Mr. Speaker, I move—

The purpose of the Bill now before this House is to request Parliament to make provision for the financing of Government expenditure as from 1 April 1983 until such time as the main Appropriation Bill for 1983-’84 is promulgated. This Bill usually becomes law only after the end of a session, that is, towards the end of June or early in July 1983. In the meantime, an amount of R5 600 million is required to cover Government expenditure for this period.

As I have repeatedly warned in the past, this partial provision, owing to fluctuation in the cash flow pattern, cannot by comparison with the previous year or by extrapolation over the remainder of the coming financial year give any kind of indication of the planned expenditure level during the coming financial year. The amount which is being requested this year is approximately 14% more than the R4 900 million which was included in the Part Appropriation Act, 1982. I trust that hon. members will not commit the analytical error of drawing all kinds of inferences as to the nature of the main Budget from this figure.

I do not in any way wish to anticipate the main Budget, but by now it will be clear to hon. members that we have had a difficult year and that another difficult financial year awaits us. To prevent unnecessary speculation I want to make it clear at once that we shall continue with our policy of financial discipline this year. This policy has served us well in the past and, as I shall indicate, we are still reaping the benefits of it.

As usual I shall deal with the economic situation and prospects in detail in my main Budget next month. In the meantime I deem it desirable on this occasion to sketch the present picture for hon. members in brief outline and indicate why certain policy steps were recently taken. I begin with a sketch of the economic milieu.

The public will not benefit from that.

Well, you may say that but they should benefit from that. The net cost to the Exchequer will amount to about R12 million for this financial year and about R150 million for a full fiscal year. As far as I am concerned, I certainly rely on the importing community to pass on this reduction in effective cost to the consumer to the maximum extent possible.

Mr. Speaker, it would be appropriate to deal with the two matters to which the hon. the Minister referred right at the end of his speech and to comment on them. In the first place I must express my disappointment that all that has happened today is the 2,5% reduction in the import surcharge. The hon. the Minister knows full well that even though there has again been an increase in the value of the rand, in fact the value of the rand has gone down over a period of time, that this has had an effect of increasing the price of imported goods and that this, therefore, has had an effect on the consumer and has had an inflationary effect as far as South Africa is concerned. One would have hoped that something would be done in order to help in the fight against inflation and that the import levy would have been abolished in its totality. If one looks at the situation that the cost to the Exchequer is going to be about R12 million on the basis of a 2,5% reduction for the remainder of this period, then the total reduction would have been no more than another R24 million. The hon. the Minister well knows that from the money that he has raised by means of stock issues, and if he bears in mind the money that he has put in the Stabilization Fund, he was well able to afford this as well as other concessions that we asked for.

Then the second one, which constitutes an even greater degree of disappointment, is that the hon. the Minister has no difficulty in increasing the general sales tax but has a great reluctance in reducing it at any time. Again, if one looks at the financial situation and at the accounts of the Exchequer, there is no doubt that the circumstances that prompted him to increase the general sales tax at the time to 6% from 5% do not apply today, and that from an Exchequer’s point of view he is in a much better position than he was when he increased the general sales tax and that he could well afford in the fight against inflation to reduce the general sales tax to the level before the increase to 6%.

Let me say immediately that we express a grave degree of dissatisfaction and grave disappointment at the hon. the Minister’s unwillingness to take concrete steps to fight inflation in South Africa. We find that to be a most remarkable situation coming from this hon. Minister. The fight against inflation is in fact one of the major things about which we should concern ourselves. The Government continues to make noises about the fight against inflation and keeps talking about it having to be dealt with, but we see very little that is actually being done with regard to the fight against inflation, except perhaps the question of the control of the money supply. Whereas the control of the money supply is one of the weapons to be used in the fight against inflation, it is not the only weapon to be used in this regard. It is difficult to understand why, when everybody concerned with the financial policy in South Africa correctly draws attention to the problems of inflation, Government administered prices are, on top of the other things, being increased. The latest example is the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. At a time when we should be combating inflation and making things easier for the ordinary members of the public of South Africa, he adds to inflation in South Africa. It is not only I who say that. Let me read what the Chamber of Industry says about the situation—

I wonder whether he consulted the hon. the Minister of Finance because he obviously does not know anything about fighting inflation. I quote further—

It is quite clear, Sir, that enough is not being done in regard to inflation in South Africa and that there are certain colleagues of the hon. the Minister of Finance who, as much as he may try to control the money supply, are sabotaging his efforts at every turn and are in fact destroying any effort really to fight inflation in South Africa. That hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications would be called to account when he presents his budget. He is a major contributor to inflation in South Africa, the same man who, when he occupied another portfolio, showed a callous disregard for the pensioner and the deprived person in South Africa. Now he is showing a callous disregard for the fight against inflation in South Africa.

