Mr Chairman, I wish to start by referring to the speech made yesterday by the hon member for Rylands.

I believe that the hon member for Rylands is an excellent example of the diversity of the people we have in South Africa. He is a member of the House of Delegates. He is an Indian South African. He is a clergyman, trained in my own church, the NG church. When one considers such a case, one comprehends the diversity of the people in South Africa.

†I should like to say to the hon member for Rylands—I want to say it on behalf of all my colleagues on this side of the House—we really applauded everything he said yesterday. We can associate ourselves with all he said. The spirit reflected by his speech was the sort of spirit South Africa needs in the times ahead.

*Mr Chairman, I wish to start my speech by referring to a speech made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly in Parow last night. I wish to quote two passages from this morning’s Die Burger. The one reads:

The second reads:

Today I wish to say in this Chamber that if this is the kind of politics practised by leaders of political parties such as the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, then we in this country are heading for a very serious confrontation.

Let us just consider their demand for their own fatherland. Show me only one province in South Africa, only one city, one town, one farm—show me any place in South Africa—where White, Coloured and Black people are not literally being born every month. A person derives his citizenship and right to citizenship from his birth, and anyone who thinks that one can make a father-land by driving other people out of that area—or even worse, not acknowledging their rights— does not understand the explosive potential of South African politics.

He says: “Bruinman, vergeet dat jy die Boerevolk sal regeer.” I want to tell the hon the Leader that we have long since passed the era in which the White man in South Africa was the only person or group who had sole power and who had the sole right to power.

Here we sit in Parliament where we share power, and nothing has proved as clearly that we no longer have the sole right and the sole discretion and can no longer make unilateral laws in this country of ours than did the Group Areas Amendment Bill that we dealt with last year. I feel that the hon Leader and his party should ask themselves very seriously what kind of politics it is that they are practising. The other day he referred to our colleagues in the House of Delegates as “those people”. He said that they were people who did not even know what a nation was. If this kind of language—“those people” and “peoplewhodonot even knowwhatapeopleis”— is not abusive in the worst degree, then I do not know what abusive is.

In the few minutes I have at my disposal I wish to make a plea for fearless and drastic change in South Africa. At present we are struggling with a Part Appropriation. From whichever angle we view the South African economy—whether it is foreign investments or exports—we are trapped in the stranglehold of a political dilemma from which we have to escape. We all have a responsibility to get our country out of it.

That is why it is my plea today that we change as quickly as possible, also with regard to those laws that are still on the Statute Book and that discriminate between people on the grounds of race and colour. There is nothing that can and will stimulate the South African economy in the long and short term as reform will. Internally and internationally we still have many options. The hon members of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates referred repeatedly to the abundance of goodwill in South Africa. I also know about it. If a person looks at the people in your own constituency, you notice that the positive disposition is far greater than the negative. Hence my plea that we exercise this option.

I believe that the NP will exercise that option in the time that lies ahead. One thing that politics has taught me as a humble member of this Parliament is that if you reform only half-way, you have to give a full explanation. That is why my plea today is that we rather reform completely so that we can stop having to explain. [Interjections.]

I want to make the point here today that if we are ahead with our changes in South Africa, the pressure of the negative agitators will never catch up with us. That is why it is important to always be ahead in this process of change.

There are many truths regarding politics in South Africa and I want to point out a few. Firstly we must remember that the whole of South Africa is greater than the sum of its parts. This lesson we shall never be able to teach the CP, but the South African nation is more important than the Afrikaner people. [Interjections.] I say this as a member of the Afrikaner people.

Secondly we are paying an enormous price for many of the apartheid measures that are still on our Statute Book. I do not have the time to go into detail, but allow me to mention one example in connection with the Group Areas Act. Once again I wish to make a plea to the hon the Leader of the NP and the Cabinet. Let us take a penetrating look at section 19 of the Group Areas Act. There is no logic whatsoever in a specific section of the business area being declared open while other sections remain closed. [Interjections.]

It requires a vast amount of administration in the exercise of saying that the lines have to be drawn here. My humble opinion is that we can unleash an enormous amount of initiative if we open all business areas in South Africa for occupation and the plying of trade by all people in South Africa. [Interjections.]

The key to our future in South Africa lies in the word “freedom”. There is no word that can unleash such initiative in people as this word can. I believe that we have the human-material among all population groups in South Africa to unleash this initiative if we free people to give of their best in the economic, political and every other sphere. It is my conviction that “freedom” is the greatest and most important word in these times.

People constantly talk about power. If a person makes an analysis of it, power does not lie in the hands of the State President or the national leader of the NP or the Cabinet. Power lies in a system, and power can only lie in a system if all people in South Africa have an equal say and participation in that system. [Interjections.] The majority of the people, which includes my colleagues and I as well as all the voters in my constituency, will help to keep this country in its existing state, but then power has to be shared as it is being shared at present by the Government.

I wish to tell the hon the national leader of the NP that the speech which he made the other day, as well as the conciliatory tone he adopted, gave me hope for this country. I am convinced that if we can proceed in that spirit of humaneness and acceptance of one another as people, we are going to steer past three-quarters of our crises.

There is another truth that is going to roll over the realities in South Africa on the way ahead. That is that the process of change in South Africa has crossed its own Rubicon.

Let us admit it to one another: The Government party does not have to stimulate the informal sector in South Africa. The informal sector has, in its own right, rolled like a juggernaut over all regulations, laws and restrictions because it has brought out the initiative in people. In the same way, as far as open areas are concerned, I think it will only be possible by means of strong initiatives to prevent the realities of population pressure riding roughshod over the Group Areas Act.

I want to close by making the plea today that we in South Africa must educate our children positively for a new South Africa. When I listen to how children in schools in my constituency use words in their everyday language that they hear in their homes, I say to myself that we have reached a sorry day if we cannot impress on our children, by means of our educators and the education system, that every person in this country is a person in his or her own right and that the colour of a person’s skin is under no circumstances a guarantee and a passport to superiority. If we can succeed in doing that, I believe that in this country we will be able to send a young generation into the future with freedom as the basis in their thoughts and lives. The power in this country will then be able to stand on its own feet in its own right because the system that will prevail and exist in South Africa will be one that originates in the people, from the people and for the people. It will be a system for all South Africans and for our lovely country, South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I wish that more hon members in this House would talk like the hon member for Innesdal. He talks about fearless, drastic change in South Africa, and he wants this to take place as fast as possible. He says if one reforms only halfway, one always has to explain. I cannot but agree with him.

(The LP was accused yesterday of dwelling in the past and being bogged down in history.

It is easy for a feudal lord to invite his serfs to forget what happened in the past and to assist in working out ways in which the same lord may become an enlightened despot. We are here not to serve the interests of a sector of South African society, but the interests of South Africa as a whole.

At our last congress in Bloemfontein the LP leadership was given a clear mandate for further participation in Parliament. This mandate received overwhelming support—I might add there was just one dissident. [Interjections.] While this strong support for further participation is an indication of grassroots confidence in the leadership of the party and in Parliament it must not be assumed that the party has suddenly become enamoured of this tricameral structure or that peace has suddenly broken out between LP members and those who still uphold the principles of apartheid. Indeed, the party as a whole is never more at peace than when it fights apartheid.

It is said that he who forecasts all perils, will never sail the sea. The party has sailed in stormy weather and has now been urged to continue on its voyage until it reaches its destination. This final destination does not include an apartheid-free situation solely and exclusively for the sake of a recognition of human worth. It also includes the economic well-being of all South Africans. This economic well-being cannot be attained while the present constitutional arrangement exists in our country. The world knows that “baasskap” and the retention of White privilege at the expense of the interests of the majority of South Africans manifests itself in the current constitutional arrangement.

However, world opinion can be made to change if the ruling party in Parliament will accept that, should it move forward, it will be resisted only by a noisy, insincere, selfish, suicidal grouping of bigots while it will gain the support, respect and goodwill of the over-large majority of the population.

It seems clear that the world has become impatient with the slow pace of reform in this country. While it is becoming clear in certain parts of the world that disinvestment and sanctions will not effectively usher in reform, thought is already being given to alternative ways of pressurising this country.

I think everybody sitting here will agree that sanctions hurt. If there is still anyone who believes that there is value in sanctions against any country, I would suggest that such a person speak to someone like Dr Mangosuthu Buthelezi.

I want to ask whether South Africa, with its declining economy, can afford something even worse than sanctions. Can we conceive of anything worse than sanctions, short of total war? Would we be wise to challenge the world to come up with something even harsher than sanctions?

It is my contention that world opinion of reform in South Africa is directly proportionate to reform in South Africa. If all discriminatory measures were scrapped immediately, and even if legislation were introduced to outlaw apartheid, it would still take the world a considerable time to soften its attitude towards South Africa.

However, the longer South Africa persists with racial discrimination, the longer it will take for world opinion to change for the better, and the longer the hon the Minister of Finance will have to aim for a growth rate of 3%. Do we have the moral right to visit poverty, hunger and misery on a whole generation?

Don’t we have a moral right to solve our own problems?

I will come to that hon member in a moment.

The NP and its affiliates, the CP, are responsible for having devised the racist laws which have robbed the majority of South Africans of opportunities in the market place, in industry and in every other field of economic activity.

Economic discrimination made most of us mere economic spectators, especially in the boom years. While current efforts from Government to address disparities in the economic opportunities for its people must be welcomed—for example privatisation and deregulation—it must be remembered that once again most South Africans are left to spectate because of the decline in the economy which is being maintained on its course by the monster of apartheid.

It leaves a bitter taste in the mouth when in terms of the cost of housing alone those who were earlier denied the opportunity to do so, now not only have to fight against normal market forces but also have to contend with that system which the hon the Minister of Education and Culture (Assembly) referred to as an expensive system. Houses are usually and normally expensive. Apartheid makes them prohibitively expensive.

Does it make money sense to expect the House of Representatives to create townships for the scattered little collections of Coloured people in small towns like Greytown, Mooi River and Gingindhlovu? Does South Africa need a financial wizard to point out that it is uneconomical to plan the construction of teacher training colleges for each classified racial group in Natal when existing colleges are running at less than half their capacity? This is not history—it is current economic stupidity.

It would be remiss of me if I failed to address the growing tendency of politicians who are hell-bent on saying things which are calculated to have popular appeal in certain quarters. I refer—as did the hon member for Yeoville—to allegations that “Wit geld” is being used to carry the unproductive Black community. For fear of being branded a politician who is steeped in history I shall not deal with the matter of how privileged people amassed their wealth in this country. Rather, I will point out that it is an accepted fact that in any successful economic system, those who earn more pay higher taxes while the poor receive relatively more from the exchequer. It is an indictment of the White people in this country to claim that all Whites pay the taxes and the rest of us are having a free lunch.

The hon member for Germiston pointed out a number of facts yesterday. I shall just run through a few of them. He claimed, and I do not intend contesting or challenging his facts, that the GDP had increased by 4% in the past financial year, exports had increased by 18%, gross fixed investment grew over five successive quarters, etc.

