Mr Speaker, those Government bodies that are financed in whole or in part from the Exchequer must now, in the normal way, be put in a position to meet their financial obligations in the period from 1 April until the Appropriation Act is promulgated, which is expected to be in July. The vehicle for this is the passing of the Part Appropriation Act. In terms of section 4 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975 (Act 66 of 1975), funds so voted may be used only for services for which expenditure during the immediately preceding financial year was authorised by an Appropriation Act or in some other way by Act of Parliament.

The Bill now submitted seeks to provide for expenditure by both the central Government and the four provinces during the period in question. A sum of R18,3 billion is judged sufficient, being made up as follows:

R billion

The amount now submitted for parliamentary approval in respect of the central Government and the administrations for own affairs exceeds by R2,2 billion, or 16,9%, the R13 billion provided in the Part Appropriation Act, 1988. The R3,1 billion now requested for the provinces exceeds by only R0,1 billion, or about 3,3%, the sum provided in that Act.

As has been done in the past, I must once again draw the attention of hon members to the fact that a Part Appropriation Bill merely provides for interim spending by the Government over the first few months of the new financial year. In the nature of things it furnishes no basis for a meaningful calculation of percentage changes on which to forecast the possible course of the main Budget.

In this regard it may not be inappropriate to remark that the whole of last week was devoted, both in a joint meeting and in the individual Houses, to a wide-ranging debate on matters political en economic. Hon members will recall that insofar as the debate on the Part Appropriation Bill has tended to become a general debate we have in the immediate past not sought to establish the convention of providing so early in the year a thoroughgoing analysis of the economy and of the state of the public finances.

The chief factor behind this approach is that at this stage the data relating to Government finance are naturally somewhat tentative, since there is still a period of some six weeks of the fiscal year to run. For the Additional Appropriation Bill to be introduced next week there will, to be sure, be more clarity with regard to the expenditure side, but revenue and financing will clearly have to wait until the main Budget is submitted in four weeks time.

Moreover, economic data for the calendar year 1988 are still not sufficiently firm to underpin a meaningful debate on the economy. A debate based on more definite figures will therefore only be possible when the main Budget is submitted to Parliament.

Some preliminary and qualified remarks on our economic performance in calendar 1988 are nonetheless possible, and I now proceed to this subject. It must be stressed, however, that the figures to be quoted are not yet to be regarded as final.

Given the several inhibitory factors, mainly of an external nature, that cloud our growth potential, we did quite well in 1988 to achieve an overall growth rate of some 3%—an achievement that is even more remarkable since the agricultural sector made virtually no contribution to the acceleration in growth. At this early juncture, it is broadly estimated that growth in the non-primary sectors must have exceeded 3,5%; but some analysts regard this as an underestimate that does not give enough weight to the informal sector.

The expansion in total economic activity in 1988 is even more pronounced if expenditure trends are analysed. For the year as a whole, aggregate real gross domestic expenditure was approximately 7% higher than in 1987. We should note that the major impetus came from the private sector, with but a modest contribution from the Government sector. In real terms, private consumption expenditure increased by some 4% and total fixed investment by about 5%; Government consumption expenditure, however, rose by only 2% in calendar 1988.

Despite this relatively sharp increase in overall domestic demand, the rate of inflation was lower than during any of the preceding three years. The rise in the annual average of consumer prices thus declined from 18,6% in 1986 to 16,1% in 1987 and to 12,9% in 1988.

Another encouraging outcome of 1988 is found in the estimated surplus of about R2,5 billion on the current account of the balance of payments. Early in the year there were justifiable fears that the current account might move into substantial deficit and that South Africa would therefore head for another international currency crisis; but timeous adjustment in monetary and fiscal policy measures, supplemented by some direct measures, for example, on hire-purchase conditions, averted the need for subsequent, and more drastic, measures. Although the economy still remains buoyant and total domestic expenditure is probably still expanding at a relatively high rate, there are indications of the economy now beginning to cool down.

The current account of the balance of payments did in fact move into a seasonally adjusted deficit in the first quarter of 1988, but the situation improved progressively as the year wore on. In the fourth quarter, the surplus on the current account was running at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of about R5 billion.

The major contribution to this highly gratifying performance came from merchandise exports, that is excluding gold. In the fourth quarter of 1988 the value of these exports was more than 40% up on the quarterly average for 1987.

The capital account of the balance of payments, however, turned in a disappointing performance. The net capital outflow indeed declined from R9 billion in 1985 to R6 billion in 1986 and to R3 billion in 1987, but then rose to about R6,5 billion in 1988. Over this four-year period, the total net capital outflow therefore absorbed about R25 billion of the scarce savings of our nation.

Details of this large outflow of capital are not yet available, but it is known that the major part represented outflows on account of items not subject to the Debt Standstill arrangements, for example the repayment of short-term finance related to international trade transactions. South African importers and exporters, I regret to say, sometimes show an inexplicable reluctance to make use of foreign finance in their trade transactions, despite the fact that forward cover facilities on reasonable terms remain available through the Reserve Bank and that local interest rates are normally, at least in nominal terms, lower than comparable rates overseas.

Despite then the commendable performance of the current account, the country’s foreign exchange and gold reserves remained under pressure. The average weighted value of the rand against all foreign currencies depreciated by about 13% during the year as a whole.

Another development that gave rise to great concern was the unduly large increase in the money supply. At the beginning of the year the Reserve Bank set a target range of between 12% and 16% for the increase in M3. Owing to an exceptionally large increase in domestic credit extension by the banks, however, the upper limit of the target range was far overshot. From the fourth quarter of 1987 to the fourth quarter of 1988, M3 increased by 26,3%. This was despite several increases in bank rate, which was progressively raised from 9,5% at the beginning of 1988 to 14,5% at the end.

So much for developments in 1988. A fuller review of the year, as well as an overview of the present state of the economy and the prospects for the coming year, will as usual form part of the Budget Speech.

Mr Speaker, some encouraging statements were made abroad on the eve of the presentation of this Bill, and I think one should take note of them in discussing this Bill.

I refer in particular to a statement issued by United States Secretary of State Mr Baker after a meeting with the British Foreign Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe, in which he said that they would like to see no further sanctions imposed on South Africa. That statement is a response to what has been said in this House by the hon the Acting State President and also the hon leader of the NP—reference was made to speeding up the reform process—even though this was not spelt out in any clear detail.

Those utterances have given cause for hope, and I think the sentiments expressed by these two gentlemen are something that must be taken note of. They present the Government of the day with a challenge to move faster and further with the process of reform so that clear-cut evidence is available to those who are prepared to give us the opportunity to develop both economically and politically. On the other hand this happened notwithstanding the fact that certain seasoned clerics continue with their policy of making demands on the international society to impose even more severe economic sanctions.

I wish to point out that we can place on record today that the fact that there is a growth of 3% in our economy, and also that we are able to show a surplus on our balance of payment, despite all the gloom that was predicted is an indication of the strength of this nation, its economy, its resources and its people. What I think is required, however, is the ability to harness all of this in a more purposeful and a more positive way in order that we may be able to continue to record greater progress. We are one of the few nations in the world that have not only the natural resources but also the leadership qualities, the people who can be trained and whose resources may be utilised. What is even more is that we are fortunately located in a part of the world from which we are within easy reach of many of the growing markets of the world.

Our export performance has been good this year and it has made a tangible contribution to our earnings. What I think is wrong in South Africa is that our export performance progresses in fits and starts: We stop, sometimes forgetting about it completely, and then we think about the export market again because opportunities suddenly present themselves. I think exporting must become a way of life for South Africans as it is for the Japanese, the Taiwanese and the Koreans. Let it be a philosophy that is ingrained in the minds of our people of all colours and races, from early childhood, so that we shall learn what export is all about, and that we shall know that our survival in the future lies in that field, with the result that when gold may have to be replaced by manufactured goods we shall have both the spirit and the correct approach to address that problem. I think the beginning must now be made. People in search of profits will not hesitate to waste a nation’s resources but the people who have to live here will have to accept that as a challenge, and transform those natural resources into things that will bring much more in the way of money to our country and bring prosperity to a larger sector of South African society.

Privatisation has been talked about and I want to warn that having regard to the limited capital resources available to this country, we must be able to choose our priorities and not go on a mad privatisation run when we also need to create new employment opportunities and new industries. It is thus a question of choice whether to make Iscor a private business or to use that money to start many new industries so that many more people can be given employment. These things are all very good but I think we should have in depth examinations to find out which offers the best advantage for the country. I believe employment for the foreseeable future is a very important factor. Otherwise we will have educated people walking the streets and becoming easy victims of the efforts of some people to turn our youngsters into rebels and protesters if one wants to use that word.

As far as deregulation is concerned, I believe we can take some comfort from the fact that the informal sector has been able to manifest its presence even more greatly in the year 1988 than ever before. I think that is a sign of hope and let us encourage the growth of this sector. Let us deregulate even further to make it possible for the informal sector to make its presence felt in the hope, like businesses elsewhere, that the informal sector in due course will become part of the formal sector and that the informal sector is a launching pad of the arrival of the Black, Coloured and Asian business communities who are at the bottom of the ladder.

I want to refer briefly to the reference made by the hon Minister of Finance to the monetary policy of yesteryear. The money supply was increased in order to help the small businessman, home-building, the small farmer and to give an impetus to economic growth. The consequences of that action, which I believe was based on a political decision, contrary to the right type of monetary and fiscal policy, have given us a lesson which we must remember. Those consequences must not visit us again. I want to commend that to the hon the Minister of Finance.

Finally, I want to refer to two episodes in the life of this Parliament regarding foreign exchange. The one concerns a local bank where fiddlers were able to abuse trust and caused the country enormous harm. In recent weeks press reports have again revealed some abuses of foreign exchange regulations. I take it that in a country in transition, particularly one where instability has manifested itself very strongly at times, there is the tendency to do things and to carry out acts of this nature with a view to shifting money out of the country. However, having regard for the situation in which this country finds itself, I believe that there is need for surveillance and no excuses on the part of banks or anybody else can be accepted. We must do our utmost to reduce this to an irreducible minimum.

Mr Speaker, unlike last year the hon the Minister of Finance has at least given us a short review of developments during the past year. I shall probably come back to this in the course of my speech.

Permit me, however, right at the outset to congratulate the hon the Minister of Finance. Although he was only edged out by a nose at the winning post the week before last, one assumes that he gained new political power in the Government with this performance. We hope that the hon the Minister will also use the new political power he must now come to terms with to call his more extravagant colleagues in the Cabinet to order.

If I must summarise or criticise what happened in the past and the result of this, I want to quote the following to hon members:

I am quoting these words approvingly, because they are those of an influential person, namely the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance. Now that the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance has expressed his opinion, I ask myself whether it is actually necessary for us to debate this matter further. As the hon the Minister rightly said this afternoon in his speech, last year the monetary authority set a target of 16% as the maximum rise in the money supply. In spite of this the authority allowed that target to be passed and according to the figure the hon the Minister of Finance gave us this afternoon, it rose by 26,3%, with the consequences we had to experience.

It is all very well to say that the surcharge was increased to keep excessive imports in check. It is all very well to say that the interest rate pattern was used to keep this excessive granting of credit in check, but that increase in the interest rates is in fact helping the man in the street. The man with a bond on his house must now pay the price in rands and cents, because the monetary authority allow the money supply to become unacceptably high.

The rising interest rates do not only affect the ordinary home-owner, but all sectors of our economy. I want to refer in particular to the massive effect which interest rates are having on the farming industry of South Africa which is battling to make the grade again after a long period of drought.

It is generally accepted—I think the hon the Minister said so himself—that we consider ourselves to be an overtaxed community. The Margo Commission made this finding and recommended that this matter be investigated. We find that saving is not satisfactory in our country. As a result of inflation and inflation expectations the individual is no longer inclined to save as he did in the past.

Apart from the fact that people are being overtaxed by means of direct and indirect taxation, there is also the phenomenon that the State has become a general dissaver. In this connection I should like to quote from a speech which Dr Jan Lombard of the Reserve Bank made recently in which he said the following:

Mr Speaker, these are not my figures but those of Dr Jan Lombard, and I assume he knows what he is talking about.

The unacceptably high inflation rate, and the associated inflation expectations, are discouraging and are having a negative effect on savings. Hand in hand with this we have an authority which is merrily participating in a dissaving process which not only taxes hard-earned savings and the interest earned on it, but is also helping to erode it, and this can simply no longer be tolerated.

It was interesting when the hon the Minister of Finance announced early last year, in consequence of the recommendations of the Margo Commission, that the Government intended to replace GST with value added tax, and that the new system would come into operation on 1 April of this year. At that stage we issued a warning that the hon the Minister was perhaps being overhasty and was underestimating the problems involved in the changeover.

At that stage we were also told that a draft Bill in connection with value added tax would be available in August 1988. However, it is not yet available.

We had expected the hon the Minister of Finance to make some sort of announcement in this regard because we want to know whether the Government has now finally decided to proceed with the change-over to the new system. The hon the Minister is nodding his head and saying yes. We also want to know whether the new tax will be levied across the board on all goods and services. I am asking this question with particular reference to the farming industry in South Africa and I want to know how that tax is going to affect that industry, because to a large extent, that industry will not be in a position to recoup everything if it is to be subjected to that tax like other sectors of the economy.

We have spoken about over-taxation and I think it was a handy windfall for the hon the Minister when he was able to increase the surcharge on imports in order to restrict imports. I think it was a handy windfall for the hon the Minister to enable him to balance his books, but what I find totally unacceptable, is the fact that after he had raked in the fuel levies for the Treasury last year, the hon the Minister of Finance came along in the same year with the unacceptable increase of almost 10% in the tax on fuel. This is unacceptable to the general public and it is also unacceptable to the economy of the country as a whole.

We have not yet felt the effects of this increase in respect of fuel on the business world in general and on the farming industry in particular. Moreover, we have not yet experienced the effect which this increase is going to have in the way of a further increase in the inflation rate.

The Margo Commission found that in certain respects our direct taxation had become unacceptably high. We were given an assurance by the Government and the hon the Minister that this matter would be investigated thoroughly. Last year we experienced some mild relief, but as a quid pro quo the deductions for medical costs and insurance were taken away. To a large extent, therefore, the hon the Minister put some money back into the taxpayers’ pockets, but then, with his other hand—I think it was with his left hand— he took it out again. We now hear from the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance that a thorough investigation is being conducted into the question of direct taxation, and that the Government is working on this. We look forward to the main budget speech of the hon the Minister, when we hope he will make an announcement in this regard. I hope that the investigation will have been completed by that time.

My time is running out, but with reference to the attainment of economic stability, our standpoint is that it is absolutely vital that there should also be peace and stability in the country to underpin its economic stability. Furthermore, it is also absolutely vital that the Government of the day should spell out clearly to the voters of South Africa what its policy is, also in the political and social fields, and how it is going to implement it in the future.

It is all very well for the hon the new chief leader of the NP to say that we must now come forward with innovative and bold ideas, if I heard him correctly. That sounds wonderful, but we want to know what those innovative ideas entail. When we hear that the hon the Minister of Information, Broadcasting Services and the Film Industry told the foreign Press that to the NP’s way of thinking it will make no difference in the future whether the State President …

That is not what he said.

That is what was reported.

Read the report.

It will make no difference whether the State President is White, or whatever.

That is the truth. [Interjections.]

We want to know whether that is so, or not.

Read what I said; not what the newspapers say.

Apparently the hon the Minister of National Education does not agree that this will be so.

We read that the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid said that his education department was now in a position, due to its improved training, to produce a Black state president for South Africa. That is the standpoint, and I want to know whether it really is the hon the Minister of National Education’s standpoint. The voters of South Africa want to know this.

