon members. It is a party that has been written off by the electorate as a possible alternative governing party in this country.

That is not, however, the end of the hon Leader of the Official Opposition’s woes. The biggest task is going to be to keep the grumbling moderates sitting all round him and the far left-wing element in the party from breaking away. [Interjections.] The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition now boasts a consolidated party with a new spirit prevailing. The Star tells us, however:

That is what The Star tells us. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Houghton must just listen. What is more, we know, do we not, that the young Turks, who sank the old United Party at the time, are now bitterly unhappy in that party because the so-called young Lions are in the process of sinking them. [Interjections.]

During the recent election of the PFP’s federal council the old Turks were pushed out of all the important posts. They are the hon members for Yeoville, Sandton, Bryanston, Groote Schuur, Wynberg, Parktown and the hon member Prof Olivier. They did not get anywhere. [Interjections.] In the PFP front benches there are old, mature veterans with many years of experience. They are competent individuals, but not good enough for the leadership posts of that party because they are not sufficiently left-wing. [Interjections.] They are muttering under their breath.

When the PFP was established, the hon member for Yeoville was chairman of the party’s federal council. The hon member for Bryanston was the Transvaal chairman and the hon member for Groote Schuur was the Cape chairman. Where are they today? They are nothing; they have been pushed out. The key posts in that party have been filled by left-wing members.

The relatively young hon member for Cape Town Gardens is now chairman of the federal council and a back-bencher, the hon member for Durban Central, is the new national chairman of that party. The hon member for Johannesburg North—another backbencher—is chief of special projects.

It is a back-bench party. [Interjections.]

As the hon member says, the back-benchers lead that party. What I am saying is that the old members in that party are muttering under their breath. The war-axes have been sharpened. They are glinting. As one of our newspapers has stated, a “clash to the death” has merely been postponed. [Interjections.]

I now want to ask: What can we expect of this new leadership corps? In the past the PFP has always tended to yield to left-wing pressure. The PFP is apparently again in the process of moving towards a more left-wing radical position. When he gets an opportunity, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must stand up here and tell us where his party is heading. We are living in hazardous times. We are experiencing an intensification of the revolutionary onslaught against South Africa. It is an onslaught that already contains clear Marxist elements. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said so himself this afternoon.

We as South Africans will have to work out a strategy for countering this onslaught and driving back the forces of anarchy, but for that we need everyone’s help in South Africa. We also need the help of hon members of the Official Opposition. Thus far, however, the opposition has not done its share. The State President rightfully reproached hon members of the Official Opposition by saying: “You have not helped me.” [Interjections.]

In the much-debated taped discussion between the State President and Dr Van Zyl Slabbert the State President repeatedly made the following accusation: “You did not help me.” He also told Dr Slabbert: “If we only had fewer destructive efforts in this country …”

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must tell us whether he intends to help the State President to lead this country to orderly reform. Is he going to help, or is he going to play into the hands of the destructive forces in South Africa? Does he intend to continue with the destructive action taken by his party? The time has come for the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to spell a few things out clearly for us.

Firstly he must tell us clearly where he stands as far as the ANC is concerned. [Interjections.] Does he support Dr Alex Boraine and his party’s left wing which advocates the unconditional legitimation of the ANC, or does he agree with the hon member for Bryanston and other moderates in his party who sharply condemn the ANC’s terrorism and violence? The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must stand up and tell us where he stands as far as this matter is concerned. [Interjections.] If he were to do so, he would regain his credibility in the eyes of the electorate. [Interjections.]

One gains the impression that Dr van Zyl Slabbert has surrendered to the forces of the left. Is this hon Leader of the Official Opposition also going to surrender to the forces of the left? Is he going to allow himself to be taken in tow by the dangerous far-left elements in his party?

Who are they?

Is he going to range himself on the side of the moderates?

One gains the impression that the PFP is granting increasing recognition to the ANC. They have already said that the ANC should freely be allowed to conduct its activities in South Africa. There are already voices in their ranks saying the ANC should be legitimised. Does the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition realise that the ANC envisages the violent overthrow of the existing order in South Africa and the establishment of a Marxist regime in this country?

Just like the Irish Republican Army and the Palestine Liberation Organisation, the ANC is a terrorist organisation. Neither the British government nor the British Labour Party holds discussions with the IRA. What is more, political parties in Israel are prohibited by law from holding any discussions with the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

The leaders of the Official Opposition in South Africa, on the other hand, are prepared to go hat in hand to Lusaka to hold discussions with the ANC there. [Interjections.] The new hon Leader of the Official Opposition was part of that deputation which, including Dr Slabbert, as it were went crawling before the ANC, and here I am also referring to the hon member for Durban Central and, of course, Dr Boraine. [Interjections.] They were painfully snubbed by the ANC leader, Dr Oliver Tambo. He left when they arrived! The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition really should tell us more about their experiences there. I want to quote what The Star reported about the way in which they were snubbed by Tambo:

This is a reference to the fact that Tambo was not there to meet them. [Interjections.] Where is the PFP heading? They must stand up here and tell us!

In the final instance—perhaps this is the most important aspect—the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must tell us whether their hearts are still here in Parliament. I think their hearts are no longer here in Parliament. Their hearts are out there hunting with the extra-Parliamentary packs.

Man, stop talking nonsense!

I am referring to the packs that their spiritual allies, the Boraines, have already joined up with. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must tell us exactly what he means when he says:

He said that in a recent speech. Does he want to link up, outside Parliament, with the Boraines, the ANC, the UDF and such destructive forces? Perhaps the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition should rather tell us which links he has already forged. It seems as if the PFP is seeking some kind of alliance with the ANC and the UDF and as if its members want to establish themselves as henchmen of those organisations. We shall go on flinging accusations at the hon the Leader until he gets up and tells us where he stands!

The resignation of Dr Slabbert and Dr Boraine creates the dangerous impression of a motion of no confidence in this Parliament as an institution geared to bringing about reform. No wonder the ANC, a prime mover when it comes to seeking extra-Parliamentary change, immediately welcomed Dr Slabbert’s resignation with such enthusiasm. It has surely been common knowledge for years now that there are hon members in that party who are very tolerant of the trend of thought advocating that the party should venture into the extra-Parliamentary field. There are those who believe that the PFP could get rid itself of its frustrations as a party which has failed by seeking a power-base for itself elsewhere. The PFP’s own Press tells us very clearly where it is heading. This Press has been leading the party for years; the party has danced to its tune.

A certain fellow, David Breier of The Sunday Star, writes the following:

That is what their Press states, and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must tell us whether it is true or not. He should deny it if it is untrue. In very great seriousness today I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, in the interests of South Africa, to tame the wild horses in his party. They have ventured on a dangerous course. [Interjections.] If the hon Leader of the Official Opposition does not curb the wild horses in his party, they are going to run away with him. They are going to run away with him, and in the process South Africa is going to be hurt.

Mr Speaker, let me say at once that I listened to the new hon Leader of the Official Opposition. I should like to give him a bit of advice to start with. Since its breakaway from the old United Party, the PFP has had four changes in leadership. In all four cases the hon member for Houghton sat next to the Leader.

Let me tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that things will not go well for him as long as he is sitting next to the hon member for Houghton. [Interjections.] How he puts things together, I leave to him.

Both their majorities have been going up with every election.

She also likes to sit to the left of him.

I should like to enter into a debate with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, if he would just pay attention. [Interjections.] Can hon members now see what is happening? Is it not said that Solomon contended that a quarrelsome wife was like drops falling on a roof. I want to thank the hon Leader for immediately following my advice. We shall now quite probably be able to hold a more meaningful discussion with each other. [Interjections.]

In all seriousness, I do not intend to respond in full to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s speech. I should like to highlight a few of the points he made. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition firstly argues that three things should happen. One of the most important elements of that is, amongst other things, a massive restructuring, social and economic. Surely that is not the discovery of the session. That is part of the State President’s announcement. [Interjections.] Hon members must now give me a chance; I did not, after all interrupt them. Surely it is an announcement.

Just look at what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition does. He takes the growth in the Public Service and then says that 40% of the Whites are being employed in the Public Service. He says we should spend money on social services. The largest numbers in the Public Service are in those services furnished on a social basis to the population as a whole. [Interjections.] No, just wait! Let us note the facts, Sir. The hon member criticised the hon the Minister of Finance. The hon the Minister of Finance, however, told him that over a period of 21 months, to the end of March 1985, the overall growth in the Public Service, was 1,6%. The increase in Black teachers, however, was 9,2%. Is that not part of the social upliftment programmes we are speaking about? [Interjections.] Is education not fundamental to the successful implementation of that facet?

I want to take this further, however, Sir. The hon member really must not be as superficial as he has been today. Just look at what he does! He makes a laughing-stock of the number of people serving in the executive authority as a result of the constitutional set-up. Let us, however, put his model to the test. His model embodies a federal system for South Africa, a geographic federation. I want to ask him how many federal components there are going to be. [Interjections.] No, he is not going to answer me.

I said twelve a short while ago. I was speaking about the central tier of Government. [Interjections.]

No, Sir, I am sorry. The hon member said he was talking about the central tier of government. That is not true. He was also speaking about the second and third tiers of government. Let him have another look at his speech. I am asking him outright how many federal components he is going to have and whether those federal governments are going to have Prime Ministers. [Interjections.]

He does not know; he has not yet asked Tutu! [Interjections.]

Sir, let me also ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition whether they are going to have governments. Are they going to have Prime Ministers and Cabinets? How many Cabinet members are there going to be?

Mr Speaker, could the hon the Minister inform the House whether he had seen the speech of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition before it was delivered?

Mr Speaker, surely that is a ridiculous question the hon Chief Whip of the PFP is putting to me. [Interjections.] I did not have prior insight into the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s speech. [Interjections.] It is nevertheless interesting, Mr Speaker. I just want to say something about that now too. [Interjections.] It is really interesting, Sir. We have an interesting aspect here. The answer to the hon Chief Whip’s question is: No, I did not see the speech before the time.

Do you have it with you now?

What is interesting is that it was apparently in his speech. He now says it was in a portion of his speech that he did not deliver.

Well, how did you guess that, Chris? [Interjections.]

That is really interesting! The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition therefore made a prepared speech containing that aspect. He simply did not make use of it, however. [Interjections.] That, of course, merely lends greater validity to my question. [Interjections.] He is surely not unprepared for this. He is prepared, is he not; he simply did not deliver that portion of his prepared speech. What are the number of States he has in mind? Surely that is an important point, because this involves people in an executive capacity. His system consists of States with executive authorities. How many seats are there going to be in his federal governments? How many governments are there going to be in his components for constituting the federal government?

There is going to be no apartheid!

I should like to know, Sir, because you know, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition makes a farce of an argument in a specific context. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

That is not what it is all about. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition spoke of the number of people who would constitute the executive authority. He can do what he wants to, but he cannot get round this. [Interjections.] Before making use of such arguments in future he should come along and tell us that his proposals for his system involve a federal government at the top, consisting of so many States, each with its own government, those States having a certain number of people in positions of executive authority, whilst in the Houses themselves there are going to be posts that will have to be filled. Once he has done that, we can debate quantitative issues with one another. That is fair, is it not? [Interjections.]

Now I want to come to a second point. The hon member for Yeoville is not present at the moment. He moved an amendment and I want to turn my attention to that portion which is specifically my responsibility.

Do you want me to convey a message to him?

No, not necessarily. It is all right. Firstly I just want to refer to statecraft. I should like to make a few remarks in this connection, and I am doing so with all the seriousness at my command. The first is that this country is experiencing serious problems.

Yes, the Nationalist Party.