As I have said, it is not my wish to challenge his facts, but I believe that it is important that we keep these facts in perspective. It does not help to compare the GDP of South Africa with that of any other country, unless one also takes the birth rate of the relevant country into account. What is our birth rate right now? Of the order of 5,5%? How dare we compare the GDP of South Africa with that of the giants in the economic world? How dare we? Especially with that of the countries in Europe where the birth rate is a negative factor. Obviously there is no comparison. How can we compare it with the rest of Africa, where the birth rate is even higher than in South Africa?

An improvement in production must be juxtaposed with the fact that disinvestment and sanctions bit into the country during the course of the past financial year. What we have experienced has been a nervous reaction to a new set of international circumstances. In one sense it can well be argued that sanctions were a blessing in disguise, because it took our manufacturers off the seats of their pants and made them a little more productive. I must agree with that school of thought.

In another sense, however, it would be foolish to assume that this trend will automatically continue into the new financial year and into future financial years. I believe that the hon the Minister of Finance has already indicated that a cooling-off process is taking place. We must already fight against complacency and already we must not lull the productive sector of the population into a sense of false security and complacency.

It is no good to argue that we have done well, and that the world can go to hell because South Africa will meet all challenges and do well. This is not going to happen. This country has to be taken by the economic scruff of its neck and shaken into the realities of the new century which is about to spring upon us.

I respect the summary which was given by the hon member for Germiston. However, I did not like his categorisation of a “Soutie” because I could not understand what relevance it had to economic matters. However, while his summary of the economic facts is useful, I must emphasise that the danger exists that it can be interpreted that everything has come right and that everything is going to improve. This is not going to happen. The country has to work harder and we have to emphasise the need to meet the political aspirations of the South African community as a whole in order to woo the attention of the rest of the world, especially in the economic sense, so that we can generate greater wealth in order to bring further improvement.

Mr Chairman, a few minutes ago we were in the House of Assembly, where the hon the Leader of the House made a great fuss about the importance of own affairs and an own community life. However, it has come to my attention that there is a university in the constituency of the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning which has an NP association, the membership of which is open to all races. It therefore does not surprise me that the CP is beginning to thrive at that university.

When we talk about the South African economy and analyse it, we find that there are two main categories, namely realities and illusions. One reality which we cannot escape is that the Treasury is spending altogether too much money. As long as the State is unable to discipline itself, there will be no end either to the ever-increasing burden on the individual. The demands being placed on the individual by the Treasury at the moment, are altogether too high. The undeniable consequence of this is that the public are being taxed to death, and the ones who are bearing the brunt of this are the Whites. Approximately 25% of State revenue is derived from the personal taxes of the Whites. The Government has discovered that it is precisely that ox which is straining the hardest that needs to be whipped in order to pull the wagon through the drift.

There is a second reality. Senior citizens are in an extremely difficult situation. Inflation has ruined them. The builders of yesterday cannot take any more. We owe them a great deal, and that is why I want to ask the hon the Minister to look with more compassion upon the lot of our senior citizens.

Boksburg is yet another economic reality. Boksburg will yet cost the NP many votes. In the long run the hare will not be able to beat the tortoise. The last word has not yet been spoken on Boksburg. The truth is, lies have short wings. The Boksburg issue is going to boomerang, as surely as I am standing here. Boksburg is going to send a CP MP to the House of Assembly. The boomerang is going to hit the one who threw it, and it is going to destroy him.

Then there are also illusions. Not all forms of urbanisation are a positive answer to the economic hardship of our time. Natural urbanisation is a normal form of growth in any country which wants to make economic progress. We have no fault to find with that, but when people stream to the cities and towns out of desperation in order to lead a beggar’s existence there, the economy will be unable to grow. Little settlements springing up like toadstools will bring forth nothing creative. The economy rejects all forms of artificiality.

The Government has also been unable to maintain orderly urbanisation. It has failed miserably in this. Just go and look at the villages springing up around our cities.

What is worse, is that people are pinning their hopes for economic growth on the informal sector. This is also called the illegal sector, the “out-of-reach-of-the-taxman” sector, or the “low-technical-knowledge” sector. To which Receiver of Revenue are these people accountable? I should like to know that from the hon the Minister.

Of the thousands of taxis on our roads, sometimes as many as 20 belong to one owner. Some of them easily make a net profit of R3 000 per month. Consequently, some of the owners boast that they have an income of approximately R60 000 per month, of which the Receiver of Revenue does not receive one cent. It is common knowledge, after all, that they are flourishing because the formal sector is performing so poorly. Who is keeping a watch in order to ensure that these backyard and garage factories contribute a share of this to the Treasury? Can South Africa afford to have such a large percentage of economically active participants contributing not a single cent to the Treasury? Is the State going to turn a blind eye to this? Is the State going to permit the informal sector to prey on the formal sector more and more? Is the State going to turn a blind eye to this with the result that in the long run this country will be dependent on a “live-for-today” type of economy?

It is also an illusion that those financially powerful companies with foreign interests cannot misuse the financial rand. It would appear that an increasing number of irregularities by way of the financial rand … [Interjections.]

Order! There are certain hon members to my left who are either talking loudly to this speaker, or talking loudly to one another. Both are very distracting. I ask hon members to kindly lower their voices. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, there are apparently some unscrupulous financiers who are riding on the back of the financial rand for personal gain. I want to ask the Government to take steps to close these loop-holes. Another myth is the assertion that the homeland policy is too expensive, that it is impracticable and impossible to implement. When the homeland policy was being implemented, the growth-rate in South Africa was among the highest. Over the years the total purchases of land for the homelands did not even amount to R1,3 billion, and not even 3% of this year’s State expenditure. It is also a myth to assert that one will get by even if the value of one’s monetary unit is falling by 13% per annum in relation to the value of the monetary units of one’s trading partners. Is the Government going to do something about this?

Even some small African states are ahead of us in this respect. It is also an illusion when a state wants to survive in the long run without generating sufficient capital expenditure. It is a source of concern that an increasingly smaller proportion of State revenue is being spent on capital assets. Current expenditure is claiming an increasingly greater proportion of State revenue.

It is a myth when one seeks to attribute one’s troubles and one’s inability to one’s forefathers, as if our forefathers had made such a wrong decision in 1909 and 1910. It is no good crying out, like Israel of old:

It is also a myth when Christians think that their primary task is to free the poor from poverty. The all-important task of Christianity is recorded in Matthew 11, and we should confine ourselves to preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the poor.

Not only that.

That is not to say that other help may not be offered as well.

Mr Chairman, I will not respond to the hon member for Witbank’s statements on the economy because I think they are extremely disordered—like the CP’s policy— with consequences similar to those we have seen in the ghost town, Boksburg. [Interjections.] However, it is a fact that one will have to grant the poor an opportunity to make money.

†Sir, I would also like to address the whole question of the informal sector. As hon members have seen in the course of this debate, there is broad agreement in this Chamber that South Africa desperately needs economic growth in order to feed, house and create jobs for our young and rapidly growing population and to counter the debilitating effects of inflation on our economy, which currently operates under severe structural restraints, not the least of which—as the hon the Minister of Finance has repeatedly pointed out—that we have no access to long-term loan finance overseas. The methods to achieve this aim of economic growth within these structural restraints are limited. The Government is obliged, as has been pointed out, to operate within very narrow parameters.

Among the constructive measures available to the Government at this point in time is to deregulate, and the Government has adopted a policy of deregulation. There is also broad consensus with the private sector on deregulation. Constructive measures have already been implemented and much business activity from a racial point of view has been deregulated—Boksburg notwithstanding—which has given impetus to the informal sector. However, there is still a great deal of overregulation lurking in our laws and in particular in our bylaws and provincial ordinances, where it hits the small businessmen and women the hardest. In our changed economic situation we must try to rein in our natural propensity to ask, in the words of that radio show of the sixties: “Did you got a licence?”

Municipal bylaws are notorious among housewives, or home executives, hawkers and other members of the informal sector alike for inhibiting their ability to make an honest living. In my view central Government must take the lead in encouraging local authorities to decriminalise enterprising citizens.

For instance, easing up on town-planning by-laws and provisions on the use of residential sites for business, will stop unnecessary harassment of housewives and others who have no option but to run their businesses from home. This could help unleash womanpower economically.

Perhaps even more important though, is to remove the legislative prohibitions on street traders, which would decriminalize great numbers of ambitious and productive individuals. Not only the prohibitions, but also the unnecessary obligations and administrative burdens placed on hawkers and others in the informal sector, need to be re-examined. The African Council of Hawkers and Informal Business claims that its members paid up nearly R1 million in fines in 1986, which really seems an excessive figure if it is to be believed.

Three weeks ago I personally witnessed a posse of traffic officers chasing a group of hawkers down a street in Johannesburg, away from where they had been selling goods. Now, truly, Mr Chairman, in times like these, for people paid by the ratepayers or the State to be spending their time preventing other citizens from earning a living so that they will not be a burden on the State’s resources, seems almost un-South African.

The informal sector has shown tremendous inherent strength. It has been estimated that the unrecorded informal sector is generating up to R40 billion per annum in turnover. The obvious example of this strength is the rapid development of the kombi-taxi transport system which several speakers in this debate have referred to. As we know, some eight years ago the kombi-taxis officially did not exist, and now they have some 120 000 kombis in operation. As an industry they have matured sufficiently to begin to exercise voluntary controls.

The focus has now shifted to the hawkers who are rapidly increasing in number. As an example, I can tell the hon members that between June 1985 and June 1986, only 781 hawkers’ licences were granted in Johannesburg, compared with 8 514 for a six-month period from July to February this year.

Both Prof Louise Tager, who is both chairman of the Harmful Business Practices Committee and executive officer of the Law Review Project, and the Small Business Development Corporation, have made in-depth studies of street traders, and both recommended a new dispensation for hawkers and other informal traders, so that they are given greater freedom to carry on business in public places. It is now basically up to the local authorities to give them this greater freedom.

Some local authorities have made progress in establishing or participating in deregulation committees. Johannesburg, for instance, in consultation with the Central Business District Association and the Witwatersrand Chamber of Commerce and Industry, has in fact eased restrictions by reducing the area from which street vendors are restricted and by providing that a hawker does not need to move every hour, but only every two hours in order to escape committing an offence.

This may be a slight improvement, but a host of restrictions remain and we should really ask ourselves whether these sorts of restrictions are necessary at all. The Small Business Development Corporation suggests that most of them should be repealed.

It has also been argued that resistance to deregulation comes not so much from the Government as from groups that have vested interests. In the case of the hawker, it is the formal retail trader.

However, this is certainly not the case in Johannesburg, as the joint ad hoc committees on deregulation of both the Central Business District Association and the Witwatersrand Chamber of Commerce and Industry are backing the derestriction and deregulation of hawkers. Their only concern is that there should be no adverse effect on the environment; that is to say that there should be no overcrowding or littering on pavements. This concern about the environment sums up the valid and legitimate concerns of all reasonable citizens and should, in fact, also apply to the use of residential sites for business.