Last year we were called back to this place amid great expectations that had been created by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. The hon the Minister came forward with a trilogy of legislation relating to the Group Areas Act, legislation which was to have provided for those people who wanted to associate freely, and for free settlement areas, but as a counter-measure to this the hon the Minister was to have come forward with some potent group areas legislation. Now, within a year, almost within six months, we have had to witness the NP retreat from the boastful stance it adopted last year. Now they are coming along and saying no, this is the standpoint of the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning—we actually do not need any more legislation now; we shall now devise other plans. One reads in the press reports that they now want to buy out some White spots in order to make provision for Black housing.

The voters of South Africa want to know about the NP.

The White voters!

Both the White voters and the others want to know. They want to know where the NP is taking South Africa. [Interjections.] The NP is not giving them that answer. Having heard the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs say in this House that only three CP town councils are prepared to implement CP policy, I ask the hon the Minister to acquaint himself with what is going on in the country. How many NP town councils are there that are implementing CP policy? [Interjections.] In my constituency there are more than three town councils that are implementing CP policy. It is just that no great fuss has been made of them.

You did it on the sly.

No, we are not doing it on the sly. That is not necessary. We have always done it openly.

Not like in Vereeniging?

We are not doing it on the sly as it is being done in Vereeniging. [Interjections.]

I want to finish. We are looking forward to the coming Budget debate and proposals in order to see whether the hon the Minister has succeeded in his objective of curbing State expenditure, of bringing the deficit before borrowings within acceptable limits and of bringing the growth in State expenditure within acceptable limits.

Mr Speaker, it is definitely a privilege to speak after the hon member for Barberton. I am not going to elaborate further on the speech he made, but like the hon member for Barberton I believe that more than ever before that wild horse known as State expenditure must be held in check.

I also agree with the hon member that there will only be economic progress in a country if there is political stability in that country. For the most part that is the angle from which I want to continue my speech.

During the past four or five years our country’s economy has been see-sawing and has quite frequently been encouraging but also alarming. However, it is generally accepted that a considerably higher economic growth rate than we have had in South Africa during the past few years, would lay a sound foundation for the further political reform which is needed to normalise the position of our beautiful country both locally and abroad.

What we need in South Africa is an economically viable and united constitutional society. In practice Whites and Blacks cannot get along without one another in South Africa. Although we have recently seen that the idea of the separateness of people and communities is still alive, statutory discrimination against people on the basis of colour and language has become unacceptable to South Africa.

The course South Africa must adopt is certainly not the continuation of discrimination. The demand by Blacks in South Africa to enter all levels of society on an equal footing with Whites can no longer be denied. I am not calling for a radical change to something completely new. No, I am calling for a search for the principles of a socioeconomic order which all people can enter without colour discrimination, as well as principles which have universal legitimacy, so that South African society need no longer be re presented as the circus freak of the world.

The urbanisation of Blacks has now started in deadly earnest and it is expected that by the end of the century approximately 60% of the Black population will be urbanised. Apart from the settlement problem resulting from this, the big problem remains the distressingly high unemployment figure which is increasing every year.

Consequently I want to refer briefly to inward industrialisation and deregulation and also endeavour to indicate how this can to a great extent stimulate the growth rate. It is estimated that there are approximately 12 million people in the labour market of whom only approximately eight million are economically active. The remaining four million have no formal employment opportunities and it is expected that by the end of this century this figure will have increased to six million.

Inward industrialisation refers to the employment of these people as employees, as labourers or as entrepreneurs in the production of goods and services which can be marketed locally or abroad. Now more than ever before inward industrialisation must get off the ground, because these four million unemployed persons can make a tremendous contribution to the growth rate. If these four million people were each productively to earn R4 000 per annum, one would have an additional buying power of R16 000 million per annum. If this income is spent on basic necessities, furniture, food, clothing, transport, etc, it goes without saying that as much as 90% of the required goods and services will be produced locally. In other words, they will be produced in South Africa. It has been estimated that over a phasing-in period of 10 years inward industrialisation can contribute at least 1,5% to the growth rate.

This morning I found a speech in my letterbox which Prof Jan Lombard delivered to the Johannesburgse Afrikaanse Sakekamer in which he also referred to inward industrialisation. The following were some of the advantages of this which he mentioned. In the first place he said that employment would grow far more quickly than at present. In the second place the national revenue would be concentrated to a lesser extent on high income groups. In the third place the demand for standard locally manufactured goods would rise more rapidly than the demand for imports because the local demand for luxury consumer goods and very sophisticated capital equipment from abroad would no longer rise so steeply. In the fourth place household saving would be encouraged by positive real interest rates, with a resultant strengthening of the independence of the individual household as against the State. In the fifth place the middle class among urban Blacks would be consolidated very quickly, which is also essential for South Africa. In the sixth place inflation would no longer be fed by monetary demand stimulation. In the seventh place the foreign rate of exchange of the rand would no longer be under such great pressure, and in the eighth place the average rate of taxation could drop without influencing the size of the State revenue because the tax base of the economy would be growing more quickly.

The urbanisation of Blacks can serve as a foundation for positive economic growth. Positive economic growth can only result from the upliftment of the poorer, but rapidly growing sector of our population. These people must be trained, all racially discriminating obstacles preventing entry to the free market must be removed, and deregulation must receive precedence.

For too long now a multitude of unnecessary regulations have had an obstructive effect on creative economic activities. The solution to our employment problem definitely lies largely in deregulation. Authoritative research undertaken recently indicates that economic activities falling outside the framework of formal classification can total as much as 35% of the gross domestic product.

In his opening address the hon the Acting State President referred inter alia to deregulation as an important instrument to further economic development and create wealth. Whatever the shortcomings of the informal sector may be, it provides work for several million Blacks in this country.

The report by the Committee for Economic Affairs of the President’s Council on A Strategy for Employment Creation and Labour Intensive Development made the following recommendation on page 166:

I have on several occasions congratulated the hon the Minister of Finance and his team of advisors on the real, positive economic growth rate of 3% achieved during the past few years. This is not sufficient, but against the background of the withdrawal of foreign investments from South Africa and several other factors it is definitely an achievement.

In conclusion I want to mention a few matters which must receive precedence in order to ensure a higher growth rate in South Africa. In the first place economic restructuring must start receiving urgent attention. Economic stability is absolutely essential, but it must go hand in hand with appropriate reform which creates employment opportunities and promotes growth. In the second place I consider agriculture to be a primary source of growth. Progress in several key spheres is of the utmost importance for growth in the field of agriculture. An important sphere is the provision of the necessary assistance schemes to smaller commercial and subsistence farmers. From the abovementioned report of the President’s Council I should like to quote the following recommendation regarding the subsistence farmer from paragraph 9.38:

The Coloured subsistence farmer in South Africa specifically has a problem in obtaining money and if we were to afford these people the opportunity to qualify for subsidies, we would definitely be able to solve our unemployment problem to a great extent.

After the fine rains in large parts of the country farmers are agreed that we can also expect record crops this year.

In the third place I consider the development of South Africa’s wealth in human resources very important. If we are hoping to launch a successful economic policy and an effective agricultural programme, it is essential not to forget the most important resource, namely people—all the people of South Africa. Training is therefore of great importance and the country can only reap the benefits if more is invested in the people of South Africa.

In the fourth place deregulation and inward industrialisation must be promoted in all earnest by the Government, and in the fifth place State expenditure must be restricted to the absolute minimum.

I believe that South Africa has the rich mineral and human resources to become a powerful country. In order to achieve this ideal it is however essential for all obstacles to be eliminated and for us to join hands to make South Africa the country our Creator would like it to be.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Barberton quoted what I had written, but unfortunately he only quoted up to page 1. If he had only quoted a bit further, he would have realised that I said they had made an important contribution to economic growth.

He also drew us a picture of how limited the CP’s understanding of the economy is. He said that in his opinion the interest rate had increased too markedly. I now want to ask him how one prevents excessive money supply. The first is by way of interest rates, but then again he created some conflict by saying we should encourage saving. How does one encourage saving, however? The real interest rate must be higher. I really do think one should be careful about what one quotes. If one does not quite understand the substance of a text, it is better not to quote from it.

Now I come to the CP, because I listened to them last week, and watching them sitting there, I think that here and there there is perhaps an intelligent one amongst them. What I am telling them is that the CP does not have an economic policy. Let me tell them today that the documents they have are, as has been said, “disastrous”. They will destroy everything that exists in this country. I shall get round to that on a piecemeal basis, because those people have a political, theoretical policy with no economic foundation.

Firstly it would be interesting, for once, to draw up a budget on the basis of what is to be found in the Patriot and in their speeches. Look, for example, at own homelands. That is an old, hackneyed story. We know and they know that this is not an economic possibility, because how much would it cost? That they cannot tell us.

Where are they going to be situated? That they do not tell us.

They put up a fight, however, when we buy up White land to consolidate the national states. Heaven alone knows, if they oppose that, they must tell me, for example, how they are going to develop the Coloured homeland.

They go even further. One of their economic theorists, Prof Boshoff, says they are going to transport the workers to White places of employment. Surely hon members know of the losses suffered on the transportation of Black workers to White areas.

No one, however, makes those calculations. There sit the hon members for Randfontein and Schweizer-Reneke, and quite honestly they are two intelligent individuals. They know, do they not, that what they are trying to get us to believe is impossible. I want to ask them whether they agree with the late Dr Verwoerd’s policy. They cannot tell me, because they march under Dr Verwoerd’s banner—they call upon the services of Mrs Betsie Verwoerd at every turn.

Are they going to renege on the promises Dr Verwoerd made to the national states? Are they going to decrease that expenditure on which the hon member for Barberton has launched so many attacks? Are they going to disavow the agreement Dr Verwoerd concluded with those states, and must certain contracts shortly be revised? Is he going to get up in this House and say they are not going to give those people what the late Dr Verwoerd promised them?

Let us take this further, Sir. We come to the decentralisation of industries. I worked under Dr Verwoerd. I know it was part of his policy. The CP says, does it not, that everything is going to the Blacks. They must tell me whether they are going to put a stop to that assistance, to those plans, to those programmes on which Dr Verwoerd decided. Are they going to put a stop to the development of border areas? The hon member for Pietersburg knows, does he not, what the result would be. Surely that little town of his would no longer be a town; it would simply be a small hamlet. Are they being honest? I am now referring, in particular, to the hon member for Pietersburg. If the Government were to stop granting the assistance it is granting to Pietersburg at present—the assistance with the decentralisation of industries—surely that hon member knows that a large number of his supporters would move to Johannesburg.

I nevertheless want to go further. What does the CP say about this policy of theirs—this pipedream of theirs—which has no firm foundation whatsoever? They say they are going to economise. They say they are no longer going to give the Blacks all the things they are now being given. Black education, Black housing, Black health services—they are going to cut back on all these aspects. They are going to do so in Germiston and elsewhere. Those large, free dwellings in Soweto the CP is going to take away from the Blacks.

Are they being honest? Are they really going to do that? I am putting the question quite honestly to the hon member for Barberton. Is he going to cut back on the assistance being given to Black education today? Is he rather, as he says, going to give that assistance to Whites? [Interjections.] No, we must at least be honest, Sir.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly said that in Reigerpark they would use White money to grant that assistance. Now, however, they are going around amongst the electorate saying that too much is being given to the Blacks.

It is a matter of giving too much to the Blacks! You are giving everything to the Blacks! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, does the CP believe in economic growth in the White area? Do they believe in that policy they are advocating in the rural areas? Can it be implemented in those terms? Surely it is not possible to have economic growth if one does not ensure that Black workers are made available, because for every White worker there must be at least three Black workers. How are they going to obtain economic growth in Boksburg? Are they going to close Colgate-Palmolive down? No! Here we are dealing with people who are either dreaming or bluffing or being dishonest. I can ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition—I know him well—whether he is being dishonest in what he is telling the people. Does he mean that he is opposed to the purchasing of land for Black housing? How else is he going to achieve economic growth? It seems to me as if there is no one amongst them who can count. They are dreaming, because they cannot say, on the one hand, that they are for the Whites and then, on the other, tell the Whites that they are no longer going to allow economic growth by no longer allowing access to Black people. They want to move the Black people out so that their purchasing power is no longer available either. I cannot reconcile the two points. They are either being obtuse or dishonest.

Let us go further. They are opposed to Black trade unions, because this would supposedly only be permissible in the national states. If those Black trade unions prohibited their people from going to work and only allowed them to make their purchases in the national states, would they call upon the Police Force or the Defence Force to take action? I know that they have said that the measures promulgated under the state of emergency should be used to force the Coloureds of Reigerpark to make their purchases in Boksburg. Is that the policy? [Interjections.] Yes, Sir, it was said. Hon members must not start shouting now! They know I am discussing facts.

The South African economy is an integrated economy, and we cannot argue that away, because it is a fact. The CP policy that South Africa should be divided up into blocks cannot be implemented, because it is impossible. Hon members of the CP know that it is impossible, but this is still what the voters are being told!

Let us go further. Mention was made of agriculture. We hear about that every day, in particular from the hon member for Lichtenburg. We draw up the budget and look at the expenditure. The hon member says they are going to help agriculture, because we must have sound agricultural practices. If the maize price is not right, they will subsidise it; R500 million—it probably does not make much difference, because they will help the farmers, much more than the present Government is helping them. According to them drought aid and so on is insufficient, and they are going to do a great deal more by way of granting assistance. I am certain that if the CP came to power, they would add one billion rand to the expenditure item under agriculture.

There is something I should like to know from the hon member for Barberton. I know he is very interested in the maize industry. Is he going to subsidise it if the maize crop is a very good one— let us say 12 million tons—and the maize price is much lower than the export price?

The hon member also says that White housing is not receiving proper attention. That is what they are telling the people, but they do not tell them about the interest subsidy schemes. If we just look at the figures, we see that 28 000 were granted assistance, 14 000 of those being Whites, but that is not enough. It is not enough for them, because according to them everything is being given to the Blacks.

In the Patriot they also say that the salaries of public servants, teachers, etc, are inadequate. We have just granted increases. It cost us R4 billion. They are probably going to increase the figure by a further R4 billion.

They say they are going to play an active role in the Defence Force and cross over into Angola. The hon member for Overvaal said they would go into Angola and they would fight, but no one makes the necessary calculations.

It has also been said that taxation would be decreased, including individual taxation, because the Blacks do not pay tax. We must just be a little careful—this also applies to the PFP—because between 1975 and 1985 the per capita incomes of White families increased by 9%. The taxation of Whites has increased by 41%, that of the Blacks by 57%. Hon members must not come along with stories whose facts they have not checked. They must not come along with half-baked ideas, because although the per capita salaries and wages of Whites have perhaps not increased as we would have liked them to increase, their indirect benefits, their fringe benefits, have increased tremendously. Their State subsidies have also increased. One must look at the overall picture.

I want to mention that we are moving in the direction of indirect taxation. The hon member for Barberton launched an attack on this. He made a terrible fuss about petrol. One should also take a brief look at the petrol price increase and be honest about it. The State’s share from petrol in South Africa is still amongst the lowest in the Western World. I have done my calculations, and I can give hon members the whole works. Only America has a figure that is lower than ours. In South Africa the contribution to the State is 30%, and in America it is 25 %. In the rest of the world it is consistently higher. I shall not go into the position in Europe, but I think more than 70% of the petrol price in European countries constitutes a contribution to state revenue.

How does one balance the budget? Oh, yes! They say they are going to tax companies—the fat-cats. Do they realise that if one has a company, one is already paying 50%, as against a figure of 35% in the rest of the world? Do they realise that our profits are transferred? Oh, no! They will, of course, immediately appoint another commando to investigate the matter. It is not possible. Our company tax is too high, not too low.

Oh, yes! of course! The gold mines are their favourites! The hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis refers to those people as the fat-cats. He has to get at them, but he does not tell us that the rich mines pay 78% in taxation. No, that is not said. They say they are going to come to grips with the fat-cats.