Sir, regretfully one has to deal with other things. When one talks about inflation the consumer protection legislation for which many of us in this House have had great hopes, does not appear to be working adequately. The hon. the Minister of Industry, Commerce and Tourism is not the Minister of Consumer Affairs. He does not look after the consumer. It is time that we had a Minister of Consumer Affairs in South Africa, someone who will be concerned about consumer affairs. The reality is that price fixing remains in South Africa. Worthless guarantees are given which limit the common law rights of individuals in respect of defective goods that are being sold by some unscrupulous traders. Furthermore there are monopolistic conditions that continue in some areas and the so-called free market does not operate with the result that in many instances true competitive conditions do not exist in South Africa. The concept that supply and demand determines prices has been lost under this Government because under this Government whether there is a shortage or a surplus prices go up. They have introduced new economic laws into South Africa. To the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism I want to say that it is time that he saw to it that the legislation on the Statute Book to protect the consumer is properly implemented and that where that legislation does not have proper teeth, to see to it that it is given proper teeth and that the exploitation of consumers which is continuing in South Africa, with all its social and political implications, has got to be put an end to. It cannot be allowed to continue.

If in fact we are going to combat inflation we have to deal not only with money supply but also with administered prices, with consumer exploitation and with the whole cost structure in the economy. We cannot allow a situation to continue in regard to inflation as it is continuing at the moment.

The hon. the Minister of Finance has quoted statistics in regard to how well-off we were in relation to certain other countries. It is noteworthy, however, that he did not quote one statistic comparing us with the industrialized countries of the West.

I said we were twice as high.

That is right; we are very high. But the hon. the Minister did not quote any statistics in this regard. The truth is that if we do compare ourselves with our trading partners we are badly off in so far as inflation is concerned. If we want to compare ourselves with the Third World or with South America that is another story. But in regard to our trading partners, with great respect, Sir, we do not come out so well. I want to touch on one or two other things the hon. the Minister dealt with. Firstly, he dealt with the question relating to fringe benefits. Sir, I have tried to exact from the hon. the Minister at least this undertaking, that when the legislation becomes available—and I know it is not his fault that it is not available—that adequate opportunity is given to interested parties to comment on it before it is implemented.

I said that all along.

If the hon. the Minister gives that undertaking, I am quite happy. That is all that I ask from him. If I achieve nothing else today, I have achieved that little bit.

I shall do that.

Thank you, Sir. [Interjections.] I do win sometimes. Although I do not always win, I am still grateful for small mercies. [Interjections.]

Another matter I should like to deal with now is the question of priorities. I would welcome the approach that is being adopted in regard to determining the priorities in respect of capital expenditure. I want to tell the hon. the Minister, however, that priorities that have to be determined in South Africa in regard to economic matters do not only relate to capital expenditure; they also relate to other expenditure.

But I have already said so.

Yes, but that is vital. I want to lodge a plea with this hon. Minister today, and also with the hon. the Minister of Law and Order, because I believe that he should know that many of us are concerned about the incidence of crime in this country. We regard the combating of crime as a major priority which needs attention and in respect of which money needs to be spent. In the kind of situation in which we live a sign of instability in a country is indeed an increase in crime. There is no doubt that in the urban areas of South Africa there is a growing concern about crime, and also a concern about the insecurity which this causes in the mind of the individual.

Let us look at some of the official statistics. On the figures quoted in the last report burglary is on the increase, from 120 194 in 1981 to 139 273 in 1982.

Almost 100%!

Car theft and theft from cars have become one of the major growth industries in South Africa. One can talk to almost anyone anywhere and one will find proof that there is no motor car that is safe in South Africa; there is no motor car that one can park anywhere in South Africa and be sure that it will not disappear or that something will not be stolen from it. Particularly if one goes into some of the urban areas that we in the PFP represent one finds that this kind of theft has reached epidemic proportions.

[Inaudible.]

What is the problem of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs? [Interjections.]

I am just saying that I will bring your motor car back tomorrow. [Interjections.]

That hon. Deputy Minister is no problem. I thought somebody was stealing him, although no one would complain about that. [Interjections.]