The formal retailers claim that they are not afraid of competition, and it has been suggested that the restrictions on formal retailers should also be lifted to allow them to go out on the street outside their shops and compete with the hawkers. Why not, Sir?

In conclusion, I would like to point out that in his address last week the leader of the NP stated that we must approach our immediate problems in a workman-like manner. Our lack of economic growth and unemployment are among our most pressing immediate problems.

We have adopted a policy of deregulation and I would like to make a strong appeal to the hon the Minister to give weight and impetus to the rooting out of over-regulation at all levels of Government, where it obstructs men and women from earning an honest living. If we really want to become a nation of traders wherein—as so many economists tell us—lies our economic salvation, then we must begin at home and on the streets and backstreets by liberating the small businessman and woman from the constraints on them.

Mr Chairman, I must congratulate the hon member for Rosettenville. I think she made a very sound observation of all the inhibitions in the private sector and a wonderful contribution to free enterprise as a whole.

I think there is a lesson for all of us in what she said. In spite of the deregulation legislation being passed in Parliament a few years ago, it has not yet filtered down to the local level. I think there should be more impetus attached to this.

The budget that has been presented here—the part appropriation of R18,3 billion—involves a lot of expenses for various departments. A matter that I want to touch on this afternoon is that of the Public Service.

In the Public Service there were 865 385 people employed two years ago and that excludes the SATS and the Post Office. With that kind of figure two years ago I do not know what it could be today.

The question to be asked is how many people of colour are involved in the Public Service? Going back in history, let us look at the past practices— we have to refer to history if we need to know what we have to do in the future—of the Hertzog NP and the Cresswell Labour Coalition, where it was enacted and encouraged that White employment would receive incentives. Those who employed Whites would get incentives.

We have come a long way since then. We know that the Government is interested in reform programmes, but reform programmes do not only refer to political reform, they also mean reform across the whole spectrum.

Let us look at the Public Service. There I think it is necessary that people of colour should be brought in, but not en masse and not as a token. What we require is a proper affirmative programme so that slowly but surely people of colour will become involved in the Public Service. This is a massive job situation. There I think it is necessary to bring them in and we should look into the matter urgently.

History has taught us that there are certain inhibitions which we have to remove and we have to learn and grasp from this. It is no good saying: “I was also a history teacher.” What is important is what you have learnt from that teaching.

I think the last speaker said enough about deregulation in the economy. We cannot leave that lying idle, because that is where our survival will come from. Deregulation plus job creation in the informal sector require that inhibitions should be removed, and that is where the job creation is at its cheapest.

Let us look at parity in pensions. The hon member for Yeoville made a very telling point yesterday. He said that if we spend 2% of the global budget, we will bring about parity in pensions.

The hon member is the expert and I do not wish to argue with him. What I am going to suggest, however, is that we should take a positive step forward. Let us bring in a 1% increase, and in so doing go halfway in solving the problem, so that we shall be able to bring about parity in pensions over a shorter period. That is a step which may also be called reform. Reform means many different things to different people. This is one step towards reform that could be taken without upsetting too much of the vested interest associated with it.

Political rhetoric does not meet practical realities. Practical realities are needed to bring about reform, and wherever we can we should be bringing about reform in a manner which will satisfy people as we go along.

In all this there is a lesson for us to learn: There are restrictions in commerce, industry and agriculture. There is no reason whatsoever why the commercial sector should be involved in the application for permits. I know of a case—all hon members will know of a case in their own areas— where on 6 October an application was made to occupy a shop. The procedure went on and on, and until today there has not even been a decent reply to say what is going to happen. That application is still pending. All that is said is that the matter is receiving attention. When will the matter come to finality? In the meantime the landlord is waiting to lease the shop and the proposed tenant is waiting for a reply.

I fully agree with the hon member for Innesdal. I think he made a telling point today. It is not usual for an hon member of the ruling party, the NP, to say that we should do away with these laws. In that speech, as well as in the speech by the hon member for Rosettenville, there is hope. In all the darkness that there may be, a single candle removes the darkness, and all the darkness in the world cannot put out the light of a single candle. Here we are seeing more candles lighting up the darkness, and I hope the time will come when all these restrictions will be removed and there will be a free society. One cannot have free enterprise when there is no freedom for it to flourish.

Mr Chairman, I can only deal with one specific matter because of the few minutes at my disposal. I wish to register my strongest condemnation of the manner in which the Government has negotiated the agreement with Tolcon regarding the tolling of sections of the N3 in its bid to privatise this important communication link between Johannesburg and Durban.

I refer in particular to the section of the N3 between Pietermaritzburg and the Tugela Plaza. Time, regrettably, does not make it possible for me to elaborate to any degree on the historical aspects which are pertinent to the extreme dissatisfaction and resentment that has been aroused and which is presently being expressed by the public living in and around Mooi River. We must remember that these are the people, when in pursuit of their daily activities, that are most affected by the Toll Plaza. I acknowledge the fact that Tolcon, because of the public outcry over the high toll fees charged, have agreed to grant a concession to light vehicles travelling on the southbound section to Pietermaritzburg.

I must point out, however, that this concession does not go far enough and that there is every justification for all NMR registered vehicles to be totally exempted from toll fees at Mooi River, irrespective of whether they travel north or south or whatever vehicles may be involved.

In motivation of this demand I must point out that the Government declined to consult the Town Council, or representative bodies such as the Mooi River Farmers’ Association and the Mooi River Chamber of Commerce before entering into contract with the consortium concerned, in spite of having been requested by me to do so.

Such was the indecent haste with which the Government went about its business of privatisation of the N3, its handling of the whole matter can only be described as being inept, stubborn and hamhanded. Little wonder then that feelings are running so high in Mooi River. The public there is justified in feeling that they are the victims of a situation which was arbitrarily imposed upon them. I call on the hon the Minister to make immediate contact with Tolcon for the purpose of discussing the possibility of reviewing and, if necessary, renegotiating certain aspects of the signed agreement which have only come to light since the toll was established at Mooi River.

This should be done with a view to removing anomalies which the public find unacceptable. This would at least indicate that the Government is not totally insensitive to the problems being experienced by the people of Mooi River.

Mr Chairman, I would like to address an issue which I believe is very topical at this moment, and that is the whole question of detention without trial.

I address this House as a person who has been a victim of detention without trial. I therefore speak to hon members as an ex-detainee. I have experienced the other side of those bars. Unfortunately the hon the Minister of Law and Order—and I do not want to question his bona fides—has not had that experience.

I was an 18-year-old student when I spent two weeks in solitary confinement. I had no contact with the outside world whatsoever. I sat for two weeks without water to drink or water to wash. I was given three pieces of bread a day, as well as two cans of black coffee. This happened despite the chief of security in Uitenhage saying that I was entitled to a proper diet. I was not allowed exercise in the courtyard. I was kept out of the sun, despite, once again, the chief of security in Uitenhage saying that I was entitled to exercise.

If one can have that sort of communication problem over a 30 km area, one wants to question how reliable the information is that the hon the Minister of Law and Order receives from the jails in Port Elizabeth and elsewhere. I would strongly recommend to him that he visit these places of detention and that he accept personal responsibility for detainees’ well-being.

I cannot but agree with the former State President C R Swart when he said:

*This is all we in the LP request. If these people have contravened the law, they should be brought before a court of law.

†I was in detention for 14 days. A person from Port Elizabeth, Brian Sokutu, a freelance journalist of the Eastern Province Herald, was detained on 12 June 1986 and has been there for approximately 970 days. What justification can you give for that, Sir? If the man is guilty charge him; if not, let him be.

Henry Fazzie, also from Port Elizabeth, was also detained in approximately June 1986, as was Mkhuseli Jack, a reporter of the Evening Post, and chairman of Peyco, who we believe was detained because of the Port Elizabeth consumer boycott which ended long ago. For how long can one justify keeping these people there?

The hon the Minister of Law and Order said in the Cape Times, of 14 February 1989:

This is a nice, all-encompassing term—“a threat to public safety”.

*It makes people think of all kinds of strange things—people running around with bombs, people with AK 47s. If that were the case, these people would have appeared in court by now.

†What is public safety? I am not the only exdetainee in my party—there are the hon the Chief Whip of our party, the hon leader of the LP, the hon deputy leader and the hon member for Reigerpark, who was shot for being a threat to public safety.

These are people like us, normal South Africans, who are being put in jail. [Interjections.] The hon member is right, I am an MP now because I have been given the opportunity to come and state my case. If the hon member gives those people in jail an opportunity, they will be here. As long as one does not give them an opportunity, they are going to have to look at other means of stating their case.

There is the whole case of public safety. I have got here, addressed to Mr Ismail Richards, 28 Welman Avenue, Newclare, a notice in terms of section 10 (1) (a), read with section 10 (1) (a) bis of the Internal Security Act, 1950 (Act 44 of 1950) which states:

This is the hon member for Toekomsrus, the person who is considered to constitute a threat to public safety. How many other people are not in jail at this moment?

We know that there is a hunger strike going on at the moment. I would like to read excerpts from the Sowetan of 12 December 1988. It says:

The letter continues:

I also received a letter from detainees at the St Albans Medium Prison in Port Elizabeth which is in my constituency. I would like to read some parts of it as I am restricted in the time allocated to me. It is from the detainees at St Albans Medium Prison and they say amongst other things:

They go on:

The statement continues and there are a number of other things which are also mentioned, things which are and should be of concern to every member of Government and to every citizen of this country because each and every one of us is going to pay the price if people start dying in prison.

We can still remember all the bad publicity that England got when Bobby Sands died in Ireland. Do we want that to happen in our country?

*It is unfortunate that the hon the Minister of Law and Order is not here, but I wish to appeal to him to visit these prisons personally and to see for himself the conditions in which these people are being detained.

After all, there cannot be any justification for laws which make provision for detention without trial. It is ungodly, immoral and cannot be justified under any circumstances.

Mr Chairman, it is a great pity that my hon chief leader is not here today as I should have liked to say the following in his presence. I must say that since he became the chief leader the only matter which has really given him any trouble was his effort to extract an answer from the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition (House of Assembly) last Friday.

In the no-confidence debate the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition (Assembly) spoke about Boksburg. In consequence of the realities which are now facing the CP and the problems which they are experiencing, he ultimately realised that, to try to save the situation, he would have to say that the city council there would help those of colour—the Coloureds in particular—to get amenities but the answer came only after three efforts by my hon leader. No reply was given to the question whether it would be “White” money. The question was put a second time and again no answer was received to it. When it was put a third time, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition (Assembly) was silent for a moment and then said: “Of course”. [Interjections.] What an about-turn! [Interjections.] What an about-turn! If there is one thing the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition (Assembly) is good at it is turning somersaults.

There is another CP lie which is also coming to an end. This is the CP concept that they are a party for the White worker. I am stating here today that the CP does not care a brass farthing—and I shall specify—for the White worker. I shall not even mention Coloureds, Indians and Blacks because they show no concern for them in any case. They do not care a brass farthing for the White worker. One should take a look at this. The hon member for Witbank referred to Boksburg in the House a moment ago. If one has ever heard someone whistling in the dark, it was their counterreaction in defence of the Boksburg City Council’s dilemma.