What do they really pay?

Let me tackle the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis right here and now. He is going to say, of course, that we propose privatisation as a possibility. In his articles and speeches he says that he is very much opposed to privatisation. He says that we are selling the family jewels. On television last week, however, he said that he was, in fact, in favour of privatisation, but he put forward certain conditions.

I want to conclude. I want to be honest with hon members. Unfortunately we have an Official Opposition in the House of Assembly which does not have the foggiest idea where they are going. I think that the voters of South Africa should know that if, from an economic point of view, they are going to put themselves in the hands of that party, the result would be absolutely catastrophic. Those people do not have an economic policy. Their politic policy has no economic foundation. [Interjections.] They know it, and I think they must tell the voters of South Africa today that they do not have a policy which is at all practicable. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, listening to the debate one would imagine that the future of South Africa depends upon the debate between the NP and the CP. I must point out that where we sit in this Chamber where the debate is somewhat larger than in the House of Assembly it is correct to say that the real issue in South Africa is the question as to which one of three forces will succeed: The force of reaction, the force of reform, or the force of revolution. I think that the majority of us who sit in this Chamber neither support reaction, for which the CP in toto and the NP in part stand, nor do we support revolution. The majority of us in this Chamber support meaningful and fast reform. [Interjections.] That is to my mind the real issue.

The speech of the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance therefore concentrated on the CP, and therefore on the forces of reaction.

The speech of the hon the Minister of Finance was interesting, not for what he said but what he did not say because as there is no election before the Budget, there were no goodies in this little budget debate. I cannot resist the temptation to go back to 11 February 1987. The hon the Minister was telling us all about what he was going to do in respect of pensions, assistance to farmers, the loan levy, bringing relief to working wives and how he was going to encourage savings and reduce the tax for individuals. The hon the Minister said that it was customary for that time of the year. When he was tackled on that, he specifically singled me out and said that I did not know how the Government works because if one does not announce the increases in pensions for October in February one cannot get them going. Having now not announced the pension increases for October this year, does that mean we are not going to have increases for pensioners?

Our computers are much better now!

The computers are better. The election is a little later and therefore we have a different thing. What is clear is that if one does not have an election there are no goodies in the Part Appropriation Bill. That is as clear as it is.

There are a few things which I specifically want to direct the hon the Minister’s attention to before I deal with the main subject of my speech.

Firstly, there is a very serious problem in respect of cheques which are disappearing from the office of the Receiver of Revenue or the Post Office or somewhere, and the identical situation is to be found in the Department of Manpower. It is too much of a coincidence that there are not isolated cases of theft but hundreds and hundreds of cases of the theft of cheques from those departments. I want to ask the hon the Minister and the hon the Minister of Manpower to institute together an immediate enquiry as to what is actually taking place there because there are literally hundreds and hundreds of people who are being prejudiced by this situation.

It is too much of a coincidence; it cannot simply be casual things that are lost in the post. Either there is something wrong in the departments, or there is something seriously wrong in the Post Office. I suspect it may be the latter, because it is just too much of a coincidence.

The second point I want to deal with briefly is the question of exchange control. I do not believe that the present situation can be allowed to continue in regard to the financial rand. The financial rand is the most abused thing there is; the round tripping is notorious in the financial circles in this country. To my mind, what needs to be done urgently is that we stop the financial rand for everything except Stock Exchange transactions and everything except specific transactions which are designed to be job-creating in South Africa, with real capital that is going to stay here and is not going to find its way out on a round trip almost immediately. The over- and under-invoicing that is taking place is where one of the other major leakages is occurring, and we have to take urgent steps in regard to it.

The third issue I want to touch on is the question of privatisation. Everybody has now suddenly jumped on the bandwagon saying one has to privatise to reduce taxes. To privatise to reduce taxes is to give away the family silver! The proceeds of privatisation have got to be used in order to create new, desirable, socially necessary capital assets for South Africa. [Interjections.]

I must tell you that this cry for reduction of taxation with the process of privatisation has got to be put an end to and has got to be stopped now.

What about public debt?

Public debt is in another category. If public debt means one is going to release other money for the purpose of these socially necessary projects, then I will support it, but we need socially necessary projects—as I will indicate in a moment—and we cannot afford to give away this money on casual reductions of taxation.

The hon the Minister should please answer during this debate how many shares in Iscor he has sold to the IDC and at what price. He needed R600 million, so he said to the IDC: “Give me R600 million. I won’t tell you now how much of Iscor I am giving you, I won’t tell you how many shares I am giving you, I won’t tell you at what price I am giving them to you, but give me your R600 million.” That is not the way to privatise. It is not the way to get money. It is not the way to deal with people who have got no bargaining power. Please tell us what the IDC is really getting for its R600 million, both in numbers of shares and at what price.

The hon the Minister should also inform us regarding tax evasion/avoidance legislation. Uncertainty is created in the financial world. I believe one is entitled legitimately to arrange one’s affairs so as to pay the minimum amount of tax. One is not allowed to evade tax by dishonest means. If the fiscus does not like the way in which people are arranging their affairs, and thinks that it is unfair—though it is not illegal—it must legislate, but it must not do so retrospectively. I think we need to get this whole picture of what is to be done in regard to this type of legislation into clear perspective.

May I now turn to what is, in my view, perhaps a crucial thing with which we need to deal. To my mind, the crucial problem that faces South Africa is whether in fact the negotiators or the revolutionaries are going to be the instruments of change in our country. The disadvantage of the negotiators and the advantage which the revolutionaries have, is in the plight of the impoverished, the relative income and wealth position of the haves and have-nots, and the holding out of instant solutions and quick fixes by those who believe that freedom, liberation and majority rule will bring immediate changes in living standards. That, to my mind, is perhaps the greatest con-trick that is being used to persuade the masses in South Africa that negotiation is not the solution but is a trick in order to drag out the privileged status of the few to the disadvantage of the many, that in fact, the instant fix of revolution and the resulting consequences thereof is a better solution but economic plight.

To my mind, if violence is to be overcome and if negotiation is to succeed, we need here, as legislators and the Executive, to demonstrate that negotiation results in attractive fruits which may be picked by the people who participate in negotiation. In other words, there must be advantages of an economic nature to negotiation and we have to demonstrate this here.

I propose to deal with four issues which relate to this. The first, which is relevant to what the hon the Deputy Minister spoke about, is that I want to debate economic philosophy. What is the economic philosophy that should be applied in South Africa, what do the different parties believe in and what do the people outside of Parliament believe in?

Secondly, I believe we need to debate the question of the equality of services to be provided by the State. Thirdly, we need to debate the State’s role in the fighting of poverty. Fourthly, we need to deal with wealth and income gaps in the South African scene.

There are many policy documents being floated around at this time. They are being floated around on justice, the rule of law and democracy, multi-party systems and also economic policy. The discussion on these documents and policies is taking place in many places both inside and outside South Africa.

What is interesting about some of these discussions is that many of the policies which were previously dogmatically adhered to are now the subject of reinterpretation, and alleged past misunderstandings are given as explanations.

In all this, there needs to be a word of caution. Why are new images now sought to be projected by some of these people?

Is there a genuine change of belief or has there been a genuine misunderstanding? Or is there some other motive? The debate on what systems and philosophies are to be implemented in regard to the economy of South Africa should take place in South Africa between South Africans and it should relate to the conditions in South Africa. This is why I specifically want to raise what the basic philosophy should be for our economic system. Should it be capitalism, socialism, a social market or a social democratic system? What is the role of the State to be? What must be done to utilise private initiative to the best advantage?

The term “mixed economy” is now being used by those who previously espoused socialism. I am therefore somewhat afraid of this term because a mixture depends upon the ingredients, and I am not in favour of a mixed economy on the basis of a one horse, one rabbit principle where the horse is socialism. I think we need to be a little careful of using the term “mixed economy” at this time.

Private enterprise is essential if the incentive to work has to be part of our future standards of value. However, we must care for those who, at the same time are willing but unable to care for themselves due to age or other incapacity, economic circumstances or other acceptable criteria. That is where the role of the State comes in.

In certain circumstances private enterprise cannot or will not perform certain functions. We need to be careful of those who propagate political solutions which negate this, but which provide instant fixes for major economic problems. We can look with interest and with benefit to the economic models of Western Europe, and in particular to those of West Germany where an economic system was reformulated and rebuilt in a relatively short time. From nothing West Germany has built up one of the most powerful economies in the world.

We can profit by their experience and their errors and we can, by looking at countries whose economies have failed due to the application of incorrect and fallacious systems, make sure that we do not fall into the same trap.

The second question relates to the equality of services which are to be provided by the State. One must here make it very clear that to my mind what needs to be conveyed to South Africans is that it is no good having political equality if one continues to live in poverty and degradation. True freedom means freedom from poverty and degradation, as well as personal freedom. We need to be sure that that is understood in the concept which we are debating.

The idea which has been propagated so often in this House by some hon members on the right that there is White money and there is Black money, is the biggest nonsense that one has ever heard. It is a concept accepted world-wide that more tax is paid by those who earn more and consume more, and that such revenue is expended to help the whole population. Those in greater need in fact receive more from the exchequer. Those who continuously raise the issue of colour related to taxation are preaching racism. They do no service to South Africa and gain no standing for themselves.

To my mind we need to look at the equalisation of services rendered by the State as a priority. One is conscious of the fact that resources are limited and that overtaxation and overborrowing are undesirable, but there needs to be a commitment to equalise social services and to do so within a reasonable time.

No doubt education is the highest profile activity in this regard, but I would like to refer to pensions. Pensions disparity can be removed much quicker than anything else and at a greatly reduced cost.

The reality is that if we deal with pension equality we need to allocate less than 2% of the total budget of South Africa in order to achieve equality in pensions for all races in this country. [Interjections.] The question which needs to be asked pertinently—in the interests of stability in South Africa—is whether the public is prepared to make the sacrifice to perform what I think is perhaps a symbolic act to ensure that there are equal pensions for all people of all races. Are they prepared to make that sacrifice? I believe they are, because I believe it is their own security that is at stake, which is the final analysis to which people look.

Secondly, what is the greater priority on the budget? Where can we save in order to achieve this? I would like to tell hon members that while we speak about all the things that need to be done in South Africa about constitutions, let the people who are involved in negotiation, as I have said, get some of the fruits of negotiation and go back to their people and say: “We have achieved equal pensions for you.” That will show that negotiation pays.

Lastly, I would like to touch briefly on the question of the State’s role in fighting poverty. The teachings of my faith—and I believe the faith of every other person in this Chamber—place the assistance to others as one of the virtues after which we should strive. That is what we believe in; that is what we are taught. If we actually believe in that and practice it then we should do this. Mimonedes, a great philosopher, said that the greatest form of charity is the one where the receiver does not know that he is receiving charity and the giver gets no credit for giving. It will be argued that the most effective way to deal with poverty is to train and educate and provide employment, which will not only bring about the long-term alleviation of poverty but will also maintain the dignity of the individual. He will then feel that he is providing for himself and that he is not living on hand-outs.

I believe in that and I believe that is why we have advocated the policy of inward industrialisation. The policy of inward industrialisation needs to get a greater impetus and, in order to get it going, it needs to get a greater impetus from the State. However, the alleviation of poverty in the short term, which is caused in part one may say by sanctions and boycotts, is not only the task of the private individual; the State should play a greater role in it. Here again we can demonstrate that the negotiating process works and that in fact we can produce greater benefits for the deprived people of South Africa if the Government takes the lead in this. The cake that some eat will not be sweet or digestible while others struggle to find bread on which to subsist. Therefore, we need to show that we are a caring people and that we look after our own, and I make an appeal that the State take a greater part in helping with charity. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, at the outset I would like to repeat what the hon member for Yeoville said, and that is that the hon the Minister told us very little this afternoon. There was really nothing new in the hon the Minister’s speech this afternoon and he did not tell us anything about the future of the economy of the country.

†At the meeting in Harare last week they were trying to organise new threats of sanctions against South Africa. This is not regarded by our Treasury or Reserve Bank and the private sector economists as posing a danger or a threat to South Africa. The only commonwealth country that matters economically to South Africa is the United Kingdom. As we know, with the present conservative government in the United Kingdom, we have no real problems.

However, we must stress that the Government must not be over-enthusiastic over what happened in Harare last week. We also know about the press release, and I repeat what the hon member for Glenview said about what Mr Baker of the United States and Sir Geoffrey Howe said yesterday regarding no more sanctions against South Africa. Let us be warned that these sanctions are only temporarily suspended unless we make progress on certain of our reform processes. What the chief economist of Nedbank, Mr Edward Osborne, said is that he does not see immediate tightening of trade threats from the United Kingdom, but nevertheless warns that South Africa is already paying cash for its imports from countries such as Australia and Canada.

The hon the Minister mentioned in his opening address that the importers of this country are not making use of the credit facilities that are available from overseas exporters. Mr Osborne goes further and says we cannot simply dismiss the risks to South Africa from such higher and tighter financial sanctions nor does he regard such action as forever impossible. It is just not a matter of governments. We must remember that banks have directors and shareholders and in some cases many of them might believe or at any rate be pressurised into accepting that they should cut off or curtail financial dealings with South Africa. It would be naive to think or assure that the United Kingdom, West Germany of even the Swiss banking attitudes to South Africa will not change. We have already been warned by our Western trading partners of changing attitudes. The final results will mean that we in South Africa will only be able to operate on a barter system or basis.

We would not be able to sell exports and acquire foreign exchange in any normal manner, and if we had no foreign banks to use as intermediaries, we will have problems.

In the hon Minister’s speech last week in this very Chamber, he warned the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly that South Africa cannot go it alone. We must take heed of what the hon Minister said last week. We cannot do it alone. We cannot go it alone.

How do we spell this out? We need to address the problems of South Africa, especially those which relate to reform. I also want to make an appeal to my colleagues and other politicians this afternoon. We must create a better climate of acceptance of South Africa by overseas countries. We must use restraint when making statements on economics or finance that may harm us.

Let us look at our balance of payments. It was repeated here this afternoon that the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Dr Gerhard de Kock, last week confirmed that there was a current surplus of approximately R2,5 billion in 1988. From his assessments the third quarter results were highly satisfactory. It was particularly encouraging that non-gold exports showed surprisingly buoyant growth in the second and third quarters of this year.

The bank says that they were running some 15% higher during July to September last year than during January to March. Gold is now trading at about 390. We know how prices can fluctuate. It happened on Friday and we saw how gold tumbled on the market this morning. We are trading at an average of about $390 and we are still looking vulnerable. South Africa appears to need all the help it can get from general merchandise exports in 1989. Dr De Kock also records that the total foreign debt repayments in 1991 will be as much as $1,7 billion or approximately R4 billion. This looks like the minimum that will be needed.

Private sector economists estimate that in this year’s balance of payment current surpluses will amount to as much as R3,5 billion to R6 billion.

Let us hope that our next general election in the country will be fought on economic rather than political grounds. We have seen, and I repeat what has been said by previous speakers this afternoon, that the poor motorist has to pay for the Government’s overspending and to meet the budget shortfall that is due to increased payment to public servants.

In the short period of one year car prices have increased by 24% and the running of a motor car has increased by 16% compared with the overall consumer price index of 12%. In 1988 the fiscus collected no less than R2,7 billion from GST through the sales of new and used motor cars, petrol and maintenance of motor vehicles. Although GST remained unchanged at 12%, Government revenue from these sources increased by the huge sum of R605 million in 1988. Does this not make one wonder who is really to blame for inflation when the only beneficiary seems to be the State? Despite this increase in revenue the Government nevertheless saw fit to extract an additional R1,5 billion from the petrol price, which is a highly inflationary commodity. Instead of using this money to fund roads they add fuel to fire by tolling motorists on national and provincial roads.