Let me tell the hon member that I did not interrupt anyone. I nevertheless quickly want to reply to him. Whatever government was governing South Africa would find itself with exactly the same problems. The fact of the matter is that the hon member for Parktown has no perception of the objectives of revolution in South Africa and the rest of Southern Africa. [Interjections.] The hon member does not even perceive that the entire economic system is under attack.

Speak for yourself.

Nor does the hon member have any perception of the fact that a democratic system is under attack and that we are not dealing with forces wanting democracy, but rather with forces that want to use democracy to establish their dictatorships. The hon member is not aware of the fact that we are dealing with forces for which revolution is not a means, but an end. [Interjections.] Please, I am engaged in a debate with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

With us too.

Yes, I know the hon member does debate various issues with him, but this is my opportunity for doing so. [Interjections.]

I now want to put a question to hon members. We have been debating for four days now. Have those four days of debate in any way brought us nearer to a mutual solution, or have we merely moved ourselves further from each other?

That depends on where you stand.

You see, Sir, that is the typically arrogant attitude that says: “That depends on whether we have convinced you”, instead of the approach that is actually preferable, that of asking whether we are able to make an effort at finding each other on the basis of what we have experienced. There is an ominous trend in this debate, emanating pre-eminently from the Official Opposition, and that is, with regard to the role and the ability …

The truth is sometimes ominous.

Oh, could the hon member not please keep quiet? When he opens his mouth, gone is his intelligence! [Interjections.]

Is that why you talk such nonsense?

Order! I do not want this debate to be hampered by interjections. I ask hon members of the Opposition to bear that in mind. It is very difficult to advance an argument and to round it off if unnecessary interjections are being made.

†I have nothing against witticisms, but I will not allow the type of remark that is being made here. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The ominous trend that has revealed itself in this debate is, in my opinion, that of attempting to question, detract from and undermine the role and ability of Parliament as a constitutional instrument of reform. Let us put what I am saying to the test.

The proposal—I hold the hon member for Meyerton in great esteem as a person, and he knows it—that we appoint a four-man commission to carry out certain actions is a denial of the constitutional mechanisms for the regulation of the country. The threats—I want to underline this today—about the fact that if the Government did not take strong enough action, there would be people who would take the law into their own hands, represents a fundamental onslaught on the country’s legal sovereignty, in which we believe. Certain people’s threat to reconsider their participation in this system if specific action were not taken immediately, is part of the process of detracting from and undermining the ability and the role of this mechanism as an instrument of reform.

Two prominent members—now ex-members—of the Official Opposition, the leader and the chairman of the party’s federal council, decided that Parliament had become irrelevant for purposes of reform in South Africa. They were thereby saying that constitutional reform was not possible. That is the only implication of what they did. I want to ask in all seriousness if there are any more hon members of the Official Opposition who are considering their position in this regard. [Interjections.] If they were to say no, I would accept their reply.

I am merely asking, because hon members of the PFP put forward a demand for the immediate abolition of all apartheid measures, not by any process, but immediately. And whether we want to accept it or not, this implies the dissolution of Parliament before any alternative to this Parliament has been negotiated. [Interjections.] Yes, there can be no other meaning attaching to that. None at all. [Interjections.] The hon member for Berea asks us to approach the front-line states. Hon members should have a look at their constitutional systems and their stability. We must ask them to create conditions in which negotiation would be possible. I shall now leave the matter right there.

The fact of the matter is that words have meaning. In terms of their demands the instrument for the implementation of reform, Parliament, must be abolished before the content and the structures pertaining to the new system have been negotiated and created by Parliament. My contention is that such action is nothing short of irresponsible. It contributes towards fostering mistrust in the parliamentary process. It also undermines the concept of democratic solutions for South Africa. It casts suspicion on democracy as a system in South Africa. There is no other interpretation that can be attached to that.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he is satisfied with this form of democracy?

The answer to that is no, but the fact of the matter is that I am doing something about it. [Interjections.] The status quo cannot be justified. [Interjections.] That is not what hon members of the PFP say because they want it dismantled before we have replaced it.

We do not say that.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was apparently not here when some of his party members spoke. We must ask ourselves how we can purport to want to extend democracy and the democratic processes or institutions to other South Africans when we question the relevance of Parliament. This does not apply only to one person, but to all of us if we ourselves, by virtue of our conduct, our utterances and our attitudes, reflected in this debate, are detracting from and undermining the system.

I think the time has come for us to tell each other in this House what our allegiances and commitments are as far as South Africa is concerned. I think it is time for the South Africans sitting here to stand up and declare their allegiances and that South Africans outside the House—including those who do not share in the decision-making— should say where they stand.

I do not think we can endorse democracy if we repudiate Parliament. We are not endorsing democracy when we participate in extra-parliamentary action. And are there not hon members of the Official Opposition participating in extra-parliamentary action? After all, by that kind of participation they are fostering or strengthening the forces of destruction. I want to tell the House today that we surely cannot endorse democracy if we do not recognise the far-reaching and the important adjustments that have taken place in South Africa over the past five years.

Today I want to repeat that the parliamentary status quo cannot continue, and there is not a single hon member in this Parliament who still accepts the status quo. Not one. Some want to regress, some want to move to the left and some to the right, but the fact remains that we do not accept the status quo. [Interjections.]

I must speak seriously about these matters. If reform or adaption in this country is to follow an evolutionary pattern, this Parliament must sanction it. Then the people constituting this Parliament must be convinced of the merits of such adaption. Then I say, and I want to reiterate: We are not endorsing democracy if we hark back to White supremacy in the moral guise of total partition. Nor do we endorse it if we are not prepared to accept the facts as far as South Africa is concerned, and the facts are that there is no generally accepted set of values. There is no generally accepted economic set of values.

That is why the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, his party and everyone else says that our country represents both the First World and the Third World. That is why we agree that for the reasons given a limited portion of the South African population is exposed to and has access to the economic system that we advocate. Surely that places a restriction on the kind of democracy we can have in South Africa.

It is of course our responsibility to increasingly promote and extend common values to the largest possible portion of the population, if not the entire population. Surely that has a bearing on the concept of development. The process of development will not, after all, permit itself to be hurried.

We forget that the idea of an individualistic democracy is an invention of the 20th century. Except for one country, we only find it in the countries of Western Europe and North America, where the per capita income is much higher than ours. Do we not realise that democratisation as a constitutional process is related to a country’s financial ability to satisfy increasing needs?

That is why I am asking in all fairness: Why do we, who say we are truly motivated in our search for answers to the problems, not take the given facts of South Africa into account? Surely we are in the process of developing a system in which the voters—here I am speaking of all the citizens of the country—can also, by way of their participation, eventually come to have charge of government systems and controls.

Surely democracy embodies more than just going to vote.

Very much so!

Surely it embodies much more, and I should like to discuss that with hon members. Surely it embodies more than merely coming into power.

Firstly it is a way of looking at life; it represents a way of life affecting all other human relations and conduct. It presupposes a specific system or structure of social order. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will not disagree with what I am speaking about now.

Over and above this way of life, this attitude and this social order, the community of values determines the content and the tempo of the search for, and the discovery of, full-fledged democracy.

I wish it were otherwise, but if I had to “dismantle” everything—to use the hon member for Berea’s term—I would be arguing from the point of view that in South Africa there are absolute conditions for one’s identity and that there is a generally accepted system of values for the population as a whole. Hon members must examine the effects of such a simplistic view in countries that have adopted it.

That is why I am saying, with great seriousness, that in a country such as ours, with its diversities, one cannot simply snap one’s fingers and then suddenly, when one wakes up one morning, find the social, economic and political values on which a full-fledged and individualistic democracy can be constructed.

The evidence presented to us in the special committee made it very clear to us that our endeavours should be aimed at allowing it to grow and at promoting it so that in South Africa there could be a larger number of people participating in, and exposed to, the systems that have to reflect these values.

I just want to refer to a small number of these values. I am in earnest about this, but whether we are going to succeed, I do not know. I know we have not yet succeeded, and we are not going to do so along these lines. The Christian convictions and values that go hand in hand with that are already accepted in all the various communities in a large section of our population, but we need a larger section. A South African consciousness and patriotism are growing in this country and we must promote this. One of the greatest challenges or opportunities facing us is that of giving substance to the question of citizenship of all South Africans of all groups.

When are you going to do it?

Thirdly I want to say that a large section of our population supports a free-enterprise economic system. I should like to know whether the hon member for Yeoville agrees with this. The major portion of the population, which is not exposed to the system, probably sees it as enriching the Whites and impoverishing the Blacks. If we really were to take a close look, we would find that it was not primarily the economic system that was under attack at the present time. If one were to destroy that, one would in any event be destroying the political system. In the process the onslaught against South Africa is being orchestrated and motivated from various quarters. It is, however, also being done from within South Africa. The hon member for Vasco referred to that, but I do not want to elaborate on that any further at the moment.

I want to contend that we in South Africa have a great deal on which we can build. We have systems, institutions and conditions on which we can optimistically build. There can be no question of speeding up the rate of reform, however, unless we have a larger measure of control over the country. What I am saying is that action taken by the hon the Minister of Law and Order cannot, in itself, resolve the problems. This must go hand in hand with social restructuring. As far as I am concerned, there is going to be a drastic increase in the amount spent, by the department for which I am responsible, on the social position of Black communities. This applies equally to my hon colleague, the Minister of Education and Development Aid. There are, however, limits to what we can afford.

As far as the hon member for Meyerton is concerned, I want to say in all fairness that he thinks that a four-man commission is a solution to our present problems. Other people advocate systems of authority or authoritarian systems for South Africa, but my question is: Where in the world has this brought about stability? Where has it brought development? Where has it brought progress? That is why I want to say that I am not one of those who believes—I should like to say this here—that the end justifies the means. I do not think that the end justifies the means, particularly not if the means or the methods involve undemocratic action whereby we shall eventually be destroying the objective of democracy.

I want to tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition—I am not saying this with any sense of recrimination—that the previous leader of the PFP held discussions with the State President and said in this House that he had negotiated with me several times. After the interview with the State President, he held discussions with me on 2 December. We held a lengthy discussion, because it was an incisive one, and subsequently we agreed that he would concretise his proposals. I have not yet received them. I had not yet received them at the commencement of this session, nor at the commencement of the no-confidence debate. From that I must consequently deduce one of two things, ie that he was not in earnest…

Did you tape the discussion?

That is not the point. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must not try to distract me with a side issue. It was an agreement between men. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister referred to the hon member for Meyerton as if he had made an attack on Parliament as an institution. The basis of the hon member for Meyerton’s motion is no confidence in the way in which the Government is dealing with matters; it is no way derogates Parliament as an authority. Parliament and the prestige of the country are being adversely affected precisely by this weak Government. It is precisely the Government which is derogating Parliament.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon Leader of the Official Opposition are both supporters of the policy of political power sharing. It was interesting today to see the two of them debating a principle they both support but on which they cannot reach consensus. [Interjections.] Now I should like to see how this hon Minister will reach consensus with Chief Buthelezi and other Black leaders on power-sharing.

You would be surprised! [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister said he would like to give content in future to the concept of one general citizenship. It is a pity the hon the Minister was not more explicit and I wish to ask him some questions on this matter in the course of my speech. The hon the Minister also spoke about greater control over the country. Perhaps the danger lies not in what he said here but precisely in what he did not say; perhaps the danger lies in that.

The hon member Dr Vilonel referred to South Africa today as a patient requiring treatment by which he naturally meant treatment to restore the patient’s health. He regarded the State President’s prescription to make this patient well as political powersharing. That hon member and his party are prescribing strychnine for South Africa.

Then Chris may as well die! [Interjections.]

No. [Interjections.]

