Mr Chairman, in the past we have tried to keep the debate on the Manpower Vote out of the political arena owing to the very sensitive nature of Manpower matters. Unfortunately the hon member for Brakpan did everything in his power yesterday to try to convert this debate into a political one.

In respect of the CP and its legitimacy in this Parliament, I just want to say today that they broke away from the NP in 1982 on the issue of the tricameral Parliament, and consequently on the issue of power-sharing. That was their main reason for running away. However, they had come to this Parliament under the banner of the present State President and the NP, and therefore they were morally obliged to resign. I want to say this again: The only two hon members who have legitimacy in this Parliament are the hon member for Waterberg and the hon member for Soutpansberg.

They are a lot of cowards.

Order! Who said “They are a lot of cowards”?

I said it, Mr Chairman.

The hon member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister may proceed.

Sir, the CP did not discharge their moral obligation to the voters.

I come now to the next test of legitimacy and morality that was applied to the CP. In 1983 this Government went to the people and asked them whether they agreed to the tricameral parliamentary system and the question of power-sharing. The CP adopted a standpoint that was diametrically opposed to that standpoint and to that system. What was the outcome of that referendum? It was a total rejection of the so-called CP policy. They and their standpoint were rejected by what was almost a two-thirds majority. They voters therefore passed judgement and said that the people who had broken away from the NP had no legitimacy. Two-thirds of the voters cast their vote against the CP’s standpoint and in favour of the NP’s standpoint.

The CP then came face to face with the second test of morality and legitimacy, and they failed that test as well. Today they are saying that they, together with the AWBs, are breaking up NP meetings because we do not have a mandate. They themselves have lost their mandate twice and they therefore have no mandate or moral leg to stand on. Nor do they have any legitimacy whatsoever in the South African Parliament. [Interjections.]

I want to go further by saying that the CP is now openly associating itself with the AWB. It is now clear to everyone in this country that a coalition and an amalgamation is taking place between the CP and the AWB. It ought to be clear to everyone that the de facto leader of the CP today is Eugène Terre’Blanche. De jure it is still the hon member for Waterberg. The thinker and precursor of that group is Mr Jaap Marais, because what he says today is after all CP policy in six or nine months’ time. That is the other leader. [Interjections.]

The CPs and the AWBs associated openly and illustrated in Pietersburg that …

Order! I want to make an appeal to the hon the Minister, for the sake of orderly control over the debate, to confine himself to the subject of this Vote now, because the more he talks politics, the more difficult it becomes to maintain order in this Committee. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I address you on this ruling? During the discussion of the Vote of the hon the Minister of the Budget I was attacked by various hon members. During the discussion of this Vote, I was attacked on two occasions by the hon member for Brakpan. I am now asking you to give me a fair opportunity to state my side of the matter after having been attacked by inter alia the hon members for Brakpan, Koedoespoort and Soutpansberg. I request your ruling in this connection.

Order! I afforded the hon the Minister a reasonable opportunity to state political standpoints, but the debate deals with the Manpower Vote. I do not want to give an absolute ruling, but I want to request the hon the Minister, after having discussed the political aspects for six minutes, to confine himself to the subject of the Vote now. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to identify myself with a ruling from the Chair and I do not want to be difficult, nor do I wish to cast any reflections on the Chair. However, I do not think six minutes is a fair chance to defend myself after having been attacked on these points in three speaking turns of ten minutes each. [Interjections]

I shall conclude my argument in this connection now by saying that there is a leadership struggle between the right-wing groups in South Africa. [Interjections.] The two real contenders for that leadership are Mr Terre’Blanche and the hon member for Lichtenburg. I am certain there is great dissatisfaction in the ranks of the CP over the absolutely disgraceful behaviour at recent public meetings.

I am furthermore aware that there is serious dissension in the CP over that behaviour and the party’s association with the AWB, and the decent people in the CP in particular are opposed to it. [Interjections.]

We must give serious thought to what South Africa is dealing with today when we speak of the AWB. That organisation, just like the ANC, rejects the system of political parties and the parliamentary system. Just like the ANC it stands for the nationalisation of properties. The AWB rejects democracy in South Africa, just like the ANC, which stands for a people’s democracy, which is a dictatorship of the elite.

Quite true!

The AWB tactics of intimidation and violence also remind one of the ANC.

In conclusion I want to say that the CP associates itself fully with the AWB. Just as the ANC has its militant arm, Umkhonto we Sizwe, it is not certain whether the CP is the political wing of the AWB, and the Stormvalke the militant wing.

At this stage, Sir, I shall comply with your request.

I should like to reply to the contributions of a few hon members. After that I shall afford the following two speakers an opportunity before I give my final reply to the debate. In the first place I should like to express a general word of appreciation to all hon members who participated in this debate.

In particular I want to thank the hon members for the praise, the acknowledgements and the thanks which they expressed to the officials, as well as for their appreciative words about the annual reports of the Department of Manpower and the National Manpower Commission, which were tabled even earlier this year than last year, in order to afford hon members an opportunity to study those reports in greater detail. I think the department and the National Manpower Commission set an example with the following. I want to congratulate them on this, and also convey to them my personal thanks and appreciation, because they went to extraordinary trouble to table those reports prior to this Vote discussion.

It is a fact that the Department of Manpower is faced with a sharply intensifying unemployment situation, as well as with an exceptionally sensitive and very difficult climate of labour relations. These factors caused a great increase in activities in the various spheres. It is also true that the department is experiencing staff shortages, particularly shortages of trained and experienced personnel in the ranks of middle management, which is having a detrimental effect on production.

The Government’s special R600 million job creation programme made additional demands on the officials of the department. Apart from their other tasks, they also had to do this work.

Not only did the department have to accept responsibility for a large number of related programmes of action of its own in the sphere of training and job creation, but it also had to co-ordinate and report regularly to the Government on the programmes of action of all other organisations participating in this programme.

Today I want to avail myself of this opportunity to express great appreciation and to pay tribute to the interdepartmental co-ordinating committee, under the chairmanship of Dr Piet van der Merwe, Director-General of Manpower, for the initiative and the energy it displayed in the implementation of this programme. I also want to thank every department, provincial administration and local government that participated in the programme, as well as those that are at present still participating in it.

Then you will also allow me, Mr Chairman, to express a special word of thanks to the private sector for its contribution to and participation in these programmes. A great deal of the success of these programmes is in fact owing to the sound and fruitful co-operation with the private sector.

Mr Chairman, I should also like to react to the hon member for Durban Central. In the first place I want to congratulate that hon member on his appointment as chief spokesman on Manpower matters of the Official Opposition. I want to add that I think the hon member for Durban Central adopted an extremely responsible tone in his participation in the debate yesterday. He also made a very positive and constructive contribution, and I hope sincerely that that hon member will in future provide all the hon members of his party with his guidance.

†The hon member for Durban Central made a most valuable contribution to this debate, Sir, for which I should like to thank him. The hon member made mention of the fact that the Department of Manpower was short-staffed. He also expressed concern about the staff position in the Industrial Court, and referred to the fact, too, that a marginal improvement in the staff position had taken place but that there was still cause for concern in regard to the shortages of staff in the sector handling applications for unemployment insurance benefits, as well as in the sector dealing with applications relating to conciliation boards.

In addition to the recent appointment of more staff members in both these sections, the department also launched an intensive training programme to combat the serious shortage of trained personnel in these as well as in several other directorates. As far as the request to appoint more fulltime members to the Industrial Court and to improve the remuneration package of its members is concerned, I can inform the hon member that the department and I have recently been involved in negotiations with my colleague the hon the Minister of Finance, the Treasury and the Commission for Administration, and that I am confident that there will be an improvement in the near future. This should result, hopefully, in attracting more fulltime members with the necessary qualifications and experience for appointment in various centres where such appointments are warranted.

With regard to the latter, continuous attention is in fact being given to the possible location of the necessary facilities and staff away from Pretoria. The streamlining of procedures in so far as conciliation boards are concerned will also receive our attention.

We are contemplating certain legislative changes in so far as the Industrial Court is concerned, and we intend to publish draft legislation for comment in the very near future.

The report of the National Manpower Commission on farm workers has been studied and negotiations are under way with the South African Agricultural Union as the major representative organisation. Other organisations will be involved and have already asked to be included in the discussions.

The question of reliable employment statistics is, of course, vitally important. The Central Statistic Service, in conjunction with the Department of Manpower and the National Manpower Commission as well as the HSRC, has completed an investigation into ways and means of improving the current population survey in an effort to provide a better picture of the unemployment situation. Further particulars are provided in the annual report of the National Manpower Commission. The Department of Manpower gathers statistics pertaining to registered unemployment and supplies these to the Central Statistic Service. Statistics on registered unemployment, although incomplete, nevertheless do provide a good indication of trends in the overall unemployment position.

The hon member also touched on developments in the labour movement and likely political spin-offs in the absence of constitutional development. I agree that this is indeed a problem area.

*I turn next to come to the hon member for Roodeplaat. The hon member, from the point of view of the worker in South Africa, pinpointed two very important problems, viz unemployment and inflation. At the same time the hon member also referred to the need to expand population development programmes considerably and drastically in order to contend with the problem of unemployment. I am in full agreement with the hon member that one will have to take a drastic look at the supply aspect of labour, and the only solution in this connection is to consolidate the population development programme.

The hon member also referred to certain problems being experienced by employers. I can inform the hon member that we are conversant with these problems and also with certain related problems being experienced by trade unions. The department goes out of its way to keep abreast of developments, and also to deliberate with and consult all the parties on an ongoing basis. In this way many problems are being ironed out in a normal way, and we shall in fact continue to do so. Nevertheless we have taken cognisance of the matters which the hon member raised in this connection. The position in regard to industrial court personnel has, as I have already said, been receiving attention for a long time.

It is also a fact that in the draft legislation to which I referred, attention will also be given to the definition of an unfair labour practice. The hon member will agree with me that to define an unfair labour practice is one of those genuine problem areas. The Standing Committee on Manpower, of which the hon member for Roodeplaat is chairman, will receive ample opportunity to consider the envisaged legislation, but also to come forward itself with proposals in that connection, after they have investigated the matter.

The hon member for Roodeplaat made an appeal for fairness and reasonableness to be displayed and for human dignity to be recognised. He also advocated the taking of strict action against intimidation. I endorse the hon member’s views wholeheartedly. I also believe that we should clamp down stringently on intimidation in all spheres. I think intimidation is at present one of the greatest problems confronting us in South Africa.

For the time being I shall let what I have just said suffice, and I shall enter the debate again at a subsequent opportunity.

Mr Chairman, two excellent reports given out by this department leave one with a strong impression of dedicated, competent people sparing no effort in the execution of their work. The environment which Government policy has created, however, makes it impossible for them to achieve their objectives, and an analysis of those objectives highlights this. The Director-General’s report states that the Government’s main economic objective is the highest possible growth compatible with the availability of resources. The NMC report states that it is optimum utilisation of the country’s growth potential and the provision of sufficient employment opportunities.

In both of these things we have failed. Over ten years our gross domestic product has increased by only 2,5% and in that same period the average growth of our population, as we know, has been higher than that at 2,7% or 2,8%. Per capita we were actually poorer at the end of 1985 than we were at the beginning of 1985 by approximately 4%.

Unemployment is at all-time high levels. The EDP estimates of the relationship between economic growth and unemployment for a ten-year period is very interesting. They give three estimated growth rates— 3,6%, 4,5% and 5,0%—and they calculate the percentage employment in respect of each of these. The respective unemployment percentages are 21,9%, 15% and 11,5%. We cannot tell what employment there is among Blacks after ten years of 2,5% economic growth, but we know that it must be in excess of 2,5 million.

In these circumstances it is obvious that the department had to take special emergency action, and we very much approve the allocation of R600 million to special employment creation projects and to special training. There is, however, in these circumstances a very special responsibility on the hon the Minister to see that that money goes as far as possible. It is assistance money, and in this respect I was not satisfied with the answers given by the hon the Minister to my question No 736 on 17 April this year. From his reply the following picture emerged.

Firstly, benefits in terms of the unemployment relief scheme had been made available to a contractor who has a Government contract in the Cradock district. The agreement to pay benefits to this contractor in terms of the scheme was made on 11 December last year and the first payments to him were made on 25 February 1986. The benefit was in respect of labour in respect of the digging of trenches for sewage and water reticulation. An allowance of R4 per day was paid to the labourers working on that project, and an amount of R144 000 was due to be paid to the contractor, Colorossi and Company, in terms of the agreement—provided they used that amount of labour, obviously. This was in respect of overheads which were also estimated at R4 per day. The company was thus to receive payment for 36 000 man-days at R4 per day, which amounts to R144 000. A like amount was to be paid to the labourers.

From the answer to question No 4 it is clear that the department reached no agreement with Colorossi and Company to supply benefits to it before awarding it the contract on 11 December 1985.

Do you have shares in that company?

If Colorossi and Company won its construction contract prior to that date, it did not know that it could get the benefit of subsidised labour in terms of the Emergency Relief Scheme. It therefore must have built the full cost of labour plus profit plus overheads into the make-up of its tender. That, after all, is how anybody would tender on a contract like that one.

It would seem to me that the contractor was making a clear profit, not of R144 000— 36 000 man-days at R4 per day—the amount due to be paid to it by the department, but 36 000 man-days at the current rate for a construction worker in Cradock, plus overheads plus profit. After some investigation into the current rate for construction workers in Cradock, I came up with a conservative estimate of R9,50 per day for a construction worker used in this capacity. This would give the contractor on this little project an unearned windfall profit of R342 000.

From the outside it is not easy to do all the calculations because one does not have the information available, but if this is only partially right it would appear to me to be a gross scandal. The hon the Minister must therefore inform the House, firstly, whether Colorossi and Company had already been awarded their construction job when the agreement with the department was entered into on 11 December 1985. I believe that it had. Secondly, he must tell us whether the R144 000 paid to the contractor by the department excluded the allowance of R4 per day that was to go to the labourers. According to the answer to question No 736 it did. Thirdly, we want to know whether R4 per worker per day overhead expenses was an estimated figure agreed on between the parties, or whether the amount paid was to be the actual amount of R4 as would seem to be the case. That is not clear. Fourthly, he must inform us whether such benefits are still being paid to the company. Fifthly, we want to know whether the other 384 private contractors with whom similar contracts were signed in various parts of South Africa were also able to use subsidised labour on contracts which they had already won. In the sixth place he must tell us whether the answer to question No 10 which gives the total amount to be paid to the contractors under the scheme at R10,2 million includes the allowance to be paid to the labourers, or whether this is in respect of the amount to be paid to the contractor as “overhead expenses for unemployed persons engaged.”

It is obvious that the windfall profits that have gone to contractors are large. It could be that they are enormous. We await the hon the Minister’s answer with interest.

In conclusion I want to emphasise a point made by my colleague the hon member for Yeoville. Hon members must not think that we are just going through an economic trough. The problems in our economy are structural and long-term and more political than economic in origin. Our economic mistakes have frequently been brought on by attempts to adapt the economy to an ideological pattern that we have. Our foreign funds were being supplied on ever less favourable terms long before we had the standstill agreement and the problems with our overseas banks.

In the past five years while our economy has performed so disastrously our trading partners have been in a growth phase. It is very difficult to export in this climate. I am told that the 44 million tons of coal that we export annually have to be sold at R12 per ton less than the going rate for similar coal overseas in order to secure those markets. That is R0,5 billion that should be coming to South Africa with no extra effort but that is not happening. We are paying the price for our racialistic hegemony in the rapidly eroding quality of our lives. This will not change until we grasp the concept of freedom of association and establish a non-racial democracy.

Mr Chairman, it seems it is my fate to have to react to the hon member for Walmer time and again. When he began to speak this afternoon, I thought I would have a pleasant task today, because contrary to his usual practice, he began by making certain complimentary remarks about the staff, but then the hon member returned to his old theme by saying the Government was responsible for the economic conditions and the unemployment in the country.

True to his fat cat form!

Yes, as the hon member for Roodeplaat said, that is his normal practice.

Who else is responsible?

On a prior occasion I also drew the hon member’s attention to the great unemployment in other countries in the world. I have the latest figures, which were made available in the UNO’s yearbook at hand. According to these figures, a country like Belgium had an unemployment rate of 13,8% in 1982, whereas it was 6,8% in 1976.

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

I am sorry, Sir, but I cannot answer a question because my time is limited.

In Canada, a member of the Commonwealth, the unemployment rate was 5,9% in 1970 and 11% in 1982. In Ireland the unemployment rate was 7,2% in 1970 and 16,5% in 1982. In the Netherlands, one of our fiercest critics, the unemployment rate was 1,1% in 1970 and 12,6% in 1982. I also have the unemployment rate for Yugoslavia, a communist country, before me. There it was 7,7% in 1970 and 12,4% in 1982.

Where do you stand on beach apartheid?

There is no apartheid in those countries. The hon member is not only oversimplifying, but is also assuming an incorrect standpoint in ascribing unemployment to apartheid.

The latest edition of Finance Week also pays attention to this matter:

The hon member has never supplied logical solutions either:

This is very important:

The hon member is way off the mark with that old theme of his.

As he did, I also want to congratulate the staff. When one looks at all the reports and the truly in-depth study which was apparently done, as well as the extensive field that was covered, we are fortunate to have such officials in the department. As a matter of course, one often comes into contact with the Director-General, Dr Van der Merwe, and Mr Van der Walt, and one can have only praise for such officials and consider oneself fortunate to have people like them. They are not the only ones who deserve praise, however. I am also thinking, for example, of Port Elizabeth head of department, Mr J C Greyling. One can telephone that man in connection with problems literally any time of the day or night and he will always assist one in a friendly way. I think the department’s staff deserve our thanks.

Once again, as I did last year, I want to confine myself to job creation.

Unfortunately it is true that unemployment in South Africa has reached such proportions that it is posing a threat to the stability of the country in general. The report of the National Manpower Commission for the period 1 January 1985 to 31 December 1985 shows that there was an increase of 3,3% in the number of people who were fit for work. During the same period, however, provision of employment decreased by 1,5%. One therefore not only had an increase in the number of entries into the labour market, but also a decrease in the number of available posts.

All the sectors in our economy showed a decline, except those of electricity and mining. Even the Government curtailed its work force by approximately 11 000. The necessity of emergency measures for job creation in these circumstances—particularly in view of the amounts made available for this—cannot be denied. The generally accepted philosophy is that the only way to resist this unemployment, is the establishment of more small business enterprises. The fact of the matter is that in general, small business plays a greater part in the sphere of provision of employment in other countries than is the case in South Africa. Also in this case—in contrast with what the hon member for Walmer maintains—the Government created the necessary machinery a long time ago. We have the Small Business Development Corporation and the Small Business Advisory Bureau, for example. The State President is also being authorised to apply deregulation so that more favourable conditions can be created for the operation of small business.

Coincidentally there is an interview with the managing director of the Small Business Development Corporation, Dr Ben Vosloo, in the latest edition of the prestige magazine Finansies en Tegniek. He stated that between 1980 and March 1985, the Small Business Development Corporation created a total of 46 000 job opportunities and saved approximately 25 000.

It is estimated that by the year 2000 a total of 44% of the labour market will find refuge in the small business sector, which includes the informal sector—either as employers or owners or as employees. I do not want to repeat the figures I gave last year in connection with the part played by the small business enterprises in other parts of the world. I merely want to contend that the small business enterprises will be developed by us as far as possible. In this interview Dr Ben Vosloo spoke about a shortage of capital as being one of the restrictive factors. I want to maintain that such a shortage should not be allowed. I want to repeat my plea of last year. Let us have a year for small business. Let us throw the spotlight on the work of the small business sector and the possibilities contained in the small business and the informal sectors for a year. Then I believe we shall inspire South Africans who are employees at this stage, to become employers, and in this way will create a greater awareness, not only of the possibilities of entrepreneurship, but also of the duties of an employee.

Mr Chairman, I shall reply to the speech made by the hon member for Port Elizabeth North later. I shall reply in the sequence in which hon members participated in the debate. I want to tell the hon member for Brakpan that the Government is in fact aware of the role of foreign trade unions, and of the funds of the trade unions in South Africa, as raised by the hon member.

The hon member expressed his misgivings about the training programme for unemployed persons. I want to invite the hon member to visit a few of the centres at which the training is being offered to see what is happening there and particularly to talk to the instructors working there, who were previously unemployed. They should also talk to the unemployed persons themselves and to employers who have employed some of these trained workseekers. I also want to invite him to come and inspect the hundreds of thank-you letters received from people who received this kind of training.

I just want to mention one very interesting point at this stage—and this also has a bearing on what the hon member for Port Elizabeth North said—which is that we should perhaps consider proclaiming a small business year. One of the many interesting by-products of this training programme was that some of the people who took those crash training courses under this scheme began to establish their own enterprises. They became welders and landscape gardeners, or grass-mowing or repair-work contractors. It is surprising how many of these people, who previously were only employed on the level of labourers and handymen, developed their inherent capabilities after three weeks of finishing training and were able to start their own business undertakings. I could also show hon members letters from White people who underwent training in bookkeeping and subsequently began to build up a clientele of their own, who are now independent and standing on their own feet. This demonstrates that one should view the question of training in a broader perspective. One should also perceive the possibilities of these trained people becoming independent entrepreneurs.

What the hon member for Brakpan said, viz that only 25% to 30% of the unemployed who were trained found work quickly after their training, is in fact true. This is of course the group we are aware of, but there are in fact scores of people who did not report to us that they had found work. Consequently one does not have those particulars on record. I have already stated that quite a number of those previously unemployed persons who received training, began to work for themselves, particularly in the informal sector. Another point I want to mention is that here in the Cape, for example, after a training course had been completed, we made use of the services of those people in certain of the job creation projects, particularly low-cost housing projects.

The basic skills which are acquired in training programmes are not lost so quickly or completely as is frequently assumed. Consequently the training programme not only makes a contribution in the short term, but in the longer term as well.

The hon member also referred to strikes. I want to say here today that South Africa’s strike statistics still compare very favourably with those of other countries. The fact that the number of workers involved in strikes rose in 1985, in spite of a sharp decrease in the number of strikes, is very easy to explain. This is simply owing to strikes at a few large mines, in which large numbers of workers were involved. I think the main point in this connection is that the number of strikes, and therefore the number of disputes, diminished. I have already mentioned that attention is being given to several matters pertaining to the Industrial Court, including the appointment of more full-time members to the court. Attention is also being given to procedures pertaining to conciliation boards and the speeding up of dispute-resolving machinery. In fact, I expect the National Manpower Commission to submit a report in this connection to me soon.

The question of low productivity that was raised by the hon member for Brakpan is of course alarming, but whether a longer working week is the solution to that problem is an open question. In my opinion it will be possible to achieve far more by means of better management and training of the existing manpower.

I want to come now to the hon member for Overvaal. The hon member raised two important matters, ie that the Government is committed to the protection of the workers’ rights, particularly their freedom of association. The second point raised by the hon member was that responsible conduct on the part of trade unions and employers was in the interests of the preservation of employment opportunities. I want to thank the hon member for his contribution, and also for the words of appreciation the hon member addressed to the Department of Manpower and the National Manpower Commission.

†I want to turn now to the hon member for King William’s Town. The hon member appealed for the continuation of the commendable efforts of the department in the field of training and job creation for the unemployed. I wish to thank the hon member for his support in this regard. The hon member also asked that more attention be given to training in rural areas. It is the department’s policy to decentralise training and not to provide training per se but rather to stimulate and co-ordinate training by registering training centres and by approving the courses for the purpose of tax concessions.

Apart from the eight group training centres—such as the Boskop Training Centre, for example—with branches in various centres, a total of 1 179 private training centres and 746 training schemes are registered with the department for the purpose of tax concessions. These facilities are situated in major cities all over South Africa, which means that training is within easy reach of every employer and employee.

Group training centres have always been privatised in the sense that they are managed by the private sector with adequate provision for satellite centres which can become autonomous whenever warranted. In fact, several of these centres have satellite organisations. The National Training Board has investigated the whole question of training incentives and I have been informed that its report can be expected very shortly.

As far as sheltered employment is concerned, the hon member asked whether the 10% wage increase as from 1 April 1986 was passed on to employees in the sheltered employment factories. The year 1986 was proclaimed by the Government as the Year of the Disabled. Consequently, the Department of Manpower, being fully aware that the wage structure of sheltered employees was inadequate to meet the constant rise in the cost of living, obtained the approval of the Treasury for a 5% increase from as early as 1 April 1985 as an interim relief measure.

On 3 February 1986 certain further proposals were put to the Treasury with regard to the total restructuring of the wage structure. These included proposals for wage parity for all population groups in sheltered employment. The Treasury forwarded these proposals to the Commission for Administration on 11 February this year for investigation and for a recommendation. The matter is still under consideration but I wish to assure the hon member that I am determined to negotiate a better deal for sheltered employees. I thank the hon member for King William’s Town for having raised this matter here.

*I come now to the hon member for Rustenburg. As one could expect from him as a medical practitioner, he stressed the importance of a safe and healthy work environment in the interests of sound relations and increased productivity. The hon member also pointed out, and rightly so, that the Government, employers and employees all have a role to play in this matter. I want to thank the hon member for his knowledgeable contribution, and assure him that the department is purposefully seeking to promote a safe work environment.

At the same time the department takes care not to impose unrealistic standards, with major cost implications, on employers. I can summarise the department’s attitude in this connection by saying that we want to ensure every worker of the necessary safety measures with the minimum of costs. It is not true that the department and its instructors try to make it difficult or impossible for an entrepreneur by setting such high standards that the costs relating to the whole matter make it uneconomic.

The hon member for Newcastle referred with appreciation to the success achieved under the respective job creation programmes of the R600 million project. I want to thank the hon member for doing so. I agree with him that the fate of an unemployed person is a pitiful one. It is indeed the case that when a person is unemployed, it affects him deeply as a person. Not only does it have an effect on his self-confidence and self-respect, but also his relations with his family and the community. A person who is unemployed and who cannot find work, goes through a very difficult time. One can only say that one hopes the day will come again in South Africa when we have too few people for the available employment opportunities, that the expected economic upswing will at last take place, and that the fate of the unemployed will be alleviated in that way.