Let us look at the year ahead, the year 1989. We will have to tighten our belts to survive.

With several years of economic uncertainty behind us, South Africa can look forward to a small, or relative stability in the year ahead. Although economists are predicting a modest 2% to 3% growth rate overall, at least the days of economic boom and bust appear to be over.

As the current minor boom nears its end, economists envisage a gentle landing once the business cycle moves into a down-swing. The imminent economic showdown will not be a repeat of 1985 when a dark recession followed the good boom of 1983 and 1984. The modest decline in growth means South Africa will swing between extremes.

What I mean, in short, is that a period of economic stability lies ahead. As I said, we will have to tighten our belts, but we will still be able to breathe freely.

Nevertheless, over-optimism can be undermined by factors both locally and overseas. The decrease of the gold price and the tightening sanctions can be factors which we must not overlook. It appears that the Dellums Bill will be on ice for some time. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to enter this debate after the hon member for Laudium. We are both from Pretoria and have specific distinctive interests that we have to take care of. Later I will refer to matters that affect Pretoria directly. During the recent debates the growth rate in South Africa was often mentioned. The present projected growth of 3% can surely be regarded as reasonable. Even if we take the population growth into consideration, and calculate it as a debit against the projected growth, and the real growth rate is only 0,5%, it is still reasonable and favourable.

That it has to be higher and better in the future is certainly true, and that we shall have to accommodate that milestone or projection, is surely of great importance. Increased productivity for all remains a very important prerequisite for consistent and meaningful growth. More work has never yet made a country and its population poorer. Over the years it has remained the sure way in which to ensure and stabilise prosperity and success. All South Africans will have to accept this challenge to improve their own living conditions and those of the population of the whole country through hard work. The demand for more holidays and shorter office hours remains ridiculous and can only have detrimental results. Improved productivity must become a priority. We shall have to deal with it. The demands for better compensation may never be allowed to be concomitant with the acceptance that enough hard work is being done already. If we do not succeed in working harder than we are at present, and succeed in improving the production graph as compared to the compensation graph, we shall not be able to bring about the necessary growth in South Africa.

That is why I fully understand the idea of extending and promoting deregulation. Deregulation, if applied correctly, has the potential to stimulate and activate essential further growth. In my constituency, in the northern part of central Pretoria, I have what is surely one of the largest potential possibilities for the development of the informal sector, if it is done correctly and skilfully.

This is where the hon the State President paid a goodwill visit at the end of last year. This potential must definitely be developed because it has specific advantages. It is from here that the kombi-taxis operate. These have the potential to accommodate the informal sector completely, but they will have to be handled with great responsibility and skill.

The owners and drivers of kombi-taxis certainly provide a very important service and will expand in the future. I do, however, want to repeat that it has to be done in a responsible way. The ownership or the driving of a taxi is not a licence to become a reckless road-user. Cutting in and stopping without consideration for other traffic, is irritating and sometimes hazardous. The continuous hooting is annoying and irritating. I really wish to appeal to these taxi-drivers to consider the other road-users. Forget about the ostensible claim that there is an exclusive right to stopping and picking up or dropping off passengers without taking the other traffic into consideration. We must not allow an antagonism to develop towards the kombi-taxis, because that will harm the whole idea of the promotion and expansion of the informal sector.

When we talk about the informal sector and about deregulation, it seems as if they always succeed in drawing everyone into the tax net. People in the other sectors find that in so far as tax contributions are concerned, the informal sector does not always contribute its share.

Although the promotion of the informal sector creates new opportunities for work and incomegeneration, it will be unfair if they do not contribute properly to state revenue. There is therefore a necessary demand that everyone must contribute his share.

If a person pleads for tax relief and argues that the taxpayer in South Africa is over-taxed, the countervailing demand is that everyone be included in this net. The hon member for Yeoville also referred to it.

The future demands on the Treasury are going to increase so much that it will not be possible to comply with them in the conventional manner. A future South Africa will require a rearrangement of priorities. The priorities of yesterday and today will inevitably have to be scaled down to make room for other, newer demands. With that goes the knowledge that Government expenditure cannot increase unrestrainedly. It is also a fact that an inevitable decrease in the normal spending pattern will have to take place.

It is assumed too naturally that the Government or the Treasury as such has an obligation in respect of certain expenditure. It is assumed, for example, that it is the duty of the Government to provide housing; that the Government must look after the aged. It is argued that the Government must accommodate the total education expenditure. That is certainly the case. It is a fact that the Government has a responsibility with regard to these expenditures and the claims made to this kind of expenditure will always exist.

The reality is, however, that these and other Government expenses cannot keep on expanding indefinitely. The priority committee can establish certain preferences, and they will definitely be carried out.

What is just as important is that in ourselves there must be a sense of priority preferences when it comes to personal services. This is not necessarily a popular personal preference. A change in disposition regarding one’s own demands will have to take place.

The luxury of large stands and open areas in new town development for example can surely not be a future priority any more. A new school with well-equipped sportsfields is surely not an attainable goal and will have to be scaled down. I still have reservations regarding the extensions to the H F Verwoerd Hospital which falls under my constituency. I hope that we shall shortly be able to get in respect of defence expenditure. A future prosperous South Africa of necessity needs a healthy Treasury, and we shall all have to make a contribution in order to accomplish this.

Let us adjust our own demands in such a way that they will leave room for those that are in the interests of South Africa. Let us help the hon the Minister of Finance to make such an adjustment possible. Only then—so I believe—will South Africa be the victor.

Mr Chairman, what I have to contribute here may not necessarily be critical of the hon the Minister of Finance’s presentation here, but it may be more of a help to it. What I have to say also has a direct bearing on certain utterances by the hon the Acting State President and the hon the Minister of National Education, leader of the majority party in the House of Assembly.

The hon the Acting State President has loudly and clearly acknowledged to all of us, to the entire country and to the world at large that the Group Areas Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and the Race Classification Act are the main stumbling blocks on the road to meaningful and acceptable reform. The emphasis is on the fact that the reform should be acceptable to all. This being so, I urge the Government to move as swiftly as possible towards the goal of removing these obnoxious laws from the Statute Book, so that the log-jam in the way of a peaceful negotiated settlement can be removed.

Negotiation politics has now reached the dangerous point of stagnation. This dangerous point of stagnation is when one reaches a point where one has nowhere to go. One cannot go left, one cannot go right, one cannot go otherwise and one cannot go forward. One can only go backwards and make an economic or a political U-turn, as it were.

This is especially so in the House of Representatives. Who benefits politically? Certainly not the country; certainly not the people and certainly not any political party or formation, except the CP and its right-wing satellites, the AWB, the Blanke Bevrydingsbeweging and the Boerestaat brigades. Therefore, massive amounts of money and finance should be poured into, firstly, the immediate implementation of the Free Settlement Areas Act. They should start with new areas. Why sit around and wait to proclaim existing White, Coloured or Black areas as free settlement areas?

Why do we sit around waiting? Why is there this procrastination? Why do we not obtain land now where it is still relatively cheap, start building there and declare the area a free settlement area? Then we are not likely to have any opposition or anybody objecting to the declaration of that area as a free settlement area. [Interjections.] We should start with new areas that must still be developed, and in time they could serve as an example of the peaceful co-existence we all, without exception, envisage for the country.

More finance should also be made available for housing so as to catch up on or diminish considerably the long waiting list of local authorities, especially so in “Coloured”, Indian and Black areas.

Thirdly, more money should be made available to establish and assist small business development. We need to involve the people more and faster in the economic activities of the country.

Let us get on with deregulation. There will certainly be problems, as previous speakers have pointed out. How do we know what the problems are if we have not even started trying things yet, instead of sitting around, picking holes in every solution we come up with, and then not proceeding any further? We must proceed, and only when we have done so will we see where these problems lie, and then we can move to alleviate them. We can only look at the problems when they arise. There is no way we will be able to know which problems will need to be solved unless we get under way and deal with the problems as and when they arise.

I now come to the subject of oil. A lot of things are said about oil. We obtain our oil through the black market and at black market prices, and for that reason we have to pay through our necks for petrol, oil and petroleum products. We are paying exorbitant prices for our oil supplies overseas as a form of punishment, I believe, for our racial policies. Apart from finding solutions for these problems, we need in the interim to start our search for our own oil resources. We must take it up in order to put paid to those punitive measures which more than anything else contribute only towards slowing down the process of reform and giving impetus and encouragement to the efforts of right and left-wing radicals to undermine any progress towards finding a solution for the problems of our country.

We cannot continue to rely on gold to keep our economic head above troubled waters. If we continue to do this we will find ourselves in trouble. We already find ourselves in trouble because gold has dropped just below the $400 per ounce level and there we start to get worried and get grey hairs and bald heads long before the time.

We urgently need to be able to play a part in determining the oil prices. If we have the commodity we can also play a part in determining the price of that commodity and the supply of the commodity as in the case of gold. This may seem far-fetched, but all the same, we need to explore all possibilities.

Lastly, I have to talk about pensions. A lot of the country’s money is being poured out on pensions every month. What are we doing? We are giving charity to people. We are encouraging people to try for early retirement. They want to make themselves 60 before they are 55 or they want to become sick before they are 60 in order to get a little Government pension. These are wasted resources because at the same time one is insulting people by giving them charity. When this started years ago I pleaded for a contributory pension scheme, something to be made compulsory.

During 1982 there was an investigation into that. I also gave evidence at that investigation. What has happened so far? Again nothing has happened. We have come to a dead-end road.

I feel that where there are industries which do not provide a pension scheme, the Government can start there towards the implementation of a contributory pension scheme which should be compulsory and not transferable. It should stay there until the day one retires or has to retire.

Mr Chairman, for the past few years the South African economy has not performed as desired. That is why I want to associate myself with my colleague the hon member for Barberton in his reference to the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance’s quotation—what is written is written.

What are the consequences when the economy does not perform? The consequence is that the population’s standards of living, gauged per capita, decline and in the process the unemployment rate rises alarmingly with the occasional exception of temporary periods of upswing which are experienced. Seen as a whole, however, this is not a satisfactory situation.

I realise that there are a number of external factors which make matters difficult for our country as regards the promotion of economic growth. I condemn boycott actions against our country. I think that they are malicious and that greater forces are behind them. The NP cannot be held responsible for floods and droughts either.

These are all factors which make matters more difficult to some degree—I concede this immediately—but at the same time it must also be said that the NP is obviously making a mistake if it considers that it can buy the favour of the world with concessions in the political sphere. It must be realised now—this also applies to hon members on the other side—that the enemies of South Africa will not rest before a Black majority government is in control of affairs in South Africa.

Certain hon Ministers are also broadcasting the story nowadays that we have already entered the post-apartheid era. This then also means in fact that a Black majority government will take over control of the country. The question is, what then? What will South Africa look like then? Will the economy for example perform any better?

We on the CP side do not think so. In such a unitary state a struggle for political control may erupt which will damage the economy and be in nobody’s interests.

The facts before us also give a clear indication of the mismanagement of our country. It is not only on the political level that matters are going awry. There is a dismal picture on the economic level too. While I am not blaming the Government for matters beyond its control, I would be neglecting my duty if I did not draw attention to what is going wrong under Government control.

In the first place I think it is obvious that we want to draw attention to inflation. Inflation has already been called the cancer of our economic society. It is the silent enemy in our midst which erodes the economy from within and consequently strangles the growth rate and efforts to increase prosperity. In the final analysis the point at issue is therefore not only curbing the inflation rate as such but also the devastating economic consequences which attend this. This is why this evil must be kept out of our economy. Here the present Government has failed in its efforts in spite of good intentions and statements to this effect from time to time.

The first requirement to achieve success in the fight against inflation is that fiscal and monetary discipline must be applied and maintained. The Government attempts sporadically to place South Africa on this road only to fail again dismally every time. About 18 months ago a plan was put forward to decrease the rate of inflation gradually to 9% in 1990. The Government can forget about that now. The reason for this is not that there was something basically wrong with the plan, but the Government scuttled its own plan by its inability to institute and maintain fiscal and monetary discipline.

The reason may be found in the basic political philosophy which the Government follows with its policy of power-sharing. This prevents it from taking effective and continuous steps in the economic sphere. If it were to chance this, its entire political house of cards would collapse. There is also short-term political advantage which the Government has to gain for itself before every election. We have recently become accustomed to the fact that Government spending is increasing sharply, but another monster has now reared its ugly head, that is the growth in the money supply which has increased drastically over the past year and for which the economy will pay a high price.

Surely doubts can no longer exist that the inflation rate will escalate this year; anyway the hon the Acting State President admitted this in his opening address. We know further that one of the preconditions to achieve maximum economic growth under every set of circumstances is that the production factors of the country should be utilised optimally. I want to state here that the cases of corruption which have increasingly come to the fore over the past few years do not promote efforts to increase economic growth. The reason for this is that it leads to a sub-optimal utilisation of production factors. This also appears in many forms.

The CP therefore wants to request the Government seriously to eradicate the evil entirely. Whether the power-hungry governing Party, which is waning politically, will succeed in this remains an open question. Another matter is that, as Third World standards inevitably follow, as the policy of integration progresses, the cases of corruption will increase hand over fist.

This augurs nothing good for South Africa and its inhabitants. Tragically enough, the Government has long been warned that matters are going wrong here. I think the hon member for Barberton referred to this last year. The CP is also aware of positions which are offered to friends and of appointments of those of colour to high posts to enforce integration. [Interjections.] Many of them have been promoted above more capable colleagues. This is also a form of corruption.

In addition there is intimidation of workers and voters. Obviously people are afraid of coming forward openly. These cases exist, however, and they are increasing. They are on record as an indictment against the present Government.

I now get to Government expenditure, and all hon members know that we have to do with a tragic story here. [Interjections.] The hon member referred to the by-election at Delmas. I want to tell him that six wards in Delmas are controlled by the CP, one by the NP and two by Independents. [Interjections.]

That does not say much.

The NP is probably satisfied that a grain of seed should fall to the blind dove.

One budget speech after the other is made carrying the assurance that Government expenditure will be kept in check, only to show at the end of the year that Government expenditure reflects massive overruns on the budget. This is just not good enough. The past year was a case in point. What aggravates the position, however, is that the overrun occurred after intervention and assurances from the hon the State President himself. The hon the Minister of Finance said in his Budget Speech last year that the object of his Budget was to make another contribution to bringing about a sound and well-disciplined economy, almost as if this had not been envisaged in preceding years. I shall leave it at that, however.

The truth is nevertheless that the hon the Minister has now announced that Government expenditure will exceed the budgeted amount by a great deal of money. This is a crying shame. [Interjections.]

I shall get to that. I should like to discuss the agreements. The increase in officials’ salaries is held up as a reason, and this amounts to approximately 40% for the current financial year. Surely that represents only part of the story. That is why I say that the hon the Minister of Finance is sending the national economy into the abyss with his policy.

What are the consequences of this enormous Government expenditure? The Government is feeding the inflation rate and discouraging individuals from saving and showing initiative.

Secondly, Government claims on the savings funds of the country are increasing alarmingly. [Interjections.] Alarming is a nice word. The public debt is increasing, and together with it the burden of interest on the public debt. We are practising dissaving now! In order to assist in financing the Government’s ever-increasing expenditure it has increased taxes sharply, especially since 1982. The areas of personal tax, GST and levies on products have been particularly affected.

In the early eighties personal income tax plus GST in relation to personal income amounted to about 10% on average. Currently that figure exceeds 22%. The past year has once again been no exception. The hon the Minister boasts that his deficit before borrowing is approximately the same as he budgeted for. I object to that because it was not achieved by curbing expenditure but by considerably higher taxes which rained down on the taxpayer at regular intervals.