I want to tell the hon the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Assembly, however, that he would do well to make some enquiries as to what is happening in Boksburg. I did this and I want to tell him that it is not a pretty picture. In fact, it is an alarming picture. I spoke to businessmen there. A number telephoned me too and I am telling hon members that tales of heartbreak were really revealed in consequence of business undertakings which are going under.

Just don’t cry!

No, I am not crying but I want to tell that hon member that his party is responsible for the fact that not only people of colour but also Whites are unemployed in Boksburg. They are directly responsible for this. They cannot get away from it. They should go and have a talk with those businessmen.

The hon member for Boksburg will give those hon members a pile of letters. He showed them to me; I read them. They should read the letters which are being received from large and small business undertakings. Let them read them! Let them read how many Whites are unemployed now.

If one speaks to these people, one finds that comments vary. I shall read a few to hon members:

Another reads like this:

They are referring to the money which they invested in a business undertaking which was very prosperous until December 1988.

Another wrote the following:

Hon members should listen to this—

The manager of a chain group there told me that their turnover was 40% down. They had to retrench a number of workers who had been in their service part-time.

I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly whether he knows what it feels like to lie awake at night in the knowledge that one’s business undertaking is collapsing? Does he know what it feels like to toss and turn in one’s bed at night knowing that one does not have a job? I am not trying to be melodramatic.

It is your people’s policy.

It is not my people; it is the hon Leader’s people who are applying the policy there.

It is your boycott.

It is their city council which took the decision on the instructions of those hon members. They gave them instructions to carry out CP policy. They have to carry them out. I want to say, however, that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly does not know what this means and I want to take it further. I think he does not care a brass farthing either. They come here with fine words and say “Boksburg will become a monument yet”. It will become a monument but a different monument from what those hon members would like to see. A person has the greatest sympathy for these people. Those people appeal to us. They say: “Please, can the Government not do something to stop this?” But now those hon members say this will be a monument. They also say the setback is only temporary; it is just propaganda; it is the newspapers of the Nasionale Pers and so on. Now it is suddenly the newspapers’ fault again. I really think the CP should reflect on what it is doing there.

I now ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly what he intends doing about it. He was the one who said in Leadership that, if it were necessary for them to change their style and if businesses were suffering as a result of it, they would have to review it. Does he not want to tell us now what the CP intends doing because, if they are waiting for facts, then there are ugly facts in store for them. They would do well to start making a few enquiries.

I want to go a little further. What did the hon Leader do? Shortly after the election he rose and said: “Where CP city councils have taken over, CP policy will be carried out and, if it is not done, they will be suspended.” This has been confirmed. I see the hon member for Pietersburg laughing. Did he not confirm this in the Free State when the CP councillors were gathered there? He did so; the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke did so; the hon member for Randfontein did so. He said that they would now have to close business centres and, if they did not do so, they would be suspended.

This is certainly so. They do not deny it. [Interjections.] But what did the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition do? When all hell broke loose about the Boksburg issue, he was dead quiet for two weeks. He sent the hon member for Overvaal to see what he could salvage. The hon the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Assembly then held a meeting there at which he first defended the councillors and said that they should be given a chance to carry out their mandate. Boksburg was to be given a chance and there was to be a stop to propaganda.

When matters subsequently went from bad to worse, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition suggested in a very subtle play on words that the CP city council could actually have followed a different style and so on. He turned his back on his own people to whom he had given instructions to carry out his policy. It was a play on words but we can read between the lines.

I think you’re dreaming!

No, I am not dreaming. Let me tell that hon member what a CP city councillor said. Let us see whether I am dreaming. In reply to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s comments that their style had perhaps been wrong and that they could possibly have adopted a different tone, or could perhaps have done it more slowly—as if that would have lessened the evil—the CP Chief Whip in Boksburg said:

What is the city councillor telling the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition? That he wants to carry out his policy in a dishonest manner. He happens to be right because, if the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says that the policy should or could be carried out more slowly or differently, he must remember that the final product is the same. [Interjections.] What type of leader is this? If my chief leader gives me an instruction and I carry it out and all hell breaks loose around me and he turns his back on me and says that I adopted the wrong style, I would definitely not feel good about my leader. I am pleased that I do not have such a leader, but my leader would not give me such a ridiculous instruction in the first place. [Interjections.]

I also want to tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition today—and have it placed on record in Hansard—that he will not suspend CP city councillors who do not carry out his policy because Louis Trichardt has already told him that they will not do this. Welkom said the same and Springs and other places are as silent as the grave. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will not suspend them and there is a reason for this. If he has to suspend them, he will have to suspend 98% of CP city councillors throughout the country and he cannot afford to do that. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want first of all to touch on local government. When one looks at the three structures of Government: central, provincial and local government, one must accept that local government is the most important because at that level rest the quality of life and the bread and butter issues of people.

I, therefore, find myself in a difficult position because I witness the total imbalances in this country, and to bring about a balance amid the imbalances which we are faced with, naturally poses a problem, a problem of positive negotiation with other authorities.

I have previously mentioned this and it is equally imperative for me to enlighten this House about the various implications with which my community have been faced in many areas. As a result of the various pieces of legislation that remain on the Statute Book, 87% of the Indian population was sandwiched in Natal.

Having been sandwiched in that situation, they had to commute some 200km each day merely to earn a living. These were the circumstances in this country. However, in the past few years, as a result of our negotiation and our positive participation, we have been able to repeal many Acts successfully. In pursuance of that we have been faced with further problems. The problems are to settle communities and to provide communities with the bare necessities. The bare necessities in life are housing, education, welfare, etc—which were totally absent in many of these communities.

South Africa was built, in many instances, by people who commuted hundreds of kilometres per day. When a parent left home, he left it at three in the morning. He arrived back home at ten o’clock at night. He merely became a provider and his children were not aware that they had a father. That was the price that people have paid.

When Richard’s Bay was established members of the Indian community who were involved had to commute daily from Durban, Tongaat, Tugela and Stanger. The same situation exists, even in the Northern Natal districts where people are commuting from Dannhauser, Dundee, Glencoe and Wasbank to the Vryheid area, merely to make a living.

However, we are fortunate that these areas are being identified. Once such an area has been identified, it calls for financial assistance and a financial injection in order to develop that area. Therefore the local government structures within these areas are not structured to the extent that they will be able to carry their responsibilities.

We are currently developing Gingindhlovu. It needs a health committee. We do not have water reticulation; we have no health services. We are also developing Mtubatuba. That area does not have all the infrastructures either. The local government structures have to be established to the extent that they will be able to provide the bare necessities of a community, develop communities and give them responsibility and make them feel that they belong to a country. What is more, they should be made to feel that they are able to make a positive contribution.

No-one in South Africa in this age and in this era must imagine that we are merely here to make a living. So the local government structure must be given serious consideration. In Richard’s Bay we built homes, and now I have a problem finding money to establish a cemetery. These are all the problems which we face. Naturally we are calling upon the authorities to give consideration to our problems so that we will be able to overcome them.

Significant economic progress will not be possible without fundamental political reform. In turn, reform needs to be underpinned by strong economic growth. Inflation, after showing a welcome drop, appears set to increase once more. Action will be required in a number of areas, including Government fiscal restraint and appropriate and timely monetary control by the Reserve Bank, if it is to be brought down to a reasonable rate. Most important, both the public and the private sector should make an effort to improve productivity. Sanctions in the form of restrictions on foreign borrowing are already affecting the economy seriously, and even if other sanctions at the present level are not proving to be onerous, there is still the possibility of their being strengthened. Our national objective must be to achieve the maximum growth commensurate with our considerable resources, both material and human.

Mrs Margaret Thatcher calls for a shareholding democracy. This is a very important term used by one of the leading leaders in the world. She says shareholding democracy should be sold as an essential part of political reform. On that basis, and because our country is in transition, privatisation must be uppermost in our mind. The disposal of Government assets must be within the reach of possible entrepreneurs, our whole objective being to get the private entrepreneurs to become productive tax-paying entities.

This will indeed signal the Government’s seriousness regarding free enterprise. One hopes that its efforts will not be swamped by an inability to rid itself of the vestiges of apartheid. On the shoulders of our Head of State rests the responsiblity to create a new share-owning democracy.

The country is looking forward to the narrowing of the gap of the quality of life between the Blacks and other South Africans. Our task is twofold: Firstly, we must prove tangible economic realities and secondly, give the reassurance that political reforms will automatically follow.

The hon the leader of the NP mentioned in the Financial Mail that the road ahead will be tough and that there are no shortcuts or quick fixes for the problems facing South Africa. Food security is of paramount importance in this country and we must take cognisance of what prevails in sub-Saharan Africa where 100 million people go to bed without full bellies. Every fifth child in the region dies before his or her fifth birthday. Perhaps one of the most telling facts is that half of the people who cannot afford enough food live in seven countries, namely Ethiopia, Zaire, Uganda, Mozambique, Nigeria, Tanzania and Kenya.

South Africa has to protect her agricultural sector and, in doing so, all available land utilised for the production of food and the ownership of such agricultural land must under no circumstances be subject to a group tag. Even with all our mineral resources I maintain very strongly that the utilisation of our soil and leading South Africans to the agricultural sphere and the soil of our country is absolutely imperative because we must be self-reliant and able to live off our land. Agriculture must therefore be looked upon as agriculture as such with no group tag whatsoever.

The Indian community in this country was brought here to till the soil and they were regarded as the tillers of the soil. As a result of all the discriminatory factors we became urbanised. We are now doing everything humanly possible to instil once again in the Indian community the importance of becoming agriculturists and of making a positive contribution, thus providing the food and other necessities which a country like South Africa needs.

With these factors in mind I am certain that, given the consideration and the co-operation that is needed from all the sectors, we shall witness the birth of a new South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I want to refer to the speech of the hon member for Addo. He spoke about detainees and hunger strikers, especially referring to those at the St Albans Prison.

The duties of the medical profession concerning detainees and hunger strikers are absolutely clear. The medical profession has to treat them with dignity and respect and keep them comfortable, but under no circumstances can we treat them if they refuse treatment. That is a fact.

Of course there will be rumours of force-feeding and of enforced drip-feeding. This can be of no good to the good name that South Africa has as far as the medical profession is concerned. Therefore, I would like to ask the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development today to ensure that the medical ethics concerning these hunger strikers are strictly adhered to. In addition, knowing and realising that there will be rumours, he should see to it that private medical practitioners can visit these hunger strikers to make doubly sure that this is done. To quote the hon the Minister: “We do, we do.”

Finally, I would like to tell the hon the Minister and the NP that if people do not eat, they die. It might take 20,30 or 40 days. I want to implore the Government to take this hunger strike seriously. I think it might be necessary to renegotiate and to do what is right, namely to release these detainees or to take them to court to decide what they have done wrong.

The Government will be fully responsible if they die without this being done.