†I now want to come to the hon member for Yeoville. He stressed the fact that we have a long-term structural unemployment problem and that we need an overall strategy to address this specific problem. He knows, of course, that this issue has been dealt with in a number of White Papers over the past few years. I just want to mention them. Firstly, there was a White Paper on a Strategy for the Creation of Employment Opportunities in the Republic of South Africa; secondly, a White Paper on an Industrial Development Strategy in the Republic of South Africa; and thirdly, a White Paper on the Promotion of Industrial Development as an Element of a Co-ordinated Regional Development Strategy for Southern Africa.

Special mention also needs to be made of an important investigation which is at present being conducted by the Committee for Economic Affairs of the President’s Council on the promotion of labour-intensive job creation schemes and programmes. The progress made with the strategies outlined in the White Papers is being closely monitored and shows that a great deal has been achieved. However, much remains to be done and incentives for labour-intensive export commodities certainly merit attention.

In so far as industrial councils are concerned I wish to assure the hon member for Yeoville that the marketing of this system is receiving my attention and that the whole question of exemptions will be handled with circumspection.

*I also want to refer to the hon member for Randburg. He gave an excellent and clear elucidation of the various streams within the labour movement in South Africa, particularly in respect of certain of the latest federations. He also gave a fine explanation of the ideological differences between those federations, and one could also say ideological differences which probably occur within certain of those organisations.

In the past federations played an important part in promoting stability in the labour sphere, and I therefore want to make an appeal to these younger and newer federations in particular to continue to build on this old tradition of creating stability and not to be guilty of activities which will cause unrest and anxiety in the labour sphere in South Africa.

The hon member for Randburg also placed emphasis on the managerial role in labour relations and on the necessity for the Department of Manpower to continue to adopt a neutral position in these relations. I also wish to avail myself of this opportunity to pay the officials of the department, who maintain labour relations, a compliment from this Committee. When a dispute arises the official of the Department of Manpower is contacted. He is the person with whom a complaint is lodged, as it were. I think the officials of this department have confirmed the point, through their conduct, that the department is in the middle as impartial arbiter, has maintained an image of objectivity and has in that way instilled confidence in both employer and employee organisations, and is continuing to do so to an increasing extent.

It is very interesting that in the few hundred conciliation boards which were requested last year for example, a departmental official, if I remember correctly, was asked without exception to act as impartial chairman at those proceedings. As hon members know the conciliation board consists of an equal number of employers and employees. Consequently it is a great compliment to the officials of the department that they have succeeded in establishing such an image of objectivity.

Apart from the dispute-resolving machinery for which provision is made in the legislation, this department per se also plays a very important part in maintaining labour peace and the resolving of disputes on a quite informal basis and level.

I should like to come to the hon member for Springs. He referred to the way in which unemployment insurance claims were dealt with, particularly in Johannesburg and on the Rand and he also conveyed his thanks to the divisional inspector in Johannesburg, and his staff.

Furthermore the hon member referred to the disappearance of the development boards on 1 July of this year. He also pointed out that the workload of the Department of Manpower would increase after the disappearance of these development boards. It is true that the development boards carry out certain functions for the Department of Manpower on an agency basis.

I can inform the hon member that the Organisation and Work Study Section of the Department of Manpower has been investigating for a considerable time now the organisational structure of our divisional inspector’s offices throughout South Africa, and since January of this year has also involved the manpower functions of the development boards in this investigation and subjected them to thorough scrutiny.

At this stage of the investigation it appears that considerable expansion and also considerable upgrading of regional offices of the Department of Manpower will result from this investigation. It is also apparent that the Johannesburg inspectorate, which at present carries the heaviest workload, will be subdivided into more or less four separate regions, and that there will have to be a considerable increase in senior posts as well as regional offices of the department throughout the country to be able to deal with this additional workload.

Next I want to come to the hon member for Stilfontein. The hon member took up the cudgels very deftly for womanpower, and I am certain that many women, here and elsewhere, will be grateful for that. After his speech the hon member for Stilfontein is perhaps the hero of many women. [Interjections.]

The fine things which the hon member had to say about Manpower Survey No 16 are very highly appreciated and will be conveyed to the officials who are working on that report. He also made good use of data contained in that report to illustrate in particular the progress which women have made in the professional world. I think the point which the hon member was trying to make on the basis of those statistics was that to an increasing extent in this country, women are making noticeable vertical progress towards managerial and executive positions.

†I now want to come to the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South. I agree with the hon member that housing is a most important issue, but I must point out that it is a matter which falls under a number of other departments as well. The R600 million which was made available for special job creation programmes was allocated to a number of departments which initiated projects of their own in accordance with the criteria that were laid down. Of this amount R530 million was spent in the 1985-86 financial year, while R70 million was carried over into the current financial year. An additional amount of R90 million was made available to bring the available funds for the current financial year to R160 million. This money was allocated to various departments, details of which are contained in the supplementary budget. I know that infrastructure and housing projects are receiving priority attention in some of the other departments.

*I come now to the hon member for Algoa. I want to thank him very sincerely for the complimentary remarks he made about the liaison work of the Department of Manpower. I can tell him that exceptionally good liaison and sound relations are being maintained with the TBVC states, but also with some of the other independent states here in Southern Africa. It is rather strange that when one discusses manpower matters, people who are otherwise perhaps anti-South Africa are also quite prepared to discuss what is really a subject of common concern.

The hon member pointed out that a large number of foreign workers find a livelihood in South Africa. He also indicated the benefits our neighbouring states derive from this. One can only express the hope that the world will take cognisance of these benefits which our neighbouring states are deriving from the fact that South Africa is affording their citizens employment opportunities. In their turn these workers are a major source of revenue for those countries.

A special task group has been appointed by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to give attention to the problems of the Eastern Cape, which the hon member pointed out so clearly to us. Naturally I can give the hon member the assurance that the Department of Manpower will liaise very closely with this task group.

I want to come now to the hon member for Maraisburg. He referred to what was being done for the disabled. I am very glad that the hon member focused our attention on the disabled, particularly because 1986 is the Year of the Disabled. The department itself is doing a great deal in respect of the disabled, and is also participating actively in the programme which was launched.

The hon member is probably aware of the fact that we also have a special training programme for disabled persons. One must mention here for the information of hon members that with the specialised training programme we have even succeeded in enabling many people, who were entirely dependent on a disability pension and who in fact had to be maintained entirely by the State, to compete on the open labour market to such an extent that they were in fact able to become taxpayers. This shows how important it is for serious and ongoing attention to be given to the training of disabled persons, for by means of this training one is causing a new day to dawn in the lives of those people.

Mr Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon the Minister. I want to express my appreciation to the hon the Minister for having replied so fully to the speech made by the hon member for Maraisburg, since this year is the Year of the Disabled. I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether his department would not also consider giving attention to the accommodation and transportation of disabled persons. My experience has been that these people can in fact be accommodated for training purposes, but that their residential accommodation created serious problems. I should like to ask whether the hon the Minister and his department would not give attention to this matter as well.

In the training of disabled persons we make provision for financial assistance to the organisation transporting the disabled persons, but from the nature of our main function we are not at this stage in a position to provide them with residential accommodation. I should like to tell the hon member that I am quite prepared to see what we can do in that connection, particularly at our group training centres at which hostel facilities exist. I undertake to give special attention to the matter to see whether we cannot make provision for the accommodation of disabled persons during their training.

Thank you very much!

The hon member for Maraisburg also paid tribute to the work done by Nosa in regard to promoting safety. I want to thank the hon member for that. Nosa is supported financially from the Workmen’s Compensation Fund and is indeed making a very important contribution. On my part I also want to say that I think Nosa is playing a very important part in cultivating an awareness of safety among employers and employees.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth North thanked the department and the commission for the annual reports. I in turn thank the hon member for doing so. In addition the hon member pointed out that although there had been an increase in the number of entrants to the labour market, there had been a decrease in employment opportunities. Of course that is absolutely correct, and I share his concern in this regard. The hon member also mentioned that the small business sector would have to create job opportunities—this is the major area in which job opportunities will have to be created. I associate myself completely with that standpoint, because that is precisely what happened in the USA. The new employment opportunities were created by the small business sector while the number of job opportunities provided by the large entrepreneurs, diminished.

†I also want to refer to the hon member for Walmer. The hon member mentioned problems with a specific contract and he gave the details concerning it. For the hon member’s information I can inform him that we have entered into 387 different contracts and it is virtually impossible for me to give the details of all those contracts here across the floor. However, I will request the Department of Manpower to look into the specific case that the hon member raised here today and we will provide him with the necessary information that he requested. I want to thank him in any case for mentioning the matter.

*With that I want to thank hon members once again for their contributions to the debate. I should like to let that suffice.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Mr Chairman, when the debate adjourned, I was pointing out that customs and excise are very closely linked to the country’s economy, and that today in particular the economy is experiencing a very difficult period.

One has the problem of having to decide what one can manufacture oneself and what has to be imported. Unfortunately we have also had to contend with the problem that with parity and other rules and measures it has become much more expensive at times, and sometimes even too expensive, to use our own materials.

When we look at the matter as a whole, we find that the smaller enterprises in particular are not getting the opportunity to develop as one would wish. We have already spoken about various problems such as the capital shortage, the relevant Acts, surcharge, general sales tax, high inflation and interest rates. This does not mean we do not really consider the necessity of legislation on customs and excise, however.

Although we are unhappy about the time allocated to the discussion of this Bill, we realise the officials need this legislation, and therefore we shall not vote against it.

The drawing up of this Bill was very timely, especially with regard to places of entry and the rights the Post Office and the Controller have as far as imported goods are concerned. In this respect we have such confidence in our officials that we have no doubts about any of these proposed amendments.

We also want to convey our sincere thanks to the officials, because if there is one department which has proved in recent years that they have rendered a very great service to this country, it is the Department of Customs and Excise. Their task is very difficult sometimes. The decisions they have to take can make a very deep cut in our economy, but we have found through the years that they have taken their decisions in South Africa’s best interests.

We merely ask once again for more time to be allocated for legislation on this matter in future. Two hours is not sufficient for a financial Bill of this kind.

We support the Bill, and once again we thank the department for what they have done recently.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Langlaagte referred mainly to the surcharge on the import of materials. The hon member for Yeoville also referred to the surcharge of 10% on certain import goods. He asked for it to be abolished in the case of certain goods which are used in manufacturing processes. He also mentioned it in his amendment as a reason for rejecting the Second Reading. He links the unemployment problem to this argument of his. The hon member for Langlaagte also referred to it in his speech last week.

I have a problem, however, with the plea of the hon member for Yeoville. It is a problem of definition. It is definitely not easy to define goods used in manufacturing processes. Goods for manufacturing processes cover a very wide field, and can include an infinite number of items in the tariff book.

The purpose of surcharge and its establishment in September last year, was in, fact to obtain additional funds for the handling of emergency relief for unemployed people in South Africa, and also to finance special training projects. After all, that was the reason for the institution of this surcharge. This additional revenue is being used for the combating of unemployment, which is what the hon member for Yeoville pleaded for. Surely that is what this surcharge is being used for at present.

In addition, the surcharge serves as a protection of our own industries—something we want in South Africa to curb unemployment even further. It also places a restriction on imports. This was the purpose of a surcharge, and that is why it is necessary for surcharge to have a broad spread. It would be very difficult to narrow this basis.

I also want to refer to another aspect of customs and excise. The Department of Inland Revenue and the Department of Customs and Excise are the two important departments which are responsible for the Government’s collection of revenue. This department fulfils a very important function. The Department of Customs and Excise also has another function, however, viz a control function, which is just as important.

It is true that, just like its counterpart, this department is not a friend to everybody. There is a degree of antagonism towards the department and the customs officials. The same antagonism exists towards receivers of revenue and traffic officials. The reasons must be sought in the control functions the department has to exercise. Whether it is a matter of goods or a person entering the country, certain control measures must be exercised.

In the first place there must be control over whether the incoming goods are subject to a duty that has to be paid. Secondly the duty must be determined, as well as whether the value has been declared correctly. This is a control function which has to be exercised.

In the third place there must be control as to whether the incoming goods are the same as the goods that have been declared. The officials have to ensure, therefore, that undesirable goods do not enter in some way or another. It is in fact this function which contributes to the building up of a degree of antagonism against the officials.

It often happens that in performing their duties, officials have to make a full inspection, even with regard to someone who is innocent, and inevitably a degree of injury and humiliation is involved. That is why I should like to appeal to the officials to proceed with the greatest humanity and piety in performing this very delicate and sensitive task. Inevitably a number of people have to be subjected to an inspection, and obviously it is humiliating for the innocent person who has declared his goods properly, if he and his luggage have to be inspected. The public must also have an understanding for this procedure, however, because something illegal is hidden among the goods and the passengers, or something irregular is in progress. There may even be dangerous goods in someone’s luggage or hidden on his person. It remains the task of these officials, after all, to show up culprits of this nature. The great success customs officials have had in discovering drugs, for example, indicates that they do their work properly and effectively. That is why we should like to associate ourselves with the hon member for Langlaagte, and to express our appreciation for this important and imperative task performed by the customs officials. From this side of the House we should also like to express our very sincere thanks to all the officials of this Department—from the Commissioner, Mr Kolesky, to the most junior official in this department. We thank them all sincerely for the way in which they are dealing with this situation.

I am not going to refer to the individual clauses of this Bill. They have been dealt with fully already. It is true, however, that it seems amendments have to be added every year to plug still existing loopholes. As long as man is intent on trying to evade the payment of duty, amendments to this legislation will have to be introduced.

In conclusion I want to say I am not in a position to give an opinion on the decrease in tariff duty, from 125% to 100%, on fully assembled cars which are imported directly. Naturally this is the kind of car which I do not even dream about, let alone will ever own. [Interjections.] To me it seems a kind of luxury which I would rather not say anything about; not as far as this measure is concerned, in any case. We on this side of the House should like to support the measure in question.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Gezina is speaking very knowledgeably about this complicated aspect of the Government’s executive function.

†The hon member for Yeoville has proposed the removal of the 10% excise surcharge on products used in the process of manufacture. The soundness of this proposal is apparent when one examines the performance of the manufacturing industry over recent years. The Bureau for Economic Research points out that the volume of manufacture—not the price, but the volume—fell by 1,8% in the fourth quarter of 1985. The utilisation of the production capacity also fell. Employment, at 1,3 million, was down on the previous year. Moreover, we have employed in this sector of our economy, where it is anticipated there is the best scope for employment creation, 150 000 fewer people than we had five years ago— this despite the fact that a devalued rand gives us considerable export advantages.

Mr Chairman, one thing we are pleased about is the R4 per kilogram rebate on excise duty which was given a little while ago. That is an invaluable inducement to export promotion. The 10% further reduction in the excise surcharge would assist. These are, however, not sufficient to transform an industry which last year, the Director of Naamsa estimates, lost R1,5 billion. There is also a limit to the amount at which a motorcar manufacturer can export because he quickly bumps his head against the marketing policies of his own parent company elsewhere. The motor industry is too important a manufacturing component to be killed with tax burdens. The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central has done some interesting analysis of this problem, and he points out that the tax on a motor vehicle of R15 300 is R2 765. Now, that is an impossible figure. The results of this can be seen in the motor industry in Port Elizabeth and elsewhere at the moment, of which unemployment is an example. In Port Elizabeth employment connected with the motor industry has dropped by half.

The customs duty and surcharge make up only R130 of the amount of the tax. Nonetheless, however, I believe that every form of assistance that can be given to that town is essential and in the interests of the health of the economy of South Africa. We are pleased that the rail rebate is being increased to 60% and the tender preference by 1%. We hope that the suggestion that a uniform steel price should apply will also be implemented soon because we certainly need that badly. It could happen, if all these things were to occur and if further benefits were to be given to an area like Port Elizabeth, locational advantages could be achieved through the export trade which would counterbalance some of the disadvantages that have been suffered recently. In order to do this, Port Elizabeth must not be placed at a disadvantage to East London, Cape Town and Durban.

I am particularly pleased that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is here today. I hope he will give me some attention, because I believe that Port Elizabeth’s problems are very largely due to a lack of sympathy for and understanding of the problems of that area by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. He never seems to believe me, just as he is not listening to me now … [Interjections.] I hope the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has actually read the front page article in Rapport of the week before last on conditions in Port Elizabeth. Perhaps it will bring home to him the problems of that city which I have now been trying to explain to him for four years, ever since 1982 when the iniquitous discrimination against Port Elizabeth took place at the time of the introduction of incentive benefits.

Hear, hear!

Anybody who visits that town today will see the necessity of giving it immediate stimulation. I believe that ways in which that can be achieved include increasing the package of incentives to Port Elizabeth so that it is at least comparable with that of East London. The division of Region B into two is also something which should be done quickly because the two poles, the eastern pole of East London and King William’s Town and the western pole in Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage, are not complementary. They are competitive poles. Each should have its own region so that each can promote its own region with determination.

An investigation into the feasibility of making Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage an export processing zone, as suggested by my colleague, the hon member for Newton Park, is absolutely necessary and should be done immediately. An official commitment to the use of Port Elizabeth as the main manufacturing and service centre for the Mossel Bay project requires a commitment from this Government. That commitment should be made as soon as possible to re-establish a degree of confidence in the local business community.

It is very important that the cost structure of South Africa be made more competitive. The Kleu report emphasised the importance of exports to the growth of the country. It is the best way to get foreign capital into the country for expansion. Other sources, as we know, are denied to us because of the problems we are experiencing with our foreign bankers. Why load domestic cost structures, one might say, with a further 10% surcharge? We believe that this would not actually end up as cost to the fiscus but would augment and encourage local manufacturing throughout the country and so do what is so necessary if one wants a competitive industry. It would broaden the base of local manufacture and the demand for local manufacture.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Walmer has made an interesting contribution, especially in regard to the position in which the motor industry finds itself. I suppose it was to be expected that he should make this contribution in view of the fact that his constituency is in an area which has been badly hit as a result of the slump in the motor industry. I sympathise fully with the tough times which that particular industry is going through at present. However, I believe that when he opened this debate a day or two ago, the hon member for Yeoville made a very significant statement when he said that when the Government encourages growth, it has to decide what kind of growth it wants to encourage. I think that statement which the hon member for Yeoville made, is a very profound one and I would like to submit to the hon member for Walmer that one has to examine the actual expenditure patterns in South Africa over the past seven or eight years in order to discover exactly where we ourselves have perhaps made mistakes.

To give the hon member an example of what I am getting at, I should like to inform him—although I am sure he knows this— that if one takes the aggregate growth in the gross domestic product from 1978 to 1984, one finds that it reached an aggregate of approximately 20% in real terms. However, when one examines the consumption expenditure of individuals as applied to the motor industry, one finds that the expenditure on private motor vehicles actually increased by some 37% during that period. I do not think it is hard for one to appreciate that if there is a tremendous growth rate in one particular sector of the total economy, this must be at the expense of other sectors, and this will be inclined to upset the total balance of the economy. The question which I believe we must ask ourselves is whether the South African economy as a whole has been correctly pitched to meet the real needs of South Africa. I would like to suggest to the hon member that the growth in the South African motor industry during that period was far in excess of what it should have been. In other words, the motor industry experienced a tremendous boom, and one may well ask what caused it. Perhaps the so-called tax-free fringe benefits caused it, because how many people just leaving school and getting their first jobs are given a company car? Perhaps all these factors contributed to this imbalance in the economy as a whole.

The hon member for Yeoville also said that in this regard it is fundamental to put more money into the hands of those who have the least to spend. If we are thinking in terms of reviving our economy, then I think the hon member for Yeoville is absolutely correct in saying that. When we start to stimulate the economy, it should be in the right direction. In my view, it would be pointless to stimulate the economy by reducing taxes, for example—and I, personally, would like taxes to be reduced—to such an extent that those people who have good jobs, who pay high taxes and who have money in their pockets, will have even more money to spend. What will they spend it on? They may possibly spend it on more motorcars and that is not where the real needs of South Africa lie today. The real needs of South Africa today lie in the Third World component of our greater economy, and it is on that area that we should be concentrating our efforts and our thinking. I submit this to the hon member for consideration.

I had hoped that the hon member for Yeoville would be here, but I believe he is in Johannesburg. I thank his hon Chief Whip for informing me of that. The hon member made a very interesting speech and suggested that this type of legislation should be submitted to the Standing Committee on Finance. Those of us who have taken part in these debates in the past will realise that there are many schedules involved here, and my only fear is that if it were to be submitted to the Standing Committee on Finance, we might spend hours and hours nit-picking over these various tariffs which are shown in the various schedules.

Having said that, I do believe that the hon member has a valid point when it comes to some of the control provisions in this regard and some of the rates and tariffs which might affect industry and the economy as a whole. We are having great success in the Standing Committee on Finance in debating certain issues and, like the hon member for Overvaal, I personally would also like to debate some of these issues in the standing committee. I believe some good could come out of that. My only concern is time. We are all under great pressure in certain standing committees today—the Standing Committee on Finance is one of them—and, therefore, I have some reservations about that.

Getting back to what the hon member for Yeoville said about the fact that it is fundamental to put more money in the hands of those who have the least to spend, I think this is exceedingly important. One must decide who should qualify for any assistance or stimulation in this particular regard. The hon member for Yeoville mentioned who the people were who had the least at the present time.

There was a behavioural scientist by the name of Maslow who listed five basic motivating forces of man. The first, most essential and basic motivating factor is the need to survive. In describing this, he referred to the need to provide food and shelter. I should like to submit that the greatest need in South Africa today is that of the vast numbers of underprivileged people, many of them unemployed, to survive, ie to get food and shelter.

If we are going to stimulate the economy, such stimulation should be directed more at the provision of housing, and when I say housing, I am talking about shack-type housing for the masses of our people as we enter into this huge urbanisation programme which we can expect because I do not believe that we can provide the standard of housing which we have attempted to provide in the past. I am thinking in terms almost of wattle-and-daub type houses. We know that our ancestors lived in wattle-and-daub houses, and there are many people throughout South Africa who still five in wattle-and-daub houses. I think many of our new sprawling urban townships to be developed will be built with creosoted wattle poles and have tin roofs. It is that type of development which we should be promoting in order to get an internal economy in those townships going so that we can create more jobs.

The hon member for Yeoville said that he would like to see the Government promoting a “Buy South African” campaign. I should like to submit to the hon the Deputy Minister that that is a very good point. We should endeavour to do that. However, the hon member for Overvaal mentioned that the private sector also has a responsibility here. I agree with him. A tremendous amount of money is being spent on advertising on the radio and TV and in the Press. Let us have a look over the next two weeks to see what we are really advertising, how much of it is really needed, how many of the products are manufactured in South Africa and how many of them could have been manufactured in South Africa. In my opinion the private sector seems to lack confidence at present. It is perhaps to be expected because of the uncertainty and the unrest but I believe that this is the time for them to get going and really put everything into a renewed effort to give the economy a lift. They must show the muscle they have and try to promote the purchase of South African goods.

The hon member for Yeoville also dealt with anti-dumping duties. We know that in clause 7 there are various provisions with regard to the control of the dumping of imported goods. I believe the dumping of certain goods has damaged the South African industry in recent years. The problem is that South Africa plays the game according to the rules, ie those laid down by GATT, whereas many other countries throughout the world do not. They are inclined to take advantage of decent people.

Having said all this, I want to take issue with the hon member for Yeoville about something else, and I regret the fact that he is not here. Before I take issue with him, I want to say that this hon member does make very valuable contributions on the Standing Committee on Finance. I think the chairman of that committee and others who sit on that committee will concede that point. I appreciate having him on the committee because, being a legally trained man, he has a certain way of looking at problems, and I think that is an advantage when we are discussing legislation. However, at times the hon member flies off the handle. He tries to split hairs and then he gets hold of an odd point and because of publicity and politics he tries to make out that he is the angel and the Government is the devil. In the process he acts like a little tin god and when somebody queries him he becomes insulting. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it parliamentary to say of another hon member of this House that he becomes insulting?

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Thank you. Sir. I will read from the hon member’s Hansard and I will then leave it to hon members of this House to determine whether he was, first of all, insulting; secondly, whether he was justified in being insulting; and thirdly, whether he is not what he called me.

During the debate he was talking about five or seven clauses in the legislation that refer to the increase in penalties—an increase of something like 250%. The hon member said these were being increased and he said that this was an admission on the part of the Government that their policy in the fighting of inflation had failed. During this he said—and I quote from his unrevised Hansard of 26 May:

I am an objective person and I have a right to know what the hon member is talking about, so I asked him this question by way of an interjection:

To which the hon member replied:

He then went on to say:

I interjected then and said:

I did not say it was nothing; I just made a clear observation. I then interjected as follows:

This is objective questioning of the hon member, because he was hammering the Government. His reply to that was:

Well, let us look at the facts. [Interjections.] I have done a bit of research and whatever country one wants, I have the facts of the rates of inflation. I have the statistics in that regard of every country in the world and they are based on the UN’s Statistical Yearbook. If one studies this we find that from the year 1963—which is close to 1964, the period the hon member mentioned—to 1970 South Africa’s rate of inflation was, other than for West Germany and Australia, the lowest of some seven nations. From 1963 to 1970 the CPI rose to 125 in South Africa, 135 in the UK, 127 in the USA, 124 in Australia, 131 in France, 120 in West Germany and 136 in New Zealand. If we then go from 1970 to 1982—with 1970 being 100%—South Africa rose to 360%, the UK to 438%, the USA to 249%, Australia to 328%, France to 319%, West Germany to 183% and New Zealand to 435%. I also contacted the USA’s embassy to get some figures from them. For the period 1964 to 1986 the CPI in the USA rose by 245% and that in the OECD nations in Europe by 312%. The hon the Minister has increased his fine two and a half times, which is in line with the position in most other nations in the world.

So I submit, in conclusion, that the hon member for Yeoville, when he makes an attack and receives an objective question or reply, often becomes insulting and in so doing clearly reveals that if there is an ignoramus in this House it is not the person asking the question but rather the hon member for Yeoville himself when he adopts that attitude.

Mr Chairman, I want to support the proposal of the hon member for Yeoville that the 10% surcharge be reduced in respect of all goods used in the course of production.