In last year’s Budget the fuel levy was annexed for general expenditure. The public now has to pay extra tax at toll gates which are springing up like toadstools throughout the country. [Interjections.]

Personal income tax has ostensibly been decreased but, if it is a percentage of current income, it will probably be higher. A levy is being imposed on a large number of imported products, with the sales argument that the reason is to protect the balance of payments. Primarily it was merely an additional source of taxation, however.

There is a levy upon levy on the petrol price. Now we also hear that the Government wants to place a levy on the electricity supply. Subsidies are being decreased. That is a good thing but then savings derived from this must be passed on to a decrease in taxation. A minimum additional company tax is being instituted. Insurance companies are being taxed, something which in essence merely results in just a further tax on individuals. The Government is destroying the economy because people are saving less. Investment is making a poor showing. The Government’s own capital expenditure is decreasing in real terms but its current expenditure is soaring. This means that the country’s production capabilities are being weakened, with unemployment and poverty as inevitable consequences. Directly or indirectly higher taxation is being levied. The CP says the people are being taxed excessively and the damage to the economy of the countryin conjunction with unproductive sociopolitical programmes—is increasing inflation and contributing to the economic destruction of our country and its people.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Delmas mentioned several matters in his speech. Unfortunately, I cannot react to all of them. However, I want to comment on a few points.

Firstly, the hon member said the NP was at fault in the sense that concessions to other population groups held no advantage for us and that the country’s enemies would not rest before there was a Black majority government in power in South Africa. He spoke about South Africa’s enemies. We do have enemies in the outside world, but we also have friends. We have very good friends; friends with whom we consult, and friends who, I believe, give us good advice. These people expect us to do certain things. Although I do not want to give the impression that we would give in to foreign pressure, the fact is that if we want to create a peaceful South Africa for the future, we shall have to succeed in providing our population, regardless of whether it is White, Coloured or Black with a standard of living that will ensure peace in this country. Until that has been done we will not have peace. Therefore, if the Government is to take certain steps to reach that point, certain sacrifices will have to be made, but the prize at the end is worth fighting for.

The hon member spoke about inflation and how it was undermining the economy. We agree whole-heartedly that inflation is undermining the economy, but then the hon member said a strange thing. He said the Government had failed miserably in fighting inflation. Failed miserably, while the Government is responsible for reducing the inflation rate from 20% to just above 12%? Does he not consider that an achievement under the circumstances that he himself mentioned— sanctions and boycotts? Does the hon member know what sanctions and boycotts mean to a country? Does the hon member know what they mean to him? They mean that our rand is weakened because we have to export. Our monetary system has weakened and for that reason we are importing inflation to a large extent. I challenge the CP to do better under these circumstances than the management that we have in regard to economic affairs today. [Interjections.]

No, I think the hon member said things here for which he himself was not responsible. I do not think that those ideas that he shared with us were all his own ideas. [Interjections.] I should like one of the CP’s economics spokesmen to tell us more about the article that the hon member for Barberton had published recently. [Interjections.] In this article, he spoke about the separateness of peoples, but about a joint economy. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon member how he can have a joint economy without open business districts in our cities where people of colour can also participate in the building up of the economy, and without their being allowed to open factories and other industries in the White areas. How will he achieve a joint economy? Surely, then, his definition of a joint economy is this: an economy in which everything belongs to the Whites and the contribution of the other population groups is restricted to their labour. [Interjections.] That is all. I want to tell the hon member that if that is his idea of a joint economy, then we are looking for trouble. [Interjections.] The hon member for Yeoville was quite correct when he said “true freedom means freedom from poverty and deprivation”. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member that if his plan were to succeed, they would have more monuments like the one in Boksburg. [Interjections.] People of colour are no longer going to be satisfied with this type of confidence trick. [Interjections.] If anyone thinks that an action of that nature would fail to provoke an unfavourable reaction, he must be blind to the economic facts.

By the way, it is a pity that the leader of the militant wing of the CP did not know that Boksburg was a monument. [Interjections.] Look, surely there were no gates, locks and chains to prevent him from leaving Boksburg.

Are you jealous, Piet, old boy?

I shall come to the hon member for Carletonville in a minute. The only condition attached to his visit to Boksburg was that he should not go near the lake, because as Leon Schuster says in his song, “Jannie kan nie swem nie”. [Interjections.] I just want to tell the hon member for Carletonville that he need not be afraid that I will overlook him. My eyes are still very good. Not only do I see every hon member of the caucus of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly; I also see the dark spots very clearly! [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon member a question and I want him to think about it. How much goodwill does think he will get from Non-Whites with whom he refuses to shake hands? Does he really think there will be no reaction from them if they get that type of action from him? It worries me. It worries me very much because we do not need that kind of maliciousness in our kind of world. South Africa can do without that. [Interjections.]

He is Fiela’s child!

I think that if we look at the South African economy, there is only one conclusion that we can draw, and that is that over the past few years our economic management has succeeded in maintaining a growth rate under very difficult circumstances. That is most praiseworthy.

I just want to say that, from time to time, points of criticism against the Government may be raised, but to have been able to maintain a growth rate of 3% last year, under the circumstances, is a real achievement. Last year, when I spoke about a growth rate of 3%, some hon members of the CP asked where that growth rate was. Here it is. The Government has produced it.

Finally, I want to say that perhaps the period that lies ahead will not be as easy as the 30 months or so that have passed, but the people to whom we have entrusted the economic management of South Africa are capable people. They are people who know how to cope in difficult times. I have no doubt that we will weather the economic recession that is expected now, and that we will manage. In fact, this recession is the result of Government measures which it has deliberately implemented in order to cool down the economy. When this period is over, we will again move into greater periods of growth—periods of growth which will bring us prosperity again. If one looks at the rates of fixed investments and the growth of fixed investment, one is grateful to be able to say that South Africa’s people have confidence in its economy. Let us talk about investors’ confidence. Have a look at the industrial index of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. Have a look at how it is rising. The industrial index is higher than 2 200. That is investors’ confidence—confidence not only in the future of this country and its economy but also in the Government of the day. The fact that the stock exchange, the investor, has so much confidence in our country’s economy, so much confidence in our Government, is to my mind sufficient to tell us that the future is safe in the hands of the NP.

Mr Chairman, you will forgive me if I do not wish to get involved in this fight between the hon member for Kuruman and the CP. I would just like to make one comment to the hon member. It relates to his statement that it was his belief that we have sanctions imposed upon us, that we have disinvestment imposed upon us, because we do not care about improving the quality of life of our Black people particularly in this country.

I would like to tell the hon member that while this may be so, it is my belief that the reason why we have sanctions imposed upon us, that the reason why there is such an increase in the disinvestment lobby, is because our friends outside have lost confidence in the ability of his Government to tread the path of reform in a purposeful manner.

It is my belief that it is only when there is a genuine commitment on the part of the Government to power sharing for all in this country, when there is a genuine commitment to evolve a new constitution in which all the people of this country will share, only then will the sanction lobby decrease, and only then will disinvestment be a thing of the past.

To come back to the hon the Minister of Finance and his speech that he delivered this afternoon, I want to say that apart from telling us that some R18,3 billion is required by the Exchequer to finance the administration of this country before the Budget is approved by Parliament some time this year, the hon the Minister has regrettably told us little else. He did quote two important figures which I believe are of great relevance, not only to hon members in this Chamber, but also to the man in the street out there who has to see the value of his rand shrinking as the day goes by. I believe these two sets of figures have great relevance to the man out there who feels the effects of the increasing poverty that we are experiencing in this country.

These two sets of figures are, firstly, his admission that the Government has overshot its target range for the increase in the money supply by a whopping 10%. This was achieved despite the action and the restraints imposed by the Reserve Bank. What I would have thought was that the hon the Minister would have told us how his Government has been responsible for this state of affairs, what the contribution of the public sector to this state of affairs has been and how he wished to remedy that state of affairs. More importantly, he told us that the rate of inflation in this country had decreased from 18,6% in 1986 to 16,1% in 1987 and to 12,9% in 1988. If we are to translate this to the marketplace that I spoke about, then it should follow that the same trolley of food that the average housewife buys in the supermarket should cost some 13% more than it cost last year.

It should mean that the clothing that we buy in the stores should be some 13% higher in price this year as opposed to last year. The price of new homes on the market should also have increased by a similar percentage. However, the hon the Minister knows that this is not so and I would like to ask the hon the Minister why he has not commented on this state of affairs. This is what the man in the street is concerned about. I would like to ask the hon the Minister what the reasons are for this.

I would also like to ask the hon the Minister whether the figures he has quoted, provided by the Central Statistics Services, are in fact correct. I am sure the hon the Minister is aware that there are many people who doubt this. From where I come there is a mathematician by the name of Dr Posel, who quite recently challenged these figures. In fact, he has challenged the figures supplied by the Department of Finance and I believe it does this department no honour merely to pass this off as being a diatribe. I believe the hon the Minister should have taken the opportunity this afternoon to have addressed just that criticism.

Next I would like to address the question of privatisation, which my colleague the hon member for Yeoville as well as the hon member for Glenview in the House of Delegates have both spoken about. The question that is uppermost in the minds of most people is: Why is this taking so long? We are aware that the hon the Minister last year piloted some Bills which change certain regulations, but the question remains why a firm programme of action has not been embarked upon by his department.

The hon member for Yeoville made the point that we are in fact dealing with assets of the country here. He made the point that these assets belong to all of us and that these assets should therefore be shared by all of our people, particularly the Black people.

I would like to endorse it because we have a situation in this country where, regrettably, the free enterprise system has been looked upon suspiciously by our Black brethren. There is ample reason for them to have this suspicion when one considers that the benefits which flow from the system in this country are in fact derived and enjoyed particularly by those who are not Black.

When one talks about privatisation, one thinks about the tremendous increase that has taken place in Black organisations like Sabta, and I believe that when privatisation does in fact take place, the Black community should be afforded an opportunity through organisations like Sabta to take part in that scheme.

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in Great Britain has coined the phrase that everybody should own a share in democracy. I believe this is of great relevance to us in this country as well because, as I have indicated, the moment one gives people a stake in the economy, the moment one gives them a stake in the country, all the trappings of a revolutionary climate decrease.

I want to say something about social welfare and pensions in this country. Hon members are all aware that there is a tremendous debate taking place within social welfare services presently concerning the ridiculous state of affairs where social welfare services are handled as an own affair.

The hon the Minister is aware that, quite apart from the tremendous financial shortages that exist in social welfare services in South Africa, there is a tremendous shortage of social workers too. The argument is that one should not waste these valuable resources of our country.

The only way that that can be achieved, is to put an end to this wasteful practice of own affairs. Social welfare should be a general affair. I go along with that.

Before I resume my seat, I would like to say a few words on the disparity that still exists in the pension payouts in this country. I want to say that the perpetuation of this kind of discrimination tends to create hostility in those who receive a lower pension payout. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I welcome the opportunity of participating in this debate, and it is a pleasure to follow on the hon member for Springfield. I would like to refer to just one point he raised namely the sanctions lobby and disinvestment.

I think it is a pity that he did not expand on the hurts caused to the underprivileged in this country through sanctions and disinvestment, and that he did not argue the case against disinvestment.

The debate last week, the discussion of the hon the Acting State President’s speech, tended at times to take a financial trend. Once again, the attack on the Government was, as expected, biased and grossly distorted. We heard the hon new leader of the PFP, Dr De Beer, attacking the performance of the SA economy during the 1980’s. The fact that a growth rate of 3% had been achieved under most difficult circumstances, was belittled. [Interjection.] The fact that South Africa compared most favourably with other developing nations was also ignored. The accepted view of economists that a rate of greater than 3% would fuel inflation, was also ignored.

The ability of the Government to bring down the inflation rate from a high of 18% in 1986 to under 13% in 1988 and control the rate throughout the year, was similarly belittled by making a ridiculous comparison with developed Western countries. The hon the Minister of Finance has already answered these criticisms admirably, but I did, however, wish to stress these points.

With the rise in interest rates towards the end of 1988, a low world-controlled gold price—I stress a world-controlled price, because there are still some critics who put across the view that the Government controls the gold price—and a weaker rand exchange rate, it seems that inflation must rise slightly in the coming year. I think reference has been made to this.

A rise in the producer price index for imported items held steady at 14,2%, but reached 14,6% for commodities produced on the home market. In the industrial sector the inflation rate on goods produced went ahead at the even faster rate of 16%, the biggest climb since 1987. It seems that the main blame for the upward curve in the production price increase should be placed on the local producers, and greater efficiency in production is essential. They will have to apply their minds to this.

Industrialists believe that, given the present financial circumstances, the time is ripe for positive benefits to be gained from a dynamic drive to increase manufactured exports.

The steps considered essential to give the necessary stimulation to an export programme have been highlighted recently by the Natal Chamber of Industries. First the Board of Trade must finalise its new incentive packages for the selected industry sectors and they must do this without any further delay. This must be coupled with a strong push from organised industry for the identification of targets. There must also be a commitment to communication at the highest level between Government and the private sector, with a particular goal of import replacement working in tandem with an export programme.

I totally agree with these sentiments, and it is time to get on with the job of working together as a team and stop the negative tendency in South Africa of perpetually tearing the Government and our country apart.

About the demands by the financial sector to allow interest rates to rise further I have very serious doubts, and I believe any further rise must be low and structured over a long period. There is no doubt that there was a direct correlation between the rapidly rising interest rates and the excessive number of insolvencies during the period 1984 to 1986. We cannot chance a recurrence with the consequent loss of productivity and increased unemployment.

Last week the hon member for Sandton lambasted the former member for Hillbrow, Mr Leon De Beer, and accused him of stealing a seat. He did, however, have the good grace to acknowledge the PFP training of Mr De Beer. Taking the stealing of seats into account, however, how many hon members of the PFP and the CP crossed the floor after the electorate had put them in Parliament under another party banner? When the Young Turks crossed the floor from the United Party no-one resigned his seat, as they had all undertaken to do. It also seems that there is a question mark as to who retained the party funds raised by the old United Party. [Interjections.]

Pietermaritzburg and the surrounding Black townships continue to be cast in the spotlight. There is no-one who does not have sympathy with the residents of these strife-tom settlements. The loss of human life—for some people human life seems to be cheap or worthless—the disruption of family life, of law and order and of community and business affairs has been at considerable cost, socially and economically. The members of the SAP, I believe, must be commended for the sacrifices they make to keep the situation under control.

Yet there continue to be those who thrive on the misfortunes of others and attempt to score highly questionable political publicity. While the media at times fuel the fire by serialising unrest stories they do also have a duty to keep the public informed, and for doing that we thank them. It is interesting to view both sides of the story, however.

In December last year the NDM’s member for Greytown called an enquiry into the vigilante killings at Trust Feed, a township near New Hanover in Natal. I have no quarrel with the hon member on that score but the hon member appears to have taken sides in the conflict which is generally accepted to be between Inkatha and the UDF.

In a statement to The Natal Witness reported on 6 December 1988, and I quote:

This attitude reminds one of the hon member’s infamous Black Power salute. He had obviously chosen sides already. Chief Mangosutu Buthelezi denied the following day that Inkatha was responsible and warned that the organisation would sue anyone who irresponsibly blamed it for the violence.

In the light of this I welcome the recent article in the Echo of 9 February which is a Zulu-targeted supplement to The Natal Witness and clearly sets out the reaction of Inkatha to the findings of the Unrest Monitoring Group of the PFP that linked one Inkatha supporter to a string of murders in Edendale and Pietermaritzburg. It is reported that the hon member for Durban North, Mr Mike Ellis, is to raise the question in Parliament. We are waiting for that. The KwaZulu reaction is one of anger and I quote from Echo:

There is no doubt about that.

Mr Chairman, it is clear that the interference of the NDM and the PFP in KwaZulu affairs is not welcome. They appear to cause problems and not help solve them.