The hon Dr Vilonel’s patient appears to me to suffer from acute appendicitis and “NP and its coalition government” is written on that appendix. The CP says an emergency operation has to be carried out on the patient in the form of a general election so that this appendix may be removed. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Bloemfontein North said the PFP had been weighed and found wanting but the CP requests of that hon member and his party that the NP stand on the scale because South African voters are waiting to weigh it and to find it wanting. [Interjections.]

Yesterday the hon member for Innesdal said in the House the NP was prepared to make dramatic modifications to the Group Areas Act. I want to know of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning whether he is prepared to bring about dramatic changes to the Group Areas Act.

He says “Yes”.

Is he prepared to bring about dramatic changes to the Group Areas Act?

I said I would reply to all questions at a later stage.

The hon member for Innesdal said his party was prepared to bring about dramatic changes to that Act. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister is not prepared to reply to me. At present the Group Areas Act is being investigated by the multiracial President’s Council. Is this Act perhaps to be replaced by a Land Affairs Act, in terms of which the Group Areas Act will be removed from the Statute Book? The hon the Minister must give us a reply to that.

I wish to ask the hon members of the NP …

The right or the left wing?

The right wing.

I wish to ask the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply whether he is prepared to have the Group Areas Act dramatically changed. [Interjections.]

Get on with your speech! [Interjections.]

Yesterday the hon member for Innesdal also said he was prepared to accept power-sharing with Blacks at all tiers. I assume the hon member was speaking on behalf of all NP members because the State President wrote the following:

The State President further said:

The State President continued:

Those are quotations, Sir. The State President added:

That is right!

I know it is right as I am reading a quotation here. The State President continued:

That is also correctly quoted.

I want to know whether this will lead to a system of one-man-one-vote actually on separate voters’ rolls, within a common fatherland, within a common government institution. [Interjections.] I want to know from the hon member Dr Vilonel whether that is what it means.

That is one of the options.

The hon member says it is one of the options. Is it the NP option?

We consider all options. [Interjections.]

That hon member says they have all the options. [Interjections.] Does that also apply to an own homeland?

The NP must tell us where it is heading with South Africa. [Interjections.]

The State President spoke of “restoring South African citizenship to Black persons who permanently reside in the Republic of South Africa”. These are the people who lost their citizenship when Bophuthatswana, Venda, Ciskei and Transkei became independent. Other Blacks still retain their South African citizenship and they comprise the approximately 10 million so-called urban Blacks. The State President said all South Africans should be able to participate in the Government through their elected representatives. Now I ask the Government to tell us explicitly whether the Black franchise—that of the Black South African citizen—is to be the same as that of the White, the Coloured and the Indian. [Interjections.] The hon member Dr Vilonel says, “Probably yes.” I want to ask the hon member for Welkom whether he agrees with that hon member that the franchise will be the same. [Interjections.] Does the hon the Minister of Education and Culture agree that the franchise for the Blacks will be the same as that of Coloureds and Indians? [Interjections.] The hon the Minister does not have his hearing aid on. [Interjections.]

What does the Constitution have to say as regards the franchise? Every White, Coloured and Indian who is a South African citizen and is 18 years and older has the vote. The State President wrote:

Now I ask: Is the Black’s franchise going to be the equal of that of the Coloured and the Indian? Perhaps the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning can tell us. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon Chief Whip of Parliament whether that is so. He will be unable to reply to my questions because he has not yet considered these matters. [Interjections.] The State President said:

I wish to ask again: Is the Black South African’s vote going to equip him for equal opportunities and equal treatment?

I wish to say today without fear of contradiction that, if Blacks do not receive an equal vote, equal opportunities, equal treatment and equal justice within an undivided South Africa—within common governmental systems—they will not stop fighting for these. This will lead to massive conflict and confrontation within these governmental institutions and to conflict within the Republic of South Africa.

I accept that the State President and the hon member for Innesdal are in favour of an equal franchise for all South African citizens. May I ask the hon member for Innesdal whether it is correct that he is in favour of an equal franchise for all South African citizens? [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member now, if it is not so, the State President’s pronouncements on equal opportunities, equal treatment and justice for all are hollow words without significance.

I now want to ask the hon member for Randburg: Do voting qualifications have to be the same for all South Africans?

They should be of such a nature that all are represented effectively.

Do their voting qualifications have to be the same? That is what I want to know. [Interjections.]

I wish to tell hon members today that, if all South African citizens have an equal franchise, this points the way to a Black State President and a Black majority government. That is the way of self-destruction and devastation. It would be a reckless act as regards the future of the Whites in South Africa.

In 1982 the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said: “If Blacks are admitted to the new constitutional dispensation, South Africa will be destroyed.” Those were true words; they were very true words which he wrote.

Now the question may be taken further. Are all South African citizens to have a say and co-responsibility in the election of a State President? I put the question to the hon member for Innesdal again because he said he was prepared to accept power-sharing at all tiers. NP members have also said the electoral college represents power-sharing. Now I ask the hon member: Are Blacks also to be co-responsible for the election of a State President?

If we accept the same structure, yes, just as the Coloureds and the Indians do at present … [Interjections.]

Thank you very much. I appreciate that hon member’s honesty. Just as Coloureds and Indians now have voting rights as regards the election of a State President, Blacks have to receive them in the same way. [Interjections.]

Black citizens are not going to be satisfied with a State President nominated by an electoral college consisting of 50 Whites, 25 Coloureds and 13 Indians. The hon member for Innesdal is 100% right—they will not be satisfied.

If the 10 million Blacks outside urban areas obtain representation in this electoral college, they require only 13 representatives in this college which has to nominate a State President in order to elect a Black State President. There need be only 13 of them! I wish to tell hon members who are silent on the benches opposite that, if Black South African citizens were excluded from the decision-making body electing the State President, it would be unfair and unjust. This would not be equal treatment and equal opportunity for them; it would be exceptionally unfair to them.

Why are you speaking on their behalf, Jan?

I am not speaking on their behalf. I am trying to indicate to hon members how recklessly the NP is dealing with the future of White South Africa and the danger of the way it is taking. [Interjections.]

The CP says there should be no Blacks in the government institution of the Republic of South Africa. They may have their political rights within their own fatherlands. [Interjections.] There they may become a fully free people within their own fatherlands. [Interjections.]

There is the example of the Ndebele people who put a request to Parliament this year that their 500 000 hectares be separated and their people be declared fully free within an own fatherland.

Would you spend money on that, Jan? White money? [Interjections.]

Yes, we shall have to spend White money to accomplish this but we are not prepared to spend money which will cause a multiracial government to rule over South Africa and ultimately a Black President as the NP wants. [Interjections.] The NP has chosen a dangerous and unacceptable way. [Interjections.] It is a way with the logical outcome, as stated explicitly by the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, that South Africa will have a Black State President. The Government’s policy of powersharing is not only a disastrous one but also a very expensive one. Listen to what the columnist Mr J S Liebenberg wrote in Die Vaderland on 10 March:

[Interjections.] Some members said separate development was expensive but here one of their own says the way of integration which they have chosen will be much more expensive. In addition to being an expensive policy to institute, it is a very, very dangerous one—a fatal one for South Africa.

The acceptance and the institution of the Government’s policy of power-sharing with Coloureds and Indians have led to the greatest degree of conflict and bloodletting in this country since Union. That and the attendant conflict, destruction and bloodletting are responsible for the greatest economic crisis in this country since Union. The NP’s policy of integration is responsible for bloodletting and bankruptcy in South Africa. [Interjections.] The direction the NP has taken is responsible.

Power-sharing has led to a powerless Government which has lost control over everything in South Africa! [Interjections.] It has lost political control and attempts to placate those of colour and the outside world with one concession after another. It is unable to restore law and order in this country. [Interjections.] Evidence of this is the burning of schools and schoolbooks and the barbarous murder and intimidation in Black residential areas in particular. [Interjections.] The Government is unable to lift South Africa from the economic morass into which it has plunged it. Evidence of this is the 20% inflation rate and the inability of South Africa to pay its foreign debt.

The NP has made South Africa the victim of its own propaganda machine. It is a pity the hon the Minister of National Education is not here. His brother, Dr Wimpie de Klerk, published a booklet entitled Die Nasionalis aan die Werk. In it he described an argument they should conduct with people to gain their vote for the new dispensation. He referred to Black claims, to demands as regards discrimination, to joint ownership, to demands concerning participation, to demands by urban Blacks. He said people should be prepared to admit that these demands could not be ignored. He continued writing about Black numbers, current statistics and projections for the future. He also wrote on statistics concerning demands in the educational sphere, the upcoming Black and Brown peoples. He then added, “Kry hom moedeloos oor die getalsoorwig.” [Interjections.]

This was on 15 January 1983 at a seminar which most NP members attended. Last Sunday Dr Wimpie de Klerk reported as follows in his column in Rapport. He said:

He continued:

This party, with its propaganda machine, has discouraged people about Blacks and their numbers at their “oeloe-oeloe” meetings and on visits to homes. That party insists that people accept its policy of political integration with Coloureds and Indians. That party has made South Africa feel hopeless. Hopeless! And that is precisely what the revolutionary in South Africa wants. By means of its propaganda and the resultant integration policy the NP has accomplished exactly what the revolutionary wants.

The State President and his sycophantic followers have played right into the hands of the revolutionary forces. [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, can you imagine that after 38 years the NP can publish a brochure entitled “Waarheen Suid-Afrika?” And note the question mark! [Interjections.]

Not one of them has stated explicitly in this debate where they are heading with South Africa. [Interjections.] Not one of them, except for the two photos in the newspaper saying “Co-operation” or “Suicide”; one in which all are totally mixed—Co-operation—and the other where stones are being cast: Suicide. The choice they indicate for South Africa in “Waarheen Suid-Afrika?” One takes the road to integration or suicide. The Government’s policy of power-sharing is a suicidal one for South Africa. [Interjections.] That is the reason why people are leaving the country. It is also the reason why millions of rands have to be taken out of South Africa and the reason why people are hesitant to have money in the country today.

The solution is for the Government to hold a general election so that South Africa may get rid of the rottenest Government it has ever had. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Kuruman opened his speech by referring … [Interjections.] Let me tell the hon member for Jeppe at the outset of my speech that I will buy him a banana afterwards if he behaves himself and keeps quiet while I am talking. I am telling him this as a friend. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Can the hon member for Parow explain what he means by his words to the hon member for Jeppe? [Interjections.]

Order! Here is a question to the hon member for Parow. The hon member for Kuruman wants to know what he meant by his comment about a banana.

Peanuts too.

Mr Speaker, a banana is a fruit one finds on a tree. Mr Speaker, may I proceed with my speech?

Order! The hon member for Parow may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Kuruman opened his speech by referring to operations, doctors, confinements, hysterectomies and such things. I now want to put a question to the hon member—a simple question. Does the hon member for Kuruman believe in witch doctors? I am putting this question to him because he himself put a number of questions during his speech. I believe that in asking the hon member whether he believes in witch doctors, it is not an unfair question at all.

Then please put meaningful questions!

It is a very significant question. It is a significant question for the simple reason that the hon Leader of the Conservative Party yesterday quoted a Mr Mutwa, who is a witch doctor in Soweto, in support of that party’s policy. [Interjections.] Well, Sir, it is really very interesting that the Conservative Party has to find confirmation for its policy from a witch doctor in Soweto. [Interjections.] This is really very interesting! What is naturally even considerably more interesting is the following. The witch doctor’s Christian name is Credo. The hon Leader of the Conservative Party wrote a book a few years ago entitled Credo van ’n Afrikaner. [Interjections.] Now I ask whether the title of the book should not preferably have been Credo van ’n Toordokter because the hon Leader of the Conservative Party is a doctor. [Interjections.]

Since the beginning of this year’s Parliamentary session I have found it very interesting to observe the CP strategy as its members have unfolded it to us in the House. It has really been very interesting. I could picture a meeting of their caucus in which the whole lot of them were sitting together and asking what their strategy was to be during the next Parliamentary session.