I want to deal particularly with the problem which confronts people, particularly those in the Cape, Durban and Johannesburg, with regard to employment. In doing so, I want to refer to the textile industry. I should like to read from a letter I have here. The writer says:

The writer of this letter actually owns a factory in Atlantis.

The situation, Sir, is that there is a maladjustment at the present time in respect of clothing material available in South Africa. Apparently the South African yam mills have taken on a large number of export orders which they are having to fulfill, and so they are unable to fulfil the orders of local manufacturers. The local manufacturers therefore have to buy a large amount of material from overseas mills which they would normally have bought in South Africa, had the yam been available.

I also have in my possession a letter from one of the cloth manufacturers. The writer states the very thing that I have mentioned. Writing to a clothing manufacturer, he says:

He then goes on to say how expensive it would be to import yam.

The clothing industry, at the present time, is in a very parlous state. Today, for instance, I visited a clothing factory which in the past had six floors of employees. Today it has only one floor and those employees are making up a small order for export.

The truth is that clothing manufacture is a labour-intensive business. When one looks at the Customs and Excise schedule of amendments, for instance, one sees that 350 amendments have been made over the past year. That seems to be to be a very large number of amendments in one year. So I believe the time has come when, together with the reduction in surcharge, the normal import duties could be reduced on a temporary basis so that it is made possible for clothing manufacturers to import the goods and materials they need. I believe that if these materials were available, our unemployment problem could still be solved. I really think something must be done to bring that about.

There seems to be problems in getting the Board of Trade and Industries to agree to the change. It seems, therefore, that the problem does not lie so much with the Department of Customs and Excise as with the Board of Trade and Industries. I am unfamiliar, however, with the procedures carried out by the Department of Customs and Excise and the Board of Trade with regard to temporary reduction of duties. Nevertheless, I appeal to the Department of Customs and Excise to investigate the matter with a view to a reduction in the surcharge on goods used in production. After all, the unemployment problem is a very serious one at the moment, and it can only be solved if the factories can start producing again.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bezuidenhout who has just sat down mentioned problems in the clothing industry. The response to those problems is well in hand. The hon member said there were certain textile manufacturers in South Africa who could not obtain raw materials. It is true. As soon as the problem manifested itself and as soon as the Department of Trade and Industry was notified of this problem we reacted immediately. We spoke to all the manufacturers and their official bodies and we immediately gazetted the necessary remedy. If he reads the Gazettes he will know that I issued a proclamation, a notice, in that regard on 23 May 1986. It allows individual manufacturers to import yarns or materials under rebate of duty upon application to the Board of Trade for their reasonable requirements that are not available in South Africa. The manufacturers are delighted with that. They in fact came to our offices to thank the hon the Minister and the ministry personally for this action. We share the concern of the hon member. We have acted appropriately, but clearly one cannot give a blanket licence for people to import against the interests of the local raw material producers. Somebody has to act as referee to see whether those applications are reasonable, and the Board of Trade is the appropriate authority to do so. The hon member will know that the Board of Trade over the past few months has been expanded to increase its staff by 80 so that it is in a position to deal speedily with these problems. I can assure the hon member that we will indeed do so.

When this debate began the hon member for Yeoville complained at first about the time available for the debate. However, the fact is that there is nothing new about this. This situation has been going on since 1971…

Yes, but there is no standing committee.

There was no standing committee previously.

No, no, do not be so silly. The whole point is the new system.

We have 10 hours for the five financial Bills and therefore we have two hours for this debate. That position has been extant since 1971. We would like a full discussion on all of the financial measures before the House. We have no objection to allowing more time …

Then let us have it. [Interjections.]

Let me finish, Mr Chairman. We do not object to having more time and I would suggest the hon members address themselves to the appropriate committee of Parliament to request additional time for this debate. If the additional time is provided …

Can we say that you support it?

Absolutely. We would be delighted. If the hon members want to consult with the Standing Committee on Finance and can seek a formula whereby finance Bills can reasonably be dealt with there we would also not object. We are not trying to hide anything. However, there are of course specific problems with the finance Bills. The principle of the finance Bills has anyway been accepted in the Budget and this is just procedural. As far as this particular Bill is concerned most of the provisions, items and notices here have appeared over the past 12 months and have been gazetted over a period of months. Hon members therefore would have had all the time in the world—except for those notices that might have been gazetted more recently—to have dealt with them in the course of the year if they had been interested. The fact is that I do not think the hon members are sincere in this regard. I say this because some of the hon members of the opposition did not use all their time. The hon member for Langlaagte, for example, complained that we did not have enough time for discussion, consultation and for study. He moved no amendments and he only spoke for half of the period of 20 minutes that he had available.

And the PFP?

The hon member for Walmer who repeated the problem and who also complained, in fact spoke about the Eastern Cape and spent very little time on customs and excise matters except as they affect the motor industry.

As it affects the Eastern Cape.

He then went on repeating matters he has expounded ad nauseam in other debates and ignored the Bill before the House, ignored the proposed amendments of his own party, and ignored all the notices that are contained in the books that have been laid upon the Table. I honestly cannot say, therefore, that the hon members have used all of their available time to discuss the matter before us. If they were to read the debate in Hansard they would see that this is the case. Nevertheless, we would welcome a full discussion at any time on any of the legislation that we handle. If that can be arranged we would be delighted.

The hon member for Yeoville has apologised for not being here as he has to be elsewhere. He moved an amendment to the motion for the Second Reading of the Bill and said that we must revise the fiscal package, deal with the high unemployment and do away with the 10% surcharge on goods if used in manufacturing processes. I want to say firstly that we are dealing with an ex post situation with this Bill. The reason why the surcharge was introduced in the first place was to deal with the very things that the hon member called upon us to do. The hon member is therefore really agreeing and not disagreeing with us.

No!

Of course it is so. That is why we introduced the surcharge in the first place. We want to create employment, to feed people; we want to create training schemes to bring development to the underprivileged parts of our country: That was the whole rationale behind the surcharge.

[Inaudible.]

No, the hon member for Yeoville did not talk about Port Elizabeth—he never mentioned Port Elizabeth.

I am saying that he did!

Well, I am not talking to that hon member—I am talking to the hon member for Yeoville.

He is not here!

In his absence then. If hon members do not want me to address the matters that the hon member for Yeoville raised in this House I am perfectly happy not to do so. However, as a courtesy to the hon member for Yeoville I would like to place a reply to his debate in Hansard. [Interjections.] He had the courtesy of apologising to me for his absence and I am doing the courtesy of replying to him. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Yeoville said that we should get rid of the surcharge. This refers to the surcharge on goods used in manufacturing processes.

Only those!

Presumably he means raw materials and intermediate goods. We have the fullest sympathy with the hon member and we know that the surcharge is a tax on tax. It is therefore by definition what we would call a “dirty tax”. We also know that it is an unacceptable form of tax which one resorts to as an emergency measure. As far as we are concerned we are monitoring the situation all the time and if we can bring relief in this regard—when it is appropriate and when we can do so—will indeed do so. If we are going to give tax relief, that is the kind of tax relief that must be high on anyone’s agenda.

We want to stimulate job creation!

That hon member does not seem to realise the difference in dealing with the ex post situation and the future situation.

The relief of surcharge per se would mean a loss to the fisc of some R900 million. Hon members must remember that 50% of the goods entering South Africa are in any case not subject to surcharge as they are bound under the GATT. Otherwise they are not subject to surcharge for some other reason or they have been exempted by the committee which sits to exempt particular imports of manufacturers where their raw materials are subject to surcharge and where they are competing against finished goods that are not subject to the surcharge. [Interjections.] Some 50% of the goods entering the country are therefore not subject to the surcharge.

Textiles!

Even in the case of intermediate goods entering the country which are subject to surcharge and which do form part of the manufacturing process the tax loss—were we to drop the surcharge—would be some R200 million. That is an enormous loss and therefore hon members will understand that one cannot leap to such a decision. I can, however, assure hon members that we are looking at it, we understand what they are saying and we agree with them in principle in so far as that is concerned.

I now want to deal specifically with some of the amendments proposed by the hon member for Yeoville. I want to tell the hon member for Yeoville what we are trying to do in clause 3. We want to involve commercial importers actively in the clearing process. That is all we want to do. We are not trying to make things difficult for people receiving gift packages and so on. In fact, there is already a provision in terms of which we have already rasied the value of goods that can be received as a gift from R40 to R100. As I say, we want to actively involve the commercial importers in the clearance process simply because we want to avoid the abuse of the system. There are untold examples of this. A postmaster might open a package marked “used clothing”, for instance, and find that it is full of gold necklaces. There clearly are people who abuse the postal route in order to evade duty. At the moment one cannot deal with those people because the falsified information is provided by the sender and not the recipient. If therefore someone is trying to import goods free of duty, there is no way of getting hold of him unless one involves the recipient in the clearing process. So we are monitoring that situation.

In his amendments, the hon member for Yeoville proposes the addition of the words “substantially” and “unless the postmaster is satisfied that there are good reasons why such invoices cannot be produced”. These amendments would introduce a vagueness which is found nowhere else in customs legislation. The proposed amendments would make the requirements difficult to define and would introduce a vague and entirely foreign qualification in relation to the acceptability of documents.

The attention of hon members is drawn to section 40(l)(d) of the Act, which requires that a correct and sufficient invoice be produced, failing which the entry is not valid and the goods in question are liable to forfeiture. Bearing in mind that the relative provisions pertain to the correctness of documents and the entry of goods for customs purposes, there is no reason for making any special concession in regard to postal clearances in this respect.

There are other ways of dealing with these matters. We do not want to give the postmaster discretion, but there are other provisions of the Act which can be applied if an invoice cannot be produced. There are other acceptable forms of validation, but we do not want to build that into this particular clause. As I have already said, that would introduce an element of vagueness.

The hon member for Yeoville also wants to add the words “and such difference is found to be inadvertent” after the word “concerned” in line 31 on page 5 of the Bill. Here again the provision should be precise, and it seems to me that the insertion of “inadvertent” could produce a vague concept foreign to the existing provisions regarding forfeiture in the Act. The proposed amendment cannot be grammatically reconciled with the existing wording as no mention is made in subsection (6) of any difference to which “such a difference” could refer. As I have already said, there are already provisions in the Act for dealing with the situation should somebody not be able to produce an invoice.

An invoice must be produced, because without one the value, description and quantity involved cannot be determined. It is impossible for the Act to operate without those three pieces of information and the invoice is, therefore, essential.

Clause 3 is only meant to deal with commercial importers. We are not seeking to penalise the person who is receiving gifts from his aunt in Dorset, for example. The fact of the matter is that the commercial importer knows what the situation is. He knows that the rules require him to have an invoice, so this provision is not going to make things difficult for him at all. What we are actually doing is bringing the Post Office into line with all the other modes by which goods are brought into the Republic.

The hon member said we had shut the stable door after the horse had bolted. He said that used machinery was leaving the country in a big way, and that when we eventually did something about it, we were reacting too late. In fact, we did act as soon as we received information that certain used machinery was leaving the country. The Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Customs and Excise undertook an immediate study of the position. That led to export control and the need for permits where certain categories of machines are to be exported.

You took an awfully long time to find out about it.

Of course, but if one had to act upon every story in the Press immediately, alter the law—introduce import control whenever people want it, reduce the surcharge, do these things whenever people ask one to and do x, y and z because there is a story in the Press, our economy would be wrecked. One cannot govern on that basis. The fact of the matter is that we did an urgent investigation as soon as we heard about this. When we discovered what the position was and that there was cause for concern, we instituted permit control immediately. That was the responsible thing to do. We did it quickly and we apply it equitably because there are also circumstances in which it is reasonable to allow people to export equipment.

Overinvoicing is a different story and we are aware of the abuse of overinvoicing. It is nothing new. We have lived with it for a long time and the Reserve Bank and the State departments involved are all well aware of this and we monitor the situation very carefully indeed. It is of course very difficult to prove. The hon member will know that there are United Nations debates on this whole question of the operation of multinational corporations. Multinational corporations have been under attack from the United Nations for something like 15 or 20 years concerning this whole question of the movement of goods and services between countries. So it is a complex matter, and unless one has access to the books of the person at the other end, it is almost impossible to prove. Nevertheless, we are aware of it and where we can close gaps or prevent abuse, we shall do so.

The hon member for Yeoville also raised the issue of dumping. Other hon members have also alluded to it, and the fact of the matter is that this particular clause in the Bill helps us to act more efficiently as far as dumping is concerned. We know that dumping is a problem internationally, and where dumping takes place here which causes problems or harm to local industry we act at once on application to the Board of Trade. This clause in this particular Bill will allow us to act speedily to try to remedy a situation. We have checked the proposed clauses with the GATT and we are absolutely in line with GATT conventions.

Then the hon member for Yeoville said he could not understand why there was a reduction in duty on fresh and dried figs. He also mentioned dried grapes and yoghurt. There is a simple answer to that. There are so few applications to import fresh and dried figs and dried grapes that the relevant schedules just clutter the Statute Book and the schedules. We are constantly revising the schedules and, if we find that a particular tariff item has fallen into disuse, we scrap it. If people need tariff protection later on they are able to apply to the Board of Trade and we would then react appropriately. For example, over the past year there was only R14 000 worth of yoghurt imported into South Africa and the total duty involved was R100. Just the ink for the printing of these manuals probably costs us more than that. So it is better for us not to clutter the Statute Book, to streamline things and to remove headings and items which are no longer required.

I think I have reacted to the question of the textile industry.

*The hon member for Langlaagte also apologised for not being here because he had an important appointment, but I shall react briefly to one of the points he mentioned. He said that we should help the small businessman. He said the small clothing industry was experiencing difficulties—I spoke about that—and he also said that the small businessman was experiencing difficulties. The fact of the matter is that this Bill contains a clause which also enables the small businessman to import goods free of customs duty, as is the case for other larger concerns. It is therefore a measure which assists the small businessman since he does not qualify for this at present.

Then the hon member also discussed the Ciskei. He spoke about certain anomalies, apparently in connection with contraventions of the provision that unprocessed material may be imported if it forms part of a production process of goods which are to be exported again. Importing such unprocessed material is not subject to duty. The hon member referred to such manufactured goods which then found their way from the Ciskei to the trade in South Africa—something which of course is at variance with the relevant provision in the principal Act. I want to assure the hon member that we are aware of this. When we heard about it, we approached the people involved. We went to the Ciskei where we had discussions with the people concerned. We are co-operating in order to prevent things like this from happening. Someone from the Department of Customs and Excise was seconded to Ciskei. We also assist the neighbouring countries with the training of their officials charged with these duties. We work very closely with the neighbouring countries and I believe that we have eliminated those loopholes for the present moment. However, as long as there are people on earth, there will be those who try to get round legislation. We are aware of it, however, and we are doing everything possible to keep that problem under control.

The hon member also said that we were not devoting enough time to the discussion of this measure. He pointed out that this was important legislation, etc. However, he did not take up all the time allotted to his turn to speak, nor did he move any amendments. I also made enquiries at the department, but apparently he did not call there for any further information either. I therefore do not know whether the hon member is really serious about his appeal. It seems as if I have to accept that he is not really serious.

The hon member for Gezina made a very interesting speech. I gathered that he had made an in-depth study of this subject. He is a person who always does his homework thoroughly and one is always conscious of the fact that when one listens to his clear expositions. He pointed out the important position of this department in the national economy as well as the importance of proper control and supervision. His speech was very interesting to listen to.

The hon member warned us to be careful when the officials of the department come into contact with the public. I want to concede that that is the case. When one is dealing with thousands of people daily, while some of these people often, to say the least, act in an extremely rude way—which of course makes it very difficult for the official who is only doing his duty on behalf of the taxpayers of South Africa, because money which we do not collect there, must then be paid by the man in the street in the form of additional tax—and do not understand what it is all about, considerable problems may arise, especially when tempers flare on both sides. The hon member can rest assured that we choose our people with care and that we always try to ensure that officials with the right personality and temperament for this kind of job carry out these duties. Doing this kind of job also forms an important part of that officials’ training. They also receive the necessary retraining from time to time. If a person with a valid complaint in this regard refers the matter to the relevant section head immediately, it will of course help us tremendously because we can then identify the relevant official without any delay, institute the necessary inquiry and take appropriate steps.

I should therefore like to make an appeal to members of the public to bring it to the attention of the Commissioner or the relevant section head immediately they come across such cases. That will help us to act and dispose of such matters quickly and satisfactorily. However. I do want to tell the hon member that we are aware of the problems that crop up from time to time, but we do our best to facilitate matters as much as possible.

†The hon member for Walmer spoke about the particular problems of the motor industry, and also about the regional problems of the Eastern Cape, and in particular of Port Elizabeth. I want to assure him that we know that the motor industry is bleeding. We know the motor industry is going through difficult times. The tax burden is heavy. That is one of the major problems. GST has increased from 4% to 12% over the past years. There has also been a massive escalation in the prices of motor vehicles over the past twelve months or so. This is particularly owing to the low exchange rate between the rand and the American dollar.

Thank goodness for the local component manufacturers! If we did not have their 50% input of locally manufactured components, we would really have been in great trouble today. Nevertheless, there are problems. We feel the tax burden is too heavy for the motor industry. As the hon member should know, however, we are currently involved in negotiations and discussions with Naamsa and the various other bodies representing the motor industry. We are looking with great understanding at the proposals that have been made to us. We have investigated almost all those proposals which have been put to us. We are discussing things with them. I agree that the excise tax is a heavy burden and that something could, and indeed should, be done to see what we can do to help the industry.

There are many structural problems in that industry, as the hon member will know, and there are many alternatives as to how they may be helped. He mentioned one possibility himself, namely the R4 per kilogram exported rebate on the excise account. The hon member might be interested to know that that scheme is working very well. There are some tens of millions of rand of parts being exported or planned to be exported. There are problems, though, with some of the proposals he and the industry make and that really have to be weighed.

For a start, if one has this export rebate scheme, which is a rebate on one’s excise account, and one then cuts the excise account to such a degree that there is no money in it at all, then there is no incentive for people to try to achieve the rebate of R4 per kilogram on the exports because there is nothing to rebate it against. One would then have to introduce and budget for an increase in funds to pay people a direct subsidy, perhaps, for those particular exports. However, we are evaluating those things. We do agree with him. We understand that the industry is in trouble and that it could do with some assistance. How best to apply that assistance is something we must evaluate ourselves. We listen attentively to them. I must tell the hon member that I have been in discussions with officials or office bearers of Naamsa every day several times a day for the past weeks and again this morning. We will be meeting again next week to investigate particular possibilities.

The hon member did not speak about the Bill before the House, but I understand his position.

In closing I want to refer to the speech of the hon member for Amanzimtoti. He spoke about the fact that everybody says we must concentrate on growth, but how is that achieved? That is a big problem for various reasons: What is the current situation? Are we in fact not enjoying the kind of growth we should? We do not know that. The salary increases, for example, that were announced in the Budget will only work through to the economy at the end of this month. The cheques that are received at the end of this month will include the salary increases for the first time. The lower interest rates are also only now working through the system. They have an impact on the building societies, for example, and only last week the building societies gave notice of the fact that they were reducing their mortgage bonds. The fact of the matter is that they still have to give notice to their borrowers of this fact, and ask their borrowers whether they want to increase their mortgage bond repayments or whether they want to receive the cash.

There are also a number of other stimulatory measures that were taken in the Budget that have not yet worked their way through the system. Also, our information is not all that good because there is a little time lag before information comes through as to what exactly is going on in the economy. However, the indications are that there could be a flatness entering the economy. The hon member for Amanzimtoti posed the question: How does one achieve growth? Of course there are many ways of skinning this cat, if it should be skinned at all. I can assure hon members that we are listening to everybody and we are making our own evaluations. If indeed we should act, we will do so at the appropriate time.

The hon member also mentioned that he would like to see this kind of Bill go to the Standing Committee on Finance. However, he also immediately pointed out some of the problems one has in that regard. I think that is something we should talk about. Certainly from our point of view there is nothing to hide. We are proud of what we do in our department. We do not think we have all the wisdom and we know that the Standing Committee on Finance does make a great contribution. If we could have the benefit of that contribution, we would be delighted to have that also.

The hon member for Amanzimtoti also reacted to the speech of the hon member for Yeoville who said we must put money into the poor people’s pockets. I am all for helping the poor people, people who are definably poor and definably disadvantaged. However, I am the last man in the world who is keen on putting money into people’s pockets or into their hands. What we should rather do, is to create a society where people can make a decent living for themselves. We should strive for equality of opportunity and circumstances and for training and education, and programmes of affirmative action should be put into practice. We heard about this afternoon when the Vote on Manpower was discussed. I am not an expert on manpower, but if my memory serves me correctly, last year we trained 260 000 people on these special programmes, and this year we will train something like 550 000 people. That is a fantastic number of people. I understand that some 30% of the people trained find employment immediately and that employers queue up at the bureau. They have now almost become labour bureau because employers approach them for personnel. We are therefore involved in that type of programme and what we must do, is to afford people every opportunity to earn a decent living for themselves. However, we are not very keen to throw money at problems, if that is what was suggested.

With reference to the "Buy South African” campaign which has been supported by many hon members, I want to tell them that we have held discussions regarding the possibility of helping to orchestrate a "Buy South African” campaign. The fact is that the balance of payments is heavily in our favour at the moment. Imports are extremely low because of the exchange rate of the rand among other reasons. I would not have thought, therefore, that it would be the appropriate time for that kind of programme. However, every member of the public should of course be aware at all times— whenever buying anything—that when one reaches for an imported item on the supermarket shelf, one is employing a foreigner. When one buys a South African product from that shelf, one is employing our own people, and I would ask all members of the public to exercise their discretion and always to favour the South African product. We discussed a “Buy South African” campaign in the department over a year ago. It is something which is always on the agenda and at the appropriate time we shall try to encourage the private sector—not the Government but the private sector—to institute a co-ordinated “Buy South African" campaign. We do not think that the time is opportune at the moment for a campaign of that kind. However, we do think that the time is always right for people to buy South African.

I thank those hon members on both sides of the House who have supported this legislation.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—101: Alant, T G; Badenhorst, P J; Ballot, G C; Barnard, S P; Bartlett, G S; Botha, C J v R; Botha, J C G; Botma, M C; Clase, P J; Coetzer, P W; Conradie, F D; Cunningham, J H; De Pontes, P; Du Plessis, G C; Durr, K D S; Farrell, P G; Fouché, A F; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B F; Golden, S G A; Grobler, J P; Hardingham, R W; Hayward, S A S; Hefer, W J; Heyns, J H; Hoon, J H; Hugo, P B B; Jordaan, A L; Kleynhans, J W; Kotzé, G J; Kriel, H J; Langley, T; Le Roux, F J; Ligthelm, N W; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malan, W C; Malherbe, G J; Marais, G; Maree, M D; Meiring, JWH; Miller, R B; Munnik, L A P A; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Page, B W B; Poggenpoel, D J; Pretorius, N J; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Raw, W V; Rencken, C R E; Rogers, P R C; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J; Schoeman, W J; Scott, D B; Simkin, C H W; Snyman, W J; Steyn, D W; Stofberg, L F; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, K D; Terblanche, A J W P S; Theunissen, L M; Thompson, A G; Van den Berg, J C; Van der Linde, G J; Van der Merwe, C J; Van der Merwe, H D K; Van der Walt, A T; Van Eeden, D S; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Staden, F A H; Van Staden, J W; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Van Zyl, J J B; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Venter, E H; Vermeulen, J A J; Viljoen, G v N; Visagie, J H; Vilonel, J J; Watterson, D W; Weeber, A; Wentzel, J J G; Wessels, L; Wiley, J W E; Wilkens, B H; Wright, A P.

Tellers: J P I Blanché, W T Kritzinger, C J Ligthelm, R P Meyer, J J Niemann and L van der Watt.

Noes—19: Bamford, B R; Barnard, M S; Burrows, R; Cronjé, P C; Dalling, D J; Eglin, C W; Gastrow, P H P; Hulley, R R; Malcomess, D J N; Moorcroft, E K; Olivier, N J J; Savage, A; Sive, R; Soal, P G; Suzman, H; Tarr, M A; Van der Merwe, S S.

Tellers: G B D McIntosh and A B Widman.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill read a second time.

Motion for House to go into Committee

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Committee Stage

Clause 3:

Mr Chairman, I move the amendments printed in the name of the hon member for Yeoville on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 1. On page 5, in line 20, after “concerned” to insert:

1. 2. On page 5, in line 28, to omit “in all respects” and to substitute “substantially”.
2. 3. On page 5, in line 31, after “concerned” to insert:

Mr Chairman, I cannot accept the amendments. I made it quite clear that we oppose the amendments.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title agreed to.

Mr Chairman, of course it is possible that this legislation will be passed, but this afternoon I should like to address a very serious warning to the Indian community. When a right-wing government comes into power, this Act will be repealed. Then the Law of Gen De Wet will be restored and the Indians who have settled in the Free State in the meanwhile, will have to sell their land and businesses and the damage will be on their own account. [Interjections.] They are not going to be paid out for the damage they sustain, because to us the Free State is Voortrekker land—I am using the word deliberately—and Voortrekker land is sacred land. That is why we do not see our way now or in future to allow Indian communities to settle permanently at the Free State.

It is also striking that up to now hon members of the NP have hardly participated in the debate at all, because they know that it is going to do them an enormous amount of harm in the next election. That is why I want to challenge them this afternoon to enter the debate. I am putting it on record in Hansard that all the hon members of the NP in the Orange Free State are enthusiastic about the admission of Indians to the Free State, and that they will take the lead in getting the Oranje-Meisieskool, Grey College and the Hoërskool Sentraal thrown open. They are in favour of this, particularly the hon member for Heilbron. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I wonder whether many of the hon members in this House will disagree with me when I say that I have never heard so much nonsense in such a short time as I have just heard from the hon member for Sasolburg. [Interjections.]

Go and say that in Warden.