As to the eternal critics of our financial affairs, a recent study of international living costs and taxation by a British management consultancy team shows that, in real terms, on the basis of a basket of goods and services consumed by a typical executive family in Johannesburg, this is still one of the cheapest places in the world to live. Using London as an index base of a hundred, the cost of living is 71 in Johannesburg, compared with 123 in Zurich, 91 in New York and 84 in Sydney.

Another interesting table shows that the maximum marginal income tax rate of 45% in South Africa is relatively low—not as low as Britain’s 40%, New York’s is under 40 and Switzerland’s 24,5%. In Australia, however, the maximum rate is 49%, in West Germany 56% and Japan 76%. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pietermaritzburg spoke about the whole polemic and the whole movement that was taking place among Black people in Pietermaritzburg. This is a case in which Black people, our people—when I say “our” I include myself— have to solve their own problems. In this regard, intervention from various quarters, whether it be from the Government or from various organisations, is at times an encumbrance. I want to appeal to Black leaders in Natal to come together again and to take up where they left off. Cosatu, the UDF and Inkatha must once again take the bull by the horns in an effort to solve the problem there.

I believe that only Black people can solve Black problems in such a case. Where a power struggle is involved and there is a question of different allegations as to who did what, who began what and who ended what, Black people must deal with Black matters themselves, particularly when it comes to delicate matters in which murder, manslaughter and various other atrocities are being committed.

The hon member spoke about own affairs. The concept of own affairs is one that this country definitely does not need. Own affairs is an NP gimmick. I am going to talk about another gimmick of the NP when we come to the discussion of another concept. However, in the short time at my disposal, I want to continue with my speech.

South Africa has never been as isolated from the outside world as it is now. The country has been isolated and is being ostracised. South Africa is regarded as a polecat by the Western World. South Africa is being denounced from political platforms for political purposes by various organisations, various countries and various ministers. South Africa has become the polecat of the world. The word “apartheid” has become a fine political football, particularly for the Americans. The American Black caucus is very enthusiastic in its efforts to isolate South Africa and, in conjunction with the so-called Trans-Africa group, spends hours trying to drive South Africa into a corner because of its domestic policy.

When we talk about South Africa’s domestic policy, we are talking about repression and oppression. One is talking about apartheid in all its aspects—apartheid, which has become the evil of the world, and the system of apartheid which is being compared to the system of Hitler. Apartheid is being linked with the NP and the Afrikaner. Unfortunately apartheid has been entrenched in legislation since 1948.

Last week we heard about reform. Various words about reform were uttered here by different hon Ministers. If the NP were serious about reform, as they announce daily from political platforms, one could understand it if this were translated into action. If hurtful laws such as the Group Areas Act, which is one of the cardinal and most hurtful ones, as well as one of the most hated laws in South Africa, were repealed, we would be able to start believing that the hon Ministers and the NP were moving in a certain direction.

We have heard about the outmoded colonial concept of apartheid. To me, the outmoded colonial concept of apartheid was one of the greatest political gimmicks that the NP ever dished up to us.

When I approached my voters, they sanctimoniously told me that the NP had changed and that the hon the State President had said that apartheid was obsolete. What the hon the State President and the NP meant by the outmoded colonial concept was definitely not apartheid since 1948; it was the old-fashioned colonial concept of it. That was apartheid before 1948. That is the apartheid that the Government was talking about. The phrase “outmoded colonial concept” was a gimmick second to none.

It appears to me that some hon Ministers are involved in a Goebbels-like charade with regard to these cheerful words of encouragement. Some hon Ministers are adopting Goebbels-like personalities by expressing words in such a way that the public at large believe they are talking reform.

We are waiting for reform. Reform came to a halt with the election in 1987. Today it is being said that the Labour Party is engaged in confrontation, but if we look back we can see that the NP stopped in its tracks after the 1987 election. Our problems with the NP started when they stopped the process of reform.

There were various words of encouragement. I should therefore like to make an appeal to the new hon chief leader of the NP and the hon the Acting State President to translate what they said last week into action. They must translate it into action, because a week ago he was still known as a conservative in the Press, and then suddenly there was a turn-about and he became known as an enlightened person—if we take into account what the wife of the hon chief leader of the NP said in a women’s periodical. [Interjections.]

I want to appeal to the hon the Minister of National Education that we join hands and try the give and take method together. Let what the hon the Minister said last week become a reality. We want to see certain laws repealed and a new direction being taken.

The present sanctions campaign against South Africa is one of the most severe since 1984. The countries that are pleading for sanctions are doing so for the sake of the Black man. However, I have a problem with many of these companies that are withdrawing from the country and taking their money with them. They are companies that are failing in their moral responsibility towards the Black people as a result of political pressure. However, I also have a problem with Cosatu’s negotiations with regard to the withdrawal of big companies from the country. I believe the outside world can do more. That goes for America in particular, the American Black caucus and the American association of mayors. We also have a few Black mayors who are members of this group. I think these people should put their money where their mouths are and invest money in Black residential areas.

I believe that the outside world should begin to invest directly in Black residential areas. In this regard I am thinking of organisations such as Sabta and Nafcoc, and I believe they have shown that the Black man can help himself if he is given an opportunity to do so.

I believe that if these organisations were to invest money directly in Black residential areas and the American Black caucus were to change their strategy of boycotts and demonstrations in front of our embassies and begin to invest directly in Black areas in order to create infrastructure and to set up clinics, the Black man would be able to help himself. People must be encouraged to invest directly in Black areas seeing that they claim to be morally obliged to withdraw for the sake of the Black man. This is the direction in which the Department of Foreign Affairs must begin to move. I also want to encourage the Government to look at the informal sector in Black residential areas. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Western Free State referred briefly to the speech made by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South, who saw fit to quote a passage from a copy of a newspaper in which reference was made to remarks made by the hon member for Grey town, but without specifically quoting him.

He is quoted throughout the article, but no reference is made to the view quoted by the hon member. The day after and the following day, this matter was discussed again and the hon member for Greytown’s position was made very clear in the newspaper, to the satisfaction of Inkatha, which had been quoted by the hon member.

I think he would do well—since it is in his area— to concern himself with the politics there and see if he could make a contribution, rather than to attack other hon members who are doing their work while he merely reads the newspapers, and badly at that. [Interjections.]

I have very little time available to me and I therefore want to restrict myself to the subject under discussion. We can say what we like about the details of handling an economy, but the bottom line is that we can do nothing if we cannot maintain a reasonable growth rate. We can move within the framework of continuous growth, but then it must increase in the very near future, and it must be maintained for a reasonable period— with a growth rate in the vicinity of 5%, 6% or 7%. This is what we really need to cope with our problems. In order to maintain this, we need capital. We need foreign capital for economic growth. Every upswing in the economy results in a demand for capital goods. The moment we have that upswing and capital goods have to be imported, it places pressure on the balance of payments, which is very fragile. Then the economy has to be cooled down, and it cannot grow. According to official statements, the economy cannot achieve a growth rate of more than 2% or 3% under the present circumstances. I think that is true.

Against this background it is important to note that the capital/labour ratio has increased by nearly 300% between 1960 and the present day. This is measured against constant values of 1960.

In reality this means that each labourer now controls three times more capital than he did in 1960. In other words, to keep the labourer employed, we now need, against constant values, three times more capital than we did in 1960 to maintain this one job opportunity.

Under these circumstances we are incredibly vulnerable. We are aware of our problems with the debt standstill, lack of investments and further pressures which are being brought to bear on us to an increasing extent. Up to now a reasonably privileged section of the community has been able to impose a large measure of this poverty on the poor themselves. This is unfortunately a fact.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Finance quoted statistics about the ratio of tax payments—Tax paid by Whites as opposed to tax paid by Blacks. In an argument against the CP he did it with quite a bit of bravado. What he was actually saying was that percentage-wise, Blacks are now paying more than Whites. We are experiencing a creeping poverty. In the words of Prof Sampie Terreblanche we are actually moving into a “galloping poverty.”

Under these circumstances we also have the formation of international forces building up against us, and trying to impose further pressure on us. The only power which really protects South Africa in these matters—I am referring to the seven large industrial countries, the Commonwealth countries, the European community and the United Nations—is the United Kingdom and Mrs Maggie Thatcher. Without her we would be in far greater difficulties than we are.

Reference has been made to the statement issued after the conclusion of the talks between Foreign Minister Howe of the UK and Foreign Minister Baker of the USA. We should not take these matters too lightly, nor accept them to easily as a positive development. This is the expression of the standpoint of the American Department of Foreign Affairs, but we also know that the immense pressure from the Congress and Senate in America still exists. We also know that President Bush will try to strike a balance. His style of governing is that of reaching settlement compromises with Capitol Hill.

When are we going to get the capital? We shall only get capital if we do something about our political problem. The pressure is not mainly a result of our economic circumstances; it is a result of internal politics. The root of the problem is the dilemma of the group definition. The hon the leader of the NP said that the NP was not ideologically bound to the idea of groups. This also received attention in the press. The hon member then went on to say: “we only emphasize the group basis because it is a reality”. If he says this then he is actually saying that because there are different races, it is a reality, and politics must consequently be conducted within the framework of race. If words have meaning, he is actually saying that there is no other choice. This is what really destabilises South Africa. If we think and act in terms of groups, then dealing with groups will always result in one receiving benefits at the expense of another. There is unfortunately no other way.

I am concerned that the statements made by the new national leader and also the hon the Acting State President have created expectations which I fear are not going to be realised. They give a double message. The new chief leader has come up with the approach of “sweet reasonableness”, which is almost Bush-like, but there is really no new substance. He says that himself. He claims there is a change of style, but we chose a fixed route long ago, and we are keeping to that route.

The hon the Acting State President’s view is that the definition of people according to race is not objectionable on its own, but it is merely the use of that definition to create advantages or disadvantages which upsets people. If the purpose of defining people in terms of race was equal treatment, definition would not be necessary. If the purpose of such a definition is not equal treatment, then unequal treatment will inevitably follow. I want to call upon the Government to take the bull by the horns to get away from what must be a painful rationalisation. In the long run minorities can only be protected by majorities, and the best insurance for the protection of a minority is that the democratic process is arranged so that it can form part of the majority from time to time. That is what democracy means. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, on 23 November 1988 a group of us returned from a journey abroad which took us through Italy, Portugal and London. There we held discussions with politicians, industrialists, businessmen and bankers. All these people clamoured to remain friends with South Africa and to assist South Africa. We were told that we must do something in the following fields. We were asked to release Nelson Mandela and to abolish the Group Areas Act. We were asked not to retain this Act. We were also asked to abolish the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and to get rid of that part of the Population Registration Act based on race classification.

We were asked a question, and there was an hon member from the CP with us on that tour. The question was: “If you want to put the process that has now been started into reverse gear again, won’t overseas countries immediately use the chance to put more pressure on you? Won’t they withdraw completely and no longer be so friendly towards you?”

There is a story going round that last week a bitch gave birth to a litter of five. The father called his son and said: “Johnny, tell me, what kind of puppies are these?” The son answered: “Dad, they must be CP puppies.” When the father asked Johnny why he said this, Johnny answered: “Because their eyes are closed.” [Interjections.]

These questions were put to the CP overseas, but they have done exactly the opposite locally. Now they want to blame the Government for unleashing sanctions on the country. I trust this is the last time this session that I shall have to talk about the carryings-on in Boksburg, Brakpan and Carletonville, but let us have a look at what the economic consequences of the CP’s actions in these towns were. In Brakpan, business development to the tune of R150 million was lost, because the people were no longer prepared to invest there. In Boksburg new development amounting to R130 million was frozen.

When I spoke here the other day, I said that no fresh breeze was blowing through the House. However, after I had delivered my speech, a fresh breeze did, in fact, blow through the House in the form of the speeches made by the new chief leader of the NP and the hon the Acting State President. The question is just this: When are these words going to be transformed into deeds? It is for this reason that the antics in Boksburg, Brakpan and Carletonville are becoming so relevant again.

It is absolutely vital that the Government should now, once and for all, abolish the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. I want to suggest that this be done in this session, because the President’s Council made a recommendation on this a long time ago. It is only the Government that does not want to make this a reality. If they are not going to abolish that Act, the Government will be just as guilty as the CP, which has now erected a Berlin wall round Boksburg Lake. They will not be able to dodge this issue. The overseas media are having a whale of a time, to the detriment of the Republic of South Africa, while the NP wrings its hands and watches the antics of the CP. Things simply cannot plod on at this pace. We are waiting for action from the NP. It will serve no purpose to blame the CP for these outrages.

Another case I want to mention here is that the former town council of Boksburg approved the free-trading area in Boksburg. The present CP council repealed the decision. However, I find it interesting and strange that they, the CP council members, did not have the courage to put the case before a committee of the Group Areas Board; on the contrary, they allowed an official to participate there who merely moved the motion and could not be questioned as to what the motives were for the decision. Naturally we supported the establishment of free-trading areas, in fact we strongly supported them. There are various reasons for this, but most important of all, we wanted to normalise business activities in Boksburg. We want to move away from the nominee and the permit system when one is doing business in the town where one lives. Furthermore, we also want to put the business interests of CP council member, Koos van der Merwe, on the same footing as those of a Coloured in Reigerpark. We are not at all happy with the business activities of that councillor who made a decision like this contrary to the interests of the people of Reigerpark.

We must do our utmost to prevent those business premises from being set on fire. Then we must also protect the interests of our own man who has an interest there. This is what the CP does. This is why I say that they are completely blind to the cold reality of what is going on around them. I trust, therefore, that the Government will pay no attention to their objections, and establish free-trading areas nevertheless.

The backward step which the CP has taken has also had favourable results. For the first time in Reigerpark there is meaningful communication, across the colour line, with church and businessmen with industrialists, with the Boksburg Alliance and even with the NP—with everyone except for the CP.

Sound relations have been built up with our neighbouring towns, namely Germiston and Benoni, and we are going to extend those sound relations. For the first time, businessmen in Boksburg—and the hon member Mr Clive Derby-Lewis bewails the fact—displayed posters stating that they were opposed to all forms of discrimination.

Petitions protesting against CP action are doing the rounds among Whites. For me the most important thing of all is that Reigerpark has never been so united as it is now. Everybody is working together; in Parliament and outside Parliament, thanks to the CP for the decision it took to bring about this reunification of the community.

Finally I want to express the hope that the Government will, no later than this session, prevent relations from being disrupted to such a degree, and that the Government will not merely look on helplessly as the CP continues to cause South Africa the damage it is causing at present.

Mr Speaker, I agree with the hon member for Reigerpark that we have perhaps not got different rules for the CP for Boksburg, but actually our application is different.

The CP want to keep Boksburg “Blank” and we want to keep it Blanche! Further than that we do not agree. I do however have to agree that the hon member from the OFS is altogether wrong when he says that there is no reform. He and the hon member for Reigerpark said that they do not want to hear our rhetoric anymore but want to see what is being done about reform. When I was first elected as an MP, there was no way that I ever had the chance of sitting here and addressing three quarters of South Africa’s population and their representatives. I have this honour this afternoon, and if hon members will stick with the NP, give us time, and in time I might even address four quarters of the people of South Africa. There is movement and we are going well. [Interjections.]

Last week I got worried in this same House because I listened to the debate on no confidence. There was a scatter-gun of criticism of the NP but the only thing I never heard in the whole week was any valid criticism of our economy and the management of our finances. [Interjections.] Sure, I heard from one of the hon leaders of our new left and I heard him quote statistics that reminded me very much of Oscar Wilde who said that there were three kinds of lies. He said that there were lies, damned lies and there were statistics, and I heard the last kind of lies exercised last week. I heard the hon member of Johannesburg North saying that this country was bankrupt but he has been saying that for five years and we are still not bankrupt. I also heard very little about economics from the CP. I suppose that economics has got very little to do with racism so we did not hear much on the economic front there.