Was Eugene Terre’Blanche also present?

No, not yet. He was not present at that point. They called him in only later when they saw they were losing.

He was still stretching his leggings!

The image they are attempting to create is very simple. They want to create the image that they are the winners. They are the winners! Have you noticed, Sir, each one of that party who has risen to speak has said they are the party representing the Afrikaner, the White, in this country. They bring us messages from the voters. They convey messages because they are the people in contact with the voters.

Except for old Frans!

He is playing his organ!

They are the people challenging us to elections. Yes, they are challenging us to elections. Yes, they are challenging us to elections! Very interesting, Sir. Naturally it is not the first time that these tactics have been used against the National Party. It is definitely not the first time. The old United Party used the same tactics but we scattered them until they were spread over the entire country. One even landed inside the Conservative Party.

Do you mean Daan?

No, I do not want to mention names; I would rather not mention names at all. [Interjections.] There was the old Progressive Party. There was the old Federal Party. We scattered them to such an extent that they were later driven together. Then there was the HNP which has a single member in this House after about 20 years. There is naturally also the Conservative Party which had two members in this House a few years ago. [Interjections.] Today I want to put the following question, however. If the CP were to come to power, what would it do about South African problems?

Good question!

I believe it is an important question. The fact is that, as regards Black politics, its members want to campaign for a White majority occupation of White South Africa.

They are living a lie!

They are campaigning for a White majority occupation of South Africa. This means that, if we work according to the old census statistics—with a figure of 4,6 million Whites and 10,1 million Blacks—they have to move 5,5 million Blacks plus one to the homelands of the independent states in order to effect a White majority occupation in South Africa.

Give them Robben Island!

Let us assume they succeed in this, Sir. Let us assume the CP accomplishes this. Then 4,6 million Blacks still remain in our country. I find it interesting to conjecture what they intend doing with these people. So this movement is not going to be an isolated process. There will have to be an annual relocation to compensate for the difference between the White increase and the Black increase plus one in order to retain a White majority.

What are those hon members going to do, however, as regards the living conditions of those Blacks remaining here? What are they going to do about them? Are they going to spend money on them? Are they going to spend White money on those 4,6 million Blacks remaining here? [Interjections.] I want to put this question to the hon member for Langlaagte who is not here today. He says Whites’ income tax should be applied for them and the Blacks’ for Blacks, etc. I want to know of the CP whether this is its official policy. I do not think this an unfair question because, if it is the case, if half the Blacks remaining here are moved, R29 million in income tax—according to the figures I have received, the Blacks living here pay R58 million in income tax—will be lost. I repeat, if half the Blacks living here are moved, only R29 million will remain—and then I am being fair! If R29 million remains, will the CP use this for the 1,6 million Black children at school here? Are they going to spend R29 million only on Black children?

The hon member for Lichtenburg, who is unfortunately not present either, said in an interview with Beeld on Tuesday, 16 June 1981, when he was still the Minister responsible for this portfolio that this objectives and those of the Government “bly egter om so gou moontlik binne die ekonomiese vermoë van Suid-Afrika gelyke stelsels van onderwys tot stand te bring”. The hon member for Lichtenburg’s last budget as the Minister of Education was for an amount of R249 million. Now he should tell us how he proposes providing equal education to 1,6 million children on R29 million.

The point I am making is that a policy which cannot be taken to its logical conclusion can be held up to anyone if one is trying to make him believe something. If the policy is followed to its logical conclusion, however, one merely arrives at the folly the CP disseminates to voters. One arrives at that only. I should be embarrassed to disseminate such a policy to voters and simultaneously to envelop myself in the cloak of Christian justice. I should really be ashamed of doing that.

Time is unfortunately catching up on me but I wish to point out something interesting. As far as Black states are concerned, the CP says the following in its Programme of Principles and Policy—I have recommended it to members before:

The CP does not even mention border industries; it also says we should cease development within White areas of South Africa and permit further development to take place within Black areas. Surely that is suicide! It simply means White economic development will be totally and absolutely handicapped in the rest of South Africa.

Unfortunately my time has expired and I wish to close. Today I want to ask hon CP members—and the hon member for Kuruman told us this—how they propose dealing with the position of those Blacks remaining in South Africa. What is the political future of these people? I have relatives in the Western Transvaal. There are Blacks on some of my relatives’ farms who have been living there for six generations already. This is the sixth generation to be born there. They are Tswanas. I wish to ask hon members whether those people, who are now the fifth or sixth generation to live on those farms, have any contact with Bophuthatswana. They have no contact. Why does a person vote? Surely one votes for people who can improve one’s lot and have an influence on one’s daily life. I ask hon members in all honesty what the sense of the franchise is if detribalised Tswanas and Zulus who no longer live within the homelands have to vote for people in those homelands whose decisions can have no effect on them. In that case the franchise has no meaning. Consequently I say today that the CP, in spite of its misplaced bravado as regards the future government—may the Lord preserve us from it— does not have an answer to offer in solution to the problems of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in associating myself with the idea raised by the hon member for Parow that the CP is hawking solutions to South African problems without telling us what the solution is. The hon member for Kuruman, who is not present in the House at the moment, made a great fuss of the fact that the state of kwaNdebele was very proud of becoming independent. Nevertheless it was his people who travelled in dozens from Pretoria to protest to the commission that we were giving land to the people of kwaNdebele which belonged to Whites. Neither are hon members honest in their pronouncements on Rust der Winter. They say they want to create states where they can establish Blacks and will move them by force but they are unwilling to provide land for this because, if we want to make land available according to the 1936 Act, they protest.

They are also blaming us that South Africa has become a state in which lawlessness and disorder have exceeded all bounds and that a condition has arisen which we cannot control. We have become too weak and are a weak Government but they are strong, they will act, they will shoot and they will solve problems. They have never held out any other way of solving problems to us than by moving people forcibly and then firing guns. By “solve” they mean forcible action. I want to say here today that we in South Africa are combating very difficult problems at the moment. We cannot proceed to solve these problems in a childish manner. No reasonable person in South Africa, regardless of colour, approves of the unrest and violence which we find in this country today. It concerns us all and our people out there are worried about the situation. All who are sincere about the situation in South Africa are worried. There are many Blacks who are worried about the situation because they suffer most from the unrest. Whites have not yet felt what it is like to be without work, to have no income and to be killed for one’s convictions. One should not oversimplify the problems of South Africa and hawk facile solutions with which they stir up and incite the public out there. They speak of their strong action as a solution. If I were looking for a strong man on the other side, I could perhaps go to the hon member for Rissik who is a little on the well-built side. He may be physically strong and able to eat a great deal, but further I see no strong men. I ask myself, however, whether the insensitive action and pronouncements of those people do not form part of the problems which have to be solved. One point which emerges very clearly in South Africa today is that we have to deal with these difficult problems very sensitively.

I wish to tell the House it is not the NP’s intention to shoot people in its search for solutions because that is not possible. Control of violence is a difficult matter and we do not wish to kill people.

Today there are Blacks living in circumstances which cause them to have justified grievances. We have to admit this to one another. It concerns me that there are hon members on that side of the House who can say that not a cent of the Whites’ money will be used in solving these problems. That is not the way to approach the problem. Those hon members’ pronouncement that all Blacks are militant and form part of the problem is very far from the truth.

One step the State should attempt is to ensure the safety of all citizens—that is people of all colours. When the Government is not always able to do this under the present difficult circumstances, it should enable the Blacks to protect themselves.

We should not attempt oversimplification in seeking reasons for the unrest we have The reasons are that there is enormous unemployment among Blacks and people without work are desperate. Further, the living conditions of these people exhibit dismal poverty and this is also a factor of which we should not lose sight. There are naturally also political causes which are fomented by a small minority of Blacks. We should also consider that Blacks are subjected to intensive intimidation today. If we cannot find a solution to intimidation which results in the killing of Blacks because they will not listen to what radicals tell them, we shall have serious trouble.

It is true that there are leftist and rightist radicals in South Africa who do not want a solution to our problems. They do not want reform; they want confrontation. Reform alone cannot avert violence. All reform has a period of restlessness and it is that restlessness we should examine at the moment. We should examine it sensitively and patiently and plan how to allay it.

Poverty is the greatest enemy of South Africa and the whole of Africa. We should help the Black residents of Southern Africa to help themselves. The best way to do this is to train them so that they may be able to carry on an occupation in which they may be productive and earn enough money to care for their families. That is why education is so important in South Africa. Each time we speak about education, however, we find opposition from rightist opposition parties. We should try to improve the people’s living conditions.

The onslaught is from outside, but we should avert the onslaught from within and get the people on our side from within otherwise we do not have enough guns to solve these problems. Consequently we should be more sensitive and have more understanding of the circumstances. We should undergo a change of attitude. Our hearts should change so that we and the Blacks can find one another, care for one another, understand and attempt solving one another’s problems. We should not try to foment more confrontation.

In the history of South Africa Black people have always had the exceptional ability to maintain discipline. I have never in my life seen anyone better able to maintain discipline than the Zulus in Natal where I grew up. We should make use of this and not attempt doing everything ourselves. We should permit the Blacks to control themselves because they will do it effectively. [Interjections.]

We should make use of different methods and we should enable to Blacks to do so. We speak of expanding the Police Force by 40 000 members. I say this will have to be chiefly Blacks so that Blacks can control Blacks in these difficult periods which have different causes as I have already said. We should expand the urban police in the same way.

We should also use the national states and give those people more powers to do what they are able to do far more effectively than we can. The picture as regards unrest is very much better in the national states than among us. We should give them the means and not be afraid to enlarge the defence forces of the national states so that they may look after themselves effectively. We should protect peaceable Blacks against intimidation and that can be done only by the Blacks themselves.

I wish to revert to my own province. At the moment there is peace and quiet in Natal and this is due very much to the fact that Inkatha—which is something like a Zulu cultural association—is willing to act and intervene to bring its own people under control for the sake of the maintenance of peace in South Africa.

We should not condemn this because there is an onslaught on Inkatha by radicals today for the purpose of unmanning its members and preventing them from carrying out their duty in South Africa. In consequence I say we should use all people in South Africa including Inkatha and the national states. Moderate Blacks have a right to protection and to obtaining the means of self-defence because peaceable, moderate Blacks are being burnt and murdered.

Mr Chairman. I agree whole-heartedly with much of what the hon member for Vryheid said. He will possibly remember that I personally as one leg of a private member’s motion, proposed the introduction of Black municipal police, because I agree with him that the best people to keep order and peace in the Black areas are the people who are acquainted with the population and the circumstances and who can handle them themselves.

I also agree with him wholeheartedly about the assistance that we should extend to the moderate, responsible Black leaders. I hope to return to that subject should time permit.

†The immediate reaction of this party to the presentation of the Budget was that it failed to attack the crucial issue of inflation and that it was a Budget that would benefit the rich and the very poor while bringing very limited joy to the broad spectrum of all our peoples. We knew that would be a minority view and that the Budget would generally be welcomed, but we made our point because we believed this to be the crucial issue. What was missing was an attack on inflation.

Now that I am summing up on behalf of this party, I want to say that even though we were then in a minority and others disagreed with us, the glitter did not take very long to tarnish. The very people who were praising the Budget the day after it had been introduced, are starting to express doubt and ask questions.

Who are they?

They are financial commentators, some bank spokesmen and … [Interjections.] … yes, and the SA Mutual and building societies—many of whom praised it at first but who are now pointing a finger at the same issue that the hon member for Yeoville pointed at. [Interjections.] They are pointing at the fact that inflation was not attacked.