I shall return in a moment to the remark by my hon colleague sitting here in front of me, but first I should like to touch on …

Order! The hon member for Rissik must contain himself. The hon member for Heilbron may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Rissik and his people are giving me so much practice in talking in these circumstances that they are not actually inconveniencing me. The hon member for Rissik said that I should go and say what I have said about the hon member for Sasolburg in Warden. With your permission, Sir, I should like to refer to that remark.

I want to tell the hon member that we in Warden addressed personal invitations to NP members. Every invitation was addressed by hand. What then happened was that CP people and AWB people arrived there. They came from the entire constituency, as well as from the Bethlehem, Sasolburg and Ladybrand constituencies. [Interjections.]

Were there a lot of them?

Yes, there were 140 of them and there were 100 of us. [Interjections.] It sounds like chaos, but I know that there were only 20 CP and AWB supporters from the Warden constituency. [Interjections.]

What did we want to do at that meeting? In our letter to the voters we said that we invited them to come and put their questions and to hear what the standpoints of the Government were, also with regard to this Bill in front of us. But what did those CP and AWB people come and do there? Did they ask questions? Did they seek answers? Did they come to get explanations from us? No, they did not do that. [Interjections.] What happened there, was that they simply carried on shouting until our chairman was compelled to declare the meeting closed. [Interjections.]

I do not begrudge those gentlemen their screaming; I have no objection to it. Even their behaviour as such, if it is politics, does not worry me. [Interjections.] All that worries me is that my people are associated with it. In fact I have very good friends among these people who carried on like that, that day.

But a very important point was put: The leaders of the CP said that the hon the Minister could address them …

Order! I find what the hon member has to say very interesting, but it has nothing to do with the Bill. [Interjections.] The hon member must confine himself more specifically to the Bill.

Sir, may I please complete the sentence?

The hon member may complete the sentence.

The CP leaders then agreed that they would claim two hours for question time. We then told them that they should ask their questions about the Indians and the other matters that were worrying them. But the CP leaders who were present could not control the AWB. The AWB simply shouted the meeting down.

That makes three sentences already. [Interjections.]

To get back to the Indians, hon members know that my good friend the hon member here in front of me, spoke about the sacred Voortrekker land which had to be protected. But as far as I know the Transvaal and Natal are also sacred Voortrekker land.

Moreover what is the present situation in the Free State? Hon members can go and look for themselves: Front companies with White directors are established. They lease the buildings. [Interjections.] These are nominee companies. A company is then established with a nominee manager who runs the enterprise which is operated with Indian capital. Consequently the Indians are running the enterprise inside the Free State. [Interjections.]

This is the present position. In spite of the existing laws—the 1896 Law—nothing can be done to contend with this. This law states that an Indian may remain in the Free State for an uninterrupted period of 60 days. If he leaves the province for one day to visit his father-in-law, he may return and remain in the Free State for a further 60 days.

Then his father-in-law will have to become White. [Interjections.]

Consequently under the present dispensation nothing can be done to keep the Indians out of our community. [Interjections.]

During the referendum we had more opposition to the inclusion of Indians in the dispensation than to anyone else. Why was there such violent opposition to them? It is because the Indians protect their own tradition and religion so fiercely. In spite of the fact that they have no laws to protect them, they protect themselves particularly effectively. This is the problem.

As we all know we in this country are irrevocably committed to freedom of worship. This is the one side of the matter. The other side is that we as Afrikaners more than anyone else—my hon friends on my right far more—believe in the distinctiveness of the Afrikaner. [Interjections.] This is the important matter. If this is the case—I accept it as such—we must realise that other people are most probably going to hate us for the same reason that we hate the Indians. We must examine this specific fact very closely.

Who hates them?

The question has been asked: Who hates them? [Interjections.] The admission of Indians to the tricameral Parliament was one of the most controversial matters in the Free State during the referendum. This is still the case today.

The question we must answer is whether the Free State is a part of the Republic of South Africa. Are we or are we not a part? If we are a part—we are a proud part of the Republic—the simple question is whether there is any reason why different parts of the country must be subject to different laws.

Yes! Yes!

That is a cardinal question. If I heard correctly— was it the hon member for Soutpansberg who said yes?—it sounds to me as if they are saying that they want to keep their Indians to themselves. [Interjections.] That is the fact of the matter. To take the matter further: Precisely how do we feel about the Indians? If we are really opposed to the Indians, we must not support them under any circumstances. Is that or is that not so? If we are really opposed to them, we must not support the Indians at all.

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

The hon member for Rissik must forgive me because I only have a little time.

You have half an hour.

The fact of the matter is that those people who stir up emotions the most and are the strongest supporters of this campaign against the Indians are the people who also buy from the Indians. One can go and look at the motorcars in Standerton or the motorcars of the hon member for Sasolburg’s voters in Vereeniging. All you see are oil cars wherever you look.

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

No, Sir.

He is afraid.

Not one of the hon members who spoke on behalf of the right-wing groups is a Free Stater.

Stoffie, do you like curry?

Not one of them is acquainted with the reality of the situation. All they know about is arousing emotion and trying to make political capital.

Hold an election and then …

Order! The hon member for Kuruman must make fewer interjections. I understand that there are going to be more speakers from the CP. The hon member for Heilbron may proceed.

The last point I want to touch on is the way in which the NP dealt with the draft legislation before us. What did we do? Throughout the referendum the NP said that they would consult the leader groups in the Free State regarding this matter. What did we then do? We asked the Free State Agricultural Union what their comments were regarding Indians in the Free State. What did the Agricultural Union say to us?

Give us a better maize price! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Langlaagte has made a joke, but his joke was what actually happened. [Interjections.] The interest in the matter concerning the Indians was of such a nature that the Agricultural Union said that it was politics and they were not prepared to comment on it. That was because it did not really matter to them.

The people who are most at risk when the Indians are allowed into the Free State, are surely people like the retailer, the chemist, the doctor and people of this kind in the towns. These are the people who are represented in the municipalities.

What is going to become of them?

The Government then asked the Municipal Association of the Free State for their comments. What did they say?

They got the fright of their lives!

Yes! They said they were not prepared to comment. [Interjections.] These people did not want to say what they thought, because they did not have such serious objections that they wanted to become involved in the matter either. [Interjections.]

Then the NP asked the MPCs.

Then they all said yes!

The NP also asked all its MPs.

What did you say?

We said yes. [Interjections.] Then we went to the NP Congress and what did everyone at the congress say?

They all said yes!

Quite right, they said yes.

In conclusion I want to say that any person from the CP who does not support the Indians, may attack me because of my standpoint. But every man who supports the CP and opposes this legislation, but buys from the Indians anyway, is more dishonest and unfair than one would expect from a fellow citizen.

Mr Chairman, I just want to say in my reaction to the hon member for Heilbron that if that is the best the Free State is capable of mustering in defence of this piece of legislation, it is terribly weak. The hon member for Heilbron intimated here that there was talk at the time of the referendum already of this particular Act being scrapped or amended. I want to tell this House today that during the referendum they stated specifically and categorically that this Act was not involved. After all, they said, there were no group areas in the Free State. Even during the by-elections they were still saying in places such as Harrismith that this Act was not in question because there were, after all, no group areas for Indians in the Free State. [Interjections.]

Now the hon member has disclosed the procedure they adopted. He said they approached the leaders in the Free State, but with all due respect I must say that the NP no longer has any leaders in the Free State. [Interjections.] This is clearly demonstrated by the poll the NP took at its congress. The hon member said that only six voices were raised against this amendment at the congress.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I never said anything about six voices which were raised at our congress.

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon member for Pietersburg may proceed.

I am not saying the hon member for Heilbron said so. It was the NP who gave wide publicity to that. There were only six votes against the motion, or does the hon member wish to argue now that it was not only six votes?

That is why I say there are no longer any leaders there, because according to the hon member the leaders in the form of the municipal association declined to comment. Then the MPCs and the MPs were asked and among them and their supporters there were only six dissentient votes. If we look at what is happening in the Free State now, it seems to me that those people have lost contact completely with what is happening there.

What is more they lose at the first by-election! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Sasolburg is specifically mentioning the Sasolburg election now.

It revolved around the Free State.

What was the most important issue during that election? [Interjections.] The biggest issue was this very matter. [Interjections.] The feeling of the Free Staters was interpreted by the fact that the hon member for Sasolburg was returned to this House. [Interjections.]

If there was ever clear-cut evidence that the governing party has ceased to strive for the furtherance of the interests of the Whites in the Republic of South Africa, it is contained in the Bill before us. [Interjections.] The hon member for De Kuilen said the NP’s Programme of Principles was, after all, quite correct. [Interjections.] Throughout this Programme of Principles, which I have before me, all references to a White person or a White people have been removed. The Bill in fact gives effect to this new Programme of Principles of the NP, for in clause 1(b), Section 1 of the Aliens Act, 1937, is being amended by the deletion of the definition of “European inhabitant of the Union”. This is in full agreement with the NP’s new Programme of Principles, from which the word “Whites” has disappeared completely.

The political people’s front of Afrikanerdom and the White nation of South Africa has been replaced by concepts such as—I am quoting from the NP’s Programme for Principles—“the creation of co-operative opportunities on matters of common concern” and instead of the “Afrikaner people” reference is made to the “existence of minorities in South Africa”. Mention is made there of the “equal treatment of all parts of South Africa” and of “the national aspirations and convictions of the population of the Republic of South Africa.” Reference is made there too “our own South African nationhood”, by which is meant Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks. All these phrases have been directly quoted from the new Programme of Principles of the NP.

One can compare this with the previous standpoint of the NP, as it appeared in information documents during the seventies. They then referred to “a White South Africa in which Whites alone wield authority”.

Hon members of the PFP and of the left-wing of the NP will immediately argue that “nationhood” is a constitutional concept. That may be so, but I want to remind those hon members that in common parlance the concepts of “nation” and “people” are never put into watertight compartments. “White nation” in the old Programme of Principles of the NP is a good example of this. Hon members who may still have a blue card lying in the bottom one of their drawers somewhere, will do well to look on the back. It is written there that the NP is the political peoples’ front of Afrikanerdom and the White nation of South Africa.

Order! I also find this very interesting, but it is deviating too far from the Bill. The hon member must discuss the Bill more specifically in his speech.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on this matter? The entire Bill is concerned with the composition of the diversity of peoples in South Africa, and on the question of immigration. Fundamental changes are being effected to the Act. The question of correct terminology is part of the debate we have to conduct.

Order! Could the hon member refer me to the section he is now discussing?

I mentioned it a moment ago, Sir, it is clause 1(b). In that clause it is specifically stated that the concept of a White nation and everything that goes with it, is being eliminated from this Act. That is why I want to argue that the entire development process of a White nation is being impaired by this legislation. I think that is very definitely relevant.

Order! I think the hon member is skating on thin ice, but he may proceed.

The hon members on the opposite side and the PFP, to suit their argument, want to draw a clear distinction between a people and a nation. Our poets and authors, however, spoke of “nasietrots”, “nasieskap”, “Afrikanernasie” and “boerenasie” and what they meant by that was without any doubt at all the Afrikaner people. Surely there can be no doubt about that. [Interjections.] As regards the concept of a White people, which is now being eliminated by this Bill, the Government states for example, through the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and all the members of the left wing of that party, the New Nats, that no such thing exists. They are saying that it never existed. [Interjections.] Now I find it very relevant that on Saturday we are commemorating the 25th anniversary of this Republic.

What clause is that? [Interjections.]

Order! I want to point out to the hon member that nowhere in clause (1)(b) do I read anything about the Afrikaner people.

Mr Chairman, may I refer you to clause 2, by means of which section 4 is being amended. Section 4 reads as follows:

• (b) is likely to become assimilated with the European inhabitants of the Union … within a reasonable period after his entry into the Union …

This is a reference to the White people of South Africa.

Order! No, the hon member should rather refer to the White inhabitants. The words “inhabitants” and “people” do not have precisely the same meaning.

We are praying for the people here, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

I shall then refer to the White inhabitants and the White population of South Africa. The White people. I think it is clearly relevant.

At this juncture I should just like to refer to what Dr Verwoerd said. The hon members opposite are now denying the existence of a White people. [Interjections.] They are saying: “Yes”. In other words they are saying that Dr Verwoerd was wrong. [Interjections.] They are saying: “yes”. During the Republic Festival to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the existence of the Republic, Dr Verwoerd made the following clear statement:

On Saturday we are again going to attend a function at which this festival is celebrated. I just want to remind hon members of what Dr Verwoerd said at those activities:

He was referring to the amphitheatre at the monument. He went on to say:

That event is going to take place on Saturday, 31 May, in the amphitheatre. I am very grateful that it could happen—grateful too that we have already learned—that thanks to the efforts of the caucus of the Conservative Party, it has now become possible for the White people of South Africa to gather at Monument Koppie on Saturday to celebrate this festival. Now it will happen on Saturday, 31 May. [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon member does not confine himself to the particulars of the Bill now, I shall direct him to resume his seat.

Mr Chairman, I should like to confine myself more closely to the Bill because I wanted to allege that …

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member for Pietersburg?

Mr Chairman, not now. If there is any time left at the end, I shall reply to a question from the hon member for Vryheid.

Mr Chairman, I want to contend that the legislation under discussion is a breaking down, a dismantling of what Dr Verwoerd envisaged.

We hope so, yes!

I want to quote from Dr Verwoerd’s speech. He put it as follows:

Mr Chairman, what we are experiencing here today is what Dr Verwoerd regarded as the dismantling of the ideals of a White people, and if he were still living today, he would have accused the Government side of being the wreckers of those ideals. [Interjections.]

Finally, Mr Chairman, I just want to quote what Dr Verwoerd said towards the end of that speech. He made it on that occasion in the amphitheatre at the Voortrekker Monument and hon members will no doubt still remember it. He said:

Mr Chairman, I shall quote further, as follows:

Hon members will still recall these words of Dr Verwoerd. In the legislation under discussion—which amounts to a tremendous deviation—we are in fact defending the strength and the idealism Dr Verwoerd was referring to. [Interjections.] Twenty years ago the late Dr Verwoerd envisaged a national festival. Such a national festival is to take place again on Saturday. [Interjections.] Consequently I am inviting those hon members on the Government side who still feel in that idealism of a White nation, of an Afrikaner people, in their hearts to …

Mr Chairman on a point of order: I humbly submit that the hon member for Pietersburg is ignoring your ruling completely.

Oh, sit down, man! It hurts, does it not? [Interjections.]

You keep quiet! I am talking to the Chairman of the House, not to you! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Pietersburg will concentrate on a specific clause of the Bill. If he does not do so, he will resume his seat forthwith.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on this matter?

Order! No, the hon member may not address me now. The hon member for Pietersburg may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Must one discuss only a specific clause during a Second Reading Speech, or may the general principle of the legislation in its entirety be discussed again?

Order! No, when an amending Bill is being discussed, the general principle of the original Act may not be discussed again; only the proposed amendments in regard to a specific clause of the principal Act and other relevant amendments may be discussed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: In this amending Bill there is a complete change of principle involved in regard to immigration to South Africa. This important change in principle is embodied in clause 2 of the present Bill. Section 4(3)(b) of the Aliens Act, 1937, reads as follows:

The proposed amendment in terms of clause 2 of the Bill under discussion reads as follows:

• (b) is likely to become readily assimilated with any existing community in the Union and to become a desirable inhabitant of the Union within a reasonable period after his entry into the Union …

There is consequently a drastic change in principle involved here, and that is what we should like to discuss, Mr Chairman.

Order! The hon member for Kuruman is quite correct. The hon member for Pietersburg may discuss that point. But he may discuss only that point. He may discuss the point pertaining to the question of immigration, but he may not digress widely and quote from speeches that have nothing on earth to do with this provision. The hon member for Pietersburg may proceed.

Mr Chairman, with all due respect, I am quoting from this speech made by Dr Verwoerd in order to support my argument.

Order! The hon member is still dealing with Dr Verwoerd’s speech!

Mr Chairman, I shall leave Dr Verwoerd’s speech at that now.

Order! The hon member has now been speaking for precisely 17 minutes. It really is time he came to the real point of his argument. I am not going to call him to order again. I am simply going to direct him to resume his seat.

Mr Chairman, then allow me just to say the following in conclusion. This entire matter which I very specifically consider to be an aspect affecting the survival of our White nation, has caused turbulence in South African politics during the past week. Allow me just in passing, Mr Chairman, to warn an hon member of the House of Delegates, Mr Boetie Abramjee, preferably to keep out of White politics. If he does not do so, things may perhaps happen which should rather not happen. [Interjections.]

One may not speak anywhere any more! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I shall say nothing further about the Republic Festival.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: With all due respect, the hon member for Rissik is questioning the ruling of the Chair. He said one may not speak anywhere any more.

Man, you are talking nonsense! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Pietersburg may proceed.

I want to return to clause 2, by means of which section 4 of the Act is being amended. If there is a reference here to the White inhabitants, it is my opinion that the reference is definitely to the White people. I want to concede at once that the term is certainly debatable, because the White people consist of various cultural and language groups, of which the White Afrikaans-speaking persons comprise a full 57% of the total. Prof R D Coertze, professor of Social Anthropology at the University of Pretoria, expressed this idea as follows in his speech made during the tenth H F Verwoerd Memorial Lecture in 1984:

However, the professor went on to say:

This second group of foreigners, to whom Prof Coertze is referring here, even has a member in this House, who occasionally describes himself for example as “an English-speaking Afrikaner”. I want to quote this from the Hansard of 14 February 1977. On that occasion a former Minister of Finance rose to his feet here and said (Hansard, House of Assembly, col 1414):

The hon the Minister then elaborated on that.

In this memorial lecture of his, Prof Coertze went on to say:

It was precisely because the Afrikaner, owing to his composition, fulfilled the function of an assimilative nuclear group, that assimilable aliens were sought in the European countries of origin of the Afrikaners— particularly Britain and the Netherlands. In addition the natural growth rate of the White population over many years had already been considerably lower than that of other non-White population groups. Furthermore it is general knowledge that the overall fertility index of the White population is 1,08, while the figure ought to be 2, 1 merely in order to keep the population constant. This aspect was probably the most important motivation for section 4 of the Aliens Act, which I have already quoted and which has a bearing on this matter.

Traditionally, Afrikaners therefore had to look to their countries of origin to increase their numbers further. This is not a matter which the NP introduced or which is a new discovery of the NP. I want to refer hon members to what happened during the previous century. As long ago as 1882, President Kruger said in an election manifesto, and I am now going to quote from the book President Kruger aan die Woord … [Interjections.] Those hon members may scoff and make interjections, but I want to quote a passage from this book to them. After he had pleaded in his election manifesto for a railway line between Pretoria and Delagoa Bay, he went on to say:

This was consequently an idea which originated in the previous century.

Now the word “European” in this legislation is being deleted and in the Afrikaans version the word “assimileer” is being substituted for the word “vereenselwig”. The Afrikaans word “assimileer” has a stronger unifying connotation than “vereenselwig”.

I want to ask the hon the Minister now on what grounds he is going to refuse an application for permanent residence and citizenship if residential and employment opportunities exist here for Asians from India. The assimilation is not even necessary, because these are members of the same people. On what grounds is the hon the Minister going to refuse the immigration of Shangaans from Mozambique, members of the Shangaan people—Tswanas from Botswana, Basuto’s from Lesotho, Xhosa from the Transkei or, as I have said, Asians from India to South Africa? If South African citizenship is going to be restored to citizens from Bophuthatswana, the Transkei, the Ciskei and Venda, as is now being envisaged, why not also to the compatriots of inhabitants of the Republic beyond the borders of the Republic as a whole? After all, there is then no grounds on which that immigration can be refused in terms of the provisions of this Act.

We come next to clause 12 which deals with the oath of allegiance. It reads as follows:

The following is then being deleted:

That is being deleted. All that remains is that a citizen now—

That is how the oath now reads. Consequently provision is now being made for dual loyalty. [Interjections.]

In his Second Reading Speech the hon the Minister said that it was in fact possible that people already had dual citizenship, and that this clause was really in conflict with the fact that there could be dual citizenship. I say that we on this side of the House stand absolutely for unconditional allegiance and fidelity to one fatherland and one people. [Interjections.] That is why we are not in favour of this very important outward demonstration of it disappearing. [Interjections.]

We come now to clause 13. It reads as follows:

[Interjections.] During the Second Reading debate on this Bill we saw the hon the Minister Mr Rajbansi rise to his feet here and make his maiden speech in this House. The hon member for Randburg said he made a very good speech. I want to quote what Mr Rajbansi said in this House on 29 April 1986 (col 4475):

Hear, hear!

The hon member is saying “hear, hear!”, but why are the Free Staters not saying “hear, hear”? [Interjections.] I hear nothing from their side! I want to tell them that they will have to record their names in the register when we vote on this Bill in a moment. We want those names so that the Free Staters can see who voted in favour of this amending Bill. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I wish to express my hearty thanks to the hon the Minister for obtaining ratification today, within a year, of a decision of the Free State NP Congress by means of legislation in this House. We Free State people became a little tired of being subject to laws different from those of the other provinces of our country; I shall refer to this again shortly.

Permit me at this stage to say to the hon member for Pietersburg that he used the concepts of “people” and “nation” synonymously again today—like all his other friends in the rightist radical party. He perpetrated scientific fraud by doing this in order to support the philosophy of his party. I know of no ethnologist—not even Prof Coertze would do this—who equates the Afrikaner people with the White population group in South Africa; these are concepts which are absolutely separate from each other. Obviously the rightist radical party has to ensure that all the Whites in this country are classified as part of the Afrikaner people by force for the sake of its ideal of a “Boerestaat”.

I wish to refer a little later to the alternatives to clause 1 of the Bill if the deletion of Chapter XXXIII of the “Wetboek van den Oranje-Vrijstraat” does not take place and also make some reference to the philosophical underpinning of the arguments put forward as reasons for opposing this Bill.

I want to start by saying that a joke has been doing the rounds for years in the Free State that the fastest thing in South Africa is an Indian passing through the Free State on a bicycle. I am grateful and pleased to be able to say that we can bury that little joke today. [Interjections.]

One of these days a Nat will be the fastest thing on a bicycle. [Interjections.]

A South African Indian with citizenship of this country can travel anywhere in the world on his passport but is not permitted to move as he wishes in his own country. [Interjections.] This provision restricts Indians’ freedom of movement in their own fatherland. The time has come for us to put Asians’ freedom of movement straight.

I also consider it important to draw a distinction between the movement and settlement of people. Deletion of Chapter XXXIII of the “Wetboek van den Oranje-Vrijstaat” also means that full freedom of movement is granted to Indians in South Africa. Settlement of people is controlled in terms of the Group Areas Act—as for Whites, Indians and also the Black groups.

We believe that we require the provisions and objectives of the Group Areas Act in South Africa to maintain the social order in our country. We know and experience nowadays, as is the case in rightist radical ranks as well, that ethnicity has such a highly emotional content that one could expect problems in South Africa if the provision laid down by that Act were to disappear. Consequently I say that we as Free State people are very grateful that as regards the movement and settlement of people we are no longer regulated by legislation differing from that of the other provinces but by the same. [Interjections.]

We are also in the process of fully accepting the consequences of reform in the Free State. As early as in Adv Strijdom’s time the NP decided that the repatriation policy of the party would have to disappear and that we would have to grant permanence to the Indians in South Africa. In 1962 Dr Verwoerd granted full citizenship to the Indians in South Africa. In 1983, in adopting the present Constitution, we also made it possible for the Indians to enjoy those citizenship rights of theirs to the full in South Africa. I regard this legislation as a consequence of this entire process of constitutional reform. [Interjections.]

There are quite a number of Taiwanese Chinese in Bloemfontein already. They have…

Order! I have been hearing the voices of the hon member for Sasolburg and the hon member Dr Vilonel often. The hon member Dr Odendaal may proceed.

There are quite a number of Chinese from Taiwan who have permits to reside in the Free State at present and who are undertaking the establishment of industries on a large scale at Botshabelo near Bloemfontein and also in Bloemfontein itself. I was involved in recruiting these people to ensure that our province would develop economically because it is the least developed province in South Africa and the one in which there is the greatest unemployment—not only of Black people but also of Whites. Each year approximately 2 500 students graduate from the University of the Orange Free State but we can employ only 500 of them in that province.

There is great need for economic development and these Chinese from Taiwan will assist us in overcoming our unemployment problem and the emergency in a province by ensuring we have economic growth there. Consequently we welcome this legislation; I consider it a very responsible standpoint. It is in the interests of our province and our people—our Whites in particular as well. [Interjections.]

I now refer to the alternatives to the provisions of clause 1 of the Bill we are discussing. If we were not to accept that Asians should also have freedom of movement in the Orange Free State, what would the alternative be? [Interjections.] Repatriation is an alternative. I do not know whether that is the policy of the rightist militant party. Sometimes I hear them speaking of limited rights at local level as their policy regarding Asians in the RSA; then again I hear them talking about repatriation. In this way the hon member representing the rightist militant party in this House once said—I am quoting from Beeld of 3 October 1985:

[Interjections.] As I have told hon members, in Adv Strijdom’s time the NP had already decided …

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

The hon member is very welcome to do so.

I ask the hon member whether it was expressly stated in that report that I had said that.

The words were in inverted commas in the report.

Mr Chairman, may I put another question to the hon member?

Order! The hon member cannot keep on putting questions.

Mr Chairman, the hon member is wasting my time. I quoted from Beeld of 3 October 1985 and what I read to the hon member, namely “… Indië, Pakistan, Ceylon, of waar ook al”, is in inverted commas. If the hon member therefore says Beeld is lying, he had better tel! Beeld so. [Interjections.]

I did not say what the hon member quoted. He is misleading the House. [Interjections.]

All right, then I shall send the cutting to the hon member right now.

As I was saying, Adv Strijdom, as the chief leader of the NP, had decided as early as the late fifties that the NP repatriation policy would not succeed. [Interjections.] Dr Verwoerd finally gave that outdated Act which did not work the coup de grace by granting Indians full citizenship of South Africa in 1962. He was the leader who realised that laws which did not work should be destroyed. Outmoded laws should be deleted from the Statute Book and policy headed in another direction to be able to deal with the situation. His direction was that we should give full citizenship to the Asians and that there should ultimately be an Indian representative council which would develop into a constitutional system by which Asians would also have a say in the Government at the highest level. We have executed that policy today so I say I am grateful that we in the Orange Free State are no longer saddled with legislation treating our people differently from those in the rest of the RSA.