From my left, all I heard was about history and how it had done the House of Representatives lot of damage. I would like to have heard a lot from them about the present and our economics and not what has happened in history.

You do not know your history.

This might be. I am a history teacher …

You know nothing.

I think that the Budget Debate is perhaps the most important debate we have. Perhaps this debate we have here today will be a technical matter in future but I think that it still gives us the right to talk about the economy. The one reason that nobody attacked this Government last week about economics is because there is the sweet smell of success about our handling of economic matters. [Interjections.]

Our hon Minister of Finance put it very nicely when he said that we are skating on thin economic ice, but we are skating very comfortably. [Interjections.]

I would like to mention 10 facts in a row, and if anyone can argue about them, I would like to hear so.

Fact 1: South Africa’s GDP increased by approximately 4% last year. This equals those of all the African countries and most countries in the world. Only the economic giants of the world beat us.

Fact 2: Our exports increased by 18% during last year despite sanctions and boycotts by the communists, the anti-White racists and our competitors who would rather sell their products to Africa than have South Africa sell its products.

Fact 3: The gross fixed investment grew over five successive quarters in a row, returning us to the golden years of 1983-84.

Fact 4: The production industry improved by 7,5% in real terms, which puts them at about 20% in money terms. Industry believes that it will do even better this year.

Fact 5: There is a 14,5% rise in the number of dwellings built in this financial year. A further 100 000 dwellings are on the drawing-board for the next two years. I would like to see any country in Africa get even close to that.

Fact 6: There was a 17,5% increase in salaries across the board in the private sector and the public sector. Last year there was more disposable income than in the year before and the brain drain decreased.

Fact 7: Eleven percent more overtime was worked and there was a 10% drop in unemployment. I would like to see where else in the world that happened last year.

Fact 8: South Africa’s balance of payments on current account is still in a healthy state and although seasonally adjusted—we said there was a deficit—in reality not once during last year was there a real deficit.

Fact 9: After four years of economic war against South Africa …[Interjections.]

Order!

During those four years we finished paying R13 billion of overseas debt. Now the ratio of our overseas debt relative to our exports is one of the lowest in the world.

Take Nigeria in Africa, for example, which can be compared to us—they are 400% worse off in their foreign debt in relation to what they export. I think we did excellently there. [Interjections.]

Then there is in fact 10. One can argue about the rest, but other people in the world feel about it the way I do. Our Stock Exchange stands at record levels. We are just about at the level of doing the best we have done in our existence. If hon members do not have confidence in our economy, the investors in this country do.

All this stems from rules laid down in the middle of a depression by a young Minister of Finance. I am almost sure the world to come is going to add one more word to its vocabulary. That word is “duplecycles”! We do not have the old madness of going up and down in huge booms and huge breaks. Our hon Minister of Finance has got smaller cycles going and that is doing the country a lot of good.

Mr Jerry Schuitema, in an interview on Good Morning South Africa three weeks ago, said we are the generation who are perhaps going to pay for South Africa’s greatness. He thinks that economically the right thing is being done now and that the generations to come are going to reap the benefits of what is going to be done.

There is only one man to fear. He is the modern “Soutie”. When I grew up a “Soutie” was an English-speaking highbrow sort of person. These days he does not only speak English. He speaks English, he speaks Afrikaans, he speaks African languages and he speaks Yiddish. A “Soutie” is somebody who lives with one leg overseas and one leg in South Africa, his gluteus maximus and other appendages hanging in the water and he does not ever know where he really belongs.

The “Soutie” measures us by other people’s standards—by overseas standards. He measures our moralities by other people’s moralities and not by our own. People overseas are supposed to be cultured; we in this country are “hairybacks”. The “Souties” study here to be doctors on our taxes but when they become doctors they write their green tickets and go off to work in America.

The “Souties” are the bishops in this country who tell us how our Black schools should be run morally, and then they send their children to private schools overseas. The “Souties” make their money here and then they syphon it out and send it overseas. The “Soutie” learns his business or technical skills here and then he emigrates to Australia. The “Soutie” treats our indigenous tricameral system with disdain and demands that we follow a socialist, a communist, a federal, a bicameral or any other system of government as long as it is not a South African citizens’ system of government.

One can exactly and quickly see what a “Soutie” does to our economy. I have just heard the hon member from the Free State telling us that the Afrikaner is responsible for apartheid. I heard just now that I am not the only history teacher. It seems as though he does not know that in 1772, Col Graham was given instructions to keep the races apart in this country with “a proper degree of terror!” [Interjection.]

If one goes to any place in the world today where the British have been, one will come up against apartheid. We did not create apartheid! Every law of apartheid that we have taken away—we are still taking more away—takes somebody’s bread bowl away and disturbs the system somewhere. That is not an easy job to do.

I did not mention in the 10 good points that we have achieved this year that we cannot build capital. In the old days it was possible to borrow whatever we needed. The “Soutie” has destroyed that concept of us overseas. He has given us a new perception overseas. We need capital to create jobs. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I have heard so much about the CP and the economy, but I met a friend of mine in Darling Street this morning and he asked me to convey a message to the CP about their policy of forced segregation of the different races in the country. His message is this:

In order to enable the fiscal strategy to play its full and fair part, it is important that there must be no increase in the total Government expenditure. But, in practice, Government expenditure is ever on the increase and I would like to substantiate this with facts and figures.

In the 1980-81 fiscal year the budgeted increase was 14%, but the actual increase amounted to 18,4%. In the 1981-82 fiscal year a 16,8% increase was budgeted and the actual increase was 20,3%. In 1982-83 the budgeted increase of 11,5% actually rose to 17,5% and in 1983-84 the increase was budgeted at 10,3% but it rose to 16,3%. In 1984-85 the budgeted increase of 11,7% rose to 21,8% and in the 1985-86 fiscal year the 11,5% increase that was budgeted rose to exceed 20%.

Today’s appropriation reflects an increase of 16% over last year’s figures, and of this increase it is impossible to say how much was spent in the form of capital expenditure and how much was administrative expenditure.

Much was said by the hon member for Germiston about the sound economy we are enjoying. If it is the case, Sir, that the economy is sound, why is it that prices of basic foodstuffs, the commodity which is necessary to sustain life, have risen by something like 800% over the past five years? [Interjections.] Yes. When I first came to Cape Town I could walk into a butcher’s shop and buy mutton for R3,25 per kg; today they want R9,99. [Interjections.] If the economy is on such a sound footing, why is our taxation so high?

Mismanagement!

Yes, that is what it amounts to. I want to do a symptomatic analysis. The root cause is Government over-expenditure. Hon members may ask in which sense this is so. One could argue that education and housing development must continue. It is also argued that welfare services must continue. The question is, however: In what form must these services continue? By duplicating, tripling or quadrupling services?

When the NP took over the country in 1948 it was run by 11 Ministers and two Deputy Ministers. What do we have today? There are 18 Ministers and 18 Deputy Ministers, as well as four Ministers in the House of Representatives and four in the House of Delegates. The question is, why is there this duplication, triplication and quadruplication in State expenditure? [Interjections.]

How many members are there?

There is no question about it: Is it necessary to have such great numbers? The hon the Chief Whip of the Parliament is putting words in my mouth. I wish he would enter the debate— I give him my permission! Is it necessary to have so many members sitting here, debating the same issue?

Why the necessity to have so many ministries, for example those of Health Services and Welfare? If an epidemic is to break out, is it going to distinguish between White, Coloured, Indian and Black while it goes across the country, taking everybody in its stride and destroying people? That is an object lesson that there ought to be one Minister. Fair enough, he has a Deputy Minister.

This is the reason why Government expenditure is excessive. As a result taxation is rising vertically instead of horizontally. What happens? Businessmen are reluctant to increase their production. The reason is that the hon the Minister of Finance, via the Receiver of Revenue, is a silent sleeping partner in the business and he grabs a share without doing anything. That is what happens. I am talking from experience. I know businessmen make just the amount to keep their employees happy, to feed their families and to keep something for the rainy days. They are not interested in making anything more than that. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister grabs! Actually it is a fact.

The fact of the matter is that the hon the Minister of Finance, through the Receiver of Revenue and the Inland Revenue Department, is a sleeping partner in all businesses in the country. Nobody likes to work hard and part with money, and therefore affects the economic growth of the country. If one takes Government expenditure and taxation and compare it to 20 years ago, one will find that the economic situation was far more healthy than today.

What has this triplication of the Houses of Parliament done? It has created grasshoppers. It has created opportunities for opportunists who have nothing to do. I know some who aspire to become Ministers in the House of Delegates without any knowledge of ministries. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, because of the virtual total ban by Government on information relating to the continuing political confrontation in our country, few White South Africans today knew that about a thousand South African political opponents of the present Government have been hidden in police prisons—in some cases for more than one and a half years. Imagine the cost to the taxpayer of this country to merely maintain that population.

The public at large also does not know that not one of these political detainees has been accused or charged with any crime. Their freedom has been taken away from them because this Government and its police force have decided to do so unilaterally, based on their own opinion.

Because these people have been left rotting in jail for one and a half years and more, and because all other channels—legal channels—available to them have been futile, they have resorted to the drastic action of a hunger strike to draw attention to their plight. This Government must blame itself for their action. If there was a true democracy, a truly just system in this country, we would not have this sort of situation.

According to my sources, which are good, there are presently 180 detainees on a hunger strike in Johannesburg and 105 in Port Elizabeth, while 11 at the Algoa Police Station have also joined the strike today. Detainees at the Walmer Police Station will do so from tomorrow. A total of 14 of these detainees have been hospitalised thus far.

I want to stress the seriousness of this hunger strike. We are dealing with people who find themselves in a situation so desperate that they are willing to risk losing or jeopardising their lives if the Government does not respond. The onus lies on the Government to do something. The Government refuses to budge on this issue and if one or more detainees should die or experience permanent damage—which is possible long before death—I believe that the Government will have only itself to blame. These detainees have no option. I must stress that. There is no option left for a detainee who has been in jail for a year and a half, not accused of anything and not going to court at any time. What else does one expect from him?

Last week, on 9 February, I asked the hon the Minister of Law and Order to allow the immediate families of those detainees who have been hospitalised to visit their relatives in hospital. I asked this on humanitarian grounds.

*I wish to repeat that request today. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the hon member for Germiston.

†I just want to say that in my younger days I had the fortune of listening to or reading the story of Alice in Wonderland. I hope he will not mind to be called Derek in Wonderland.

It is a privilege to take part in this debate and at the beginning I would like to welcome the new sounds from the NP.

*We can only say that these new sounds are not all that new to us. Over the years we have waited time and time again for a message of hope from the NP at the opening of Parliament. For years, after the opening of Parliament, the signs of hope were quoted in the Press, as was the case once more this weekend. We must, however, ask ourselves what the real signs of hope for South Africa are.

I would like to tell hon members what the Labour Party considers to be signs of hope. I want to tell the NP and hon members of the House that the Labour Party is here from the beginning till the end. Unlike members of the Official Opposition in the House of Representatives who are, at this moment, drinking tea, or who are absent and cannot argue the people’s case, we shall not be ousted from this forum where we can represent our people. The Labour Party will stay here in order to represent our people.

I quote from a pamphlet dated 22 August 1984 which was distributed by the LP:

The LP acknowledges man and his rights, therefore we are fighting for the human dignity of our people within the new South Africa.

South Africa’s economic growth should be shared by everyone who has had a share in its development and growth. We believe that the political solutions for our country are situated in political co-operation, not in political domination.

I want to remind hon members of the fact that we do not want to change the name of South Africa. We want to improve the way of life. The headline of this pamphlet reads as follows:

That is so. It might be a pity that I feature so prominently in it because that is definitely my photograph, but that is what brought the party into Parliament, and we are still propagating it in Parliament.

We want to state clearly that we are waiting for signsofhope.Itrustthehonthe leader of the NP will now step forward with signs of hope. We are ready to accept it. During the past five years no one could accuse us of not extending our hand of friendship for a new South Africa.

I would like to remind hon members of what we have accomplished during the past five years. We participated in debates and we were responsible for the fact that joint sittings are possible. I welcome that. I think this is the first budget debate to which justice will really be done, because we can debate it jointly here. This year I would like all Appropriation Bills to be debated here.

We accepted the new Constitution as a point of departure. We rejected violence. [Interjections.] We objected to that because certain principles of the previous constitution had been included and we were afforded no opportunity to negotiate about it. It was rammed down our throats—that was the way it had to be—and we did not accept that. [Interjections.]

We see the system of joint sittings as the future dispensation—the new South Africa. Hon members will remember that we were prepared to co-operate and to negotiate. We even elected the State President jointly. We did that jointly; we did not vote against him. That was the LP’s spirit of negotiation at the beginning of the new dispensation. The LP even adapted its sports policy in order to give South Africa’s sportsmen and sportswomen a chance. [Interjections.] We even took up the cudgels for South Africa on international forums. [Interjections.] Hon members are welcome to ask the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Minister of Finance. We do it at home as well as abroad.

I ask the hon member to call anyone to mind who defends this country better and with more pride abroad than members of the PFP or the LP. The LP who is sitting here and who, according to that hon member, cannot negotiate is prepared to go abroad and stand on platforms and defend this country, not the CP.

With the ANC.

Regardless of with whom.

Let me mention a few signs of hope for the hon member because I believe there should be signs of hope in this darkness in which South Africa finds itself.

Let us see what is meant by signs of hope. The upgrading of our education is one. Is it not time now to look at the shortcomings in our education system? Is it not the time now to consider ways of sharing facilities which are not utilized in rural areas in order to improve the educational system?

The hon the Ministers of Economic Affairs and Technology and of National Education should tell me to what degree we have adhered to the timetable in the first year of the 10 year plan for the upgrading of Blacks. And the hon member for Germiston says that we are making progress. If we are making that much progress in the economic field, why are we not producing the goods? What about integration in the public service? General affairs has become another own affairs for the Whites in this country. There is no intention at all of accommodating one of our members in die Commission for Administration. [Interjections.] Let us see how many people of colour really are accommodated in general affairs on the whole. I want to ask the hon the leader of the NP what happened to the integration we spoke about in Pretoria in 1985? What happened to the integration programme?

Colour is not important. However, we are building a new South Africa, and colour is going to be important to that. [Interjections.] Let us consider the economic advantages. One may speak of an economic policy, but where do non-Whites fit into this economic system? They do not fit in anywhere because the Government ensures White supremacy. [Interjections.] For instance, look at the question of the fish quotas and the Diemont Report. What has happened to the Diemont Report and the recommendations in the report concerning remaining communities? The Government is not concerned about the fate of people; the issue is the political control of this country.

We cannot create a new economic policy or a new South Africa in this country if we still want to include supremacy. If we. want to create a new South Africa we must think of a safe South Africa too. We must create a safe. South Africa because it will not be safe for us and for our children either if White supremacy is once more included in that economic dispensation.

As far as local authorities are concerned, I wish to mention the matter of Atlantis. How could an area like Atlantis be split into two? The Administration: House of Representatives has jurisdiction over housing and poverty while the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works has jurisdiction over economic growth and prosperity. Atlantis was built to conform to the policy of separate development. The Government segregates what it wishes to segregate, but it is not prepared to relinquish the economic benefits which may be derived from it. [Interjections.] It presents us with no hope. If the Government wants to prove to us that there are signs of hope, then I say that this is what we expect to see as signs of hope.

Let us consider the beaches. In my own constituency an area of 50m—slightly more than 50m— has been allocated to more than 8 000 constituents. Five kilometers of beaches are reserved for Whites. I ask hon members if that is fair. Are those the signs we want for a new South Africa?