*I should like to congratulate the hon member for Innesdal on an excellent speech and suggest that it be printed and distributed to every NP member and that the hon chief leader of the NP in particular read it at least five times. The hon member referred to fearless change and said that positive attitudes were far stronger than one imagined. He added that a South African nation was more important than the Afrikaans people. He also said that we should open up all business districts.

The hon chief leader of the NP asked the PFP a few days ago how many members of other population groups belonged to that party and the hon member for Turffontein elaborated on this. I regret to say that the number is very small. That is my honest answer. The point, however, is not how many members belong to my party but that members of other population groups are able to belong to my party. I cannot ask Ministers to belong to our party but they may.

I want to ask the NP whether the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates is able to be a member of the NP. If we are discussing freedom, everything must be thrown open. The hon member for Innesdal must admit that, if this important opening up takes place, the NP must also throw open its membership and that the pleas for free association must also mean free political association. I want to request the hon member to insist that this happen.

I find it interesting to look down the aisle when I am standing on the podium. One sees people sitting on one’s left and on one’s right. Those of colour sit on the left—that is to say Asians and Coloureds—and Whites; only Whites sit on the right. I want to tell the NP today—I am no prophet—that we will sit there mixed just as we do here. Ministers in this Meeting will be Ministers there too. They need not raise objections in this regard. All the NP is doing is postponing what is going to happen.

I request the NP to throw it open. Free association is not only a word which is used easily; it is an important word. I am very proud that I sit on this side of the House and not on the opposite side. I regard these people as part of my country, as part of my people and as part of me. I shall be proud when the day comes when it is possible to belong to these parties if I am in agreement with their principles. Colour is not the problem; it is the party and the principle. The sooner hon members on the Government side of the House take note of this, the better.

†I want to refer to a publication of the Bureau for Information, or shall we call it disinformation, RSA Policy Review. I am very pleased to see that the hon Minister of National Health and Population Development made many statements here which play a role in the misinformation that is created by the Bureau for Information. Time will not allow me to refer to all these statements. I find it strange for the hon the Minister of Health and Population Development to act in such a way. I hope to have the time later in the year to debate this further.

Listen to one of the hon the Minister’s statements, through which he continues to misinform, and I quote from RSA Policy Review, volume 2:

Does the hon the Minister really believe what he is saying? I think this is the most insensitive, racist statement I have ever heard. Has the hon the Minister heard of the Hillbrow Hospital? Has he heard of the Groote Schuur Hospital?

Where is the hospital in his home constituency? Where is the hospital in George? No, Sir, what he is saying is that it is totally impractical and impossible because they are Black. That is why they cannot be treated. Can he tell me if there are more Blacks in Johannesburg residential areas than Whites? Does he know how many Blacks live in the gardens and backyards and how many Blacks work there? Why can they not have a hospital there? It is because that hon Minister practises the racist policy of this Nationalist Government and misinforms the public by trying to pretend that the Department of National Health and Population Development is not a racist department.

We have heard about not being racist. This Government, in spite of their fancy words, is racist and they carry it through to the medical treatment which is practised in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, in discussing this Bill, the first thing that comes to mind is discrimination and the pace of reform. The longer we drag out the reform process, the worse our financial position in our beautiful country will be. Rid us of the evils of the Group Areas Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and the Population Registration Act, and everything around us will improve, including community and international acceptance. I wonder what the amounts in the Bill would have been if we had no discrimination in our country. There would not have been own affairs. There would have been one financial package for all.

We cannot afford to have sanctions and disinvestment against us, because the poor and the oppressed will suffer more. To those who propagate sanctions and disinvestment, I want to say: Get off your pedestals and discuss this with the people at grassroots level. Go and discuss it with the people who are suffering at present.

We have unemployment in this country, which is becoming a social problem. Let us create more jobs to solve the problems, or are some of the jobs for a certain race group?

Bond rates are becoming out of reach of the younger generation. Some couples are paying up to R1 000 per month. How much longer will the younger generation be silent about this?

The hon the Deputy Minister of Finance explained the petrol price situation. Yes, but the price increase creates many other problems. It increases transport and food costs. Let me refer to the price of bread. I believe that where there is a rumour the truth will be forthcoming. We cannot afford an increase in the price of bread. I appeal to the hon the Minister of Finance to persuade his colleague not do this because the majority of South Africans will suffer further.

The winter months will dawn on us soon. The poorer section of the community will need paraffin to keep themselves warm. What is the possibility of decreasing the cost of this item? Let us accommodate the lesser privileged. The people out there are suffering from price increases and GST charged by shopkeepers on non-GST items. That makes me wonder how the shopkeepers will evade the VAT system. Please keep them in check.

The control of hire-purchase agreements is welcome when it controls the suppliers because the man in the street was fleeced by some of the suppliers.

The announcement of privatisation was welcomed but looking closely at this, it is realised that exploitation can take place. Let us have a good look at this before it is implemented.

Let us take a look at the figures made available by the hon the Minister of Finance to the central Government and to the provinces. I hope it will be sufficient to meet the desired needs of the people. Let us make the people out there happy by taking firm decisions and not false promises. Let us hold hands as true South Africans, which will lead us back into the international fold and put the economy back in its rightful place. My party believes that we must work towards a national economy, based on full production, full employment and equal opportunity for all the peoples of the Republic.

Last night the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly addressed people in Parow who complained about the contravention of the Group Areas Act. Would it not have been better for South Africa if he had led people in prayer rather than see people prosecuted? Last year the Supreme Court ruled that the beaches in Port Elizabeth be open to all. [Interjections.] The Administrator appealed against this ruling. [Interjections.] I hope the money we are wasting on this appeal will not be claimed from the taxpayer.

Housing is the big cry. All South Africans require housing, especially the people living in our areas, and we know that we cannot obtain housing overnight. However, there are vacant flats and houses in other areas, for instance Algoa Park in Port Elizabeth, where flats have been empty for the past two or three years. Cannot these flats be occupied by the homeless? When one drives from Port Elizabeth to Uitenhage and back it is sad to see these vacant flats, compared to the shanties of Missionvale. What a sorry sight! These flats stand as a symbol of hurt, hate and humiliation.

There are schools and hospitals in our areas which are not used to full capacity. Let us accommodate other race groups where overcrowding exists.

The sooner we as South Africans find each other on an equal footing, the better for our beautiful country.

Mr Chairman, I think the previous speaker made a very good contribution and broached a number of very good points. I shall come to him again later.

†At this stage, Sir, I want to implore you to establish and invoke a code of ethics for all parliamentarians with immediate effect and I wish to state that should any member disregard or not uphold such a code of ethics, such member shall lose all or some of his privileges and/or his seat in Parliament. I hope that members who speak after me, will signify their support by declaring so publicly.

*Today I want to express a few thoughts with regard to the following problem: The future— where are we heading and to what extent is the attainability of that future realistic? This question is put time and again, sometimes ad nauseum, by one and all, but mostly by members of the opposition, to the Government and especially to the hon the Acting State President and/or the national leader of the NP.

As a member of the opposition or as an academic it is easy to ask these questions with associated demands, such as absolute parity of rights, equal incomes and equal opportunities, without giving any solutions to them. In doing this, however, we are ignoring and forgetting the realities. It will take many years to deal with all these demands and it will require great sacrifices and hard work.

†As an example for my statement, I want to refer to the United States where the great experiment, the grand democracy, has been going on for ever so long. Yet, if one refers to the statistics given out by the United States Government, one will find that the average family income for Whites rose from $10 236 in 1970 to $30 809 in 1986, whereas for Blacks it rose from $6 279 in 1970 to $17 604 in 1986. The average income in the USA was $29 458.

This shows clearly that during the past 26 years there has been no improvement in that great democracy. In fact, Blacks in the USA are worse off now than they were in 1970. Fortunately, even at this stage, we are doing better.

The other statistics which are very interesting and worth looking at, indicate that in 1970 Blacks made up 11,1% of the population. Since then, regardless of their birth rate of 21,1 per thousand, compared to the birth rate of Whites of 14,8 per thousand, the Black population has only grown to 12,1% of the total population. They do not differentiate between their death rate statistics.

*I give these statistics merely to show that we must be realistic. I should like to know which direction hon members want to take. Then I shall tell them whether or not and when they will be able to afford to do so—now, later or never. The continent of Africa is strewn with failed democracies, not because democracy was not politically attainable, but because the financial and economic realities made democracy politically impossible.

I think there are numerous points on which we agree. I should like to mention some of them. We probably all agree that we must have the same financial discipline, regulation and control for everyone. We probably agree that our educational standards must be as high as possible, and that everyone should be granted equal opportunities within the scope of what they can afford— basic education excluded.

Despite our differences there are numerous matters on which we agree, which can be used as points of departure in order to build a future. If we want to build that future, we shall have to make a fair division of the cake. We shall give each one his due, but we shall also have to give everyone in this country new hope and idealism. The basics excluded, we will probably have to accept that there will be a difference in income in a capitalist system between those who spend more time on stimulating the GDP and the population.

We must co-operate so that this division of wealth can take place in an evolutionary way, instead of as an explosion which can destroy everything in this country, something we have so many examples of in Africa.

I want to state today that I have no problem with financial adjustments to my standard of living. I have no problem with that. I am capable of lowering my financial standards and am prepared to do so, but I do not think it is a good thing or necessary for us to lower our cultural, educational and aesthetic standards. Instead we must endeavour to maintain and improve these standards.

I support the NP’s endeavour towards realistic solutions—not without mistakes or deficiencies. If anyone asks me whether there were mistakes, I shall admit immediately that there were. If anyone tells me the NP’s prohibition on the Smuts government’s mass immigration policy in 1948 was a mistake, I shall admit immediately that it was. If anyone asks whether it was a mistake not to pay White capital, as it was called at the time, into the various homelands, I shall tell hon members it was a mistake, and I do not think we must make those mistakes again.

†But let me tell hon members this. The unfortunate thing is that the left-wing parties which we have with their idealism, regardless of productivity and profit, are just an illusion like anything else. How long can such a system last successfully?

*In the meantime, differences in respect of group areas, separate facilities, electoral laws or political aspects should not be an obstacle preventing us from striving for everyone’s financial prosperity. Financial prosperity, economic development, exports, military apparatus, educational development and housing are the common benefits which should not be subject to political threats. That is why I believe that we should take these factors, which can be to everyone’s advantage, as a point of departure, as the pivotal point of co-operation.

If we keep this up, in the first place we may succeed in learning to co-operate with one another more easily, and secondly our differences may diminish as we become financially stronger.

†In all these problematical times I came across something very nice and beautiful regarding South Africa a day or two ago.

In Canada a person wishing to register a foreign company has to file a declaration of intent. I am now going to read to hon members a passage of which, if it is the opinion of a Canadian towards South Africa, I am very proud. I know that there is an hon member on this side of the House who will agree with me that it is beautiful. The prospectus of a certain company to be registered in South Africa describes the land, climate, vegetation, animal life, people and food and then the author comes to the future and he says:

Let us as politicians not shatter the ideals of our youth.