A further alternative to this legislation may be a homeland for Indians. That is the policy of the rightist radical party but not that of the AWB. Oh no, the policy of the AWB and of the HNP is that they should either be repatriated or have no say in South Africa. That is their policy. [Interjections.] The AWB is already swallowing the rightist radical party, feathers and all; that party has been entirely gobbled up. Take the hon member for Pietersburg for example. The chairman of his constituency executive resigned from the CP in writing to join the AWB. [Interjections.] That hon member is only too aware that he has been left with hardly any of his constituency executive.

That is untrue. [Interjections.]

The rightist radical party has been swallowed so far by the AWB that its members dare not adopt a standpoint which is not in line with that of the AWB. [Interjections.]

The leader of the rightist radical party is drifting round like a jellyfish in the AWB sea. [Interjections.] One of these days he is going to be washed ashore; that day is not far off. [Interjections.]

These differences existing between the rightist radical parties—the CP on the one hand and the HNP on the other—will obviously land them with further problems. The HNP categorically refuses to recognise Mr Vorster as an Afrikaner leader; the hon member representing that party says so every day when he rises in the House. The hon member for Nigel sits there and permits Mr Vorster to be classified with the so-called leftist radicals in South Africa and he just sits and swallows it. How the two parties could find each other in this confusion no one knows. [Interjections.]

I now get to the philosophical substructure for the opposition to this legislation as I see it. It would appear to be put from a standpoint of racial superiority or, we may say, racial arrogance. Asians in South Africa are Mohammedans, they speak a different language and represent a totally different culture. In consequence they are inferior to the Afrikaner in particular.

Is that what you say? [Interjections.]

Nevertheless this is no case of racial superiority but certainly one of racial inferiority. I appeal to hon members of the rightist radical parties to abandon that type of standpoint in the interests of all of us in South Africa but especially of the Afrikaners in the Free State.

I have a pamphlet here in which an attack is launched against the possible admission of Indians to Bethlehem. There is reference in it to businessmen and it claims: “Die Afrika-nersakeman sal uit die Vrystaat uitgedruk word.” Their reason is that he will be pushed out if Indians enter the Free State.

I consider this the greatest insult which could ever be levelled at Afrikaner businessmen in the Free State. [Interjections.] As if they are incapable of holding their own against any person at all in the business world! During the Depression and afterwards the Afrikaner worked himself up in the economy of this country with the aid of the Reddingsdaadbond to a position in which he controls a very large part of the economy of our country today.

He did not require legislation to protect him against businessmen with other languages and cultures. He succeeded on his own because he accepted the principles of the free-enterprise system and worked accordingly. He did not protect himself with laws.

I do not even wish to discuss the protection of religion; Mohammedans who are going to plough Christendom under. I do not wish to venture into that field but I repudiate with everything at my command that the Afrikaner is too weak to protect his own religion and his own culture, that the Afrikaner in the Free State is too weak to do this and that he requires this legislation to protect him against Mohammedan culture and the Mohammedan religion.

In conclusion, I say we in the Free State accept the consequences of reform. We shall not run from our responsibility; we shall do this in the interests of the Free State but also in the interests of the whole of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I am very pleased to participate in this debat although there is a great sense of unreality about discussing an issue that should have been passed in ten minutes. We started this a month ago and we have gone on and on and on listening to speeches from my hon colleagues who sit on my left—the rightist parties—that have a distinct remembrance of debates that probably were held in the Reichstag in Germany in 1933.

You are talking rubbish!

The slaverings of these militant right-wingers must be dismissed as much as those of the Black militants who say the Whites have no place in this country.

You are a plain idiot!

That is exactly the counterargument.

Go and join them at the funerals with their flags. Go to you communist pals.

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte must withdraw the word “idiot”.

I do not think he has got pals at all. They are plain communists.

Order! Did the hon member not hear what I said?

I withdraw it, Sir.

Order! The hon member for Pinetown may proceed.

I ignore with contempt the words used by the people on my right because this debate is centred …

They sit to the left!

I mean “on the right” in a political sense. I do it on the basis that this is a Bill concerned with immigration and the movements of people around parts of South Africa.

We in this party have already expressed our support for this Bill. We believe that it is extremely long overdue.

I would like to address the points raised by several hon members such as the hon member for Sasolburg. He spoke for example of not permitting those people who have moved or will move to the Free State to remain there. He says his party will ensure that this law is repealed, that the Gen De Wet Law will be brought back, that that is precious “Voortrekkergrond” and that if the Indians suffer financially in their movements they will have to pay for it themselves. I do not know what this hon member is talking about. [Interjections.] This Bill has to be repealed by all three Houses of this Parliament … [Interjections.]

Order! It is becoming very difficult for the hon member for Pinetown to speak while there are so many interjections. There will now be fewer interjections. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

I would also like to draw attention to the fact that the hon member for Sasolburg attacked the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates verbally across the floor referring to what was happening in Assam and the Punjab and to Gandhi etc.

Exactly!

I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the hon member for Sasolburg is also an immigrant to South Africa. His family has been here a long time.

Seven generations!

His “stamvader” was Jacobus Stofberg van Nieuwkerken aan den Yssel. He was a “rietdekker” and a “VOC-poshouer op Saldanhabaai” who married in 1783 and died in 1831. That is the Stofberg family.

I think we must also look at the history of Asian people in South Africa. We can take a book like Groep sonder Grense and examine it very carefully. [Interjections.] When we view the marriage certificates and documents of families in South Africa dating way back before the Stofberg-“stamvader” arrived, we will see for example the marriages of Anna of Bengale, Susanna of Bombasa, Helena of Bengale, Colilla of Macassar, Maria of Batavia, Regina of Bengale, etc. The Asians were here before the Stofbergs! [Interjections.]

Not in the Free State!

Order! Will the hon member take a question?

No, Mr Chairman. The arrogance expressed by the parties to my political right—they are the extreme political parties …

Mr Chairman, may I ask a question?

No, Mr Chairman.

Do not ask anything about the All Blacks! They came here first!

… has to be viewed in the context of South African history. As was quite rightly pointed out in a debate in the House of Delegates on Monday, 17 February (Hansard, col 544), and I quote:

They were the so-called Bushmen and Hottentots—

That is all of us. I quote further:

It gives me great pleasure that we are today in the process of repealing the Asiatics in the Northern Districts of Natal Act which was presented to the House of Assembly on 23 June 1927 by the then Minister of the Interior, Dr D F Malan, who indicated that the Act was necessary in order to place the northern districts of Natal on the same footing as the Transvaal. I would like to quote from Dr Malan’s Second Reading Speech (Hansard: Assembly, Vol 9, col 5667):

Neither should there be! The Minister continued as follows:

The hon member for Sasolburg seems to think that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates represents the government of India, because the hon member insisted on quoting the comments of the Prime Minister of India.

We must remember that we are all South Africans, and that this is a South African matter. As soon as the hon member for Sasolburg stops throwing the actions of the government of India in the face of hon members of the House of Delegates, I shall stop throwing the actions of the government of Holland in the face of the hon member for Sasolburg. He comes from the Netherlands.

I am not a Netherlander! I became an Afrikaner in South Africa! [Interjections.] I am not a Netherlander, but he is still an Indian!

Oh, Louis, you are a Bolander, man!

Dr Malan went on to say that the Indians who remained in the northern districts of Natal would have to be registered according to the law and would be allowed to remain there. He continued:

The 64 Asiatics would remain. They could go into the Transvaal, but not into Natal. That was the extraordinary position in our country!

This party is extremely pleased that this law is to be scrapped, but I would now like to turn to the Group Areas Act and the whole question of schools.

In answer to a question I asked on 29 April, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning informed me that 133 people had had their applications for permission to reside in a group area of a race group different from their own granted. I was pleased to hear that. We trust that such permission will be more widely granted, particularly to those Indians who move to the Orange Free State. There should be no need to consider allocating group areas to Indians in that province. We hope that they will be able to reside wherever they want to.

As a point of interest, I would like to refer to an advertisement which appeared in the Herald section of the Sunday Tribune about five weeks ago. A house suitable for Indians moving to Bloemfontein was prominently advertised under the heading: “Select house available in the same street as the President’s home”. It was a very nice advertisement!

This party believes that the Free Staters have nothing to fear from the Indians who settle there. In fact, property prices will rise because of the increased demand in that area. There is a very practical problem concerning schools, however, which the hon the Minister and his colleagues will have to address. Brebnor High School in Bloemfontein received an application for the enrolment of an Indian pupil. The school authorities and the parents would have been happy to accept him. He happened to be from Maseru, and not from the Free State. His application was turned down by the Executive Committee of that province.

If Indians are going to be allowed into the Orange Free State, we have to accept that there will be English-speaking Indian children there. Where can they attend school? Let me give as an example the practical difficulty associated with the relocation of industry. An Indian attracted by decentralisation benefits shifted a shoe factory from Durban to Queenstown. He set up a thriving business and took in people who were unemployed in that area. He was English-speaking but there were no schools in that area to which he could send his children. So he sent them initially to a private school and they had to stay in a school hostel some distance away. They were very unhappy and so he asked to have his children admitted to the primary school section of Queens College.

It is a good school.

Yes, it is a very good school. The Queens College staff and the principal were happy about it and the Queens College parent community would have been happy to accept those Indian children. However, the school board turned it down. They would not pass the application through to the Department of Education. So that Indian moved back to Natal. Now, these practical difficulties have to be addressed. They cannot be ignored.

We have heard lengthy arguments from my hon colleagues in this House in the CP regarding the question of assimilation. We are also pleased to see that the words “European inhabitants” are being replaced, allowing for assimilation with any existing community in this country. We do believe that we are all South Africans, and the sooner we get away from the arrogance of saying that this is a White man’s country or that this is an Afrikaner province, the better.

I should like to ask the hon member for Sasolburg and the hon members of the CP what they have to say about what Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche said last night in Pietersburg. I know that they will agree with the first bit where, according to The Argus, he described the Government as—

Well, what do they have to say about that?

We shall do it in a democratic way. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Pietersburg insists on quoting Dr Verwoerd on a White republic, ruled by the White man and being part of the White part of the world.

He said that.

I know he said that. He insists on quoting that and couples it with a warning to Mr Boetie Abramjee, a member of Parliament, that if he interferes in White politics, he had better watch out. [Interjections.] The Political Interference Act has been repealed and there is no such thing as “White politics” or “a White Republic”. The majority of people in this country are not White. [Interjections.]

We in this party reject absolutely the militant right-wing attitudes taken by the HNP and the CP. We believe that they reflect very badly on the proceedings of a House of Parliament supposedly designed to represent democracy in this country.

What about the left extremists?

I rejected them previously, and I still do.

So, we support this legislation. We believe that it is important that it goes through, but we believe it needs to be coupled with significant other moves to ensure that the rights of all people in this country are protected so that they may be mobile and reside where they want to. Then we are really moving towards a fully non-racial country.

Mr Chairman, …

Where are the Free State people? Why is not one of them speaking?

Order!

Mr Chairman, …

Where are the Free State people?

Charlie is sitting over there! [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I want … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Brentwood may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I want to tell the hon member for Pinetown that I do not wish to reply to his speech. He should actually have kept out of this discussion between us Afrikaners but he has taken part in it and I should therefore prefer to move him aside a little. I should like to talk to the hon member for Rissik.

The two of us have nothing to say to each other!

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Rissik also participated in the debate in the previous discussion of this measure. On that occasion he read a quotation in support of his arguments that Indians did not have any claims to admission to the Free State either on the basis of occupation or of conquest. I wish to put it to the hon member for Rissik that we as Afrikaners should be careful not to put forward arguments in this House which could boomerang badly upon us. [Interjections.] The moment he read that quotation, I went to the library of Parliament and took out a history book by Dr S F N Gie. It is an old book which was published in 1939 but it remains one of our authoritative sources concentrating on the basic facts of history. When it comes to the question concerning White rights to lay claim to land in the Free State and elsewhere in the country, I wish to refer to the first piece of territory to which we could lay claim in the Northern Republic of the time. I wish to quote the following passage from page 302 of Dr Gie’s book on this subject. It deals with what occurred after the Battle of Vegkop and after Kalipi captured the Trekkers’ stock. I quote:

The basis of tenure of the first scrap of territory on which the White Trekker established himself north of the Orange River was neither by right of conquest nor by right of occupation. Nevertheless the right of tenure was based on an agreement between the Whites and a Black tribe—an agreement resting on two pillars. On the one side was a clear and open transaction: A herd of stock was preferred for the territory. On the other hand there was an interdependent condition that Makwana and his people wished to be placed under the protection of the White Trekkers.

A similar scene was enacted in the Republic of Port Natal. The basis of the White man’s claim to territory in Port Natal was an agreement entered into between Piet Retief and Dingaan regarding which a written deed of sale was entered into. That deed of sale is still available for inspection today, Mr Chairman. The original deed of sale is still available today. The piece of land between the Tugela and the Umzimvubu Rivers was purchased for the stock which Retief would fetch from Sikonyela. The Whites would be able to gain possession of the piece of territory concerned in that way.

Mr Chairman, what followed is very interesting. After this agreement was entered into and although the agreement in this matter had been drawn up, the following letter was written to Dingaan by Retief on 18

November 1837. We find this in Dr Gie’s book as well. I quote:

There is much conjecture in Dr Gie’s book that this letter must have played a decisive role in Dingaan’s change of attitude after the agreement that the piece of territory concerned would be sold to the Trekkers. It is also clear that there must have been Whites who went behind Retief’s back—whether they were British traders in Port Natal or the missionaries themselves is of no concern— and quoted this letter as one of the reasons why Dingaan became suspicious of Retief and that this gave rise to the tragic murder of Retief and his men in February 1838.

I wish to illustrate two points from this. On the one hand, White right to existence in that part of the world was a fact based on an agreement or a transaction of purchase between Black and White in both these cases. That is the basis of our foothold—including what we have today. I wish to cut short my argument and say that in the entire history of South Africa only three areas were fought over.

Tragically enough, the battle continues for these places to this day—the western banks of the Fish River, the western banks of the Caledon River and the present Sekukuniland. If one talks to members of the Commission for Co-operation and Development today, one hears that wherever they are working on their consolidation efforts they find ex-President Kruger’s, the Groblers’, the Schoemans’ and the Potgieters’ written agreements of the right to claim on the land where those people are at present.

Order! I find it difficult to establish what clause of the amending Bill the hon member is discussing.

Mr Chairman, I am getting to clause 2.

I contend we should not put forward arguments which will boomerang. Our rights of entitlement, whether in the Free State or in the Transvaal, are purely rights arising from peaceful agreements or otherwise it is a merely a question of a transaction entered into on this matter.

One can extend this argument into the economic situation in which we are at present and in which all hon members in this House share. It is unnecessary for us to go digging to establish what is White land and what not. [Interjections.] It is clearly recorded in South African deeds offices which land belongs to whom. The presence of people of colour on that land is our own doing and every hon member in this House and everyone out there is the cause that his land looks as it does. It is the result of agreements even if they are only trade or labour agreements. [Interjections.] The right of domicile was granted by the owner of that land.

And now you are giving him the vote!

What vote are you talking about? [Interjections.]

We now reach two points of conflict in this argument. As regards White or whitish immigrants, we gave them citizenship of the country on application after five years in the light of their ability to be assimilated by the Whites of South Africa. Throughout our history, however, since the days of the Trekkers, we have taken these Black people with us—even to our back yards in the cities where we live. [Interjections.] We entered into a variety of agreements. This Parliament passed an Act in 1945 in terms of which application may be made under a permit system to fetch people from the area they inhabit and settle them with us—merely by signing a document. [Interjections.]

People complaining about this today are the cause of this situation; they themselves are the cause of it. Now we are landed with millions of Blacks who were fetched under contract in this way out of their family context in consequence of the application for a permit. They have been settled here for a long time; some of them have been here legally since 1945. They were married here, had children here, their children were married here and those children have children already who know no country other than this. Some of these people have lived in this country for longer than five years and there are even some of them who have lived here for longer than 50 years. There are even some who have been living here longer than 40 years under a contract in terms of an Act of this Parliament.

The only thing this legislation is doing now is to provide that, if these people who have been in this country for so long apply for citizenship of the only country they know, they may become citizens of this country. What are we arguing against? If we want to put forward arguments that they should not be here, we should not—I appeal to hon members of the House on this head—come with arguments that will boomerang and not guarantee our own survival in this country. [Interjections.]

I love this country of mine and I love the scrap of land that belongs to me. We should argue with one another in such a way that we will all be able to live on here and survive and therefore I find no argument in this entire Bill which is before us on the strength of our own acts of the past which prevents us from granting this right to these people under the banner of justice which we have in any case granted to other people who are just as far removed from us as the people to whom we are now granting it.

Personal explanation during debate

Order! As the hon the Minister of Manpower has requested permission to give a personal explanation, I am interrupting the debate to afford him an opportunity of doing so. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity. Last night in the course of a reply on my Vote I said I had walked out in contempt of the hon member for Brakpan in consequence of his base attack on me. I withdraw these words. I walked out in protest. [Interjections.]

Debate resumed

Mr Chairman, the Bill before us is yet another attempt by the Government party to dismantle and destroy separate development. I shall put forward proofs in support of my statement in the course of my speech.

The second statement I wish to make is that it is yet another integration trick which is being played by dismantling part of the old NP policy, that is its immigration policy which was regarded as non-negotiable and which the reformed NP is concentrating on dismantling.

Thirdly, it is obviously in line with the consequence of the Government party’s new policy of power-sharing and political integration by which it has brought the Indian into the highest governmental authority of this country. If one makes him a co-ruler, it is an obvious consequence of what the Government has caused that one of necessity has to allow him into every place in the country over which he is a co-ruler. [Interjections.] The only strange aspect is that this same Government is trying to cling to the Group Areas Act in a way by which it in any case does not permit part of the population to reside in all areas of the country regardless of the fact that they rule the entire country.

Surely the Group Areas Act is not a sacred cow!

In the fourth place, this legislation is in accordance with the Government’s new policy of one undivided Republic of South Africa by which every scrap of the Republic of South Africa necessarily has to be open to all. Dr Malan warned against this when he said that we should not turn the Republic of South Africa into a marketplace for the world, for all people. That is why he instituted his policy of separation in terms of which he granted each population group its specific territory in which it could establish itself.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr Chairman, before the suspension of business I made four statements to indicate that this Bill was the direct consequence of the Government’s new policy of power-sharing with Coloureds and Indians. I indicated at the time that it was in complete accord with this policy.

I now wish to make a fifth statement. This Bill is in addition the direct outcome of and in accordance with the Government policy of one nation and one citizenship with equal opportunities and treatment regarding every scrap of land in the Republic of South Africa as well.

In the sixth place, I want to state that to the Whites of South Africa this Bill is therefore one of the most dangerous Bills which have ever been introduced by the governing party in terms of its policy of power-sharing.

In the seventh place, I want to say it forms part of the Government’s so-called reform or reformation policy. The hon member Dr Odendaal confirmed this tonight. As far as the hon member Dr Odendaal is concerned, I should like to make a few comments. Firstly, he persists in referring to this side of the House as the rightist radical party.

Hear, hear!

I want to ask the hon member Dr Odendaal and all the hon members who are shouting “Hear, hear” whether they were also rightist radicals when they were members of the old National Party which had the same policy— that of partition—as this side of the House now advocates. [Interjections.] If that is the case, it means they are leftist radicals now as they have abandoned that policy. [Interjections.] That is exactly what the hon member Dr Odendaal is today! [Interjections.] He implies that he is talking on behalf of Free State voters here. I want to ask on behalf of what Free State voters the hon member is speaking.

All of them! [Interjections.]

Free State voters in Sasolburg recently rejected him. He has no locis standi in the Free State! [Interjections.] He does not represent anyone there but he supposedly has a mouthful to say on behalf of Free State voters! [Interjections.]

The hon member Dr Odendaal inter alia commented that the Free State was the least developed province in the Republic of South Africa because Indians were not permitted there.

It’s a disgrace! [Interjections.]

Such an utterance deserves to be recorded twice.

The hon member further stated that Adv Strijdom had made a start on the idea of permanence and that Dr Verwoerd then granted Indians permanence in the Union of South Africa. [Interjections.] It was stated further that we should build on that now.

I want to say tonight that these two South African statesmen did not grant the Indians permanence because it was their choice in the first place but it was the only choice permitted them by India and Mother England because India did not want to take its own people back and Mother England did not want them either! [Interjections.] So what were they to do with the Indians? Were they to permit them to die of hunger, round them up and drive them over the borders to other countries or were they to be accommodated here in some way? Nevertheless it was never said in consequence of this that those people would obtain political rights in South Africa. [Interjections.] That is a fact! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member for Koedoespoort?

No, Sir, I certainly do not wish to reply to a question from the hon member for Rustenburg now. [Interjections.]

Order! There is a chorus of interjections and this is becoming too much. Hon members must limit their interjections. The hon member for Koedoespoort may proceed.

The fact is that hon members of the NP, the Government of the day, do not have only one choice; the Government has a variety of possible choices. It has chosen, however, to exercise this choice in terms of its policy of power-sharing and integration by which it is now granting Indians admission to places which the old National Party declared prohibited to them. [Interjections.] This is done in view of the fact that that party has shifted its entire basis of power from a party which first advocated and maintained apartheid or separate development to a party which is now the proponent of power-sharing, political integration and total intermingling. This can no longer be stopped! [Interjections.]

I want to illustrate my statements further by dealing with a few clauses of the Bill. I want to start with clause 2 and take it a little further than the hon member for Pietersburg did. Section 4 of the Aliens Act is actually totally nullified by the amendment. At present in terms of section 4 of the principal Act, immigration is controlled in such a way that immigrants have to be Whites who will “readily become assimilated with the European inhabitants of the country”. In terms of the first Bill tabled, the question of Europeans will be removed from the principal Act by which an opening will be left to all races by deletion of the word “European”. There is the attendant admission, however, that provision is made for association with one of the existing communities and this accords reasonably with the standpoint of the hon the Minister of National Education who obviously also differs with the rest of the Cabinet on this matter. This hon Minister, unlike the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, supports the standpoint of the maintenance of groups—of communities.

No, leave me out of this; it does not concern me.

Yes, leave the exhibitionist out of it!

That amendment is intended to obviate this matter so that provision may still be made for groups or communities.

Nevertheless this Bill went as far as the standing committee. There the Coloureds, the Indians and the PFP insisted that this provision also be removed and that it should run only that he should be capable of assimilation with the inhabitants, without distinction, without identification, without racial connotation, without group identity, without anything of that nature. He was only to be capable of assimilation with the inhabitants without further ado. NP members came up with their customary capitulation there and succumbed to this in spite of the standpoint of the hon the Minister of National Education. They ignored him entirely; in any case he is no longer recognised as a figure of authority in the NP. The result of this was that the only form of existing distinction was therefore removed from this clause. That distinction of group and community was removed. Clause 2 therefore turns section 4 of the principal Act into an equalised, non-racial, colourless standardisation, an assimilation without distinction and an amalgamation with the totality of the inhabitants of the country.

This is nothing but—I repeat—nothing but an acknowledgement that the Republic of South Africa has now become an open society. [Interjections.] It has now become the marketplace for all.

That is true!

In other words, the NP’s idea of one nation is realised in the Bill in the form of an open society. This cannot be argued away as clause 2 currently reads. It is as plain as a pikestaff.

I wish to raise a solitary thought on the Oath of Allegiance. I wish to associate myself with the hon member for Pietersburg’s standpoint that someone who becomes naturalised as a new citizen can now have a double allegiance. I want to ask if one is not creating a dangerous situation in having a citizen whose loyalty is here but which may also be to his former fatherland because he is not compelled to relinquish that loyalty. When the time comes that one requires him here and he has to prove his loyalty here, he is going to take off and return to the other loyalty. Who is holding him? No one is trying him down.

They are creating an enormous new “home” complex with this.

I also wish to revert to clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill. I shall pause here a little longer than at the oath. Clause 13 repeals Chapter XXXIII of the “Wetboek van Den Oranje-Vrijstaat” and clause 14 repeals the Asiatics in the Northern Districts of Natal Act of 1927. The repeal opens the Orange Free State and five districts of Natal to Indians; disappearing with it is the assurance the State President attempted to give us in saying: “Maar daar is nie groepsgebiede in die Oranje-Vrystaat en in Noord-Natal nie.” This implies that, because there were no group areas for them there, they would not go there because where would they have settled?

This is what was behind that statement. If there were no group areas, there would be no space for them. The implication is therefore: What are they doing in the Orange Free State if they have nowhere to live? That assurance is totally removed by this Bill, however; nothing remains of it—it has become an empty vessel capable only of sound. [Interjections.]

The fact is that, on the repeal of this legislation, Indians may be admitted to the Orange Free State and Natal whether there is a group area or not. [Interjections.] The fact that there are no group areas for them in the Orange Free State and in these five districts of Northern Natal is not going to deter the Indians from going to those places. On the lifting of this prohibition they are going to pour into the green pastures forbidden to them. They will pour in there and they will deliberately endeavour to be there just as the Coloureds and Indians made a point of gaining entry to our small dining room in Parliament.

If this Government party still stands—and the hon the Minister of National Education is their greatest proponent—for separate residential areas, group areas will of necessity have to be created in the Orange Free State and in those five districts of Northern Natal in consequence of this Bill. [Interjections.] In association with the hon member for Sasolburg I ask: Is the Government going to use White land for that? Or will it be Black land? Where will it obtain the land which is now to be yielded to Indians? [Interjections.]

I predict tonight—and I think I shall state it as a fact—that no group area will be created in the Orange Free State or in those five districts of Northern Natal because the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates has expressed his opposition to the Group Areas Act on more than one occasion. He said this Act should be deleted from the Statute Book and this hon Minister … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Winburg’s voice is being heard too frequently. [Interjections.]