Elderly people in particular fear to walk in the streets. Even during the day time they are afraid to walk around and to enter the elevators in the blocks of flats in which they live, let alone walk out at night. The plea I want to lodge when it comes to priorities is that we need more policemen to patrol on foot; we need more mobile patrols in South Africa. [Interjections.] Let me tell you something else. Sir. We need to look at ways and means … [Interjections.]

Order!

I do not know what is going on, Sir. It seems to me there is some very anti-police lobby amongst some hon. members sitting to the left of me. I really do not know what is going on. [Interjections.] I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister of Law and Order to look at ways and means of releasing more of our policemen from administrative duties in order to enable them to carry out more crime prevention activities and more detection activities.

We also need to speed up some of the court proceedings. We need to use our manpower more effectively. I can say without any doubt that if one has a shortage of men there is one way of getting them. That is by making it economically more attractive for them to join the Police Force, and to remain in the Police Force.

Hear, hear!

The high volume of people who purchase their discharge from the Police Force is not acceptable to us because there must be a reason for it. We believe the hon. the Minister of Finance has to make the money available to the hon. the Minister of Law and Order. [Interjections.] We believe that the protection against crime is a priority and we believe too that this society in South Africa is prepared to pay for it, and is prepared to pay in order to make sure that it is protected against crime.

I want, if I may, to touch on a matter which both the hon. the Minister, and the hon. the Prime Minister in his speech during the no-confidence debate, indicated as being important. Apparently, in absolute terms, the degree of unemployment in South Africa was said not to be so high. I want to take issue with those hon. Ministers on this point. South Africa has a very high population growth. As we have indicated, we estimate that there will be some 50 million people in South Africa by the year 2000 and the labour force is increasing at the rate of about 2½%. This means that almost 300 000 new hands come on to the market to look for work every year. The demographic picture also shows an ageing White population and a growth in the number of young, unemployed Blacks. It also shows an inevitable increase in urbanization with an estimate of between 20 million and 25 million Black people being in the urban areas by the year 2000. In addition to the long-term structural unemployment problem there are of course the cyclical problems that exist. In the present state of our economy, despite both the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Finance saying that our unemployment figures compare favourably with world figures, in reality the situation in South Africa is of such a nature as to give cause for concern. It should be a cause for concern to both the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Finance.

Let me give a few statistics in regard to the current situation. The number of registered unemployed persons increased from March 1982—that is, registered White, Coloured and Indian unemployed—from 17 875 to 24 457 as at 30 September; that is, within a period of six months. Those are the latest statistics available.

What percentage is that of the total labour force?

However, there was a further increase from September to October to 27 407. Therefore this increasing trend is a very real one. These figures are obviously not correct in respect of the actual number of unemployed persons because in the same group of statistics available from Government sources it was stated that there were 43 000 Coloured people unemployed as at March 1982. Here we have 43 000 Coloured people unemployed according to one set of Government statistics as at March 1982 while, as at the same date, the total number of White, Coloured and Indian unemployed amounted to only 70 875. Obviously, the unemployment figures are therefore very much higher.

As far as Black unemployment figures are concerned, the latest month for which these statistics are available is only April of last year. That is how out of date these statistics are. These figures show that there were 406 000 unemployed as at April last year. However, everybody knows that that is not the correct figure. The academics have shown beyond doubt that the true figure is vastly larger than that.

There is a further trend which I think also shows what is happening in regard to unemployment in South Africa. In this connection, I am referring to official statistics only. In March 1982 4 975 000 people of all races were actually in employment in South Africa. However, by September, six months later, this figure had decreased to 4 904 000; in other words, six months later there were 53 000 more people unemployed. This does not take into account either the population increase in respect of entry to the labour market at that particular time. The important thing is that in South Africa we have to do everything in our power to create jobs if we wish to have stability. If we are going to create jobs then we obviously have to have growth. It is said that the politicians want growth but the economists want to apply discipline so that one is dealing with other problems. One can have a situation of high unemployment in countries where one gives social benefits to the unemployed, but one cannot have it in a country where one does not have an equivalent attractive system. Unfortunately we are not in a favourable financial position and we do not yet have such a system in South Africa.

You are not asking for a welfare State?

I make no secret of the fact that I plead for unemployment benefits for people of all races. I make no secret of it and I am not ashamed of it.

But you are called an advocate of a welfare State.

I am called all sorts of names in this place, so being called an advocate of a welfare State is really not the worst one by far.