The question that is being asked—I hope that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning will let me talk to the hon the Minister of Finance, because it is unusual for me to speak on finance—is whether in fact this Budget will achieve the objectives which need to be achieved so desperately in the critical situation in South Africa today. Will it produce an economy strong enough to attack the root causes of the unrest, the uncertainty and the problems we face in South Africa?

We certainly cannot do that in one year.

The question is whether it will set us on the path towards being able to make our economy an ally of political change, because at this moment in time and as far as we can see ahead, we have to remove those things which make the masses a prey to revolutionaries. That is going to take a strong economy, properly directed as the primary ally of political policy. I concede that there are other factors—both internal politics and external influences, revolutionary influences, disinvestment influences and other foreign political influences—which have a major effect on our economy. I also concede that there are good features in the Budget, for instance the concentration on education and on job creation. The question that is in people’s minds is whether we are going to be able to make the grade. Making the grade will be determined largely by the way in which this hon the Minister brings our economy back on stream or fails to achieve that.

Whilst mentioning the good things I want to express a particular word of appreciation to the hon the Minister for having removed the means test in respect of World War I veterans. I took over the struggle from P A Moore when he retired in 1970, and it has been a long, long battle. It has taken 15 years, and it was a happy day when I heard the announcement by the hon the Minister. I should also like to say that I appreciate the interest which the State President has taken in this matter and his attitude towards World War I veterans in his speech at Delville Wood and towards this issue. I want to express my appreciation for it.

While dealing with this matter, I want to say something to applicants who qualify and who have been told that they will not receive their pension until October. The hon the Minister is a man of his word. He said it would become available immediately. I have discussed the matter with the departments concerned and with the hon the Minister. By “immediate” he means immediate and anyone who has been turned away or told he must wait can now apply. Their applications will be processed immediately in the normal course and will be dealt with. Those pensioners will not have to wait until October for payment. I want to express my appreciation for that too.

To return to what I was saying, I have often said that the terrorist I fear most in South Africa is hunger stalking the townships of this country. More than I fear the ANC and Swapo I fear hunger stalking the townships because it is a greater danger to us than anything else.

The other thief in the night who is stalking not only the townships but also the rest of South Africa is inflation. Inflation and unemployment and the hunger and the hardships that these create, are two major threats to stability in this country. Inflation is hitting everyone. My heart bleeds for the thousands of people whose living conditions I know and who are living on the breadline today as a result of the pressure of inflation on their ability to survive. The hon the Minister who deals with rent control will know that rentals have increased out of all proportion to the cost of living index. Rents have doubled. They go up by up to 50% in one increase, or by 25% at regular intervals. Rentals are completely out of proportion to increases in pensions or in the income of people living on a fixed income.

Food is another issue which does not always enjoy the attention it deserves. I do not have time to deal with it now but I shall discuss it when we debate certain Votes. However, I want to point out that this party—and I am sure everyone else in this House—is particularly concerned about the situation which is developing among people who have always been used to struggling against adversity but who are now finding the battle almost impossible to win. If it were not for welfare organisations such as the Association for the Aged in Durban, Tafta, which has bought out half a dozen or more buildings and provides accommodation for people, and the services of Meals on Wheels and other organisations elsewhere, we would have people literally dying on the pavements in our White cities in South Africa today, as well as in other parts of South Africa. I believe that this should be another priority concern.

In the few minutes still at my disposal I want to look briefly at the broad political issue. We have discussed many subjects in this debate, but I have a feeling of frustration, a feeling that we are going through the motions; that we are talking without necessarily listening to one another. Just how aware is the Government of the seriousness of the situation? It shrugs its shoulders in an attitude of “ag nee, alles sal regkom!”. Does the Government appreciate how serious the position is? The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning asked for a commitment. This party has committed itself in every way to serving South Africa and to trying to build up a democratic and stable society. We want to know more details of the commitment of the Government. We have committed ourselves and we accept their challenge.

However, there is another side to this problem. I want to point out to the CP that there are ugly similarities between their links with the AWB and an era that I lived through with the Ossewabrandwag as the political front and the “Stormjaers” and the “Gryshemde” and the “Bruinhemde” as their militant wings. That comparison is too close for my liking. They are exploiting the most dangerous human emotions, namely those of prejudice and fear, inciting racialism. I appeal to the CP—a parliamentary party—not to do it, for South Africa’s sake. If they intend to continue, then I welcome the Government’s undertaking to deal equally hard with radicals on both the left and the right.

The PFP has equally dangerous links with the UDF, the ANC and a multitude of mushroom affiliates. What it is doing, is according legitimacy or a status to organisations which are the instigators of violence, and it is coming dangerously close to echoing the rhetoric of the ANC. [Interjections.] It is echoing the rhetoric, as we have heard in this debate, of non-negotiables. It would seem that what they stand for, is the transfer of power. Having transferred power to Black organisations such as the ANC, they would then start to negotiate, saying: “Please be nice to us. Let us have a little safe corner.” One negotiates about handing over power. One does not simply hand over power; one negotiates a system whereby power can be shared. [Interjections.] We have heard in this debate about the non-negotiables. We have to wipe out everything. Then, in the vacuum, one suddenly creates a new utopia. We have to move from what exists to what one wants to achieve.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition spoke today in terms of counting heads—in terms of the Westminster concept of having proportional numbers of MPs—if Blacks were brought in. It is folly to compare everything with the Westminster pattern.

I do not have time to continue, although I had hoped to deal with some of the things which I believe the Government should be doing. Most important of all, is back-up for responsible Black leadership. It must give visible form and responsibility to the confederation as far as the homelands are concerned and back-up to the responsible Black leadership in the townships and elsewhere. It must initiate some imaginative operations. It is not enough to turn “Information” inwards. There is much more to be done, but we shall have to await the various Votes before we can deal with these matters.

I want to say that nothing has happened in this debate to change our opposition to the Budget. We will oppose it because we do not believe it has gone far enough in attacking inflation or in creating the instruments we need for a peaceful future.

Mr Chairman, it is always pleasant to follow on someone who I think has a reasonably well-balanced view of matters. I am referring to the hon member for Durban Point. Hon members of the PFP may smile, but I think he has really touched a raw nerve in linking them with the ANC and their comrades. [Interjections.]

The fact that the hon member does not agree with the Budget, is neither here nor there because I think the hon the Minister will cover that point adequately.

I think we share the hon member’s view regarding those people who are struggling, and I think we realise that there are Whites—and, very importantly, Blacks as well—who are struggling at the present time.

I know that something has to be done in an effort to solve the problems of those people who are struggling. What worries me, however, is the fact that every time that we as the governing party try to render assistance to both our Whites and our Blacks, the CP gets up in arms against us. It is this problem that I wish to address this afternoon.

*A great deal has already been said in this House about the irresponsible and haphazard bandying about of the slogan: “The impoverishment of the Whites through the redistribution of income”. This is, after all, a slogan which the CP has now taken over from the HNP. This is now their new slogan, and I want to examine this slogan a little.

I want to associate myself with the hon member for Parow and other hon members who spoke about this. Let us not beat about the bush today. This slogan being used by the CP, is a racist, malicious slogan, which is being used for political gain. It is definitely not aimed at doing anything in this country to solve our problems.

Today I want to analyse this slogan of theirs. I want to dwell in particular on the morality of the CP and the HNP in this connection. Later on the basis of this slogan, namely that we are impoverishing the Whites, I also want to test them with regard to their own policy—particularly their policy of partition. It is absolutely obvious that this slogan, and the other statements by the CP and the HNP, have an exclusively racist basis. Consequently we are dealing here with a bunch of racist bigots; more than that perhaps—a bunch of racist money-grubbers who want to keep everything for themselves.

In the first place they make the statement that income is being redistributed unfairly. They then use the example which the member for Sunnyside also quoted here, namely that the Whites are going to get 65,9%, the Coloureds 24,3% and the Indians 9,8% of the budgeted amount of R6 826 million for the three Houses jointly. They then compare this with the direct revenue which we obtain in tax from these three groups. They do things very simplistically, and say that the Whites pay 95% of the direct tax; for that reason they must get the largest percentage of the amount voted, if not all of it.

Let us now test the morality of this approach. Let us look at it in more detail. In 1984, 1 137 000 taxpayers paid a total of R1,794 million in tax. An amount of R2 593 million was paid by 225 000 taxpayers. Consequently the first group paid an average amount of approximately R1 577 per taxpayer, while the second group paid approximately R10 152 per taxpayer. Put another way, 18,34% of the taxpayers paid almost 60% of the total amount in personal income tax.

Let us look at the morality of the case advanced by the CP and the HNP. Their slogan is of a purely racist nature. They have no objection to those 255 000 taxpayers’ tax being taken away from them and redistributed among the other Whites. Consequently it is a good thing if the more affluent Whites are “robbed of his possessions”, as the hon member for Sunnyside put it, provided that those stolen possessions are given to the less affluent Whites, and to no one else. Then it is right. But the moment that money is channelled to people of colour, the Whites are ostensibly being robbed of their possessions. According to them this may not be done.

If one analyses the statistics of the Department of Inland Revenue, it is interesting to see that 82% of our White taxpayers do not even pay enough personal income tax to keep one or two children at high school. But then they talk about these people who are being “robbed of their possessions”. How does one reconcile this with the statement by the hon member for Sunnyside that income must not simply be redistributed because a man must earn his money?

We go further. The latest amendment asks that we cease the unfair redistribution of income. That is the purport of the amendment moved by the hon member for Sunnyside. According to this we must use the tax collected from the Jewish, English and Portuguese communities only for them. We must do precisely the same with the income from the large companies and the businessmen. We must also use it only for them, because according to the CP we must cease the unfair redistribution of income. But they are not talking about the unfair redistribution of income between the Whites and people of colour; they simply say that this must cease.

It is so easy for the CP to say that the unfair redistribution of income must cease, but thus far not one of them has come to this House with a proposal as to how this income must ostensibly be distributed fairly. Not one of them has told us how to distribute the income of the Whites fairly. They denigrate us by means of stories and all kinds of rhetoric, such as how the money of the Whites is now being given to the Blacks and the people of colour, but they do not make any suggestions; no fear!

Is this not one of the best examples of political bankruptcy we have ever come across? Why do they not tell the world how they are going to distribute it fairly? What percentage of the income of the Whites are they now going to give to people of colour? Nothing? 10%? 15%? They cannot say what they are going to do, but this is a convenient political slogan with which to win a few votes out there.

One must ask them whether they are suddenly no longer going to build Black hospitals in future and, if they are going to build them, whether they are only going to use the tax money of the Blacks for this. This kind of argument of theirs is ridiculous.

One can also go further and ask them whether they have told their voters outside that the buying power of people of colour is virtually the same as ours. They do not say that, but they come along with all manner of stories, like the hon member for Lichtenburg did. The hon member for Lichtenburg stated that the Government was subsidising Black housing up to 90%. He went further and said that a person of colour could buy a house for R1 200 to R1 300, and he said that house did not cost that much; it cost between “R20 000 and R30 000,” because the rest was being subsidised.

He went on to say that one could then understand why houses were being burnt down. One buys a house with two months’ salary, and it is consequently easy to burn it down, because two months later one can buy another house. These statements contain a few deliberate mistakes. The Government does not subsidise houses for Blacks by 90%. Such houses offered for sale definitely did not cost between R20 000 and R30 000. The hon member also said that it was easy to burn them down because two months later one could buy another house. The hon member should really be ashamed of himself. Is that how low he has sunk politically? Why did he not pick up the telephone and find out what the facts were? The newest houses in Langa today only cost between R7 900 and R8 500. They are only 30 sq metres in size, and we want to tell the hon member for Lichtenburg and all his Whites that we can build each and every one of them a house for R8 500 if they want a house of those standards, which is 30 sq metres in size. The hon member must not think that for R8 500 his voters can get a house which is 150 sq metres in size, standing on a plot which is 1 200 sq metres in size, and which has four bedrooms, two bathrooms and a swimming-pool. If a Black man builds a house in his area which is 150 sq metres in size, he pays precisely the same price for it as the White man does.