In the light of his standpoint on the Group Areas Act, this hon Minister will not permit the Government to create group areas for his people in the Orange Free State and in those five districts of Northern Natal. He will insist today that these people have free access and that they be permitted to purchase and live where they wish. And this feeble Government, under the leadership of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development, the hon the Minister of National Education and the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, will not have the courage to prevent and oppose him. They will concede it just as they have conceded everything else because they will argue that it is consensus and to them consensus means that the other one demands and they concede. [Interjections.] That will be the result! There will be no group areas because the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates will oppose it and because this Government will not be prepared to take a stand against him on this. They will admit he is right. [Interjections.]

I should now like to put a question to the hon member for Vryheid. Unfortunately he is not present but, as he addressed me in my absence, I can talk to him when he is not here. I want to ask that hon member to tell me where they are going to establish group areas for Indians in Utrecht in terms of this opening-up—I am mentioning only one of those five districts in Northern Natal—if they succeed in convincing the hon the Minister in the House of Delegates that they should do so? I know that town, where I grew up, like the palm of my hand. There is not a space available to Indians unless White land is taken for this purpose. They cannot settle Indians in Utrecht unless they move Whites so that there is room for the settlement of Indians. This is obviously in line with what Dr Willem de Klerk wrote in Rapport of 25 May 1986. He said:

He continued:

That is exactly what the NP will do.

While I am addressing the hon member for Vryheid and as he has a great deal to say about me when I am absent, I am also free to make a few comments in his absence. On 30 April he participated in this debate in the House. On that occasion he discovered that I had gone to his constituency as the speaker on behalf of “Aksie Blank Natal” in connection with the kwaNatal Indaba that evening. The hon member was obviously so nervous while I was in his constituency that he immediately dragged the matter of the kwaNatal Indaba into this debate. Nor is that the worst which happened to him. Before the referendum I went to his constituency for only four days and the result of my visit there was so successful that this hon member subsequently announced in Beeld I had been there a full fortnight. [Interjections.] The hon member then drew a comparison and said that in spite of the fact that Indians had been established in Dundee and Newcastle for years—these are towns adjacent to Vryheid—they had never created problems regarding residential areas and schools. It is very interesting that he should single out residential areas and schools. Prior to 1948— I checked this—Indian numbers in these two towns were not significant enough to create problems. Everyone knows that the Group Areas Act and other apartheid laws came after 1948 and they provided for separate residential areas and separate schools so that these people could not penetrate White residential areas or schools to create intermingling. It is therefore no argument to appeal now that Indians be admitted to the other five districts of Natal.

I wish to point out a few aspects of this subject to the hon member. He is appealing that his entire electoral division be thrown open to Indians. He has no grounds for this plea. I wish to say in passing that the hon member for Vryheid will never stand in the Vryheid constituency again. [Interjections.] If he has the courage to do so, he will lose as he has never lost in an election. Because he is aware that he has no future there, he is now abusing the opportunity while he remains there and he is throwing everything open in the knowledge that he will not have to account for his actions on a future occasion.

I wish to mention a few facts. The hon member referred specifically to those five towns and I shall refer to them as well. At present there is not a single Indian in Babanango but there was one in 1980. There were 25 Indians in Utrecht in 1980. Today only five remain and they work at the hotel under a special permit. In 1985 there was not a single Indian in Ngotshe whereas there were only three in 1980. There are 12 Indians in Paulpietersburg at present; there were ten in 1980. Vryheid is the only one of these five towns with a noteworthy number of Indians. I shall mention these facts as well. In 1980 there were 329 Indians in Vryheid and 345 in 1985—so there was a small increase in their numbers. The hon member for Vryheid will concede that these Indians are concentrated chiefly at a mine where they were before the 1927 Act was inscribed in the Statute Book. These people were therefore permitted to remain there. The hon member himself said that there were about 200 schoolchildren among the Indians there which means that there are only 145 adults.

I now want to ask the hon member why he is appealing that these places which are so clear should be thrown open to the influx of Indians. [Interjections.]

You are a racist!

It is the greatest compliment I have ever received if I am called a racist for appealing that Utrecht should not be thrown open to Indians. I shall tell the people of Utrecht on the platform that I have been called a racist when pleading for Utrecht to remain White and that Indians should not be admitted there. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Vryheid’s plea is creating an artificial need which does not exist there in reality. There is no real need for Indians to be there and I shall prove that now. [Interjections.] I shall prove it and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning had better listen and not turn his head away. [Interjections.]

I checked the 1985 census of quite a number of towns in Northern Natal and of them only Newcastle and Dundee have significant numbers of Indians. To cap it all, Indian numbers in Dundee have decreased by 130 since 1980. Indian numbers at Glencoe have declined by 469. Whereas there were nine at Underberg before, there are only three now. Numbers have dropped by 83 at Kranskop. I can continue giving the House such statistics.

I wish to make the following statement: The Indians themselves have no need to be in those places in Northern Natal because their numbers have been reduced drastically in the towns where they are permitted without having a law or anything else to keep them out. [Interjections.] I assert that an artificial need is being created to admit those people there.

What about Newcastle?

I have already referred to Newcastle; the hon member should open his ears and close his mouth and then he would know what was going on in this House.

I was born in the Free State. [Interjections.] It appears to me that, if one hails from the Free State, one is evil. So it seems to me if I listen to the groans emanating from the leftist party!

It is most interesting of all that, in spite of NP permits, arguments, tricks and feints to fill the Free State with Indians, according to the 1985 census there were only 70 Indians in the whole of the Free State—45 of them in Bloemfontein.

I now get to the hon member for Brentwood. He argued that, if one obtained land in terms of agreements and deeds of sale, it belonged to one but then one was obviously obliged to give it to other people. [Interjections.] This is how the hon member argued. I agree with him that this is White land in terms of deeds of sale but why do we now have to give it away to the Indians without further ado? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Pinetown alleged that the CP were followers of Nazi Germany because they were opposed to this Bill. I want to tell the hon member one should be very careful in making such allegations because the day they boomerang he is going to be very sorry that he …

Is that a threat?

No, it is no threat! One needs only common sense to know that the day this boomerangs he will realise one should not make such wild assertions.

What wild assertions?

To castigate another party as being supporters of Nazi Germany. [Interjections.]

The moment they are referred to as communists—I shall withdraw this immediately but I want to state it—they are up in arms shouting and it has to be withdrawn and may not be said. I now wish to ask: If one is not permitted to be a communist, is one permitted to be a Nazi? [Interjections.] I merely want to put the question.

If one compares the 1985 census with that of 1980, one sees a great outflow of Indians took place from kwaZulu. I now want to ask the hon member for Vryheid why they are pouring out and whether Indians are permitted to own land in kwaZulu. Nevertheless we now want to see that they obtain land in Northern Natal. The Government wants them to be able to obtain White land there.

The hon member for Innesdal said this beautiful country belonged to all its people. Is he unaware that all the beautiful countries of Africa belong only to Blacks today and are governed by them? [Interjections.] The CP is prepared to divide this beautiful country, South Africa, in such a way in terms of its partition policy that there will be space for every people and racial group, so that a scrap of beautiful South Africa will remain to Whites which they may have as a home for their descendants. [Interjections.]

Morgenzon!

I now want to tell the hon member for Newcastle something. The day the CP comes to power, puts its partition policy into operation and we ultimately have our White land, the hon member is free to go and live in the Indian land or any Black land of his choice. [Interjections.] We shall give the hon member to those other areas for Christmas. [Interjections.] He need not remain in the White part because he finds it despicable and ludicrous. [Interjections.] He can go where he likes. He can even go overseas with the hon member for Overvaal if he wishes. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I was really surprised to hear that the hon member for Koedoespoort was born in the Free State. I shall take his word for that but we Free State people do not usually conduct politics as he does. I shall reply briefly to the hon member’s speech which to my mind was unnecessarily emotional.

What does this have to do with you?

Tasteless!

I agree with the hon member for Sasolburg that there is nothing wrong with an emotional speech as such but what one says should at least have some semblance of reason.

But he put all the statistics to you!

All right! Let us start with the statistics which the hon member for Koedoespoort gave us. One of the particular points he made was that Dr Verwoerd and Adv Strijdom had to take note of the reality that Indians in South Africa would not be able to be returned to India because India would not receive them. This was a reality and what did these leaders of the NP do about it? They recognised it and adapted their policy accordingly.

They did not quit like you! [Interjections ]

Does the hon member for Koedoespoort want to tell me it was a surrender of principles and an admission of external pressure under which the change in policy took place? [Interjections.] That was not the case but an admission of reality. [Interjections.]

Order! There will be fewer interjections from members on my left as well. The hon member may proceed.

The hon member said we had changed our immigration policy fundamentally. This is something one has to agree with if it is viewed from a certain angle. Let us compare the change our policy has undergone, however, with the change in CP policy. What is the CP statement of policy in this regard? I should like to quote from the CP programme of principles:

Just say where.

All right, let me tell you where.

In their standpoints of principle these people explain what their homelands or heartlands look like. I shall read it:

[Interjections.] What do the heartlands look like now? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte must make fewer interjections.

The heartlands are then described as follows:

Those are the heartlands. The hon member asked me to what destination immigration would take place. [Interjections.] It will take place from wherever the people originate to these heartlands. On what basis? According to our policy it will be by means of an immigrants’ selection board in which all of us will have a say—we in the House of Assembly as well. But what does their policy say? It says Indians alone will decide on this. They alone will decide on this.

That is self-determination.

It is certainly self-determination …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member if that piece contains the information on what land is to be given to immigrants? [Interjections.]

The hon member is asking a difficult question there which I should like to put to hon members of the CP. I surmise that it comprises the existing group areas and that they would want to extend these group areas with the co-operation of the people. That is the heartland they are talking about.

I think they are pulling the wool over the eyes of voters in this country by leaning on our policy of recognising people’s own living spaces and group areas and then purporting to have come up with something absolutely new. Let us on this side of the House tell them that for many years our policy in the Free State has been that we did not want to repeal Chapter XXXIII of the old Statute Book of the Orange Free State. That was the case for years. [Interjections.]

The question is why we have changed our views regarding this case. The answer is obvious. These hon members themselves accepted the foundations of principle on the basis of which we changed this policy. What are these foundations of principle? The first is that Indians are recognised as permanent citizens of this country. Those hon members acknowledged in conjunction with Dr Verwoerd and Advocate Strijdom that we were faced with the fail accompli of having to recognise them as permanent inhabitants of this country as our policy of repatriation of Indians to their own country of origin could not succeed.

If hon members therefore want to get in on Dr Verwoerd’s ticket, what was his standpoint regarding the rights of other population groups in this country? Elis standpoint was no domination and no discrimination. This party prides itself—if I am correct—that its policy is also one of no domination and no discrimination.

Yes, it is partition.

It is partition but hon members say no domination and no discrimination. [Interjections.]

Now I ask hon members, if they want to be logical and say their heartlands consist of the respective group areas of peoples, why do they permit Coloureds to travel throughout the length and breadth of South Africa from one Coloured group area to the other as they permit Whites to do if they want to retain Chapter XXXIII of the Orange Free State Statute Book? What basis of principle do they then have to support their argument that they do not wish to admit Indians who are also permanent citizens of this country now? Surely they should be consistent and fair in this regard. They should tell us whether they no longer subscribe to their old policy. Have they changed their policy in this regard? Is their policy one of discrimination now?

They have exactly the same policy as the HNP. That is right!

Are they therefore pursuing a policy of discrimination now?

Mr Chairman, as the hon member for Fauresmith is making so much of logic at present, I should like to know why his party does not admit Coloureds and Indians in the White schools and group areas. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I do not wish to prolong this debate and want to reply briefly to the hon member for Brakpan’s question. It is certainly not NP policy that there are to be no group rights. Surely group rights are incorporated inter alia in the maintenance of own living spaces and own schools. That is certainly the National Party standpoint of principle.

But what is wrong with own homelands?

I simply cannot understand why the hon member for Brakpan has put that question at all. [Interjections.] I simply cannot understand it.

Let us take the matter somewhat further, however. Why have we changed our standpoint in this regard? We did not do so merely because Dr Verwoerd said that we had to recognise Indians as permanent citizens of this country. What did Mr John Vorster, a later leader of the National Party, have to say on this? On the occasion of the opening of the SA Indian Council in Durban Mr Vorster expressed himself pertinently on this. I shall not quote his exact words here although I can do so if anyone doubts my claim. Mr Vorster also said the Indian Council should merely be regarded as a forerunner to further constitutional development of Indians. He said that Indians would also have the rights and privileges of the other population groups in this country on the basis of no domination and no discrimination.

If we accept this standpoint—and the Conservative Party with us—why do its members not endorse it today as well? Why have they changed their policy? Why do they persist in maintaining that their policy is founded on a basis of no discrimination and no domination? [Interjections.]

There was also a further development, however, Mr Chairman. There was another reason why we wanted Chapter XXXIII of the old Free State Statute Book repealed. This was the adoption of the 1977 constitutional proposals. What did we actually do in adopting these proposals? Even in the highest Chamber of this country we recognised the Indians as a permanent part of the population of the Republic of South Africa. Hon members of the Conservative Party actually joined us in doing this. I now ask them, if they could bring themselves to accept the 1977 proposals, why were they unable to accept their consequences as well? Why were they not prepared to accept these as well? In this case we have merely taken one of those consequences to its logical conclusion which is to repeal legislation which discriminated on grounds which were no longer applicable.

Mr Chairman, I should now like to refer briefly to the hon member for Sasolburg.

Let him have it!

I do not want to give the hon member blazes. [Interjections.] I do not want to give him blazes; I want to send a word of praise his way. The hon member for Sasolburg and his party have at least consistently supported a standpoint regarding Indians for a number of years.

Yes, sixteen years!

The hon member says sixteen years. [Interjections.] I do not agree with their standpoint but at least they are consistent. They maintain their standpoint so I can debate with them on it. It is obviously quite different in the case of his fellow travellers next to him—the hon members of the Conservative Party.

One never knows where one stands with them!

What does the HNP have to say on this, Mr Chairman? I have the hon member for Sasolburg’s permission to read a note which he sent to the hon member Dr Odendaal. In it he explained HNP policy on the measure before us. He puts it as follows:

The hon member has underlined this part—

The next point is early emphasis on what the hon member underlines, that is “solank die Indiërs in Suid-Afrika is”. The hon member continues that the HNP policy is also the following—

Stoffie, you should write better!

Yes, it is very obscure.

In any case, it is set out very clearly here that the HNP retains the idea that Indians could be repatriated.

We do not exclude the possibility. [Interjections.]

I do not want to argue with the hon member. I actually paid him a compliment because he stands by his principles but, if he retains that standpoint, he is not standing by Dr Verwoerd’s standpoint as he likes to profess. No, the hon member will have to go a long way back before he will find an NP leader …

Mr Chairman, is the hon member aware that we have actually taken Dr Verwoerd’s policy further as regards Coloureds and Indians? [Interjections.] That is a fact! [Interjections.]

In all fairness to the hon member I wish to say that they did move away from Dr Verwoerd but they moved back. They did not move forward; honestly, they moved back.

Finally, I should like to draw hon members’ attention to the fact that some of the great fears expressed by hon members of the CP and the hon member for Sasolburg are that the land on which Whites were born…

Heritage!

The heritage of the Whites …

The sanctum of the Whites!

Yes, the sanctum of the Whites, but it is not situated only in the Free State; it is in the Cape Province, Natal and the Transvaal as well. Hon members should not act as if the heritage of the Whites lies only in the Free State. No, the heritage of the Whites is spread throughout the country. If hon members are afraid that the Free State will ostensibly be overrun by Indians in consequence of the passing of this legislation …

Ostensibly!

All right, I said “ostensibly overrun” but I have a good reason for saying this. What is the situation regarding the Indian population in the Cape Province and the Transvaal? I should like to quote statistics to the hon members. In 1951 4,9% of the Indians lived in the Cape Province. In 1980, 30 years later, it was 3,5%. That is actually a little less than it was. What happened in the Transvaal? In 1951 13,5% of the Indians were in the Transvaal. In 1980 the percentage was almost the same, that is 14,1% of the Indian population. [Interjections.] Now I ask hon members … [Interjections.] Will hon members give me a chance to finish. I ask them what reason there is in the wide world for their fears if there has been no growth percentagewise in the Indian population in the Cape Province after the passage of 30 years? What reasons could there be for such vehement insistence by Indians to establish themselves suddenly in the Free State?

Daan is scared!

People are unnecessarily afraid and do not recognise the realities we are dealing with and to which we have to adjust our legislation.

I think the hon member for Sasolburg once said: "The nature and the character of this heartland of Afrikanerdom will be destroyed.” The population of the heartland the hon member is talking about, the Free State, consists almost 80% of Black people. The hon member now wants to tell me that a small group of Indians which, if they were to be present in larger numbers, would be established in their own group areas, are about to change the nature and character of this White heartland. That is the worst political nonsense I have heard in my life.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Fauresmith is the NP Free State representative on the Standing Committee on Home Affairs. This is a standing committee consisting of 11 Whites, seven Coloureds and five Indians. Consensus was reached in that standing committee, with the hon member’s agreement, that this legislation can now be accepted, while the hon member for Rissik was the only member of the House of Assembly who opposed the Free State and Northern Natal being opened to the Indians. When the hon member for Rissik as well as other hon members of the CP objected to the borders of the Free State and Northern Natal now being opened to the Indians, they were jeered at. Then these hon colleagues of mine were jeered at.

The hon member for Fauresmith said that he agreed with the hon member for Sasolburg on certain points, but essentially he agrees with the PFP as well. This is typical of the hon member and his party. They have a “you want it, we have it” policy. [Interjections.] They can agree with the hon member for Sasolburg when it comes to their “oeloe-oeloe” meetings but when they sit in the standing committee with Mr Rajbansi and other people, they say the Free State is open to everyone. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Fauresmith said that it was the policy of the NP that Indians must not be allowed into the Free State, and they have changed that policy. Now in reply to a question put by my colleague, the hon member for Brakpan, the hon member says that it is their policy that White schools in the Free State should only be for Whites. That is their policy. Let me now tell him that just as their policy on admission to the Free State changed, so will their policy on the schools in the Free State change as well. [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon member for Fauresmith a question. Supposing an Indian businessman settled in Fauresmith and he had a number of children. Let us also suppose too that that Indian businessman approaches him and says he has a few children, but they cannot establish a school for them here in Fauresmith, and that he is applying for his children to be allowed to attend the primary school or the high school in Fauresmith. I am now asking the hon member if he is going to refuse. Is he going to refuse? He merely has to tell me. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Fauresmith wants to put a question to the hon member for Kuruman.

Mr Chairman, the hon member is now sketching a situation which could arise …

Just ask your question, man! [Interjections.]

He is now sketching a situation which could arise in the Free State. I now want to ask the hon member: How has the NP handled similar situations in the Transvaal and elsewhere in the country in the past? [Interjections.]

In the past when I was still a member of the NP, we would most certainly have said no to that. [Interjections.] I want to tell him that he changes his policy so often that we cannot depend on him. Let me now ask the hon member: If that Indian businessman were to ask if his children could attend that school, what would his answer be? [Interjections.] No, that hon member is avoiding the question because he knows that if he says those children cannot attend school there, his liberal friends on the other side will tell him that it is discrimination for him not to want to allow it. [Interjections.] And so that hon member actually does not have a standpoint on this.

But the hon member tried to hurt the CP about the 1977 proposals. I now want to quote from a document in which the hon the Minister of National Education said:

He goes on to say:

The hon the Minister therefore said that Black peoples were obtaining self-determination on an ethnic basis in their own independent states.

Now we come to the position of the Indians. Amongst the things discussed in this regard were a cabinet with a Prime Minister and three other Ministers, an Indian parliament with 46 members, 41 constituencies, 3 proportional representatives of the parties in Parliament, two nominated members, designated by the majority party in the Indian House, and mention was also made of legislation on Indian affairs, as well as on community matters, which would be referred to them by the Council of Cabinets, and which they would then discuss.

As far as the second tier of government is concerned, mention was made of regional administrations under the leadership of regional administrators. This only applies to Indians. At the local level there would be Indian city councils and town councils, and own geographical areas where Indian proprietary rights would be encouraged.

Now I want to know where in 1977 an own residential area or a geographical area was set aside for the Indians in the Free State. [Interjections.] I see the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is looking very desperately at his benchmate, the hon the Minister of National Education.

I am looking at you, man! [Interjections.]

It is written here: “Eien-domsreg in eie geografiese gebiede". [Interjections.] Now I want to know if the Indians would also have proprietary rights in own geographical areas in the Free State.

In their own group areas, of course, yes! [Interjections.]

Sir, the hon the Minister says: "Of course, yes.” The Indians will have proprietary rights in their own group areas in the Free State. [Interjections.]

Order! I just want to tell the hon member for Kuruman that it is difficult to expect silence to be maintained if he puts questions to other hon members, but the hon member may proceed.

Thank you very much, Sir.

I want to know if the hon the Minister of Justice, the leader of the NP in the Free State, is in favour of group areas being created in the Free State for the Indians.

The principle that will apply is that a request in this regard will be granted if an application is made there, and if there are enough Indians to justify a group area.

If there are enough Indians in the Free State, the NP’s leader in the Free State will say that there should be group areas for the Indians in the Free State. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Green Point said he welcomed this legislation, which amounts to the assimilation of the various population groups in South Africa. This has been the standpoint of the PFP for many years! They have argued all along that assimilation between the various population groups should take place in South Africa. [Interjections.] Now I want to tell the hon members of the PFP that the introduction of this legislation, on which they now agree with the NP, is not a victory for the PFP; it is a victory for Rev Hendrickse and Mr Rajbansi! [Interjections.] It is their victory. They persuaded their Government coalition partners in the Cabinet that the Free State should be opened to other racial groups. [Interjections.]

I should now like to turn to the hon member for Heilbron. He is unfortunately not here now, but on Thursday evening, 5 June I shall be in Heilbron. I want to tell the hon member and the hon the Minister of Law and Order that they may organise their party to go and propose a motion of no-confidence there …

Without the police!

Yes, the hon the Minister need not send members of his Police Force there either!

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

If the hon member for Heilbron has the guts, I say he is welcome to appear with me on the stage in Frankfort, in his own constituency! There will be an opportunity for people to put questions to him that evening. He may come and put his case there as well. [Interjections.] I am prepared to meet him on the same stage in Kuruman as well! [Interjections.]

The hon member Dr Odendaal of the Free State says the Free State is the most deprived province in South Africa. He commends the development brought to the Free State by the Taiwanese, and the possible development which the Indians could bring to the Free State! In my opinion that is a scandalous insult to the Whites of the Free State. [Interjections.]

The hon member Dr Odendaal referred to the AWB, but it was he who received a good drubbing in Sasolburg. He has come here with one voice—that of the PWB! [Interjections.] That hon member said that the underlying philosophy of the CP is comprised of racial arrogance, racial hatred and the fact that Afrikaners are supposedly better than the Indians. [Interjections.] Let me tell the hon member that I stand here as an Afrikaner this evening, but I am proud of it, and I do not want to belong to any other ethnic group in the world. I will take up the cudgels for the Afrikaner wherever I may go in the world. [Interjections.] To me the Afrikaner people is the best people in the world, but I do not regard myself as superior to the Indians. The CP also has respect for the Indians. [Interjections.] Just listen to the ridiculous little laugh of the hon member for Prieska. Let me tell him that the Indians are proud people.

Make your own speech!

I see the wives of hon members of the House of Delegates come here in their traditional garb. They are proud of their culture, traditions and religion. I respect them for that.

They are much better than the Nats.

That is why we say that the Indian people of South Africa must have the right to give full expression to their language, culture, traditions and everything which is their own, in their own fatherland. Let me spell this out to the hon members. [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon member prepared to reply to a question?

No, Mr Chairman, I unfortunately do not have the time.

We have the highest regard for these people.

What does Stoffies have to say? Where is their homeland?

The hon the Minister will have to go and ask Rev Hendrickse what he has to say about him. [Interjections.]

This evening the hon member for Pine-town commented on the Free State and its being opened to the Indians. Let me tell the hon member that he has a “home” which he can run to when there is trouble in this country.

It is the fault of you people!

But I as an Afrikaner do not have a place I can run to. [Interjections.]

I therefore say that I do not begrudge the Indian people a fatherland, where they can govern themselves, just as we have granted the Xhosa and Tswana people parts of South Africa, where they can govern themselves, but then there must be a place here in the Southern land where my people can have a homeland where it can govern itself completely, and where it can have full self-determination.

The hon member for Brentwood referred to the land of the Whites. We could go to the Deeds Office. We want to tell the hon members this evening that the land which is the fatherland of the Whites has actually been recorded as such at the Deeds Office. Every piece of land—from the Limpopo up to Sea Point—for which the Whites have the title deeds, is White South Africa. This is what we stand for. [Interjections.]

I have a pamphlet here, entitled Die KP aan die kaak gestel, from which I want to quote a passage this evening. This pamphlet was drawn up by the hon member for Benoni, and the heading of the part that I want to quote, is: “Indiër-immigrasie: KP sal die sluise open”. The writer—the hon member for Benoni—and his co-worker, the hon the Minister of National Education, and Leader of the NP in Transvaal, create the impression that South Africa will be overrun by “ongewenste immigrante” from India and Pakistan when the CP comes into power, with its policy of partition which would then come into effect. That is the impression which the hon member for Benoni tries to create. He says the CP “sal die sluise open”. I quote:

The reader of this piece of gossip-mongering booklet has visions of thousands upon thousands of Indians banked up behind the immigration sluices of South Africa, with the CP standing ready to opening the sluice-gates. He puts the question:

The “vloedgolf’, he says. He writes dramatically:

The third sentence that I want to quote, states:

[Interjections.] In fear and trepidation the NP reader has to cling onto the “beproefde immigrasiebeleid van die NP” mentioned in this pamphlet, Die KP aan die kaak gestel— the “beproefde” policy!

What was the proven immigration policy when we were still members of that once mighty, and now powerless, NP? The policy was that selected immigrants could only be recruited in countries of origin. Immigrants had to be able to link up with the Whites of South Africa in terms of culture and religion. It therefore was necessary for immigrants to be culturally and religiously assimilable with the Whites of South Africa. That was surely the proven immigration policy of the NP! That is why the old NP specifically wrote the word “European” into the Act which is now being amended. The insertion of the word “European” was surely part of the NP’s “beproefde immigrasiebeleid”. That was the case, was it not! Why is the hon the Minister of Environment Affairs and Tourism laughing?