The reality is that what we need in South Africa and what we plead for is encouragement of labour-intensive activities. We have asked for it, we have asked for incentives not only for decentralized industries, but we have asked it too for those who employ extra labour, particularly those who employ the young. It has been done in other countries that one gives incentives to those who employ the unemployed young. It is being done in Belguim, Sweden, France and other countries where there are benefits given to employers who engage and train additional young unemployed. The young unemployed are in fact the danger to the stability of any country, and if one does not deal with this problem, then one will be neglecting one of the major things that have to be dealt with in South Africa to ensure stability.

We talk a lot about education. The hon. the Minister spoke about the De Lange Report and the other day at a meeting he also said that free education is about to come to an end for very many people in South Africa. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that there is nothing more dangerous than educating and training a man and then not to be in a position to give him a job, because then one is creating frustration and problems. I want to quote to the hon. the Minister a passage from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—

It may be an idealistic statement, but I believe that we should aim at it, and I make a particular appeal today that we should seek to help the young unemployed in South Africa.

I want to deal within a matter of just two minutes with the staff position in the Public Service. I have relatively little time, but what I should like to draw attention to is that even in the hon. the Minister’s own departments there is a problem. We can look at some of the latest reports that have come out, and the most recent one is from the Registrar of Insurance in which he writes on page 4—

I can tell him the same story about the whole Public Service, but I ask him what he is doing about this in his own department. What is he doing to bring the management of the Public Service back into reality? It is not enough to say that because we are now in a recessionary sort of situation we can recruit people. Those people will want to go away again when things boom up, and we have to reach a situation in South Africa where we can actually keep the people in the Public Service and maintain an effective Public Service as an effective infrastructure.

I wanted to deal with the question of the relaxation of exchange control in respect of non-residents. I will perhaps take the opportunity of doing that at a later date, or if I get a brief moment later on. There is, however, another matter which concerns me and to which I want to devote a little time now.

One of the problems that has arisen during the current debate in this House has been that people have used words which they think are heard only in this House and do not reach the eyes and ears of other people. [Interjections.] I am referring, in particular, to recent debates between the CP and the NP. In those debates there has been language used which has hurt the members of other race groups and has harmed the image of those of us assembled here in Parliament, as well as harming the country internally and abroad. [Interjections.] In seeking to woo members whom they believe to be reactionary White voters, they forget that Coloured, Indian and Black South Africans are also listening to their words. I just want to give one example. When one looks at the endeavours of the Coloured Labour Party to try to persuade Coloured people to support its decision to participate in a system to negotiate a better future for the Coloured people—as they see it—one asks whether the words used by members of the CP in this House will not be used, by those who have no desire whatsoever to work within the system, to encourage other people to stay out of any system, whatever it may be. [Interjections.] Is that what the CP really wants? Do those hon. members really want the Coloured people, the Indians and the Black people to work outside the existing system in South Africa? Or do they want them to work inside the system, seeking to reform the system and persuade people to have changes made? [Interjections.] I feel that the time has come to draw some battle lines between the parties in this House. Political catch-phrases are all very well, but nobody who is really remotely objective or honest will not accept that there are fundamental differences between the NP and the PFP on the one hand, and even more so between this party and the CP.

That is right.

To talk of the Nats being Progs or PFP men is nonsense, and I say this with great respect, because merely because these people on my left here—I want to make this clear—who are in fact politically on my right, oppose the Nationalists, does not mean that I want to get into bed with them. [Interjections.] On the contrary. I will have nothing to do with them. [Interjections.] I may oppose the political philosophies of the NP, but I regard the philosophies of the gentlemen in the CP as being far more dangerous than those of the NP. There can never be—this I want to make clear—any joint effort on the part of the CP and the PFP, merely because we jointly oppose the Nats. That is out! The ideological gulf is far too wide to possibly bridge. If we fight the Nats, we fight on our own. Those hon. members must do their own thing. We want nothing to do with them. [Interjections.] Despite the difference between the NP and the PFP—as I see it—at least the NP sees that there is a problem. We differ, however, in regard to the solution of that problem. [Interjections.] The CP, on the other hand, is unwilling or unable even to recognize that there is a problem. They seem unable to understand that it is impossible to maintain the status quo.

That is rapprochement (“toenadering”).

The members of the CP are yesterday’s men. They are not today’s men. They cling nostalgically to the past, which is never going to come again. [Interjections.] In doing so, they are jeopardizing the peaceful future of all South Africa. They are a danger to the peaceful future of South Africa. [Interjections.] This Parliament should not indulge in debate with yesterday’s men. One should not have to argue about whether there should be reform or no reform at all. That, in truth, is the wrong debate. The debate should be about the nature of reform and should have, as its central theme, the achievement of consensus with those who are outside Parliament as well. The problem is that the forces against reform come both from the extreme right and from the extreme left, the right because it wants no change and the extreme left because it wants change at an unacceptable speed in an unacceptable form to an unacceptable objective. [Interjections.]