I wish to say that we are not exhausted yet. Our hope for a new South Africa has not been exhausted. As long as the Labour Party of South Africa participates in this debating Chamber we shall work and strive for that new South Africa.

Mr Speaker, whilst it is an honour for me to follow the hon member for Mamre it is clearly not my responsibility to respond to the many issues he has raised, other than to say that I would support him wholeheartedly on most if not all of those issues.

One of the issues raised by the hon member for Yeoville earlier this afternoon dealt with the question of poverty and the need to demonstrate that the negotiation process can work. I wish to continue with that subject and in doing so I would like to refer to the recently published report of the Second Carnegie Enquiry into Poverty and Development in Southern Africa. The authors of this report argue—and I concur—that the development of effective strategies to deal with poverty in South Africa constitutes the central fundamental challenge to our society. Poverty is not unique to South Africa but there are reasons which make our circumstances unique.

The first of these is that in South Africa the division between rich and poor is greater than in any other country in the world for which statistics are available. This was derived from statistics developed in 1978 from a careful analysis by De Lange en Van Deventer of Stellenbosch University. It is an astonishing fact that extreme poverty is endured by so many Blacks in a society whose Whites have been one of the most affluent groups in the world. According to the same study, in 1970 the richest 20% of South Africans owned 75% of the wealth. Comparisons were also given for Brazil and the United States where the rich 20% owned 62% and 39% of the wealth, respectively.

The second unique factor affecting poverty in our country is the extent to which it exists as a consequence of a deliberate policy namely apartheid. Material poverty has been reinforced by the racist policies that are an assault on people’s humanity.

The distribution of wealth is clearly a political issue. In our divided nation the majority believe that a fair distribution will only be achieved when those who control the State are subjected to the will of the people—that free and fair elections on the basis of one vote for each adult person are regularly held. There is fear amongst Whites that whilst reform would be welcomed, the consequences of a rapid redistribution of political power would probably harm the economy and certainly act as a brake on economic growth. These two viewpoints have to converge before we can achieve political stability and sound economic growth.

In recent years many laws and regulations have been repealed that in the past have affected Black businessmen. Influx control has been lifted and restrictions on land ownership have been removed. Many of the laws and regulations restricting Black traders have been scrapped.

We have today approximately 100 free trade areas in central business districts, but I would endorse the plea made by the hon member for Innesdal last year, namely that all CBDs be opened to all groups immediately.

However, it is here that we have a problem. What may be approved at central Government level, may be—and often is—ignored at local government or municipal level. We recognise the Government’s commitment to economic growth in order to create additional jobs and we support moves made by them to deregulate the economy and to develop an informal sector. In fact, we encourage them and only wish that this would happen faster. I wish to sound a note of warning, though. The Government, in its eagerness to gain acceptance from Black communities, is once again distorting the free market system. This, like apartheid, will ultimately retard economic growth.

Earlier I made the point that apartheid was one of the main causes of poverty in South Africa. I would now argue that favouritism amounting to patronage in Black communities will, in fact, have a similar effect. There is overwhelming evidence that largesse is bestowed abundantly on those who participate in the system, whereas those who do not are deprived, whether it be housing, trading licences, business premises or whatever that is involved.

In the first instance this occurs at local government level, but there is no doubt that it has the blessings and the encouragement of higher Government structures and in particular the ominous joint management centres. This is an enormous mistake and, like apartheid, will stunt growth and promote poverty. Whilst this Government supports the principle of free enterprise, many of its activities are diametrically opposed to it. A free market system is not allowed to operate in the Black townships. In fact, I believe the opposite is happening, namely that economic opportunity flows from the autocratic decisions of town councils, supported by politically motivated bureaucrats.

Power is always corruptible. We have ample evidence of this from the revelations of the Harms Commission. However, a true democracy will ensure that those who are corrupt and who abuse their power will not be re-elected.

When the political system is rejected by a majority who therefore choose not to participate, this corrective function does not exist. I fear that until true democracy prevails, the opportunity for corruption and patronage, for deprivation and oppression will continue to abound.

It is not clever for Government to exploit this to their own perceived short term advantage. We have to have unfettered economic growth in a free market environment in order to begin to address the problem of poverty in our country. Whereas Government pays lip service to these concepts, I believe that what they are doing will in fact stunt growth to the detriment of all.

In the few moments left to me, I wish to refer to a plea received today by my colleague, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, which was signed by a further 11 detainees in Algoa Park police station, who have commenced a hunger strike today. These are the same 11 who were referred to earlier by the hon member for Claremont. Amongst these 11 are three who are under the age of 19, who have been detained since June 1986. This year will be the third that they are missing school. It is clear that this issue has to be addressed as a matter of enormous urgency. Again we call for all detainees to be charged or released. However, recognising that this will not be done now, we earnestly request the hon the Minister concerned to appoint an independent judicial enquiry into the matter of detainee hunger strikes.

The PFP has condemned the Government for detention without trial. Loss of life in this way is criminal and will drag our country’s name further into the dirt.

Mr Speaker, before I continue my speech, which deviates from the economic sphere, I should like to take the opportunity to say that it is very pleasant to participate in this debate. I also want to take the opportunity to congratulate the hon the Minister and his entire team on our country’s performance in the economic sphere; this in the midst of extremely difficult circumstances which our country is experiencing at present.

It is interesting that since last year’s municipal election the CP has not been eager to refer to its showing in the Free State. Before the election wild predictions were made, with the greatest self-confidence, on CP chances in the Free State. They aimed at gaining control over at least half of the councils and at having a voice on every council. Now I have to say the CP spokesmen in and about the Free State do not have a good record for accurate predictions; on the contrary, their predictions are regularly wrong.

Fortunately one need not refer to the PFP because they are no factor at all in the Free State. But what happened in the municipal election in the Free State? The Free State again clearly cast a formidable anti-CP vote, and in so doing confirmed that the CP was not to be trusted in looking after White interests. Of the 76 councils in that province the CP had trouble in gaining control over the unlucky number of 13 councils.

If one looks at how councils like that of Welkom reach decisions, contrary to CP policy, the number may decrease yet further. In many councils not a single CP candidate was elected.

After the national CP congress which was held in Bloemfontein after the results of the municipal elections, the CP claimed 23 councils. The NP is still struggling to establish how they arrived at that and would like to see their list in an effort to help the CP to be able to get their statistics straight.

Voters are realising in increasing measure that the CP offers no alternative to NP policy. Whatever differs from the current NP policy and is held up by the CP was put to the test by the NP over the years and found to be impracticable. What hope do they have of making it work if it was found impracticable by the NP on the basis of realities? We have been waiting since the formation of the CP for a clear and unadulterated policy from their side. Even CP supporters are becoming impatient. Voters are reaching a point where they no longer want to know what will not work but what will work. What any party wishes to bring into being must be more important than what it wishes to break down or destroy.

Various speakers have recently drawn attention to the phenomenon that CP-controlled councils do not wish to carry out CP policy or cannot do so. The CP is now caught up in a checkmate situation because, if councils under its control carry out CP policy, voters become aware with what absurdities they are dealing when unworkable dreams have to be applied in practice. [Interjections.] If councils controlled by them continue with proven NP policy, as is the case at places in the Free State too, voters who are well disposed toward the CP will realise that it does not help to become excited about, to have confidence in and to vote for a party with an impracticable policy. We are waiting eagerly to see how the situation will develop now that the CP can deliver the goods—an expression which they have already used themselves.

Last week we heard CP members alleging once again that they had been driven out of the NP. It is strange that some interesting correspondence in Die Volksblad has not come up for discussion in the House of Assembly yet. On Friday, 12 October, a letter by Mr Jaap Marais, the HNP leader, appeared in Die Volksblad in which he reacted to a letter in the same paper of 27 September written by a prominent CP member in Bloemfontein who wrote the following inter alia and I quote:

Mr Marais reacted to this by saying that is was not true that the breakaway of the present CP leaders had been caused by the NP’s acceptance of power-sharing. Without going into detail on his evaluation of the case, I should just like to quote his conclusion and this reads:

South Africa is a wonderful country to live in and to have as our fatherland. It is a unique country, amongst other reasons for its geography, climate and the composition of its population. The composition of our country’s population brings us face to face with enormous challenges which demand solutions peculiar to them.

Shortly before his death I had the opportunity of listening to a speech by Mr B J Vorster. On that occasion his message was one of hope and optimism. He said that the good Lord in His omniscience would not place challenges in our way which he knew we could not handle. His prediction that Africa would accept us as the leader on this continent seems to be anything but farfetched today. We should accept the population and the composition of the population as one of the assets of our country.

One would expect that all inhabitants of our country would appreciate the privilege of living here and in the light of the onslaught against us realise the necessity for standing together and then also doing so. Unfortunately a widespread spirit of negativism and defeatism prevails. To my mind Parliament has a great task to project a message of hope and to instil a positive attitude among members of the population who are dispirited so that all may make a contribution as citizens of the country to the progress, peace, security and co-operation in our country. That is why I should like to associate myself with the hon the Acting State President’s appeal for greater unity, greater unity within Afrikaner ranks, within White ranks as well as within the ranks of every people and population group and greater unity and standing together within the broad South African context.

It is good and necessary for political parties to join battle and rough one another up but sometimes a style is revealed which hampers cooperation and is conducive to confrontation.

Last week the hon member for Winburg said that the spirit in this Parliament did not always reflect relations between population groups outside. A confrontational style results only in polarisation and does not foster good relations. To speak of the task of Coloured people to educate Whites, as was reported during a congress, and to speak about White fears versus Black aspirations is unnecessary and not conducive to good relations. [Interjections.]

On the one hand most Whites realise that the salvation of all in this country can be assured only by co-operation with members of other population groups. On the other hand there is a deep-seated desire and determination among Whites in general to remain themselves, to hold their own and to have self-determination. This has nothing, simply nothing, to do with fears. Neither does it have anything to do with a superiority complex. This does not mean that fear does not cause some groupings to adopt certain political standpoints but one cannot generalise on this.

A great fuss is made by some hon members of the other Houses about the fact that a one-man-one-vote system in a unitary state does not spell danger for the assured survival of all and that they despise certain measures for the protection of group rights. Hon members know very well that certain hon members who, if one wished could be named, and the majority of the population groups which they represent for obvious reasons do not find a one-man-one-vote system in a unitary state acceptable and are also very grateful for the protective measures afforded by group rights.

Let us, and I mean all groups, seek peace and not begrudge any people and population group its rights and freedoms. Let us work together for the benefit and salvation of our country. Then we shall be able to apply Langenhoven’s saying to ourselves, namely to do what is right and let Providence answer for the consequences instead of doing what one likes and blaming God for the consequences.

Mr Speaker, one of the hon members who addressed the House stated that it was an Englishman who introduced racism or separate development in South Africa in the year 1772.1 think at this stage in our history one should not delve into who introduced racism or who introduced separation, but rather be able to say we condemn whoever introduced it. If we start justifying apartheid by saying that it is the Englishman who first introduced it, and the Afrikaner followed it, then the Afrikaner is as guilty as the Englishman. Why did the Afrikaner, since 1949, buttress that racism, that was introduced by English colonialism, with such harsh legislative laws that we have had to remove more than 100 laws since the tricameral system was established because those laws were based on blatant racism?

If we are going to talk about reconciliation and consensus politics we have to stop arguing “We are not the ones who introduced it—the English or the Afrikaners did”. It is high time that we start building bridges together, whether we came by boat or whether we are indigenous to this country. We are South Africans who were brought together by the grace of the Almighty God. It is high time that people stop talking about a White fatherland, an Indian fatherland, a Coloured fatherland or a Black fatherland, because—let us be candid—it is only a pipedream.

For the past 40 years we have been wasting our economy on non-productive government departments. Let us analyse the old Department of Community Development. We had an old department that was engaged in setting aside group areas, having what we call group area inspectors. Vast amounts of money were spent. Today we are talking about free settlement areas. There are also discussions on how they are going to dismantle the Group Areas Act and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. That whole nonproductive department was a waste of good South African finances.

I am appealing to the hon the Minister of Finance, the Cabinet and to the hon leader of the NP, although he is not here. It is high time that we stop talking in the mist, as I told hon members last week. Nobody in the country, including the extreme right wing, the extreme left wing, and many hon members of Parliament, I am sure, knows where we are heading.

Hon members make speeches from here and say that we are reforming. Admittedly, reform has taken place and we have come a long way since 1984, but what I am trying to stress here and what I want to know is what road lies ahead. Sometimes we hear a parliamentary address by a responsible Cabinet Minister, but when one analyses the sum total of that address it is nothing but a repetition of the principle of separateness and equality. Nothing that is separate can be equal and nothing that is equal can be separate. We are back to square one again.

Other parties come and talk about non-racial democracy and they flirt around with certain terms. I think it is high time that we put our act together and that the leaders of the House of Representatives, the House of Delegates, the House of Assembly and those of extra-parliamentary groups get together, put their act together and say “This is what our people want”.

There are many disillusioned Blacks, Whites, Indians and people called the Coloured people, who are asking where we are heading. That is why our politics has reached the stage today where no-one understands the direction our country is taking. It is very nice to come here and say, this is where we are heading.

Is this not the time when we need real reconciliation in this country? Time and again we have said that the dividing factors between the two sides have now been reduced to two obstacles. Maybe one should rather say that the one obstacle is on the Statute Book, namely the Group Areas Act, which has linked to it the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and the Population Registration Act. [Interjections.]

Hon members might ask why we play that tape over and over again. We will play that tape over and over, because that is the legislation which dehumanised us. That is the legislation which threw out thousands and thousands of people from the areas where we used to live. Those hon members do not feel it because they have not been thrown out. They do not feel it because 60% to 70% or more of the land is still under their control. More than 40 000 homes in their areas are unoccupied. How can that then be justified? [Interjections.]

I wish to address the hon the Minister of Finance. He prepares the Budget. Housing is important to our people. They are going over to White areas, and what is happening now? People want to lynch them there. How can people in the name of Christianity sink to such barbaric levels? How can we do that? [Interjections.] How can we condone the barbaric methods that are used in our country today, and yet say that we want to detain people without trial? We should have detained those people.

I very honestly wish to ask a question in this House today, Mr Speaker. Let us say a group of Blacks had a noose hanging somewhere, and they said that they wanted to lynch a White family. The whole lot of them would have been detained. [Interjections.] What is becoming of our sense of justice? What is becoming of our morality? Wrong is wrong, whether it is committed by an Indian, a Black, a Coloured or a White person.

Whoever commits a crime is in the wrong. Therefore I make an appeal today: As much as we talk about reconciliation insofar as reconciling ourselves one to another is concerned, we are just tearing one another apart. I can say it boldly that 80% in this country still have goodwill. It is actions like this that are making people seek vengeance.

I want to appeal to our fellow hon members here. There was a time when they were also oppressed by English-speaking people. I do not want to bring problems today but as one hon member said—he is a lecturer or student of history—these hon members had colonialism under English rule. [Interjections.] The hon member is always interjecting that way and I hope he is right in his interjections.

The Bloemfontein concentration camps were an example of their oppression. How on earth did those hon members then bring in harsh, oppressive laws when they suffered under oppression? How can they justify that even when we call ourselves a Christian nation? This even puzzles me.

At the same time we speak of reconciliation; when we want to bring healing to this land, we must bring it very fast failing which, each and everyone of us will become contributory factors to reduce South Africa to a wasteland. I am sure that none of us want to participate in things like that. There are many of us in our madness whether it is people of colour or White people, who think that when we reduce South Africa to the ashes we can build a new phoenix. That will be madness. The only way in which we can build a new South Africa is to recognise the word of an individual irrespective of what the colour or race of the particular person is.

I can assure hon members today that South Africa has still got goodwill. We have troublemakers in every community. [Interjections.] Mr Rajbansi has nothing to do with racism.

Debate interrupted.