He was not a Nat.

He was a United Party member, like you.

I think that thrilled the hon the Minister of Environment Affairs and Tourism for a moment, because I know his heart is actually here with us. [Interjections.] I in fact want to tell the hon the Minister of Environment Affairs and Tourism that I think he is the most conservative member of the NP Cabinet today. [Interjections.] The former Minister of Environment Affairs, the present hon Minister of Agricultural Economics and of Water Affairs enlarged the Council for the Environment so that people of colour could be appointed to it. This hon Minister did not do that. This hon the Minister has not appointed one person of colour to his council. So the State President then just appointed an Indian Deputy Minister for him, also for tourism in the Orange Free State. [Interjections.]

In the same way as the NP, through the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, states that it has broadened the base of democracy, the NP, on the request of, and under pressure from its coalition government partners, also had to extend the scope of its immigration policy. This legislation is living proof of that, and I take pleasure in saying this to the flippant hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. This is how the NP is being forced to broaden its proven immigration policy to such an extent that there also has to be room in this Bill for the admission of Indian, Black and Coloured immigrants. [Interjections.] India and Pakistan are after all now also, like the Netherlands, France and Britain, countries of origin of South Africa and of the South African nation.

Now I ask the hon member for Fauresmith if he agrees that India has also become a country of origin of South Africa in terms of this Bill. [Interjections.] The hon member for Fauresmith will never reply to this question of mine. I do not think he has the courage to do so.

Tell us about your country of origin.

I am not thinking back to countries of origin; I have said this evening that I am proud of being an Afrikaner, and I should like the Afrikaner to have an own fatherland—a fatherland in which my people can govern itself completely and where it would not be necessary for my people to get the permission of the Indians and Coloureds when it has to make a decision of what is in the interests of its father-land. [Interjections.]

This Bill is proof of the fact that the NP has turned its back on separation. This Bill is the fruit of a standing committee consisting of 11 Whites, seven Coloureds and five Indians, under the chairmanship of the hon member for Innesdal, and the Deputy Chairmanship of the hon member for Grassy Park, in the House of Representatives. I should like to refer to clause 2 of the Bill by saying the NP is destroying separation. The specific wording in the original Bill, as introduced in the standing committee, read as follows:

[Interjections.] Really, the hon members are so frivolous! Now the hon the Minister of National Education and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning are also laughing. [Interjections.] At one stage yesterday afternoon there was not one hon Minister in this House. [Interjections.] They no longer have any interest in the House of Assembly. Their interests lie outside this House.

I once more refer to clause 2:

The words that were to have been deleted, were “… readily … the European inhabitants of the Union …”. The Cabinet instruction was that the word “European” had to be deleted from this. The legal draughtsman made provision for an immigrant to have to link up with one or another existing community. I want to read it again:

Then it went to the standing committee of the hon member for Innesdal. What does the Bill look like now? I read:

When the Bill was introduced in the standing committee it still made provision for the fact that non-White immigrants had to assimilable with any community in South Africa. In the standing committee, under the leadership of the hon member for Innesdal, the five Indians and seven Coloureds persuaded the hon member and his few NP colleagues to remove the word “communities” so that a person of colour now has to be assimilable “with the inhabitants” of South Africa. That is a fairly big amendment which the hon member’s committee has made here. [Interjections.] The hon member should rather keep his mouth shut.

In regard to clause 13, which now makes it possible for Indians to enter the Free State, we want to say this evening that the Indians did not have one morgen of land in the Free State for which they had the title deed. The Government is now prepared to give the Indians part of the title deed of the Free State.

What is wrong with that?

You are stirring up emotions, instead of participating in politics!

The hon member must just listen to my arguments.

The hon member for Fauresmith said there were more Blacks in the Free State than Whites. However, one of the districts of Bophuthatswana, which was cut out of the territory of the Orange Free State and the Republic of South Africa was given to the Blacks of the Free State. Today it is part of the fatherland of the Tswana people. There is also Qwaqwa. That is also a part which was excised from the territory of the Free State, and it provides a fatherland for the Basuto people who live in the Free State. [Interjections.] What remained—this is after all what the hon members and I said when we were together in the NP—was the White part of the Orange Free State.

What about the Indians?

And for the Coloureds who are there?

Excuse me. I left that out. There are two rural areas for Coloureds, which is also their own.

Their fatherland?

Their fatherland?

Just like kwaNdebele!

Those are rural areas belonging to those people. Now the hon NP member for the Free State comes along this evening and says they are also prepared to give a part of the Free State, for which the Whites still have the title deed, to the Indians.

Well done, men!

Yes, now the hon member for Parktown says “well done, men” to the Nats because they are implementing the PFP’s policy beautifully. [Interjections.] The people who are driving the NP to those lengths are Mr Rajbansi, Rev Hendrickse and family. That is what is happening.

The hon member for Heilbron said this evening that they had gauged the feelings of organised agriculture on the opening of the Free State, but that they did not want to express an opinion because they were an agricultural organisation. A second organisation which they asked, said no.

Now, however, I read in Die Vaderland of 26 May this year under the heading “Indiërs in Bloemfontein—kerk nou onthuts”:

There is strong opposition. [Interjections.] Where is the hon member for Bloemfontein East this evening? Strong opposition was expressed by the NG congregation in Bloemfontein East against establishing this group area of which the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning spoke.

I want to challenge the Government this evening: Why do they not hold a referendum in the Free State? Let the Whites of the Free State decide the matter for themselves. I want to tell the hon the Minister of Justice that he is no longer the leader of the Free State; he is really just the leader of the NP in the Free State. There is a large number of NP members of the Free State in this House, but if an election had to be held tomorrow, very few of them would still be here.

What about you?

I have mentioned the figures to the House. In Kuruman the NP’s fisted membership in 1982 was more than 3 100. Today they only have 1 800 listed members, which means a decrease of 42%.

What did you stand for?

I stood for separate development. [Interjections.]

Let me tell hon NP members who are representatives of the Free State, for example the hon Minister of Education and Culture, that they are here by the grace of President Botha. [Interjections.] They are here by the grace of the State President and they take decisions which affect their province. If they are too scared to resign and fight an election…

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon member for Kuruman if he is aware of the fact that we also had an election in Bethlehem and that the voters gave their decision? [Interjections.]

Let me tell the hon the Minister that when the election was fought in Bethlehem, the NP had not yet announced that it was going to accept power-sharing with Blacks and Indians. [Interjections.] The hon member for Innesdal had not yet made the statements that the Blacks, just like the Coloureds and Indians, would also be given representation on the President’s Council. Let me tell the hon the Minister of Justice that as the leader of a province he should hold a referendum, if he has the courage. Surely it is not such a terrible thing in the Free State. Why does the hon the Minister who introduced this legislation and who is the leader of the NP in Natal, not hold a referendum too? [Interjections.]

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

Mr Chairman, I have said that I do not have any more time for questions.

That hon member wrote to his voters that Blacks would never be involved in this dispensation. Why not hold a referendum? Then everyone in the Free State would surely be satisfied, would they not. Surely it is very reasonable to ask the Government this evening to hold a referendum in the Free State to get a pronouncement on this matter.

Hold an election in Kuruman!

The hon member says I should hold an election in Kuruman. If the hon members of the Free State are prepared to resign and to hold an election, then I would be prepared to resign on the same day and to hold an election in Kuruman. [Interjections.] I am prepared to do that. I now challenge the Free State members: If you are prepared to resign, to hold an election in the Free State and to put the question on this matter, then I am also prepared to resign and to hold an election on the matter in Kuruman—and there is not one Indian in Kuruman! [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, first I should like to take my friend, the hon member for Sasolburg to task a little, because I am rather fond of him. He is an interesting person! I want to ask him a question, and I want to hear the reply very clearly. Did he say to us between ourselves: “If the Kenyans could send the Indians packing, we can also do so—the whole lot of them!”?

He did say so!

He need only say yes or no.

It is written on that piece of paper. Go and look at it!

So he did say that!

No! [Interjections.]

I am talking about what the hon member said here in the House.

I am asking the hon member for Smithfield to give me that piece of paper. It is there in writing. You must not tell stories now! It is there in writing, and I challenge you! I shall read it out myself. [Interjections.]

The hon member said that if Kenya could have Uhuru, so could we. [Interjections.]

I repeat: Go and look what is written on that piece of paper!

I want to put another question to the hon member for Sasolburg. Will the descendants of the Asians be included in the repatriation programme which the hon member will launch if he comes into power here?

Oh, you are really…

Would he approve it in principle and would he also do that? He need only say yes or no.

Do you still beat your wife?

The hon member for Sasolburg is very scared to reply to this statement. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question? [Interjections.]

No, Sir, the hon member had plenty of time to speak. When I asked him questions he does not want to answer me, but suddenly he wants to jump up and ask questions. He need only say yes or no.

The hon member for Kuruman said we were going to open Indian as a country of origin. That is the connotation he attaches to the Matters concerning Admission to and Residence in the Republic Amendment Bill. [Interjections.] That is interesting, but opening India as a country of origin is nothing new.

Is that so?

This is, after all, not a discovery or something new, and in that connection I want to refer to the same publication from which the hon member for Pinetown quoted, namely Groep sonder Grense by Dr H F Heese. From the earliest times India served as a country of origin, and many interesting people came to South Africa from there. Well-known surnames came into existence as a result of the intermarriage of people from Bengal, India, and so on with Whites and Coloureds.

You lot are looking for trouble; you are going to get it!

I now want to mention some of the surnames. [Interjections.] I am simply quoting them from the book in front of me: Jacobs, Kramer, Meiring, Vosloo, Meyer, Hatting, Van Zyl…

Yes?

… Van Staden, Treurnicht … [Interjections.] I also see the name Theunissen, but what I find most interesting of all is the descendant Ferdinand Hartzenberg! [Interjections.] There is other interesting information in this book. I am quoting:

I should like to repeat the last few words:

[Interjections.] I am continuing to quote:

Consequently since the 18th century India has been a country of origin of South Africa. We are not going to make it a country of origin for the first time now.

I should like to quote some more interesting information:

And that is not the end of the story. This is very interesting:

I do not know which of the hon members are stock farmers:

These are only a few interesting snippets of information from history to indicate that this ridiculous statement that we now want to make India a country of origin, has applied long ago. Now I have a big problem … [Interjections.]

Now the fight is on!

Order!

We will annihilate you lot in an election. [Interjections.]

Order! [Interjections.] Order! I want to state categorically that the hon members for Rissik and Kuruman are, perhaps unwittingly, almost disregarding the Chair to an extent which I am gradually beginning to find unacceptable. When the Chair calls for order, those hon members simply carry on. This will not happen again. The hon member for Stilfontein may proceed.

Sir, I now have a very big problem with the hon member for Sasolburg, because when he and his party lightly suggest that a large-scale repatriation of these people to their countries of origin will take place if they were to come into power, what is the hon member going to do about certain Hartzenbergs, Treurnichts and Hoons? [Interjections.] Then we must not forget the Van Stadens and the Snymans either, because they are also in danger here. The hon member for Sasolburg must now tell us whether he is only going to send the Hartzenbergs, Treurnichts and Theunissens who are darker than the fairer Hartzenbergs, Treurnichts and Theunissens back to their countries of origin?

You are a scoundrel! [Interjections.]

I consider this a very big problem.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I think I heard the hon member for Kuruman refer to the hon member for Stilfontein as a “meid”.

Order! If the hon member said that, he must withdraw it.

I withdraw it.

You cannot insult a “meid”. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, you should hear what the hon member for Sunnyside is saying now.

Of course.

What is more he is a Van Zyl who also falls under this category of the hon member for Sasolburg. He says that the hon member for Kuruman cannot insult a “meid”—to use his words. He has said that, but I just want to tell him that the surname Van Zyl also appears in this book. [Interjections.] But I shall leave the hon member for Sunnyside at that. [Interjections.] I shall leave him at that, Mr Chairman.

You are a henchman and lackey of Oppenheimer!

I shall leave the hon member for Sunnyside at that because I want to continue with my speech. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I am continuing!

Order!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: With all due respect, I want to argue that it is unparliamentary when an hon member refers to another hon member as a lackey of someone outside this House. [Interjections.] The hon member for Kuruman referred to the hon member for Stilfontein as a lackey of Oppenheimer.

Order! What precisely did the hon member for Kuruman say?

Mr Chairman, I said that the hon member for Stilfontein was a lackey of Oppenheimer.

Order! The hon member for Kuruman must withdraw the word “lackey”.

1 withdraw it, Sir.

He is Oppenheimer’s yes-man!

Order! The hon member for Stilfontein may proceed.

You should rather go and make your speech outside this House!

Mr Chairman. I have another problem. The hon member for Sasolburg, who wants me to go and make my speech outside this House, must now tell us whether he wrote a letter to our hon Whips in this House in which he said that he wanted to speak “under the Coolie Act”. I am now asking whether or not he wrote that.

Between quotation marks, yes!

Very well, … [Interjections.] Now you must see, Sir! Now this hon member, who told me I must go and read what he said in a newspaper clipping … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, may I just ask what clause of the Bill the hon member for Stilfontein is discussing now? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Stilfontein may proceed.

Mr Chairman, now I want to say very definitely that it is these hurtful, humiliating remarks and statements—ostensibly between quotation marks—which this hon member for Sasolburg blithely bandies about in this House, which I object to—statements by the hon member for Sasolburg such as, “I want to talk under the Coolie Act.”

That is correct! I did write that!

Mr Chairman, there is no such thing as a “Coolie Act” in this country! There is no such thing as a “Coolie Act” on the Order Paper of this House!

Between quotation marks there is such a thing! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I do not care whether the hon member writes it between quotation marks, between commas, between exclamation marks, between question marks or between any other marks! He wrote he wanted to talk “under the Coolie Act”, and there is no “Coolie Act” in this House! [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I think it is an absolute disgrace! It is unbecoming for an hon member of this House to say that he wants to talk “under the Coolie Act”!

It is not a disgrace!

Mr Chairman, I maintain it is a disgrace! It is not at all becoming for an hon member of this House!

I do not consider it a disgrace! [Interjections.]

You no longer even know what is a disgrace and what is not, Louis!

That will be the day when you come and teach me what is a disgrace! [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, certain parts of the Bill under discussion should have been debated in this House long ago. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Sasolburg must also contain himself from now on. The hon member for Stilfontein may proceed.

Mr Chairman, this evening I only have the highest praise for the hon the Minister, for the Cabinet and for the National Party because we have eventually reached political maturity, and because we are not afraid to face up to the realities. This measure which we are discussing now is one of those realities of our country.

But allow me to say at once that there were probably good reasons in the minds of our legislators at the stage when they placed this legislation which we are repealing today on the Statute Book. But it is a fact that laws become obsolete. After all laws become outdated. No law can continue to exist indefinitely in its original form. Laws are constantly being amended, even if it is only by way of a change in the definitions, and many laws—including the one under discussion— must either be deleted or amended in principle as communities develop. This, Sir, surely remains a universal truth. If this had not been the case, we would probably still have had Jan van Riebeeck’s desecration of Sundays law. Fortunately we deleted them years ago.

But allow me, Mr Chairman, to refer to a few principles which are contained in the Bill under discussion. The very first of these is the provision that every prospective permanent inhabitant of the country, with all the consequences attendant on this, must now not only identify himself with the White inhabitants, but that in future he must be able to assimilate with any specific group of inhabitants. In consequence a new citizen can now be of Black, Asian, Chinese, Jewish or any other extraction. The only proviso is that he must be able to assimilate with any specific group of inhabitants in the country within a reasonable period.

Mr Chairman, a tremendous fuss has already been made about this by the right-wing political groups because, so they say, the Government is now going to allow all kinds of people of colour to stream into the country, left, right and centre. South Africa is now ostensibly going to become the market place of the world. We are now going to allow thousands of Asians to stream into the country. This is what they allege.

Mr Chairman, do you know when the largest number of Asian brides were allowed into this country? That was when Mr Connie Mulder was the Minister of the Interior. [Interjections.] Yes, that is when the largest number of Asian brides were allowed to enter the country. And now those right-wingers want to tell us we are going to cause South Africa to become the market place of the world! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I have no objection to Asian brides. Not at all! But I just want to point out what divergent interpretations— naturally to suit their politics—the right-wingers are reproaching us with here.

Mr Chairman, does the hon member for Stilfontein mind informing this House to which political party Mr Connie Mulder belongs?

Mr Chairman, Mr Connie Mulder, so I hear, is now a member of the Presidents’ Council, who was nominated by the Conservative Party. This is the hon gentleman who, when he was the Minister of the Interior—during his period in office—saw to it that the most Asian brides ever were allowed into our country. [Interjections.] In any case, Sir, what are the facts of the story that we are now going to become the marketplace of the world—the marketplace of everyone in India, in Pakistan and in Black countries? What is the truth about this?

Are you denying it?

What is the truth about this? I want to inform the House what the truth is. Why do these people not tell the public outside that the departments which handled the entry of immigrants in the past will continue with their immigration selection requirements and the application of these requirements in the same way that they did in the past? Why do these people not say that in the past many White applicants were turned away, and are still being turned away, because at a given time a demand does not exist for people in specific professions or even for semiskilled workers?

What I really cannot defend is that in the past we had to refuse admission to highly trained specialists and technicians, simply because those people could not associate themselves with the White inhabitants. We were prepared to admit Whites whom we knew would not associate themselves with the indigenous Whites, but we were not prepared to admit Asians and others to bring skills here which were also needed.

Now my question is: Why? I examine my own heart, and I shall tell hon members why. It is because I as a White, perhaps considered myself to be better than those people.

Order! I want to suggest that if the hon member for Rissik and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning have something to say to each other, they should do so outside the Chamber. The hon member for Stilfontein may proceed.

I am not saying that I am a worse person than those other people, but I really have no moral right to place myself above them and consider myself better than other people, irrespective of their extraction. I am proud of my extraction, but I will not be a slave to it, or make a god of my White extraction. I am proud of it, but I will not be a slave to it. [Interjections.]

To proceed. This evening I want to give this hon member who is so worried about all the immigrants who are going to enter the country the assurance that the department will comply rigidly with the selection requirements, just like in the past. We shall continue to do so only in the interests of our country.

What few people realise, is that our legislation made provision long ago for ministerial approval to be granted to allow people who were not White to acquire permanent residence. That is how Dr Connie Mulder, when he was Minister of the Interior, gave permission to Asian brides to enter the country. [Interjections.] The ministerial authority to give that permission has existed for a long time. I myself have brought people into the country with the permission of the Minister.

Do the right-wing parties really think we are suddenly going to open the doors for thousands of unskilled, illiterate and undesirable persons? Really, if they think that, they are not being honest with themselves. In the same way that we did not do that in the past for White immigrants, we will not do it for Whites or any other group of people now either, if it is not in the interests of our country.

There is a second principle contained in this Bill. The freedom of movement for all citizens in the RSA, as well as the freedom to live where they want to, subject to existing ordinances and regulations, is now contained in it. This matter is probably the most emotional of all the matters, as far as the right-wing parties are concerned, because this concerns the permanent residence of Asians in the Free State and certain areas in Natal. It is as if we have now heaped coals of fire on the CP-HNP faction, as if we were committing genocide in our country. “Now the Whites are going to disappear,” they say. “They are going to disappear from the Free State. The funeral knells are sounding for White civilisation!” That is what they are shouting outside.

Let us try to look at these realities more calmly without becoming so extremely emotional. In the first place I want to say today that I have known people of Asian extraction for many years now. Let me add at once that I have never regretted this; on the contrary, I am proud to say that we have learned a great deal about one another’s culture, circumstances of life, values and customs—without this making me a worse White man or him a worse Asian. On the contrary it far rather enriched my culture to learn about other people and not try to form a laager in a little place like Morgenzon where I need not see anyone else, hear anyone else or talk to anyone else.

Also interesting is the fact that in the Transvaal, Natal and Cape we have lived for years now in the same provinces and towns as Asians without any harm coming to our White culture. This evening I really believe that the Whites in the Free State are of the same calibre as us. For that reason I cannot see that any harm is going to come to them and I cannot see that any harm is going to come to their culture.

But what really sticks in my throat, is that the Whites who are shouting the loudest about Asians in the Free State, are in many cases those persons who, as hon members have already said, travel from places in the Free State to the Asian business areas in the Transvaal to do their shopping there. [Interjections.] On Saturday mornings hon members need only look at the registration numbers of motor vehicles in the Asian business districts of Klerksdorp, Standerton and Vereeniging. Do hon members know what? Some of those motor vehicles even have slogans which read: “Bly Blank, my volk, stem HNP”. [Interjections.]

Today let us ask CP members who live in the Transvaal and particularly in Johannesburg and Pretoria what this has done to them as Whites. Did their culture become weaker? Are they worse off materially? Has anything significant happened to them? Let us also ask them whether when they are on holiday in Durban, they only buy from Whites? Do they never go to the Oriental Plaza? [Interjections.]

Just listen to the ridiculous things the right-wing groups are saying. They allege: “The Free State is being thrown open. It is becoming the marketplace of the world.” The entire Free State is not even open to me as a White and it never has been because there are areas where I may not live even if I want to. The same applies to Coloureds. Consequently the Free State is not being thrown open. It is not becoming the marketplace of the world. Certain areas will be thrown open to Asians so that they can go and live there, in the same way that only certain areas were thrown open to Whites, Blacks and Coloureds.

Which areas? [Interjections.]

The HNP also says that certain businessmen are opposed to Asians in certain areas. Let us now reason out this statement of theirs. The question to which I should like a reply is why certain businessmen are opposed to it. Is it because they are afraid that the inhabitants of towns and areas in the Free State are going to find out that for many years they have been paying a little more than necessary for goods? I repeat that I am only talking about certain businessmen. I am not saying this applies to all of them. Hon members must please not give a twist to my words outside. I am saying “some of them”, because only certain businessmen are objecting to this. If this is not the reason, why are they then worried? If the service they are rendering and their prices are very competitive, there is nothing to fear from those people; or are they perhaps afraid of healthy competition?

Pamphlets of the HNP also announced that the Coloureds and the Blacks in the Free State were worried. The Coloureds and the Blacks in the Free State are apparently worried about the Asians who are going to be allowed to come and live there. Wherever facilities have been created for Asians, they were created without jeopardising any other group. Furthermore, the Coloureds and the Blacks as well as the Whites can after all, do everything which the Asians will be able to do in the Free State, provided it is not against the law. The Asians are after all not going to cause the Coloureds or the Blacks to be reduced to lower-class citizens, as regards rights; and this applies to the Whites too. Where has this ever happened in our country?

Let us not beat about the bush. It is important for us to say that the pronouncements by the right-wing hon members are nothing but unadulterated racist narrow-mindedness with regard to White superiority. They begrudge everyone else anything. They are so trapped in their racial cages that they cannot see any further than the bars of their prejudices.

I support this amending Bill wholeheartedly. I want to appeal to the departments which are going to be involved with this to hurry up and, along with the local authorities, make available the necessary residential areas and infrastructures for Asians, so that in future we will also have communities in the Free State in which all population groups individually can continue to exist in peace.

Mr Chairman, I listened to the hon member for Stilfontein this evening. It was brought home to me very clearly that one has lost one’s way somewhere in one’s life if one wants to hold one’s own people up to ridicule. [Interjections.] Every Afrikaner, especially a Dopper such as he, who makes fun of desecration of the Sabbath and of laws permitting such desecration is a disgrace in my eyes!

I did not ridicule it! [Interjections.]

I shall ask at each stage of my life that legislation against the desecration of the Sabbath be applied. [Interjections.] Nobody laughs at the Jew in Israel. Throughout the world everyone has lifelong respect for the Jew when he sees him maintaining his religion and tradition in his own country. [Interjections.]

Would that apply to me?

Yes, certainly. One would not find eggs and meat on the same table in Israel. I say to that hon member I shall apply it to him! When we come to power and are the legislators, I shall see that laws against desecration of the Sabbath are applied! [Interjections.] We may expect to differ on this in future. [Interjections.]

Let us examine what the hon member for Stilfontein said. He said he was unable to live at certain places in the Free State. The young lady De Savoye’s maiden name must have been Cunningham! [Interjections.] It is a fact that Asians were not permitted in the Free State for a very long time under old Free State laws.

So what?

The moment one has to denigrate one’s people as “basters”— this has a poor connotation in the Afrikaans language—or as people of dubious descent who have intermingled with another race under inferior conditions …

No one said they were inferior!

Wait a bit! Why is it regarded as a weakening or something disgraceful and ridiculous that the Snymans or the Treurnichts or whoever lived with Coloureds, Asians or Basters or that they had such predecessors as the hon member wanted to imply? [Interjections.] Is it not wonderful that these people. White people, who have made such progress in society, associated with those Coloureds and Indians who were supposedly regarded as a low and less privileged and as a poorer class? What are hon members doing exactly? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is an hon member permitted to dance while he is speaking? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte may proceed.

Sir, I accept that that hon member is also being hurt—the hon member for Randburg and I are of the same stuff—because it must hurt him bitterly to hear a man creating such a fuss under the NP banner about the Whites of this country about … [Interjections.]

Our fellow Afrikaners.

I do not want to call him a fellow Afrikaner! Please! Will hon members not try to prompt me to call him a fellow Afrikaner! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Stilfontein has fouled his own nest! He had to insult his descent to make out a case for this legislation to be in the Statute Book. I hope the hon member for Stilfontein will pardon me but I want to tell him that I come from a region where there was very little work and as a young man I worked on the mines. I saw many people without inner strength, who could not rise, who could not say “I am” become the handymen of other people who ridicule one’s own race in the council chambers of the world. [Interjections.]

I want to revert to one of the most important facets of this legislation, which is people’s right to a say. Let us examine it. If one gives a person something he did not have before, one is depriving someone else of a right. One therefore removes that right. In other words, Free State people could decide themselves to throw open that province. Free State people had a right to decision in terms of 1854 legislation so they could exercise that right by means of the 1854 Constitution which was very powerful—more powerful than the House of Assembly of that time. In those days one could change a constitution only after three separate parliamentary sessions—therefore over a period of three years. One then had to have a 75% majority annually before amending such an Act, not a two-thirds majority. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Winburg, who is so much under the influence of Winnie Mandela, must be quiet when I am talking.