Mr Chairman, we find today that the South African news media are soaked with news regarding deregulation and privatisation. They express various views and opinions, and while there are strong arguments in favour of this, there are other opinions as well. Having read these thoughts pointing out the advantages and disadvantages of such steps I came to the conclusion that we should be wary in order not to stand accused of having privatised all parastatal institutions, a step which may have the result that everything ends up in a state of chaos.

Notice must be taken of the fast process of the urbanisation of Coloureds and Blacks, which will increase the demand for employment and housing. There will also be the exploitation of cheap labour and the relentless chase after bigger profits—“die gejaag na groot wins”—all of which are factors which to my mind indicate that privatisation must be controlled. Unbridled privatisation may bring about a chaotic situation where the haves will have more and the poor will become poorer.

In the history of the Afrikaner we have seen them using the parastatal institutions for the upliftment of the Afrikaner. With the 1924 election of the Pact Government, Hertzog’s National Party and Cresswell’s Labour Party created a new department of labour. One of the specific objectives was to protect the Whites from being swamped by Black competition. Companies employing mostly Blacks were lured with large tariff inducements to employ more Whites.

Thus we find that between 1924 and 1933 the number of Whites employed by the SA Railways and Harbours increased from 4 760 to 17 683, while the number of Black employees fell from 37 564 to a mere 22 008.

The main purpose of this action was a devoted effort to educate and train Whites and to create a better society. Here was one of the concerted efforts of the Government to transform the “bywoner” into a highly urbanised White society. This effort of mass upliftment was not extended to the Coloured and Black masses. The Whites were launched on the road to universal literacy thus giving them a head start over the poor and deprived masses in South Africa. There was a concerted affirmative action to emancipate the Whites politically, socially and economically.

We cannot lose sight of the fact that there is an overwhelming increase in Black and Coloured urbanisation. The advent of privatisation and deregulation will mean a decrease in the employment of Post Office and SATS staff. Presently, there has been an increase of 2,5% and up to September 1986 it totalled 865 385 workers. We would request that the Government ensure that checks and balances are built into the system to avoid or to curb unbridled privatisation. The Government must ensure that there is no downscale of employment opportunities which would further aggravate our unemployment problem. The Government must ensure that there is not a scale-down in the redistribution of income; it should rather generate a new wealth which in turn will create a broader tax base that could be used for the building of more schools, housing and social upliftment.

The Government should launch an affirmative action which should embrace all the machinery necessary to eliminate discrimination and speed up the process of reform. If the Government is serious that free enterprise should survive and that its peace initiatives gain momentum then its affirmative action must also embrace the following.

Firstly, White concerns should endeavour to accept training more and more Blacks and turn them into success stories. Secondly, more time should be spent in recruiting Blacks from the number of matriculants and graduates. The employer should do his utmost to win hearts and minds for a policy of orderly reform and support for free enterprise.

There are, however, other political consequences at stake. It is estimated that as many as two out of three Afrikaners are employed in the Public Service and various other parastatal institutions. As we are aware, the CP is jockeying for political power. Will this now cause the Government to slow down its reform measures so as not to estrange a further segment of its traditional voters? I think this can easily happen since the Government is the major shareholder in the privatisation process. Should this ever happen, it will only add more hurdles in the way of the reform process or perhaps cause it to grind to a sudden halt.

However, amidst all these difficulties, I want to urge the Government to use the tool of privatisation to remove apartheid as speedily and as smoothly as possible. It should be used to create job opportunities and remove attitudinal and repressive constraints.

In conclusion, I appeal to the Government to use the parastatal organisations to uplift other communities in the same way as they did with the Afrikanervolk. Likewise, they should use the new tax boost to bring about equality and the upliftment of the poverty stricken masses.

Mr Chairman, I have been informed that during the past few days the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council (Representatives) has become a grandfather. I understand that the only way he could achieve this was because the hon member Mr Lockey has become the father of a son. I want to congratulate them both sincerely on this new son and grandson in the family and express the wish that we will work together to make sure that he, too, has a bright future in this country. [Interjections.]

The influence of the balance of payments on the South African economy as a whole is again, as often in the past, under close scrutiny. The scaling-down of imports and the outflow of capital are subjects of crucial importance in this context.

The current level of the exchange rate, the possibilities offered by the use of the financial rand, as well as the wave of sanctions-avoidance we are riding out, has unfortunately given a few crooked operators the opportunity to get valuable capital out of the country by abusing a system, and making a profit into the bargain by means of well-calculated import and exchange transactions. The situation was obviously of such a nature that a responsible government simply had to increase supervision and control. Fortunately we have such a responsible Government.

I should like to make use of this opportunity to congratulate the hon the Minister and other responsible persons and thank them for the recently announced steps to crack down on these malpractices. They are definitely welcomed.

It might just be that stricter measures could even have a positive effect on the balance of payments.

As you know, fictitiously high import prices in order to make Finrand profits and to take capital out of the country, were part of these crooks’ modus operandi. While I accept that the situation will be closely monitored, I nevertheless want to request that there be no hesitation in making the control even stricter if necessary. The message must be clear. This complex and highly technical kind of fraud, which could potentially cost the country millions of rands, will not be tolerated.

If the costs of effective control are high, I want to propose that consideration should even be given to the imposition of a percentage levy on the inspection of every transaction, in the spirit of “user-charging” so that a large enough body of expert staff can be paid enough to do this work.

I should like to devote the remaining time to a completely different political subject. Every political party that wants to lay claim to any real support in South Africa will, in addition to other qualities, have to succeed in giving young people a vision of hope; will have to show young people that workable, practical results can be achieved and will have to convince young people that they should base their politics on firm, ethical and moral grounds. I am myself still a young man and am privileged to represent a constituency in which a large concentration of young people live. By the way, it is interesting to note that of all the main White residential universities in South Africa—English as well as Afrikaans—85% are situated in NP constituencies. In contrast to what noisy propagandists say, the White leaders of tomorrow trust the NP. From a young man’s point of view, however, I should like to have a look at the proposed new White liberal party, the so-called Democratic Party.

Their spokesmen usually have a great deal to say about a vision for the future, about hope and high moral political values. However, the question is what is written in their own testimonials.

The first question we can examine is that of the new liberal party’s ability to contribute towards a solution in South Africa. Probably no one is in a better position to comment on this than Dr Willem de Klerk, who has witnessed this prolonged birth process of a new party with all the pre-natal complications one can imagine. Some newspapers call him a facilitator of the negotiations. I am not sure what this means, but it sounds to me like a midwife at the birth of a child. In an article on page 29 of Die Suid-Afrikaan, of February 1989, in which he discusses his new friends, he states:

This former clergyman could have taken the following as the text for his sermon: “They know a great deal about identifying problems but they know nothing about solutions.” If the NP had made these statements, we could have been accused of propaganda, but this is an analysis by someone who stands in their very midst and, believe me, it is someone who comes from a very sagacious family.

Just as important as the party’s ability to contribute to solutions, is the question of the political morality of the people who are at the helm of a political party. Who are the actors who are going to embark on this proposed new political marriage?

When the election bells rang in 1987, voters were confronted with the great love between the hon member for Randburg and Dr Dennis Worrall. This vision of hope was sold to South Africa. But when the election was over, the same voters were treated to bitter personality clashes and divergent political points of departure. Now that the election bells are ringing again, they suddenly remember their lost love for each other.

Alas, this is not all. Last year the hon members for Durban Central and Greytown dramatically broke away from the PFP. They no longer wanted to have anything to do with their colleagues. Their politics are now radically different, but with the ringing of election bells in the background the inducement to pull the wool over voters’ eyes becomes so overwhelming that all differences disappear like mist in the morning sun.

I myself was sitting in the gallery of the House of Assembly when Dr Van Zyl Slabbert dramatically and deftly drew the proverbial dagger to give the PFP a few fatal thrusts in the back. And all this so that he can now be recalled to advise these people once more.

Last but by no means least, last year the hon member for Claremont broke all ties with his White PFP brothers in Parliament. He dearly wanted to be a little closer to the flames of revolution. Surprisingly enough an approaching election has also brought him new insights, and according to reports, he now also wants to be part of the new party.

The question is whether, by obtaining, for a mess of pottage, his support as well, his conduct and statements are going to be sanctioned. All these stated cases are prime examples of political opportunism at its best. Such conduct gives politics a bad name. More important still, such conduct is not consistent with the idealism young people cherish for the future. The young White people of South Africa will be doing us and South Africa a favour by rejecting this new party.

Mr Chairman, concern about the turbulence in the House of Delegates has been expressed by Mr Speaker, the hon the Acting State President, the hon the Minister of National Education, my colleagues in the Cabinet and hon members of Parliament in general. I would like to make it clear that this is but a temporary phase. In the editorial of yesterday’s Burger it is stated, and I quote:

I am pleased that better sense has prevailed in the House of Delegates and from tomorrow onwards we shall demonstrate stability in the House of Delegates to the the hon the Acting State President and all those concerned.

Not too long ago, following on calls for disinvestment, divestment, economic sanctions, boycotts and pressure on foreign debt repayments, the South African economy experienced turbulence and got itself into the doldrums and, coupled with the high inflation rate and low value of the rand against the dollar and sterling, many industries went into liquidation.

The increased politicisation of trade unions contributed in no small way to the labour strikes and stayaways we witnessed throughout the country. In the process many of the workers lost their jobs, thereby swelling the ranks of the unemployed.

A short respite in the economic ills of the country was given by a dramatic increase in the price of gold which gave the economy a much needed boost. This situation, unhappily, did not last the expected period. Economic trends in the world started to become unstable which resulted in fluctuations, and the price of gold and other metals came in for a bashing.

During the temporary phase in the upswing of the economy South Africans were lured into unnecessary expenditure on luxuries. This resulted in a South African nation which lived more on credit purchases rather than prudent cash buying or pay-as-one-earns. In my opinion this sort of spending spree, which gives the impression of a healthy economy, was misleading.

A nation should not become excessively consumption-oriented; on the contrary, thrift and savings should be the watchwords.

North America, Japan and Western Europe today earn just over two-thirds of the world’s income, but only have 15% of the world’s population. These are rich countries, steeped in high technology. The richest countries in the world today are not necessarily countries with a high volume of raw materials or resources, but these countries enjoy high technology. South Africa has all the natural resources and material, and abundant labour resources—the most valuable resources any country could enjoy. The South African Government and private enterprise have to some extent neglected the exploitation of these valuable resources.

I want to refer to the speech by the hon the Minister of Finance in response to the speech by the hon the Acting State President in which he said that in the professional fields there was a dearth of professionally qualified people. We need to take an objective look at the situation, and consider the reasons why, in these professional fields and in the technical fields, we do not have the necessary people to man our industries and our economy. Unhappily I must say this: With due respect to my partners in government, for far too long they have been riding the prejudices of colour. They have denied the people of colour the opportunity of taking advantage of their universities and their technical colleges, of going side-by-side with the White population to gain the necessary experience. That is why we are in our present situation. Nonetheless a start has been made, and the future holds promise for us South Africans.