Members of the CP/HNP even go so far as to visit elderly people living in Government villages and civil servants living in the less affluent State-owned houses and show them colour photographs of the best Black houses. Then they are told: Do you see what PW Botha is doing for the Blacks? Just look at this, vote for us. Then you can live in a house like this, and the Blacks can come and live in a hovel like the one you are living. Such disgraceful things are happening in this country.

We just want to say that we on this side of the House are very definitely not closing our eyes to the realities. All the citizens of our country, everyone who works here, from the lowliest labourer up to the most highly skilled person, is helping to keep our country prosperous. Everybody is helping to improve our country’s prosperity and its economy. That is why we say that everyone who is doing this must also enjoy a part of that prosperity. Economy and trade are colourblind. Do not allow the result to become colour-conscious. We want to tell the CP that they are going to make it colour-conscious if they carry on like this, but unfortunately in the long run we will be conscious of one colour only—red.

Mr Chairman, during the past two years we have been dealing in this country with a front organisation of the CP, which operates in the cultural sphere. This organisation is known as the Afrikaner-Volkswag. I am reasonably certain that the hon member for Pietersburg also has an active role to play there. From time to time the CP denies that this organisation is operating in the sphere of party politics. I am in possession of a circular signed by a clergyman of the Reformed Church, Rev E van der Westhuizen. The introduction to this circular reads as follows:

He then goes on to make an attack on the person of the State President. Now I want to know from the hon member for Pietersburg whether he agrees with allegations of this kind. Yes or no? [Interjections.] Is the Volkswag entitled to enter the sphere of party politics? Yes or no?

Get on with your speech!

All I want to hear from the hon member is a yes or a no.

Yes and no (Ja-nee).

Sir, the hon member cannot reply because he cannot dispute the facts. If these are now the facts, and the hon the Leader of the CP is in fact actively involved in the Volkswag, I want to point out something to the hon member for Pietersburg this afternoon. This also applies to the hon member for Rissik. After all, the hon member for Rissik also made the following promise in terms of the Confessio Belgica, as in fact most of us have done. I should just like to quote the introduction to section 36 of the Confessio Belgica. Today I should then like to ask the hon member for Rissik, and of course his hon leader too, how they can justify a circular of this kind in fact being published. How can they condone this kind of thing? Section 36 of the Confessio Belgica deals with the civil authority and begins as follows:

And so on. Until such time as the hon the Leader of the Conservative Party has repudiated this clergyman of the Reformed Church, I do not have any reason to believe that it was not the objective of the Afrikaner Volkswag to serve as a front organisation for the Conservative Party. [Interjections.]

In the past they schemed with all kinds of organisations. Eventually they arrived at the Afrikaner Volkswag. [Interjections.]

This afternoon I want to state that the Afrikaner Volkswag is the quasi-cultural arm of the Conservative Party. [Interjections.]

And what about the Broederbond?

Sir, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central would seem to know more about the Broederbond than I do. [Interjections.] By the way I notice that less than 20% of the hon members of the CP are in the House at the moment.

Did you count Tant Bessie? [Interjections.]

Furthermore, I also want to refer briefly this afternoon to the statements made by the hon member for Kuruman in this House on 5 February of this year. Unfortunately at that stage I could not react to what he said. The topic under discussion on that occasion was the matter of the tranquility among the Tswana people. I am quoting what the hon member for Kuruman said on that occasion (Hansard, 5 February 1986, col 244):

There are no CP’s there either!

I concede that these facts are correct. They are correct and valid until the hon the Leader of the Conservative Party holds a meeting in such an area. What are the relevant facts now? On the occasion of the by-election in Vryburg last year, which the Conservative Party lost very badly of course, the hon the Leader of the Conservative Party held a meeting in Mafikeng.

Who was that? Ferdi?

No, the bone thrower.

I now want to quote here from a report which appeared in The Mail— that is their local newspaper—dated 4 October 1985. It reads as follows:

And I could continue in this vein, with reference to letters which the said newspaper received.

But the facts are that the day after the hon the Leader of the Conservative Party appeared in Mmabatho, President Mangope had to close the University of Bophuthatswana. The next day—the hon member for Vryburg will be able to confirm this—there was chaos in Mafeking.

As far as Winterveld.

Yes, the hon member is quite right. It later spread as far as Winterveld. [Interjections.] What I am saying is that every people in South Africa will be peaceful until the CP appears on the scene. [Interjections.]

If I may say a few words about the financial sphere, I find it interesting …

What about Lawaaikamp?

At the moment there is more peace in Lawaaikamp than in that hon member’s party. As a matter of fact peace prevailed there until Dr Jan van Eck, who in any case was at one stage a wandering South African came and interfered in the affairs of George. [Interjections.] He did not help to sort out or solve the problems there at all. That was done by our own party. Only yesterday he came and interfered there in matters which had nothing to do with him. [Interjections.] As a matter of fact I am not so sure that he did not help to stir up violence.

The unemployment figure in the country is a yardstick of the country’s economy. On the one hand it is alarming that during the past nine years we have had no net increase in Black employment in the country. On the other hand it is gratifying that under the guidance of the State President and the hon the Minister of Finance during the past year a dramatic effort has been made to create new employment opportunities. But the fact remains that every year approximately 250 000 Black people enter the labour market. This year the creation of employment should be our primary objective; and it should not only be a by-product of the economic growth we expect.

Now I want to connect this matter with the shortage of accommodation we are experiencing in the RSA at the moment. I am of the opinion that our shortage of accommodation in this country can afford us an opportunity to bring down the unemployment figure in this country too. I want to quote to hon members what Dr Rupert, the Chairman of the Rembrandt Group, said on 2 August 1985 in his annual report. He said:

This afternoon I want to say something: It is within our power to convert the poverty culture in this country into a prosperity culture if we make use of these opportunities which have virtually been handed to us on a plate.

What is the estimated shortage of dwelling units today? The shortage is as follows: Blacks, 500 000; Coloureds, 76 000; Asians, 44 000; and Whites, 16 000. Calculated at 1985 prices, at present it will cost R16 000 million simply to eliminate this backlog. Consequently we cannot afford to build luxuriously in this country. But what we can do is to help people to help themselves. [Interjections.]

I want to agree with the hon member for Primrose who appealed for a “National Thrift Year”. I could elaborate on this a great deal. In the past a person who did not save was considered a spendthrift. Today a new generation has come to the fore; a South African generation which in my opinion is suffering from a debt-financed buying orgy. This phenomenon is apparently based on the principle that what one cannot afford today one will in any case be able to afford tomorrow. We must make it worth people’s while again—particularly by means of tax concessions—to save and to build up a nest egg for the holiday season—in the same way that we as a people will be able to look forward to a holiday season under the guidance of the hon the Minister of Finance.

We will not be able to achieve political stability in this country if we do not have financial stability too. We can triumph if we find the political solutions to reconcile the divergent political aspirations in this country. A political party that wants to govern this country must be judged by the long-term benefits it can bring for this country and not by the short-term benefits it can dish up to the electorate. I believe that the NP can offer those solutions.

†South Africa is facing many problems— challenges of an constitutional, economic and social nature. Despair will not take us anywhere. In South Africa our diversity should not lead us to conflict but rather to unity.

*The NP believes in a better quality of life for all its people. The NP is acquainted with the aspirations of other people because it was born out of aspirations.

Are you going to build a high school in Lawaaikamp?

If the hon member carries on making such a noise (lawaai), we are still going to elect him the mayor of Lawaaikamp. That is where he belongs.

What does that mean?

We can also give him a chain.

There is no doubt in my mind that under the capable guidance of the State President and with the firm hand of such a Minister of Finance as the one we have on the helm, we can go forward to meet the future with confidence under the guidance of the NP.

Mr Chairman, the hon member who has just sat down said one very true thing. He said that if the economic situation is dependent on the political situation we have to get the politics right before we could get the rest right. That is all I am going to say to that hon member because I want to turn to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning who is standing at the entrance to the Chamber. I want to react briefly to his important speech and therefore I would like the hon the Minister to listen to what I have to say.

We are all aware in this country today that we are subject to enormous economic and political tension and pressure and upheaval. We also know that the hon the Minister who made a speech this afternoon is a very important member of the Cabinet. He is one of the most important members because it is his job to be the nuts and bolts man, to implement the policy directions of the NP. In fact, he reminds me a little bit of the Gilbert and Sullivan operetta, The Mikado, in which the two main characters were Koko and Poobah. Koko was the Lord High Executioner and Poobah was Lord High Everything Else. I think “Lord High Everything Else” is perhaps what we could call the hon the Minister at this time because he has gathered everything underneath him.

Under those circumstances, listening to him speak this afternoon, one would have thought that he would have delivered a speech of importance, a speech that would spell out the direction in which this Government was trying to take this country; a speech that would fill out what the State President had said at the opening of this session of Parliament. The hon the Minister spoke for 30 minutes until Mr Speaker had to ask him to sit down because his time had expired. In all that time he did not say anything that took the reform process in South Africa one single step further. Let me ask his colleague the hon the Minister of Finance what the hon the Minister said that was of importance. What sticks in the hon the Minister’s mind as being important to give us in South Africa some hope that there is a new constitutional dispensation that is going to flow from this Parliament which will give us a peaceful future in South Africa? I submit that the hon the Minister’s speech was a total non-event and, as such, was extremely disappointing.

I want to turn now to the situation in this country as it is affected by the hon the Minister of Finance. Only today there appeared an article in Business Day under the headline “Motor makers below the point of survival” which stated:

They use the word “survival”.

It is very well known that when the motor industry sneezes, Port Elizabeth gets pneumonia. The motor industry in this country is sick and the results in Port Elizabeth are absolutely tragic. It is estimated that unemployment in the Black townships of Port Elizabeth is running at 56%. That is one of the direct consequences of the drop-off in the motor industry. I do not have to spell out the consequences of that unemployment. The hon the Minister of Law and Order knows them full well, as does his Police. They know what the results of the economic depression in Port Elizabeth are. The State President knows as well. He imposed a state of emergency which lasted from July 1985 right up until last month.

One of the best ways therefore that we can help Port Elizabeth is to help cure the ailments of the motor industry. Let us look at some figures apart from those that I read out from today’s paper. In 1985 the car market took a beating and sold only 204 000 vehicles as compared with 301 000 in 1981. The sales were down 33%. Since 1985 the situation has become worse. February 1986 was the worst February since 1977—the worst in nine years. The same applied to March of this year. This year’s sales are more than 25% down on last year and, if this continues, we are looking at a total car market of plus/minus 160 000 vehicles. This compares with 301 000 in 1981.

Car ownership in South Africa is good among Whites but very bad among other population groups. In the USA there are 698 cars per 1 000 people, in Australia 535 cars and in Germany 416 cars per 1 000 people. In South Africa there are 604 cars per 1 000 Whites but only 22 vehicles per 1 000 Blacks.

The price of cars has climbed astronomically, and more and more South Africans are unable to afford new cars. As I have said before, this has impacted on employment. In December 1983 there were 47 570 employees in car plants in South Africa. By December 1985 this had dropped to 33 000—a drop of 30%. The components industry’s drop is even worse. They estimate a loss of 25 000 jobs. In Port Elizabeth itself there were 16 000 hourly paid workers in three motor plants. By January 1986 this had dropped to only 8 315—a drop of 49%. That is the extent of the problem and there are a number of reasons for it.