With great respect, Sir, one of the things that worries us is that the debate in this House for the rest of the session is going to be under the shadow of the by-elections in Soutpansberg and Waterberg. I do not believe that that is going to help the cause of reform. On the contrary, I believe the hon. the Minister of Manpower should be attending to the delicate labour matters which require attention in South Africa instead of stomping around the Soutpansberg. We believe that this challenge made on the spur of the moment is not in the interests of South Africa. We will get involved in the elections, we will get involved in Waterkloof, make no mistake, but the reality is that South Africa needs reform, not by-elections. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the hon. member did not move an amendment on behalf of his party.

It is still coming.

I would say it is a little late.

I want to start by thanking my predecessor, who is now the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, and paying tribute to him for the excellent service he rendered as our spokesman on financial matters.

The hon. member for Yeoville called for a 1% decrease in the GST. It sounds very nice and very popular and is of course meant to win votes from the voters, particularly from the voters in Yeoville, but what does the 1% mean in terms of rands and cents? GST levied at 4% during the year ending 31 March 1981 totalled more than R2 000 million in round figures. In other words, 1% of the GST amounts to more than R500 million. That is quite a useful sum of money. To advocate a decrease of R500 million without indicating how this loss in income should or could be recovered is one of the most irresponsible requests an hon. member can ever make. If this R500 million has to be recovered by means of higher income tax, it would mean a 6% increase in income tax. The PFP must therefor decide and tell us what they prefer, a 1% decrease in the GST or 6% increase in income tax.

During the course of my speech I shall refer to certain other matters—and in particular inflation—that the hon. member raised. The 1982-’83 budget was a strong and conservative budget with the following two important economic policy priorities, in the first place consolidation of the domestic economy and, in the second place, the adjustment of the balance of payments. It is also quite clear that during the past year good progress was made with the essential adjustment process in the South African economy, a process aimed at making South Africans live within their means in order to restore equilibrium to the country’s balance of payments and also to create a situation more conducive to combating inflation. The recovery in the balance of payments has exceeded even the most optimistic expectations. Who would ever have thought that the balance on the current account which in the first quarter of 1982, seasonally adjusted and expressed as an annual rate, showed a deficit of R6 890 million and during the second quarter a deficit of R5 400 million, would have improved to such an extent that by the end of the fourth quarter a surplus of R751 million would be shown? The higher gold price did in fact make a contribution, but the sharp drop in the value commodity imports was undoubtedly the largest single contributory factor. The significant improvement in the current account went hand-in-hand with an increase in the net inflow of capital, and this development afforded the monetary bank sector more room in which to discharge some of its short-term foreign obligations. In this way the Reserve Bank and other banking institutions were able to pay back more than R1 300 million of their short-term foreign obligations. At the same time easier conditions set in on the financial market. This was accompanied by lower interest rates. Not only was a further depreciation in the rand averted, but the rand in fact consolidated its position in reaction, in particular, to the more favourable balance of payments.

In view of the continuing poor international economic conditions and even uncertain prospects, it may justifiably be said that the South African economy, from a balance of payments viewpoint, has recently adjusted well to the world-wide recessionary conditions. This places the South African economy in a relatively strong position in the international situation. Now that the balance of payments position has been rectified, more attention can be given to our greatest economic enemy, inflation. Bringing the inflation rate down to a lower level must be seen as one of the greatest challenges. The intention of the public sector to make very moderate, if any, wage and salary adjustments and the private sector’s willingness to follow its example is one of the positive factors contributing to a lower inflation rate.

The decision of the Government, against all expectations, not to increase the price of petrol, but even possibly to lower it, the reconsideration of the proposed increases in electricity tariffs and the lower than planned adjustment in the fertilizer price ought also to have a beneficial effect.

The disappearance of the dual rate of exchange is a demonstration of the confidence in the South African economy and prominent bankers describe this as an ambitious step and dramatic proof of economic self-confidence.