What is very important for the South African economy is good international relations and good international trading partners, and if the CP continues along the lines of the speeches that I have heard from them in this Chamber and is as pessimistic as they are I think South Africa could well do without the CP and conservatism as far as its economy is concerned. I do not speak in condemnation of them as human beings, as members of the South African nation, but I condemn their policy. The economy has no colour. It should be shared and contributions to it should be made by all the people of South Africa. I am reminded of the words of the late president Kennedy: “Do not ask what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”

Statutory apartheid has to go because it is being overtaken by the demands of an increasingly integrated economy. Discriminatory practices will only serve to retard the growth of the economy. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, on 14 July of this year France will celebrate the 200th anniversary of the French Revolution. As was the case with most other revolutions there were two reasons for that revolution, namely human rights and poverty. It was also in July 1789 that Marie Antoinette, when she was told that the people did not have bread uttered the infamous words: “Let them eat cake.”

Mr Speaker, two hundred years later, these two topics of human rights and poverty, make 1989 an extremely important year for South Africa. The reason for this is that the report of the second Carnegie Commission of Enquiry into poverty in South Africa was published in January 1989. Within the next few weeks the report of the General Commission on Human Rights will also be published. These two reports on human rights and poverty are of the utmost importance to those of us in this House, as well as to everyone outside.

I want to say a few words about human rights. After the Second World War the Western World again became aware of the rights of the individual and the rights of the group. We are acquainted with the history of what happened just prior to and during the Second World War, and need therefore not discuss it. Owing to the growing awareness of human rights the pressure against South Africa has increased steadily. We have had arms embargoes and sanctions, and all sporting links with South Africa have been severed. Innumerable resolutions have been adopted in the UNO against South Africa. Within the country we are now experiencing yet another state of emergency, and this is putting incredible pressure on the SA Police. I hope that the report of the Law Commission on Human Rights will shed far more light on this subject.

When one reads the second report of the Carnegie Commission one’s heart really bleeds! Fifty per cent of families in South Africa are living below the minimum standard of R385 per month. Sixty per cent of all Blacks in South Africa are living below that standard. In the self-governing areas 81% of the families are earning less than R385 per month.

Nowhere in the world is the gap between the rich and the poor as great as it is in South Africa. The main reason for this is unemployment, which is the result mainly of too little economic activity in our country, sanctions and the droughts we have experienced recently. The result of this poverty is that the state of health of our poor has deteriorated drastically. The increase in tuberculosis attests to this.

Thirty-five per cent of all Black children in our country are undernourished. Crime is increasing—in 1986 three times as many murders were committed in the Cape Peninsula as in New York. Because people cannot house themselves, squatting is increasing, to the annoyance of all other people. The dignity and morale of the people is going to rack and ruin. This is giving rise to an uncontrolled population explosion. It is therefore very expensive to be poor.

What are the solutions to this problem? Here and there the report touches on a possible solution. Our newspapers say there must be a massive redistribution of wealth. On the one hand this is not possible, while on the other large-scale redistribution of wealth will merely lead to greater poverty. For that reason I want to ask that when we discuss the report of the General Law Commission on Human Rights, we will also give serious attention at Government level and in this House to this report which has already been published.

Freud once said that one of the products of civilisation was its conscience. Let us have a conscience about human rights and poverty, and if we do not yet have one, let us develop it in 1989.

We are ten years away from the next century, the 21st century. Let us do the groundwork in 1989 so that in the nineties we can tackle these two problems and can move towards the 21st century without qualms of conscience about poverty or human rights.

Mr Chairman, allow me to tell the hon member for Hercules that we share his concern about human rights and poverty. Perhaps this is not the entire solution and in this country we should start looking at the person and not the colour of his skin as part of the solution.

Not one person in the House will be free before all South Africans are free. I want to repeat that there is nothing more heartrending than the stark, hungry eyes of an innocent child, regardless of whether it is Black or White.

†It would be fair to say that a large portion of the R18,3 billion being considered by Parliament today will be either directly or indirectly used to provide a stable security situation in this country.

I believe that all hon members in this Parliament desire such stability. I also believe that all hon members feel and would agree that affordable housing should be available and that homeownership should be strongly encouraged so as to broaden the base of this stability. After all, if one has a stake in the country one has something to defend.

While it is the declared policy of the Government to extend home-ownership among the country’s people this effort is to my mind being negated at present by the high interest rate. I will be the first to concede that the State had to step in last year to cool down the economic market which was seriously overspending. In the process of raising the interest rate from 13% to 18% in one calendar year and the coupling of this rate to the household bond rates, the Government once again—wittingly or unwittingly—acted against its own and the country’s best interests as far as the provision of housing and also the resultant stability were concerned.

Yes, it is true that in the process the State subsidy for first-time home-owners increased by more than R50 per month but in real terms for those home-owners who do not qualify for subsidies the burden has increased by almost one third. We all know that the ordinary man’s salary has not increased by the same amount. In the process of trying to curb the nation’s spending we have in fact through the increase in the interest rate and the subsequent rise in bond rate interest made the ordinary home-owner poorer in a sense.

In the process we have also made it more difficult for the man in the street to enter the home market. Let me remind this House that at the beginning of last year a family needed a combined income of about R1 200 to qualify for a house of R44 000 which is at the bottom of the market. Today the same family needs at least R1 700. In other words, their income has had to increase by one third to qualify for the first step towards acquiring a home of their own.

*Although I do not want to minimise the subsidy which the State pays, I think it is a pity that the interest rate on mortgage bonds for homes, which is linked to the prime rate, does not have the desired effect, on the contrary, it is to the disadvantage of people whom it should help.

I want to dare to ask in this House today whether the time has not come for us to return to the system under which building societies could negotiate lower rates for money intended for home mortgage loans? I know there has been a change and banks may also enter the housing market nowadays but we should ask ourselves whether the above thought is not perhaps the answer.

I realise only too well that such a step holds profound political undertones but, if we are sincere in our search for a new and stable South Africa without spending enormous amounts on security while there is no guarantee of success, we must look at another solution. We are applying ointment to the wound whereas the cancer within is still rampant.

†If we wish to move towards that new South Africa, we should muster all positive aspects. In this regard I wish to concur with the hon member for Rosettenville that the informal sector should be allowed to flourish. We are seeing the rise of a giant. This giant is largely Black. As Stephen Mulholland of The Times Media Ltd said:

Let me add that the CP and all other right-wing parties will be powerless to do anything about it.

*We must get rid of the terminology which divides South Africa into White and Black sectors and start thinking of ourselves as one nation. In order to achieve our goal we have to strive for a joint goal and that is the economic prosperity of all South Africans.

†I repeat that if one has a stake in the country, one has something to defend.

*Let me remind this Parliament this afternoon that the informal sector is allied inter alia with the African Council of Hawkers and Informal Businesses, which is responsible for almost 30% of all sales of perishable products. They spend no less than R29 million per annum at the City Deep Market in Johannesburg. They spend more than R720 million per annum on rice and R1,2 billion on maize meal.

†The informal sector, especially in Black South Africa, is an economic power-house which must be reckoned with. The pavement revolution cannot be stopped. While there has been progress as far as the informal sector is concerned, the same cannot be said, however, in regard to progress in the work-place itself.

*This reminds me that the Chairman of the National Manpower Commission pointed out to us last year that, although White management personnel purported to have a positive attitude toward the promotion of Blacks, Coloureds and Asians to management positions, there was actually unwillingness and even an inability to prove this in practice. I want to emphasise this. It is of the utmost importance to utilise the best human resources as far as productivity is concerned. In this regard there is a need to utilise more Black, Coloured and Asian personnel, especially in management posts, so that they may play a part in personnel motivation and in instilling pride and discipline among workers.

Hon members should not forget that the vast majority of our workers, especially in our factories, are Black. We must face up to realities and stop excessively protecting specific interest groups. I want to remind Parliament that at present there are 7 000 Black apprentices as against 52 artisans of other population groups. As regards qualified artisans, there are 160 000 Whites as against a mere 12 500 Blacks at present.

†This imbalance must be addressed. One cannot on the one hand tell Blacks that they have every opportunity for education, but on the other not provide the necessary avenues when they enter the job market. The private sector in particular must take note that it is their duty as well as that of the Government to provide these opportunities. Remember, there is no one more dangerous than a frustrated learned man.

Mr Chairman, corruption comes in many forms in South Africa. There are three forms of corruption that I want to talk about today. The first is the corruption with regard to the types of dealings that have apparently caused the downfall of two Cabinet ministers and two members of Parliament in the last few months. These occurrences are indeed shocking and are certainly an indication of the potential for corruption that exists within the apartheid Government and within the apartheid system. One of our prime problems is the actual potential for corruption. This is a prime example of a Government which has been in power for too long. I want to ask today in this Chamber: What about the corruption yet to be discovered? I ask this because I believe that the undiscovered corruption is far greater that all the corruption which has been made apparent in the last few months.

It is my view that when the full story of South Africa’s oil purchases is known, we will find that enormous fortunes have been made. The potential for corruption in this area is absolutely colossal. There was the Salem affair, which cost South Africa millions of rand, yet to this day no proper police investigation has taken place in regard to that affair. This country lost the money, yet there were people charged in Greece, the United States and in Holland, but not in South Africa. Can one then but help suspecting corruption?

When I raised this matter, which was common knowledge throughout the Western world, it was I that was in trouble because I was accused of exposing South Africa’s secrets. South Africa’s enemies already knew, and the only people who did not know, were the South Africans themselves. Thus the Government was using secrecy provisions to protect themselves and the party, which is of course another type of corruption.

Following the Salem affair were the allegations backed up by detailed documents and photostats regarding corruption in the purchase of oil. These were handed to the Advocate-General by Dr Slabbert, but nothing emerged. I do not know why the former Minister of Manpower and of Public Works and Land Affairs resigned, but perhaps it is worth noting that he was the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, and I would be highly surprised if he were not offered some commissions on oil purchases by various persons in the international oil business. I say that, because I was offered these commissions myself. I was offered them in my capacity as spokesman for the former Official Opposition. I was told by certain international oil brokers that if I could help them to get oil contracts, there would be commissions in it for me. I could not influence business their way, and even if I could, I would not have accepted, but the temptations for those in positions of power, particularly in view of our secrecy provisions, are enormous.

The second form of corruption I want to talk about is corruption of the system. Last year the hon member for Berea and I were ejected from this Joint Chamber for calling the tricameral Parliament a farce. I ask hon members to look at the situation facing us today in this House. To my right, hon members all enthusiastically embrace apartheid. To my left, they reject it with contempt. Yet the party in power, supported by a minority of voters, continues to practise blatant racism. Were this debate today a no-confidence debate and the vote taken, a majority of hon members in this Chamber would vote against this Government, and in any normal democracy its reign would end. Yet, they still sit in power, all-powerful. They do so by not allowing voting, except divided voting in Houses.

One can vote in this Chamber, but, for example, if one is a member of the House of Delegates, one will not be allowed to vote if one does not sit in a House of Delegates seat, even though one is sitting in another seat in the Chamber. Nor will one be allocated a seat amongst members of one’s own party. I think that is farcical. I believe that is corruption of a kind.