I did not say a word.

That is just as well. I am warning the hon member in good time. [Interjections.]

Let us see what the Nationalists, the pious ones sitting in this House, were already saying round about April 1972. A Minister who sat here—the Minister of Manpower—played vociferously with the then member for Bezuidenhout, Japie Basson. Nevertheless he has now been nominated from PFP ranks by the NP as a representative of the NP on the President’s Council.

Japie is on his second time round.

Yes, he is on his second time round already.

*Let us examine what that hon Minister said. He ridiculed the United Party which wanted to bring six Coloureds into this Parliament. He made a mockery of them and asked where they wanted to sleep—in Acacia Park? He, the present Deputy Minister of Information and all the usual sniggerers made a fuss and a mockery of the Coloureds. They made a mockery of them with questions such as where they would go to school and what one would do with them. Hon members should just listen to what they said:

Then followed the questions we ask of the NP today just as they put them to the UP on where the Coloured MP’s children would attend school. The MP is admitted to Parliament but where are his children to attend school?

Yes, but …

Wait a bit! The hon member Dr Vilonel had a grandfather or some such person at the Vrouemonument. One should take a look what those people did in the Free State. One was a Vilonel. [Interjections.] One should take a look and I request that those portraits not be removed from the Free State before the people of South Africa have seen what they did and that their descendants are sitting in this House.

Were they the traitors?

They were the traitors!

That Vilonel who was a traitor and deserter was fortunately not my forefather!

The legislation to which I am referring indicates that one deprives one man of rights when one presents them to another. When one is dealing with people, it is a sore point because one can insult a person without intending to.

When one debates the question of population groups, it is very much more difficult, especially in a debate like this, to adopt a standpoint without hurting other people. It is the very last object of this party to hurt other people. I believe every individual has the right to adopt a certain standpoint. Because of this, for instance, I have a very much higher opinion, 100% higher, of the hon the Minister of the Budget and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates than of the hon member for Stilfontein. At least they stand up for their own people; they do not ridicule their own people; they have at least adopted a standpoint about their own people. [Interjections.]

I want to add they have the right to say that the State President said they were South African citizens and they have the right to fight for the same voice as any other member in this Parliament. In the same way I have the right to oppose them and say I shall not give it to them.

So do you differ with Dr Verwoerd?

Let me tell that hon member he is very much closer to the hon member for Houghton than to Dr Verwoerd. [Interjections.] The hon member had better take a seat next to her.

Yes. I mean, you cannot blame him, can you?

Yes, he is very much nearer to the hon member for Houghton. I mean, she was a bright little girl but a Prog. [Interjections.] That young man, however, must come to a decision. He must not sit in this House as a Nat while actually supporting the policy of the PFP. He must go and join the PFP and get it over with! [Interjections.] As a matter of fact, in this House there are more Progs in the NP than there are in the PFP itself. There are 33 hon members in the NP who should not be there; exactly 33. They should be in the PFP. They are afraid to fight an election, however, because they will lose their deposits.

*Oh, Sir, one tends to get excited about these matters. [Interjections.] Let us examine what is said in the old Constitution of the Orange Free State instead. Hon members must listen carefully. I quote:

[Interjections.] Three successive parliamentary sessions therefore had to be held before an amendment could be passed. [Interjections.]

Oh, that hon member over there, the hon member for Bethlehem, knows far more about carpets than about these laws. [Interjections.] I think he should confine himself to that.

Carpets?

Yes, carpets.

We then reach the way in which a President was sworn in the Orange Free State. A President of the Orange Free State, for example, did not swear, “Ek sweer ek staan by die land Suid-Afrika of by die Provinsie Oranje-Vrystaat”. No, he said—hon members should compare it with the Oath:

It reads “Dese wetten”, Sir. He therefore swore by the laws of the land. Nevertheless we have a State President today who swears allegiance to the country but who jettisons all its laws, history and traditions by abolishing certain laws. These hon members of the NP who hail from the Free State should read how President Hoffman of the Orange Free State and all his successors swore by the laws of the country. [Interjections.]

Did they not make any changes?

Obviously they swore by the laws!

Yes, but they also changed the laws. [Interjections.]

They swore by law and order!

Oh, Sir, this hon member has advanced to the post of Chairman of the Dried Peach Committee in Parliament. Now he wants to enlighten me on laws! [Interjections.] Would he please not do this. [Interjections.]

We therefore experience certain problems in this country—those of diversity. One is filled with impotence because of the division in our population at this time. The fact that rights have been given to Coloureds and Indians in this central Parliament and that they have been kept from Blacks has caused one of the greatest revolts in our country. Hon members laughed at us and called us racists when we told them there would be rebellion among Blacks. We told them there would be problems if they brought in Coloureds and Indians.

We said that!

I think the hon member for Pinetown had better wait a bit. I want to get back to him. [Interjections.] We warned the Government not to be overhasty in bringing Coloureds and Indians into Parliament because, if one could not also accommodate Blacks, one would create an uncontrollable situation of people in rebellion. What has happened? The Whites in our country are divided; the Coloureds are divided; the Indians are divided and the Blacks are “necklacing” one another. How did this arise? The greatest and solitary cause lies in changes to laws which traditionally separated people from one another.

Another very important matter is that when one brands one’s opposition with certain statements, one has to remember one is creating a problem for oneself. In this House the old UP—some hon members sitting over there belonged to the UP—said NP homelands were “nothing else than Bantustans”. What does the word “stan” mean? It is used in Russia in words like “Kurdistan”, “Turkmenistan”, and all the other “stans” one finds. It has the connotation of people who are bound under a central government which does not grant them any rights. Our homelands are associated in this way with the old Turkmenistans and other derogatory words which have destroyed them for good in the eyes of the world.

Pakistan.

Now the hon member for Pinetown comes and brands us as Nazis—he knows nothing about what Hitler did …

I know more than you do.

The hon member must please wait for a minute. He may have a beard, and he may sometimes have a funny look in his eyes, but I have experienced many things. I know what really went on in that war. It was one of the most horrible …

Did you fight?

When the hon member was still on his mother’s lap …

Did you fight them?

Yes! Yes!

Good.

This hon member talks about us as Nazis.

No!

Where does he get the audacity to call me a Nazi? Does he know about the horrors that happened in Nazi Germany?

I did not call you a Nazi. It is unparliamentary.

I want to tell the hon member that he will not do that outside Parliament as well. He would not have a beard after that.

You will not call me a communist …

I am not threatening you.

You are threatening me!

We should beware of attaching a tag to people and calling them names which are damaging in the end. The hon member for Fauresmith asked why the Transvaal had never been flooded with Indians. He should not say such things. Does he not know about the Gold Law—the British law, which provided that no Coloured, Indian or Black might reside in an area where the Gold Law applied? The Gold Law was humiliating. Shame! People in the Free State do not know much about these matters. They know there are places like Virginia in that area but not about a Gold Law. There were countrywide restrictions on Indians. There was a variety of laws before the Group Areas Act. This Government abolished all the other laws and it has now thrown open residential areas in Johannesburg in parts, but only among poor people.

They are the ones who cannot complain and take a case to court. The Government did this in places like Jeppe, Mayfair and others where the sociological problem is greater than ever. The NP continues to deny, however, that those of colour are permitted in White areas. Less privileged Whites therefore have to live in certain places under tragic circumstances.

Does the House know that there is a spot in Joubert Park where more than 200 Black mineworkers live in the basement of a building in the poorest conditions of hygiene imaginable? Is that what the Government wants?

As regards the relevant legislation, I think one should examine existing laws. I say group areas cannot be introduced in the Free State now because up to this point that province has not had group areas. In view of the pressure on the hon the Minister and other people, I do not believe group areas legislation will ever be applied in the Free State but the Government should just not reproach other people for that.

We have to be honest. If this Constitution had only been put to the people honestly, there would be less strife today. The legislation on Indians in the Free State was denied up to the last by-election; it was said to be merely a CP rumour. In addition, the abolition of certain provisions of the Immorality Act was also denied and called CP gossip. The same applies to the question of power-sharing. The CP was said to be a bunch of hyenas who liked telling lies. When the possibility of the abolition of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act arose, it was also said to be CP rumour and that the hon Minister would never permit it. Were they stories, however, or the truth? Has this ever been denied?

You are asleep! Long before the by-elections the NP congress said this would happen!

Just listen to that! See how angry the hon the Minister of Justice is becoming! Does he recall the day when it was said in the caucus that the NP would accept power-sharing and mixed government? Now there is a possibility of full power-sharing. Was the hon the Minister asleep that day or did he hear this? [Interjections.]

There is one important matter in this country: One should be honest with the people. I saw what happened in Iran. I was on holiday in Iran in 1974-75 and saw that those people had a grudge. It was not about improvements because there were enormous improvements in Iran but people were not informed and they did not have a say in the changes which the Shah brought about.

Consequently I say to the Government this evening: Not all it does is bad but its method stinks. The method it is applying stinks! It does not inform people where it is heading.

Mr Chairman, I did not intend to take part in this debate, but I think we must discuss this matter seriously. The hon member for Ladybrand is one of the hon members whom one can converse with properly as a fellow Afrikaner. On Monday night we listened to the hon leader of the NP in the Transvaal who said we Afrikaners must learn to respect one another. We must take the lead now, because there are other people who look up to us. Through the years we have built up the image of people who can lead one another, and if we cannot retain the respect of those people, there is no future for us as Afrikaners or as Whites in this country.

Do the hon member for Ladybrand and the hon the Minister who is responsible for this legislation, agree with the humiliating remarks the hon member for Stilfontein made about fellow Afrikaners today? Does the hon member for Johannesburg West agree with that?

It was not humiliating. My name was mentioned as well. [Interjections.]

The whole tenor of the speech made by the hon member for Stilfontein was an effort to humiliate his fellow Afrikaners completely. [Interjections.]

Rubbish!

If that was not his intention, we expect the hon Whip, the hon member for Johannesburg West, and the hon leader of the NP in the Transvaal, to eliminate those aspersions which were cast in the House tonight. As we are sitting here, we feel humiliated. [Interjections.] It was the hon member’s intention to humiliate us.

Why did he say that?

If that is not the case, why did he act towards the hon member for Sasolburg in that way? He asked which people would be the first the hon member would send back to India. [Interjections.] The hon member is laughing!

I was implicated myself, if that is how you want to regard it.

If the hon member laughs about it, he must know he will get his just deserts. [Interjections.]

It is humiliating only if one regards it as such! [Interjections.]

Hon members of the NP complain about the conduct of the AWB, yet that scurrilous hon member behaves as he has here tonight! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir, but I hope hon members are taking cognisance of our resentment, displeasure and abhorrence with regard to the hon member’s conduct and the manner and spirit in which he made his speech. We reject him! We want to have nothing to do with him! Not one of us wants to acknowledge him as an hon colleague.

We reject him as an Afrikaner!

Like the hon member for Pietersburg, I do not want to call him a fellow Afrikaner either.

The hon leader of the NP in the Transvaal has entered the House. We expect him to repudiate the hon member for Stilfontein if he wants us to co-operate with him, his party, or anyone who respects him. [Interjections.] We ask him to do that!

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member? I think he regards this matter in a much too serious light. Did he notice that the hon member for Lichtenburg took it in a very good and light-hearted spirit when the hon member for Stilfontein referred to the surname Hartzenberg? He laughed about it! [Interjections.]

The position is this: In circumstances such as these, certain people will not necessarily show their deepest feelings. Perhaps I wear my heart on my sleeve to a greater extent than other hon members do, but I know what the feeling on this side of the House is. The hon member for Johannesburg West can plead, scream and carry on as much as he likes, but we were humiliated by the hon member for Stilfontein, and as long as he remains unrepudiated, we shall keep on repudiating the NP. Hon members of the NP must not say the AWB are barbarians. They must not say the AWB cannot behave themselves, because there are hon members in Parliament who cannot behave themselves either, who are not civilised or sophisticated, and we want nothing to do with them. [Interjections.]

Cowboys don’t cry!

You do not mind humiliating people of colour!

You are more worried about the Coloureds than about your own people!

The NP has dragged the AWB into this debate. The AWB’s standpoint is that the Government’s mandate expired on 30 April. They say the Government has had its chance. Although the Government has a statutory, artificial mandate in terms of Act 110 of 1983, it has no legal, legitimate mandate to govern this country after 30 April. They do not have a moral mandate!

That is why we cannot blame any fellow White or fellow Afrikaner if he is up in arms against the Government. [Interjections.] I am not talking about rebellion or revolution, but one cannot blame them if they are up in arms because the Government does not want to hold an election. [Interjections.] Morally speaking, the Government has had its day. [Interjections.] It is an artificial statutory extension of the life of this Parliament. [Interjections.]

Underhand dealing!

Yes, that is exactly what it is.

What about the hon member’s mandate from the voters? I want to ask the hon member whether that same argument does not apply to him, a man who was elected under a different banner from the one under which he is sitting here now.

Hold an election! [Interjections.]

I should like to reply to the hon the Minister on that. He knows as well as I do on what basis we fought the 1981 election. He knows what the NP’s manifest was. He knows it was separate development and the rejection of power-sharing. He knows what the main issue was. What about the NP’s credibility? If the NP really wants to be moral and credible, they must tell the people, as Dr de Klerk says, that apartheid did not work; it failed. We are going back to the voters to ask them for a new mandate. Otherwise the NP must ask the PFP to assume the reins of government, since the NP is moving closer and closer to the PFP policy.

We are ready for an election!

We are ready!

This is what happens when one is involved in a process of integration, and sacrifices those things which were always dear to one. That is when one— the hon member for Stilfontein did so tonight—no longer cares how one is humiliating one’s fellow Afrikaners—those people with whom one fought the good fight from a very tender age.

Tonight you told a fellow Afrikaner tonight that he was a rogue.

You, F W, are pally-pally with the Indians!

I am not ashamed of that, because he gave me reason to do so. The humiliating way in which he did so and the language he used, were enough provocation for me. The hon the Minister is sitting next to him. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning makes private conversations known here in public. That is the morality …

Like the Whips’ little notes.

That is his morality, and I challenge the hon the Minister to request a Select Committee once again, while some of his colleagues are sick in bed and have doctors’ certificates. Let him request a select committee about the fact that I am saying here tonight that he makes private conversations known in public, in this House. [Interjections.] That is a truth, and a fact, and he cannot deny it. Can he? Can that hon Minister deny it? I ask him whether he can deny it. [Interjections.]

No, he is merely making strange noises.

He cannot, because he knows it is true. That is the morality of a man who is leading South Africa to a new dispensation. [Interjections.]

Now we know that at this stage, the Indians, under the leadership of Mr Abraham Mayet, are trying to persuade their followers to disregard the Group Areas Act and not to honour it, just like the man who went to live in Rissik two years ago. It took two years to get that man out of a White group area such as Rissik. Now we read in The Argus that houses in Constantia are being sold to Coloureds and Indians. It is easier for them to get permits to live in those parts of Cape Town than it is to get a bond. In this way the Group Areas Act is being violated more and more, slowly but surely.

That report is not correct.

I am pleased to hear it. I would be pleased if there was an official repudiation of that report.

[Inaudible.]

What about Hill-brow? Is the position in Hillbrow the same? Are steps going to be taken to remove those who are living in Hillbrow illegally and in contravention of the Group Areas Act?

No, that is the Transvaal, after all!

I want to conclude with this thought. As we progress in politics, and as the NP progresses on its fatal course of integration, the credibility of the NP is being destroyed. Since the first referendum was announced in 1983—later it was said it would not be held, and then it was said it would be held—and one concession after another was made on the course of integration in the respective aspects of the Government policy with regard to power-sharing, by repealing section 16 of the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, for example, after they had constantly denied that those Acts would be removed from the Statute Book …

Mr Chairman, will the hon member just tell the House whether he agrees with the following statement that appeared in Die Afrikaner on 1 November 1982? I quote it as follows:

Does the hon member agree with this, Mr Chairman?

Once again it is “what does Jaap say”, is it not?

Mr Chairman, let me make this clear now. That is a matter we are settling with the HNP. [Interjections.] Let me merely say …

Apologise for being so liberal!

No, Mr Chairman, we rejected power-sharing with the hon the Leader of the NP in Transvaal—this very same hon Minister of National Education. We distributed those pamphlets of his from house to house ourselves—pamphlets which he himself drew up.

I have them here before me!

Yes, Gossip sheet No 5 and Gossip sheet No 6, Sir. We believed that with him. With our whole being we believed that power-sharing was evil. He helped us to take the lead, with Mr John Vorster. We believed the National Party would never ever grant citizenship to everyone in a unitary system. We believed unconditionally that the National Party would never accept power-sharing with Coloureds and Indians—and later with Blacks too. We hoped and believed and trusted. We were loyal to the leadership of the National Party throughout. I want to make that very clear to the hon member for Bloemfontein East. We firmly believed that power-sharing would be rejected and that the National Party was still on the course of separate development; of own, separate freedoms.

Louis van der Watt proclaimed that himself!

I was bom and brought up in the National Party. No one can tell me that I renounced the policy in which I had believed with everything I was capable of!

You accepted co-responsibility with us! [Interjections.]

We often spoke about that, yes. In addition we often made it clear that co-responsibility, such as that we share with Mozambique in terms of an agreement we concluded with them, was quite acceptable. That did not amount to power-sharing in any way. The same applies in the case of treaties as were concluded with Lesotho. This was done without prejudice to our own sovereignty, however, and without prejudice to our own right of self-determination. This was the kind of language we used.

FW himself said co-responsibility was not power-sharing!

The hon member for Bloemfontein East knows we believed in all these things, Sir. We believed in them. With everything we were capable of and could control, we fought for these things.

Even he fought for them!

Even the hon member for Bloemfontein East fought for them, Sir.

What did he say at Maselspoort?

Why did he also become one of them?

Once upon a time he was on our side too!

Why did he take part in this tragic ballad, which Dr Van Zyl Slabbert spoke about as well? Why did he take part in this tragic ballad of government employees, who stay at the side of the State President simply for the sake of their careers and not for the sake of their convictions? We know how they sit there, Sir. There are a few of them who are really on the side of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and other liberals, such as Dr Dennis Worrall. There are a few of them who follow those liberals. We know what goes on in their hearts, however. They do not proclaim this cause which they say they believe in. They do not believe in it as we believe in our cause. At the same time I do not want to say we are emotional, Sir. We are rational. We believe rationally in the policy of separate development, which was founded in South Africa over a period of more than 300 years, and which succeeded. It succeeded until 1979. It was succeeding until 1979. Then those hon members on the opposite side became weak in the knees, however.

It succeeded until P W Botha and Chris Heunis took over!

In the process their knees became weaker and weaker. What is happening at the moment, Mr Chairman? There is the hon the Minister of Law and Order. He wants to submit legislation, which all of us want passed by this House before 20 June this year. Now people are performing a series of egg-dances, however, they are parrying and floundering, pleading and manoeuvering to get the co-operation of the other two Houses—all this to get imperative legislation passed by this Parliament—extremely necessary legislation, Sir! This is the situation they are experiencing at the moment. An imperative measure to try to maintain and ensure the order and justice in this country, is coming to grief for the sake of kowtowing to other people in this Parliament!

It is too far for them to go and talk behind the Iron Curtain!

That is why we say, Sir, the National Party has no credibility. The beautiful language used by the leader of the NP in the Transvaal on Monday night moved us too. I was moved by the words of the hon the Minister of National Education. [Interjections.] I hope he meant what he said. If he was really honest in meaning what he said, I expect him to repudiate that hon member tonight. Then we can conduct politics in this country again. Then we can still hope to find a solution to the immensely complex problems of South Africa together. If people are going to behave themselves like this backbencher behaved himself tonight, however, the chances that we shall ever see eye to eye again are absolutely nil. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I did not have a turn to speak in this debate either but, like the hon member for Brakpan, I was more or less compelled to participate.

I should like to react to a few of the remarks just made by the hon member for Brakpan and try to place them in context. I think he and other hon members on that side of the House were unnecessarily sensitive about a specific matter broached here this evening. [Interjections.] I first want to say I am in 100% agreement with the hon member for Brakpan in his saying that the hon the Minister of National Education made a valid and urgent appeal in his speech here the other evening that …

That speech has been shattered!

But it is absolute nonsense to make such a statement.

Until that man is repudiated, it is shattered! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Brakpan has already made that point. The hon member for Johannesburg West may proceed.

Let us judge the hon member for Stilfontein’s speech. What I understood the hon member for Stilfontein to say this evening was that probably not one of us was in a position to lay claim to full and absolute racial purity just as not one of us could claim not to be a sinner or a sinful being. [Interjections.] The point I am therefore making … [Interjections.] I am not attempting to put forward theological arguments. The hon member for Waterberg need not become concerned. I shall not attempt to venture into that sphere. [Interjections.] I am not a theologian. The fact of the matter is this: As regards those hon members of the CP, this afternoon and this evening one speaker after the other rose and presumed, covertly or openly, to accuse us on this side of the House of betraying and diminishing the Afrikaner people. They arrogated the right to themselves to level that accusation at us. I therefore think we have the right to ask in self-defence: Who are they to level that kind of accusation at us? Surely we are all in the same boat regarding this matter. [Interjections.] We are not attempting to favour ourselves exclusively by saying “only we are Afrikaners”. They have just as little right, however, to say that only they are Afrikaners. Both they and we are of the same creation and that is what the hon member for Stilfontein implied. [Interjections.]

What appears strange to me in the reaction of the hon members is that the hon member for Stilfontein did not besmirch a single individual this evening. He did not vilify a single individual in this House. [Interjections.] He mentioned a number of surnames and he placed that of Meyer second on the list. He mentioned Jacobs and Coetzee and a number of other names. He also mentioned certain surnames of hon members sitting on that side of the House. [Interjections.] Nevertheless this did not cause me to feel that I had suddenly been assailed.

How does this concern the legislation?

The hon member responded in his speech to speeches in which the same comments were made repeatedly by hon members of that side of the House. [Interjections.] The hon member for Koedoespoort, the hon member for Kuruman and the whole lot used the same tone and emphasised the same matters in order to suggest that we on this side of the House were not worthy of being Afrikaners. I think the hon member for Stilfontein hit the spot in putting the point that, if those hon members alleged that we were not Afrikaners, they did not have the right to demand that for themselves or lay claim to it. I think it unnecessary for us to conduct this debate and to hurl the type of insults backwards and forwards as hon members on that side have been doing. It is absolutely unnecessary! At the same time I wish to say I think it was petty of them to react to the hon member for Stilfontein’s speech as they actually did. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Lichtenburg displayed exactly the reaction one could have expected in the circumstances by turning it into a joke! He took it very jocularly when the hon member for Stilfontein referred to the surname Hartzenberg. He put up his hand and said: “Here I am!” I think the hon member for Lichtenburg exhibited a great-hearted attitude.

Do not attempt to condone that disgraceful speech!

Why do other hon members of the CP have to make such a fuss about it now?

As regards the allegation about the hon member for Sasolburg’s letter, I should like to tell the hon member for Kuruman, as the Chief Whip of the CP, and because it is obviously something about which he feels greatly aggrieved, that he can take my word for it …

Remember we also have many letters written by you!

I am not talking to the hon member for Rissik now; I am talking to the hon member for Kuruman. I am trying to explain something to the hon member for Kuruman about which he obviously feels unhappy. [Interjections.]

On the previous occasion when this debate took place, by coincidence I was the Whip controlling the speech roster. The hon member for Sasolburg wrote me a letter in the words quoted by the hon member for Stilfontein …

So you gave it to the hon member for Stilfontein!

No!

Oh? How did he get hold of it then? [Interjections.]

I advise the hon member for Kuruman to ask the hon member for Sasolburg how the hon member for Stilfontein got hold of it. [Interjections.] By chance I can prove it to the hon member for Kuruman that that specific letter is in my drawer here. The only other hon member in this House who was aware that I had received that letter from the hon member, except for himself, was the hon Chief Whip of the NP as he was next to me on the seat at that stage. I wrote back to the hon member for Sasolburg after receiving that letter and told him no such debate was taking place in the House and I did not know what he was talking about. He then came storming across to me, sat down next to me and asked me why I was suddenly being so petty. He said he had written the word “Koelie” in inverted commas.

The hon member for Stilfontein did not say that.

Louis Stofberg probably told everybody about it.

The fact is I did not reveal it to anyone else.

Mr Chairman, is the hon member prepared to reply to a question?

I have no time, Mr Chairman.

The hon member for Sasolburg had better take his medicine and put his bungling right.

There is no medicine for me to take.

I want to tell the hon member for Kuruman that in this regard I maintained the ethical code which exists among Whips. The hon member for Sasolburg is not even a Whip in any case but I nevertheless maintained the code applying to Whips in this regard. The letter I received …

What about the code among hon members?

You showed it to all the other Whips.

Mr Chairman, the hon member must not … I did not show that letter to anyone but my hon Chief Whip. [Interjections.] Those hon members can question all the Whips on this side of the House about it. Not one of them was even aware of the existence of such a letter. They took note of it for the first time this evening.

You showed it to all the Whips!

Hon members had better ask the hon member for Sasolburg how he went and announced to that side of the House … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Kuruman must note that there is a correct procedure for putting a question. The hon member for Johannesburg West may proceed.

After the letter was made public this evening, I asked the hon member for Stilfontein where he had come by those allegations. His reply was that he had heard them from the hon member for Sasolburg. [Interjections.] Yes, that is their source. [Interjections.] The hon member for Kuruman should therefore not make allegations before he has established the facts. He should not make allegations and statements about agreements which have been shattered and heaven knows what else before he has established the facts.

It is important that we accept one another’s word. [Interjections.]

We do not feel like discussing this with you. [Interjections.]

I do not think it necessary for the hon member for Kuruman to take this point any further. I think he is emotionally excited at this stage. We can continue the discussion calmly tomorrow.

I do not want to talk to you!