When we speak of inflation, there are always a few matters that crop up. The hon. member for Yeoville also referred to inflation. He kicked up a fuss about inflation but did not really analyse it or suggest a solution. When one considers inflation it is, in the first place, a fact that everyone wants to blame someone else for the present state of affairs. That is what the hon. member did. In the second place, arguments are sometimes very one-sided and show signs of subjectivity and self-interest. That is also what the hon. member did. The solution to inflation is not as simple as some people try to make out. The diagnosis of and prescription for the South African economy demands in the first place a penetrating study and analysis and subsequently a well-considered strategy or plan that is understood and accepted by everyone and is then implemented.

If we look back at the course of our economy over the years it is clear that there are certain strong points and also certain weaknesses in our economy. Among the plus points in the South African economy are a relatively free market that must serve as an incentive to the economy. We also have political stability and large reserves of a variety of raw materials. On the debit side there is a lack of crude oil, the low productivity achievement, relatively poor agricultural potential, the fact that industries are situated far from the coast which makes the large-scale export of manufactured goods difficult as well as inadequate economizing measures together with a high propensity for imports. The identification of strong points and weak points is important. However, it is of more importance to implement a plan or strategy to utilize the strong points to maximum advantage and to minimize or even neutralize the effect of the negative factors. Inflation remains a complex problem for which there is no simple solution. It is a fundamental mistake to see the principle largely within the context of the business cycle and to combat it by means of short-term policy measures. I concede that short-term measures and instruments can do a great deal to deal with the phenomenon, but I do not believe that these measures are the complete answer, otherwise the problem would have been solved long ago.

There are many theories and opinions on the causes of inflation and possible countermeasures. One of the most general and most popular, but probably also the most misleading, explanations for inflation is that it is caused by the excessive creation of money and that it can therefore be combated by ensuring that the creation of money is kept in check. The hon. member for Yeoville also referred to this. That was actually the strongest point he made. However, this is a mistake the Opposition parties make every time they discuss inflation. This is where we come unstuck in our fight against inflation. There is no doubt that an undisciplined, unbridled increase in State or other expenditure, coupled with the excessive creation of money, in whatever way, will give rise to inflation. However, the converse does not necessarily apply. A decrease in State and other expenditure and a restriction of the money supply will not necessarily lead to a significant lowering of the inflation rate. The inflationary process is too complex for this. Then there is also the problem of imported inflation, which cannot simply be solved in the short-term by some or other adjustment to the money supply.

South Africa has a lack of oil as a source of energy, so that an oil price increase always hits South Africa very hard. This does not only apply to the importation of oil, but also to the importation of capital goods. Countries producing capital goods simply transfer their price increases to their final products which South Africa imports. We are therefore under pressure from both sides, a pincer effect which makes inflation far worse than it would seem. In my opinion these price increases with all their price changes in the production structure have thus far not been identified in South Africa and to this day we do not know what the total and actual effect of price increases on the respective price indexes is. All we do know is that we have an unstable oil market and that for political reasons we must find substitutes for oil by means of the various Sasols.

We must also come up with strategy to produce the instruments of manufacture locally in order to neutralize the other jaw of the pincer effect. The production structure will therefore have to be adapted in the long-term to deal with the problem of imported inflation.

If we return to the local economy, we find a dualistic system with an unhealthy ratio of skilled to unskilled labour. Skilled labour, in particular the White community, is no longer able to support the unskilled community. Any upturn, of whatever nature, leads to an excessive demand for skilled labour, which in its turn leads to unusual salary increases and therefore to inflation. To rectify this ratio will not cost nothing, and our national economy simply does not have the money to rectify this matter in the short term. The fact that certain groups of the population are paid less for the same work, and this also includes women, can be labelled a deflation policy. The inflation which results when this phenomenon is rectified must be accepted as a fact. This inflation is the price that must be paid because the normal market forces were not previously allowed to perform their function. It would therefore seem as if a certain part of the inflation rate is caused by structural factors in our complex national economy. As long as these structural aberrations are present in the national economy a relatively high inflation rate must be accepted as a fact. It will not help to force the structural discrepancies towards a rapid recovery without using the market mechanism. In this connection there are also lessons to be learned from the inflation campaign programme of the ’seventies. Since that programme it has become clear that the restriction on market related salary increases by the Public Service for example through moral persuasion was inclined merely to postpone the increases and the resultant inflation and not to eliminate it. The real cause of inflation, of domestic inflation, should simply be sought in the micro-economic wage and price determination process and in the noncompetitive structure of the economy. For that reason a disciplined fiscal and monetary policy alone cannot contain inflation. Prices are determined on the so-called cost-plus basis where the price per unit is the average cost, plus a satisfactory profit per unit. These profit margins are agressively defended and any cost increases are as far as possible recovered immediately by increasing the profits rather than lowering the profit margins.