There is also a corruption of the system in financial matters. The latest petrol price increase is a case in point. The Government has increased taxation without any parliamentary agreement in terms of the wide powers they have foolishly been given by their own party in this House.

In 1983 the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs tabled the National Roads Amendment Bill. He sought the right to impose a levy on the price of petrol. A levy of 0,7 cents per litre was proved as a need by him but he asked for, and got, the right to levy any amount he chose. That is crazy.

Incidentally, in Hansard, vol 105, col 929 he cited as reasons for the levy the Du Toit’s Kloof Tunnel and the Johannesburg southern national ring road—now toll-roads. When the debate was held the very man who gazetted the latest increases— the hon the Deputy Minister of Trade and Industry—said, and I quote from Hansard, vol 105, col 1066:

He then supported an amendment that I had moved.

I believe another instance of corruption of the system is the staggering R3 185 million forex loss of the South African Transport Services. The Cross Commission put the blame fairly and squarely on top management. Yet not a single head has rolled. One then asks who heads the South African Transport Services. The answer is the Railway Commissioners, all of whom are political appointees and chosen for their political affiliations and not for their commercial expertise. They are chaired by the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs. These are the people who are ultimately responsible for the massive loss of R3 185 million.

In any Western democracy they would resign, but in South Africa they remain in office, washing their hands of any responsibility. Once again the system of ministerial responsibility is corrupted. One must ask who is going to suffer for this enormous loss. Nobody, Sir. The previous general manager has retired and the present people can rightly claim that he carried the can. Therefore, with this the most enormous loss in South Africa’s history, there has been very little repercussion and certainly no heads have rolled whatsoever.

Lastly, I want to talk about the final corruption, which I believe is the corruption of the spirit, caused by apartheid, by 40 years of NP rule. We, the Whites of South Africa, have created a society in which an AWB can flourish. Our fellow South Africans who are not White are treated in a contemptible fashion. Unemployed “meths”-drinkers who are White may vote and university professors who are Black may not. Can one think of any greater corruption of the spirit than that? The greatest corruption of all is that the Whites continue to vote for a party that passes and retains laws that cause the actions in Boksburg and many other places. We have heard repeatedly in this House of the problems caused in Boksburg, but here on my right is the NP who pass the laws. We are ruled by a party that only allows White people to be members. What blatant racism! The crowning irony of it all is that they call themselves the “National Party”. However, they are anything but a national party. They prevent the vast majority of the South African public from being members of their party, yet they call themselves “national”. [Interjections.] How big a corruption is that, pretending that they speak for the nation, while in effect they speak for probably less than 10% of the nation?

I believe all of us should be allowed to be full South Africans who share a common destiny. I believe we should talk to each other and I believe that all of us—Black and White—must sit down together and plan and negotiate our joint future.

I would say to the hon Minister who got 61 votes: Let us stop dividing our country, let us be one country, let us be one people, and only then can the rich diversity of our South African life reach its proper potential. The first thing that has to happen before any of this can happen, is that apartheid has to disappear out of our system totally and that we have to negotiate with all the people of South Africa to create a new South Africa of which we can all be proud.

Mr Chairman, in barely a month’s time the hon the Minister of Finance will face his greatest challenge, and perhaps even his greatest opportunity, when he presents his 1989 Budget.

The backbone of any country depends largely on its economy. Many factors determine the economy of a country, and I have no doubt in my mind that political factors have definitely played a leading role in the decline of our economy. I say this because inflation is marked by a huge increase in the adverse inflation differential between South Africa and its trading countries.

Will the Budget instil confidence in the business sector? What effects will it have on the interest rates and the balance of payments? It is about time we faced reality. While some describe it as a declining economy, I would say in ordinary layman’s language that this country is battling to sustain its growth. A growth rate of 3% was recorded last year, which is not good enough for us. We have all the resources. Predictions are made by analysts that there will be a decline this year, and about 1,5% will perhaps be recorded.

We need to look at an alternative. Successful economic activity depends on two factors, namely resources and the creation of open markets. We have most of the natural resources and have come a long way towards overcoming our shortfalls. Here I refer in particular to oil.

On the other hand we depend tremendously on our mineral wealth. It forms the underpinning of our economic growth, but we should not depend on it so heavily, because mineral wealth is a declining asset. We need to look at alternatives now. Something constructive has to be done.

This leads me to the next question. What are we going to look at in order to complement our mineral wealth? There is only one direction in which we can go, and that is towards the industries. The Government should start on an extensive programme in order to promote our industrial growth, whether it be of a labour-intensive or technological nature. We need to make ourselves self-sufficient, so much so that even the hon the Minister will not be able to defend himself again by saying that we cannot compare ourselves with the rest of the well-developed industrial countries.

Hon members will agree with me that there are spin-offs from industries to other activities. They create considerable job opportunities and overcome unemployment and in that regard, once unemployment has been solved, we should have a stable society. We also have to look for new markets.

I must compliment the hon member for Rosettenville on her recommendations regarding the question of deregulation. She spelt it out very well. In my opinion a lot of red tape in regard to the innocent man has to be done away with immediately. We must encourage cottage industries which will definitely lead to tertiary and secondary industries.

The recommendation is also that the Department of Trade and Industry work hand in hand with the National Education Ministers in order to promote designs and creativity for our industries.

Much has been said about the repealing of the Group Areas Act and discrimination, which have no doubt been the cause of a lot of problems and pain. The hon the Minister of Finance did say in his speech that one African leader once stated that South Africa had the medicine for all the economic ailments of Africa. I think the ruling party in South Africa has the medicine to get rid of the pain and suffering that our people are experiencing. Once we rid ourselves of it, we will probably look to free enterprise where people will be employed irrespective of their race, colour and creed.

South Africa can make it when compared to a 10% growth in other countries. It all depends on the ruling party of this country.

Mr Chairman, the Government and the hon the Minister of Finance are blamed for the economy’s not growing to the extent needed by the country. Many reasons are given for this, and often they are good reasons. Advice is given freely—also good advice. Yet nothing will help sufficiently unless we get money from outside. Without foreign capital the economic growth rate will remain subdued. It is as simple as that.

We do not get that money, among other reasons because foreign investors and financiers do not like what they understand or think they understand of the political situation in our country. It is true that perceptions which have nothing to do with the truth have arisen, but it is also true that the circumstances prevailing here are irreconcilable with the political culture of the Western World, in that no person may rule over another without the latter’s permission.

Those conditions are also irreconcilable with our own notion of right and wrong. Few people in our country are happy with the social, economic and political inequalities that form part of millions of our fellow South African’s experience. The challenge this holds is so enormous that it is only natural for one to flinch from it. That is why there is so much talk and so little action in this regard.

That is why we are fighting one another about the problem, instead of seeking solutions together.

It bothers me that in general we do so little constructive debating, but are involved in so much destructive politics—the speech made by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central this afternoon was a striking example of this— whereas reconciliation is so bitterly necessary in our country.

The longer I sit here, the more I realise that not one of us can afford to be pedantic or superior towards another, because not one of us is in possession of the ultimate answer. Let us admit that, and let us talk to one another about what each of us has to offer. Let us see how many elements of the truth we can identify in each case and whether we cannot come closer to a solution, an understanding and a reconciliation. If we cannot manage that here, how shall we ever reach reconciliation with the people who are still outside?

In that spirit and with this kind of attitude, and in an attempt to promote debate, I now want to single out certain problems I have with my hon opponents on my left, and then I also request understanding for the fact that I do not have time to develop my arguments fully.

I hear that the refrain of the hon members on the left these days is that the country needs a real transformation. A transformation is quite different from a reformation or from reform. According to the dictionary, reform concerns the improvement of something, thus cleansing it of deficiencies. When we in the NP talk about reform, that is what we mean. We want to change and improve the country’s constitutional structures and cleanse them of deficiencies so that they are better able to deal with the reality—also the changing reality—of the composition of our population. We accept the reality, and adjust the structures accordingly.

Transformation differs fundamentally. It does not accept the given realities. It wants to change or remodel reality. The dictionary says it wants to give reality a different—often wrong—form.

The dilemma of the left-wing parties and groups is that they are tied to a political philosophy which gained substance in different circumstances and in other countries and which was implemented with a lesser or greater degree of success. Those philosophies do not apply to conditions in South Africa. Now the left-wingers want to change the conditions to suit the philosophy. This kind of approach attests to an inability to think in a flexible and exploratory way. In fact, their thoughts are petrified. Mark Twain said as early as the previous century:

This is just as applicable today. Such rigid thoughts cannot unlock democracy for all the people of our country. Instead they hamper the process. The propagation of a non-racial democracy in a transformed South African society creates high but unrealistic expectations. Those expectations obstruct the entry of many leaders to meaningful negotiation with a view to designing realistic structures for the future. To a considerable degree, they also determine the inflexibility of world opinion towards us.

Let us look for a moment, however, at what would happen should their dream of a non-racial democracy be realised. On all levels of government—whether it is federal or not—a group of Blacks will dominate or try to dominate all other South Africans, including other Blacks. This has been spelled out in clear terms by the hon member for Houghton, the former hon member for Bryanston and others.

This will not cause the existing groups to disappear as if by magic. Although they will not receive recognition, the power struggle between them will not only continue to exist, but will intensify, because the search for power is an inherent part of a heterogeneous situation. In his book Race, Ethnicity and Power, Donald Baker writes:

The group hankering for power will not disappear in a so-called non-racial democracy. On the contrary, the struggle between groups in such a dispensation will be more vicious than it is now. There will be greater instability and uncertainty, although it is said that people’s cultural rights, their rights with regard to language and their freedom of religion will receive constitutional protection.

But will they be able to promote those interests? No, if they are part of a minority, they will not be able to. If, for example, they should elect by way of free association to live in a group context, they will fundamentally be permanently excluded from political power. They will have a vote, but as part of a minority they will be able to use it at most as a protest. Their franchise will have no value. Thinking voters will not go along with as uncertain a dispensation as that, especially not if the democratic majority can so easily use their majority to end democracy completely. In this connection K R Popper said the following in his book The Open Society and its Enemies:

We shall have to take risks in future; that is unavoidable. But we would be irresponsible if we did not restrict those risks, and we would be reckless if we experimented with our future using the left-wing party’s model.

In concluding, I return to where I began. We must help the hon the Minister of Finance by making a joint effort to put our political house in order, but we must be careful not to destroy the house itself in the process.

Debate interrupted.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Order! The hon member for Lenasia Central was requested the opportunity to make a personal explanation and I hereby afford him the opportunity to do so.

Mr Chairman, I wish to record my appreciation to you for affording me the opportunity to explain myself in this House this afternoon. Hon members as well as the hon Chairman will recall that the debate in this Chamber on Friday, 10 February 1989, was highly charged with emotionalism and was characterised by challenges and counter-challenges. During the Chairman’s absence from the Chamber, I became involved in an altercation with the hon member for Camperdown. On reflection, I am persuaded that my actions were wrong, and although I have already apologised to the hon member, I also wish to tender my apologies to the hon Chairman and all hon members in the interests of the dignity of Parliament.