The biggest reason, however, is the extent to which the motor industry is taxed. I would like to spell out to this House the extent of this taxation in 1985. Let us deal with GST first. If we take the fact that 305 000 new vehicles were sold at an average of R16 500 each, then R600 million was collected in GST on new vehicles. On used vehicles it is estimated that some R690 million was collected. On a parts turnover of R1 500 million a total of R180 million in GST was collected. For R1 500 million’s worth of service a total of another R180 million was collected. This gives us a grand total of R1 650 million collected in GST on those four items. This is certainly an enormous sum. In addition, they levied GST on petrol which brought in an extra R736 million. We are now looking at a figure of R2 386 million in GST.

There was also customs and excise duty amounting to some R300 million on vehicles and R295 million on petrol. Four cents was levied for every litre of petrol sold for the Central Energy Fund which amounted to R295 million, and five cents per litre for the National Road Fund which brought in another R368 million.

All these amounts add up to a total of R3 644 million extracted from the motor industry by the fisc. This is an enormous sum of money. Imagine the reduction in inflation and particularly in food costs if not all of this had been levied. This is not, however, the end of the story. If Poohbah has his way, the motor industry will also be taxed on turnover and employment for the regional services councils. In addition there is the fringe benefits tax which is harmful to the motor industry.

You cannot bring that into the equation.

I am saying that it is harmful to the motor industry; I have not quantified it. The hon the Minister knows that it has been harmful. Every Motor Industries Federation and Naamsa body has told his department and the Margo Commission that the fringe benefits tax has been harmful to the motor industry.

It is more harmful to the taxpayer.

The Government takes GST on a vehicle an average of four times. It has been estimated that a car bought new is then sold three times as a used car. Twelve percent GST is levied each time. The dealer in new vehicles makes an average of 10% or 11% gross profit, while the taxman makes 12%. If the motor dealer makes 3% on his turnover before tax, he is doing extremely well. He cannot afford the regional services council levies because they will form too large a proportion of his net profit before tax. Even at 0,25% for both turnover and employment, this levy will still amount to a very material figure indeed compared with the dealer’s net profit before tax.

In order to be able to afford this, the dealer is going to have to raise his prices while the Government continues to cream 12% off the top. There is even tax on tax. GST is levied on retail prices which include customs and excise duties. There are additional taxes which I have not even quantified. The provinces, for example, levy licence and registration fees. These must amount to millions of rand.

The motor car is the second most important purchase a man makes in his life. While the Government continues to use the motor industry as a cash cow, the poor taxpayer pays in excess for the privilege of owning a motorcar. I am aware that the Margo Commission is sitting and that the MIF has made representations to that commission. I would urge the hon the Minister and Mr Justice Margo to consider those representations sympathetically. The motor industry is too important to South Africa to be allowed to go into the sort of decline that is now evident. It is time they had tax relief. I support the amendment of the hon member for Yeoville.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central discussed an important subject today. It is a matter close to his heart, but it is a sphere which I do not wish to discuss, even in part, today. You will understand, therefore, that I cannot react to the tenor of his speech in any detail.

Before the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central made his speech I listened to the hon members for Stilfontein and George. I could not help thinking that it is good to be a member of a party like ours. The NP benches extend from where the hon member for Gordonia sits to behind me over here where the hon member for Algoa sits. The back benches of the NP alone seat more hon members than the total number of members in the Official Opposition.

You must hold an election.

We can include the CP in that as well. [Interjections.] What is the use of the hon members sitting there? [Interjections.]

Where is the Cabinet?

Apparently it has become necessary in opposition circles to allege that the Government has lost control of the country, particularly as far as the unrest situation is concerned. Specific reference is then made to the creation of two alternative structures, and it is alleged that the so-called revolutionaries are in control of the situation in certain regions and towns and that they have taken over. That was also the purport of certain speeches made thus far this week in this debate. Moreover the Official Opposition in particular is displaying a growing sympathy with all left-wing radical groupings and in this process the Police are one of their primary targets.

It was particularly striking, yesterday or the day before, when the hon member for Houghton was making a speech and she received a note from the hon member for Yeoville to the effect that we had taken action in Port Elizabeth against two people who are among their friends. The moment that became known in this House it appeared as if an electric shock had gone through all the hon members of the Official Opposition. That fact alone had that effect, and those people were not even arrested.

She sabotages the Police.

Those people were not even arrested. [Interjections.] One of the men was merely spoken to briefly. They were not even arrested. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Minister of National Education has just said that the hon member for Houghton sabotages the Police.

Yes.

Unless he withdraws that, we shall leave this Chamber.

Mr Chairman, may I address you? Yesterday the hon member for Yeoville referred to an hon member on this side of the House as a saboteur …

No! No!

The hon the Minister must withdraw that right now or otherwise we walk out.

Order! I do not think the statement of the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition need incorporate a threat. If the hon member s wish to withdraw, surely that is their privilege.

*The fact of the matter is that according to the dictionary definition I have the word “sabotage” as such is not unparliamentary. A connotation—which was not argued— must be attached to it which makes it unparliamentary. If one says that someone is sabotaging the security of the country or words to that effect, then that is something entirely different. It is a very difficult borderline case for me to give a ruling on a statement that a person is sabotaging the Police, but strictly speaking I feel that under the circumstances that is not unparliamentary. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Are you not directing the hon the Minister to withdraw those words?

No. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The PFP is walking out.

Mr Chairman, the most important assistance given to the PFP …

I am staying!

Yes, I am very glad to see the hon member. At least she has the guts to stay behind.

It is not a case of guts, I want to listen to your reply.

Mr Chairman, the most important help received by the PFP and their friends is provided by certain newspapers and certain individuals in the media world who are maintaining a virtually full-scale onslaught on everyone involved in the maintenance of law and order. I could refer to a few aspects in this connection with regard to alternative structures in liberated areas.

Are you not ashamed of yourself?

Historically, the origin of the concept of “liberated areas” and “alternative structures” can be ascribed to Mao Tse-tung. [Interjections.] This concept was later put into practice in Vietnam, Guinea-Bissau, Cuba and Mozambique. Moreover it was applied in the Russian revolution from about 1917. Various kinds of liberated areas and alternative structures exist in other parts of the world, and may be encountered in various revolutionary situations. Reference is made to them in The African Communist. They say that in order to create liberated areas it is only necessary gradually to deprive the Government of the RSA of its power to govern and to create a situation which is described as follows:

The following is stated:

I can also refer to another important quotation. It is also clear that the situation in the Black residential areas where unrest occurs has developed in accordance with the strategy of the South African Communist Party and the ANC, and people who make such a sanctimonious fuss about this, particularly the involvement of the UDF, would do well to listen to this. In their publication they say the following:

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North would do well to listen to the following extract:

This is the Communist Party and the ANC that say this:

I shall come back later to the hon member’s letter in this morning’s Cape Times. This is only part of the question he asked for reply.

There is just one last matter I want to place on record. It is also clear from a publication of the ANC that in the unrest situation in the RSA there is a clear link between unrest-liberated areas, alternative structures and activities within these areas. I quote:

I mention this merely by way of introduction to show that these are among the things we are involved in as far as the so-called alternative structures in liberated areas are concerned.

That is not what the hon member for Meyerton was talking about. When he spoke about losing control he was speaking very seriously about his concern at the unrest situation in our country. He made a proposal in this House this afternoon. Unfortunately I cannot dwell on it at length at this point except to say to the hon member that I am satisfied that our organisation is sufficiently streamlined. Therefore we do not need the hon member’s proposal to be put into effect. However there will be time to discuss it; there will certainly be time when the State President’s Vote is discussed and if the hon member for Meyerton wants to take it further we can discuss it in greater detail when my own Vote is discussed. I listened with interest to what the hon member suggested.

The hon member for Constantia, who is so friendly as not to be in this House this afternoon, said:

He went on to elaborate on this statement. I repeatedly asked him to mention one area to me where the Government had lost control. It is interesting that he was unable to mention a single example.

In every township in the whole country!

He was unable to mention one, because he knows that that is not so. [Interjections.] He knows that there is no such area in the RSA.

When the hon member for Sandton rose to speak he, too, said that the Government had lost control. He was referring specifically to Alexandra.

Just come to a funeral with me!

He went on to say:

He went on to say:

Surely we cannot broadcast this message to the world; surely we cannot allow these untruths to be broadcast throughout the world. Surely the hon member knows that what he has told us in this House is untrue. We cannot permit such things to be broadcast.

What are the facts? The police and their families are not refugees from Alexandra. There are at present police and their families living in Alexandra who carry on with their activities daily. [Interjections.] What is of importance is that a large number of the police and their families in Alexandra were removed from the area for their own safety owing to assault, arson and murder committed against them.

Well, what is that?

There is not a single policeman who is a refugee from any revolutionary in South Africa. We shall not encounter that in the South African Police. It is a very big mistake to accuse us of being refugees from this group of people. I want to place on record that that is not the situation.

You are splitting hairs!

The people were taken away from there for their temporary safety.

Surely South Africa is not the only country in the world where that happens. After all, over the past week or two we have had more than one report in the newspapers as to what is going on in Belfast, Ireland at the moment; reports on how police are being driven out of their homes in large numbers by arson, assault and attempted murder of these people. After all, such things take place in other parts of the world as well. However, these events are now being presented by the hon member for Sandton as if they only happen in South Africa and as if the SAP are refugees from these people.

I want to ask the hon member for Sandton whether any of his friends are involved in this. Are any of his friends involved in the situation occurring in Alexandra? Why has he never taken the people in Alexandra to task with regard to their actions against the SAP and against the authority of the State? We do not hear that from the hon member.

I want to say to the hon members for Houghton and Sandton that there is no “no-go area” in any Black area in South Africa for the SAP. Nor will it be permitted that there be any “no-go area” for us in any Black area. The State’s authority is maintained in any place in South Africa. If necessary we shall take even more stringent action there to maintain the authority of the State. People who are involved in the creation of certain no-go areas for us must not come and complain to us if they get hurt in the process.

Mr Speaker, I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether he does not think that the fact that the instructions given for funerals are disobeyed at every funeral, means that the authority of the State is in great danger?

I shall be dealing with that subject and I shall then come back to the hon member for Houghton. My time is limited. [Interjections.] The hon member can make her speech. However I am not going to reply to it.

The hon member tells the world that rents are not paid in Alexandra. Surely he knows that that is not true. Why does he not inquire as to the facts? Surely he need only telephone the town clerk, as I did, and establish what the facts are. He can then furnish the facts to this House, viz that the monthly rentals paid in Alexandra up to approximately a month ago comprised an amount of approximately R325 000 per month and that due to the unrest situation which has occurred there over the past few weeks, that amount has now dropped to R225 000. That is the amount collected this month. It is certainly not a case of no rents being paid in Alexandra. However, why is this lie broadcast? It is not a case of council members working behind closed doors, or of council members who have to have security guards to be able to do their work in that area. It is true that some of those council members had to go and seek shelter outside the area during the unrest in Alexandra to ensure their own safety. That is indeed true. However that is no longer the situation today. Why, then, is the true situation in Alexandra not being sketched?

What I find striking is that although people have been killed and injured in Alexandra and although it is a well-known fact that the UDF and the ANC were involved in those riots, the PFP has yet to request an investigation into Alexandra. Nor have they sent their own investigating team there to carry out an investigation. One asks oneself why they have not done so. Is it because people are involved there who belong to their circle of friends? Or is it because they know full well that the police were not a contributory factor in those circumstances? The other people who were involved are not, however, investigated.

The hon member for Houghton asks me why we impose restrictions on burials.

Yes, such silly ones.