We have the same situation in the sphere of labour. Any price increase immediately gives rise to demands for higher salaries and wages, which are granted sooner or later. This applies to all labour, from the trade unions, to the ordinary worker and workers organizations to the management elements. In such an attempt there must consequently be two main groups of participants, each with a particular responsibility in their own sphere. On the one hand there are the monetary and fiscal authorities with the primary responsibility of following a conservative financial and monetary policy. But equally if not more important, on the other hand is the role of the private sector since it is the task of this group to achieve certain productivity goals, which will keep inflation in check and could even prevent economic growth being forced down to levels which are too low. Productivity goes hand-in-hand with better utilization of all the production factors, e.g. labour, raw materials, capital and energy. Traditionally the South African economy has unfortunately grown by employing more production factors rather than raising productivity. A study undertaken by the National Productivity Institute on productivity in motor workshops indicated that only 47% of the workers’ time is spent on productivity work. A lack of productivity orientation is one of the reasons given for this. Entrepreneurs concentrate far too much on increasing their profits, and not on productivity. For this reason the key to prosperity lies in financial discipline and the effective utilization of all production factors, with the emphasis on productive investment. Sir, prosperity does not fall out of the sky; it must be earned.

The hon. member for Yeoville referred to the staff position in the Public Service. In this connection I want to refer to a report in the Sunday Times of 23 January 1983 which read as follows—

But, Sir, surely this is not true. Surely it is not true that those reports appeared “this week”. To tell the truth, the second report is dated 18 May 1982 and was tabled here in this House on 25 May 1982. The printed report appeared in October 1982. The hon. member for Yeoville is a hardworking and respected member of this Select Committee. As such surely he knows …

Are you suggesting it was I who said this report appeared “this week”? Does it say in that report that I said they had just appeared? You are misquoting.

Surely he knows that the report did not appear “this week”. Why did he make such a statement? Or was it the Press that was merely trading on his name? What does the second report of the Select Committee state? It reads—

It is therefore old news that the committee expressed grave concern at the position and this report in an English-language newspaper was therefore completely out of place. But in spite of this report, that further evidence was to be taken, the hon. member made further comments during the same week as that in which the Select Committee was taking further evidence. What did he say? He said the following—

Sir, these two departments are the Department of Co-operation and Development and the Department of Education and Training. I quote further—

And so should you be.

I quote further—

And now comes the most important part—

Sir, why must these two departments be singled out? On what basis did the hon. member allege that there was no indication of any improvement in these two departments? Is he not referring subtly to the evidence given during that particular week? I say it is a pity that the hon. member tried to anticipate the third report of the Select Committee. Or was it the newspapers that were misusing his name again? Further evidence was heard during that week and was tabled on 28 January of this year. What does the report of the committee say? It says the following—

There you are. The two departments are still in a mess, and you know it.

I want to bring some of the evidence given before the committee by various departments, to the attention of this House, specifically to rectify this report of the Sunday Times, a report that was totally out of place at that stage. But of course it was meant to coincide with the discussion of the motion of no confidence. If not, they were sleeping. From the evidence of the Auditor-General it is apparent that the late submission of the Appropriation Account Statements by the departments, which served to spark off this investigation, led to a very positive reaction on the part of the accounting officials. The state of affairs progressed most satisfactorily. With a few exceptions, most of those statements were received on time last year. The Government Printer reported that he received the last reports on 23 December 1982, and that the target date for the first printing of those reports was either the end of January or early in February. As we all know, those reports of the Auditor-General had already been tabled here in the House on 4 February this year. The Auditor General also reported that steps had been taken to stabilize the position by bringing into effect a career differentiated salary dispensation for staff of the Auditing and Finances Section, with effect from 1 January 1983, and that this would place them in a far more competitive position to recruit staff.

From the evidence of the Commission for Administration it is therefore clear that owing to the serious shortage of staff in sections of the Public Service concerned with financial administration, the Commission for Administration gave high priority to the investigation of those groups. As a result an improved and really competitive basis was implemented for salary structures. This basis covers virtually all the groups directly concerned with financial administration. For example the remuneration of revenue officials, revenue clerks and control officials were already adjusted from 1 January 1982, and the remuneration of staff of the Department of Customs and Excise from 1 May 1982. The remuneration of other groups was adjusted from 1 January 1983.