Surely the hon member is well aware of the contents of the report of the Rabie Commission. I need only refer her to pages 101 and 102. I do not have time to quote them now but I have the full report before me. She need only look at the part where Mr Justice Rabie refers to the situation in Ireland and the need for the British legislation in this regard and why the British Parliament passed such legislation which we also apply in our country today. He also refers to the need for such conditions to be set. Moreover the commission deems it essential that in South Africa, too, a magistrate ought to have that power in an effort to maintain proper order in a country. Moreover the hon member surely knows full well that we have problems in connection with funerals and that we shall continue to have them in the future. She surely knows that funerals are ideal political gatherings for certain people. Why does the hon member not also tell the world that over the past week or two there have also been fine examples of the SA Police acting in a calculated and effective way to prevent a funeral from developing into a political meeting and a political gathering?

They all become political rallies!

Only the problems are outlined, but we shall never hear about the cases in which action was taken successfully. However the hon member asks us to accompany her to the funerals. Does she want us to go with her under the red flag? Does she want us to stand with her under the ANC flag? [Interjections.] Is that what she asks of us, because after all, hon members of the PFP attend such meetings. The hon member for Walmer, the hon member for Houghton, the late Mrs Molly Blackburn and other people are people who feel at home under the communist flag. [Interjections.] Now she is asking us to accompany her there. We do not intend to do so. The UDF was arranging the funeral in Pietermaritzburg of the second most important communist in South Africa, Mr Moses Mabhida. Now I want to ask the hon member whether she would have attended that funeral if the UDF had asked her to do so. [Interjections.]

Why not? Of course, yes! I should like you to come with me.

If she goes, where will the hon members for Yeoville and Bryanston be? According to the letter by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North in the Cape Times this morning, the hon member for Houghton would not find him there. She would not have got the hon member for Groote Schuur to go to that funeral. What does the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North say in his letter to the Cape Times this morning? The heading is: “UDF must show where it stands.” Let me quote what he writes:

He goes on to write:

He then goes on to say the man was “a committed communist who must support violence and could not conscientiously join the UDF or its affiliates” generate people of that kind. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North states that he does not associate himself with the communists nor with people of that kind.

The hon member for Houghton is happy in their company and then she still has the arrogance to invite us. I am pleased that there are members of her party who do not want to be seen with her at such funerals. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North asks where the UDF stands in this regard. Now I want to ask him where his party stands. It is a pity the time is so limited. Where does his party stand? Dr Van Zyl Slabbert is on the UDF’s platform and Dr Alex Boraine is becoming an important member of the organisation. One need not doubt where the UDF stands in this connection. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North should rather ask where his party stands with the UDF and the ANC.

I have several reports here in which the involvement of the UDF and the ANC in South Africa is confirmed. Unfortunately I do not have time to refer to them now but I can make them available to the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North.

An important court case is in progress at present, one which has relevance to the question asked by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. I therefore want to be careful not to elaborate on the subject unnecessarily and by so doing create embarrassment for myself or the Court.

If one looks at the history of the UDF since its founding, at its office-bearers, its statements, its actions and the violent circumstances in which it has been involved in South Africa up to the present, and one also looks at the statements made by the South African Communist Party, as published in their journals and those of the ANC in various publications—I shall have it all placed on record for the hon member if he is interested—then I want to say to the hon member that there is no doubt that as far as the hon member’s question about funerals is concerned, the UDF and the ANC are associates.

The record of the hon member’s own party, as substantiated by the appearance of certain representatives of the party, who sit in Parliament, on occasions at which the UDF and the ANC were involved ought to leave no doubt in his mind as to where the PFP stands vis-a-vis these two organisations. Therefore I say that he has reason for the gravest concern.

I say it started with police excesses …

There is another matter to which I should very much like to refer briefly and that is the involvement of the Cape Times in these matters that we are concerned with today. Fortunately we do not receive that newspaper in the Transvaal. It is really a relief and a fresh breeze to be in the Transvaal for a few days where one does not get the Cape Times on one’s verandah in the morning. [Interjections.]

The Cape Times is a fresh breeze!

The hon member for Green Point raised a number of questions in the House earlier this week regarding the shooting of certain terrorists in Guguletu. Despite the fact that the deaths are the subject of a judicial inquiry in which all the relevant facts and evidence will be tested in open court, I nevertheless went out of my way to provide the hon member with as much detail as possible. Notwithstanding this and the fact that the hon member should be aware that any person who may have any evidence which may have a bearing on the outcome of the inquest can submit such evidence, he still went to the Cape Times and made a stinging allegation that the matter was very suspect.

*It is ever so popular to try to accuse the Minister of Law and Order of having given wrong information in this House. Fortunately very few people take any notice of it.

†I am not in the least surprised that the hon member for Green Point raised those questions in the House. Neither am I surprised at the way the Cape Times splashed his views across its front page.

Quite right!

We all know that the Cape Times has been in trouble over its handling of this particular matter right from the beginning. I would not be surprised if the questions raised by the hon member were actually compiled by the Cape Times, because there is much similarity between the hon member’s questions and those put by the Cape Times to the Commissioner of Police.

Intelligent people usually agree.

It is a “who’s who” story.

The Cape Times is in trouble with its readers over its handling of the matter and knows that it is fast losing readership and credibility. It also knows that its future is hanging in the balance. It is no secret that the Cape Times is in dire financial straits. It even raised its price by 20% to 50 cents hoping to keep going. However, unless it drastically changes its slanderous and biased attacks on the Government, and in particular on the SA Police, it will continue to drive away its readers and its advertisers, and it will follow the same path as the Rand Daily Mail and the Sunday Express. [Interjections.] I would like to tell the editor of the Cape Times that his hopes of the Government closing down his newspaper so that he can blame the death of his newspaper on the State will never materialise. [Interjections.] He is closing it down himself because he has lost control over his staff. They prescribe to him, for instance, whether to abide by a long-standing agreement between the SAP and the NPU, and he has no say in the matter. Even as far as accreditation of his staff is concerned he has no power. Does he know, for instance, that one of his staff members, Mr Tony Weaver, who was introduced as a reporter of the Cape Times, in a BBC interview following the Guguletu shooting told millions of listeners that according to witnesses they spoke to, the seven dead terrorists were not only innocent— some of them were on their way to the shop or to seek work—but that the Police had actually planted the weapons on them because they had killed innocent people and the Police were now trying to create the impression that they were terrorists. That was what Mr Weaver said in this interview. [Interjections.] These weapons included communist manufactured assault rifles and hand-grenades. Is it not also quite strange that those seven people were buried under the communist flag and with the ANC colours draped over their coffins? [Interjections.]

It is shocking that such a slanted and biased message can be relayed overseas by a staff member of a newspaper claiming to regard it as its duty to inform its readers correctly and fairly. I have many examples of slanted and biased reporting in the Cape Times over recent months, and it leaves much doubt as to what its intentions are. It recently claimed for instance that more than 30 000 people attended the funeral of the seven terrorists and turned Guguletu virtually into an ANC stronghold. Aerial photographs show, however, that at no stage were there more than 3 000 to 4 000 people present at that funeral. Therefore I say that unfortunately this newspaper, which has had a proud record for over a century, is now hopelessly failing its readers and has become the mouthpiece of the UDF and the ANC. It is nothing more than that. [Interjections.]

*I want to refer very briefly to another matter. The hon member for Sasolburg said here yesterday afternoon that he wanted to warn us that Whites would take up arms if the unrest situation was not brought under control. Briefly, that is what he said. I want to tell the hon member that that is an extremely irresponsible statement to make, either here or outside this House. He must tell his AWB friends, his fellow party-members or whoever listens to him that the Government will not permit anyone to take the law in their own hands, and that applies to everyone in South Africa. [Interjections.]

There is just one last thought concerning the police that I wish to express. In the past I have often stated very clearly that no unlawful or illegal conduct by any member of the Force will be permitted or condoned. [Interjections.] I also stated clearly that we were well and effectively equipped to take effective action with the minimum of violence. As regards school children as such, it is our standpoint that in their case in particular the use of firearms should be avoided as far as possible, but that other equipment should be used. [Interjections.]

Although we will and must act at all times in a disciplined fashion and in terms of the provisions of the law, I wish to reiterate very clearly today that we are often fought within a violent fashion. In such cases we shall hit back hard. No restriction is imposed by anyone on the judgment and discretion of the officer in charge. He acts at all times in accordance with his judgment in a situation that he has to rectify. [Interjections.] No one who throws a petrol bomb or a hand grenade at a member of the Force or who uses firearms against us will be permitted to do so, and such a person will be shot.

What about stones?

Where deadly weapons are used against us, as far as I am concerned those are conditions of war and the men will look after themselves. We are being attacked with firearms in the Black areas! Officials of the State in Black areas are being shot at—either killed or wounded—and at this point I wish to state bluntly that if people use firearms or any deadly weapons against us, we shall immediately defend ourselves. [Interjections.] I am not prepared to allow any member of the Force to enter a dangerous situation unprotected. There must be no doubt on this score among our enemies.

I should like to refer hon members to an extract from a TV interview conducted a few months ago with President Reagan. At the time President Reagan said the following:

[Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House are really very sympathetic toward the hon the Minister of Law and Order’s task. I wish to put it very clearly in this House that we shall support him with acclamation when the lives of our security forces and those of the people out there are involved. We also support every measure the hon the Minister institutes and the hon the Minister has our wholehearted support for firm action and also for his saying in the House this afternoon that he would reply very firmly to each hostile onslaught and with force if necessary. Consequently I wish to tell the hon the Minister that we on this side of the House shall support the very difficult task of the Police 100% in these difficult times.

When the hon the Minister speaks of control, I should very much like to believe that the Police are in full control of Black residential areas but I am afraid there is adequate evidence to the contrary. The hon the Minister need ask only two of his colleagues. The other evening on television the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid had to admit in as many words that there was not full Government control as regards Black education in all Black schools.

The Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning had to concede in this House that the administrative task of that department could not be carried out as desired in consequence of the existing situation.

There are problem areas; you are quite right.

Every patriotic citizen of this country is very concerned at the degree of violence and unrest which is increasing hand over fist in spite of the lifting of the state of emergency. I should like to refer to the hon the Minister of Law and Order’s speech before the President’s Council. He said the following on page 22 of the speech:

In addition the hon the Minister referred in his speech to broadcasts from Radio Freedom of Ethiopia, in which it was said inter alia:

Those are words which make one nervous. Such uttered threats can cause great problems if they are carried out. Earlier in his speech the hon the Minister said the following and I quote it in order to use it as an opening for the rest of my speech. On page 14 the hon the Minister said:

The Government has failed hopelessly in these initiatives. I say this with every respect. The Government’s reform effort, which must inevitably lead to a unitary state, has unleashed revolutionary forces in this country. In the first place there is the revolutionary force of Black radicals directing their attack against the so-called moderate internal Black leaders wishing to co-operate with the Government within the framework of the system. This will ultimately lead to a majority government.

In the second place, an orchestrated onslaught will ultimately have to result in the overthrow of the existing order when White residential areas must also go up in flames according to Radio Freedom.

The policy of power-sharing, which has been accepted by this Government, has set the scene for the freedom aspirations of separate peoples which will compete with one another to be realised within the same state boundaries. That remains the recipe for continuous conflict. The aspirations to freedom of other peoples on the same territory as that of our people can never be possible while the flame of freedom burns in the hearts of the Afrikaner people as the core of White civilisation here at the southern point of Africa. [Interjections.] It just cannot happen!

I wish to ask hon members over there to admit whether the desire no longer exists in their own hearts and in the hearts of their people to enjoy freedom in their own fatherland. Does this no longer exist among those hon members? [Interjections.]

There must still be hon members on that side cherishing that ideal deep in their hearts. [Interjections.] I think at least the rightist wing of that party should retain this. The most important bottleneck at the moment is that the Government is creating a unitary state, with the principles of equality and freedom for all inhabitants, whereas political power is not yet being shared with all at the moment.

In accordance with Standing Order No 19, the House adjourned at 18h00.