We therefore see that the picture has improved considerably. This becomes apparent from the evidence given. What was also stated in evidence? The evidence brought to light that in October 1981 the vacancies for passport control officers were just over 30%. At the moment that figure is approximately 3%. The vacancies for customs outdoor officers decreased from approximately 30% in October 1981 to between 3% and 5%. The vacancies for income tax clerks and officers—these are the people employed by the Directorate for Inland Revenue—totalled approximately 21% on 30 June. That was the figure for all ranks. The figure has now dropped to 5%.

As far as typists are concerned the situation is similar. In one department, in which previously only about 50% of the posts were filled, there is not a single vacancy out of 480 typing posts.

The Director-General of Justice reported that in May 1981 60,7% of all posts were vacant, whereas the vacancies now total 14,2%. The professional posts are all filled, and the department also made history because all the professional posts were filled this year. As a matter of fact the department has a waiting list of approximately 100 graduates who could unfortunately not be employed.

What about the Department of Co-operation and Development? [Interjections.]

The financial administration of the Department of Environment Affairs has confirmed that the position has improved and that matters are proceeding in a far more orderly manner, particularly at the forestry offices. At those offices 26 new posts were created, some of which have already been filled. In addition the new benefits introduced for accounting staff have been of great benefit to them in the sense that they have been able to recruit 20 new staff members during the past six weeks, as against only two staff members during the corresponding six weeks last year.

Both the Director-General of Community Development and the Director-General of Transport also reported tremendous improvements. Of course it is true that the Select Committee is still concerned about the position in the Department of Co-operation and Development as well as in the Department of Education and Training.

Quote those figures to us.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to quote them, if the hon. member for Yeoville would just calm down. I am not hiding anything. [Interjections.] The Director-General of Co-operation and Development reported that although steps had been taken to bring about an improvement in the state of affairs, there are still a large number of posts that are either vacant or filled by people not suitably qualified, and that in addition there is also a tremendous turnover of staff at the production level, while the Director-General of Education and Training reported that the recruitment position had not actually improved, and that vacancies in the finance division still total approximately 50%. Representatives of this department will again give evidence before the Select Committee in the near future. We shall therefore report again to this House in due course.

Because the Committee is concerned about these two departments, it also recommended in its report that the Commission for Administration should undertake further investigations into the said two departments. That is why I submit that the reports in the English-language Press were not a reflection of the present staff position. Therefore I should like to support the motion of the hon. the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Smithfield on his maiden speech as the Government’s chief spokesman on Finance. I hope he will enjoy a pleasant and fruitful period as their chief spokesman. Fortunately the hon. member said nothing contentious and that is why I am also going to pay the hon. member the courtesy of not attacking him. I think this would be a fine gesture and a fitting one under the circumstances.

I now wish to come to the hon. member for Yeoville. Of course, the hon. member for Yeoville is extremely annoyed that the NP has stolen the PFP’s policy. That is why the NP has now changed its name from the National Party to the New Prog Party. The hon. member made certain remarks here. For example, he said that we were yesterday’s men and that we never change. The CP is the party which best supports change in South Africa. We advocate a policy which will bring happiness, peace and harmony to South Africa. We believe in the sovereignty of the White Parliament and the sovereignty of the White man over himself. We believe that the Coloureds are not incompetent or, incapable of governing themselves. [Interjections.] We are not willing to prepare a “mixed grill” and to say that everyone must govern together.

We see what is happening with these new Government guidelines. The members of the Coloured Labour Party, who have to deliberate with the Government, and their political opponents are hitting each other with chairs. There is already a revolution in their ranks and 19 000 teachers have rejected these guidelines, but in terms of our policy they are going to be happy. [Interjections.] Those who laugh today, will cry tomorrow.

Before I continue with my speech, I should like to move the following amendment—

1. (1) to take more effective steps to contain the alarming rise in the cost of living;
2. (2) to look after the welfare of the consumers and workers;
3. (3) to take adequate and effective steps to stimulate and promote growth and productivity;
4. (4) to eliminate the backlog in the provision of White housing; and
5. (5) purely for the sake of temporary popularity and contrary to the national interest, to promote and maintain a purposeful, conservative monetary and fiscal policy.”.

As far as possible, I shall try to deal with all these points, but some of my other colleagues will elaborate on them at a later stage. Perhaps we shall also teach the hon. member for Yeoville a lesson.

What has happened this year with regard to price increases in South Africa? I wish to say to the hon. the Minister that we have a great deal of sympathy for the problems he is experiencing. We are grateful and pleased that the hon. the Minister has so many competent officials to assist him in the various Goverment Departments. As far as the hon. the Minister is concerned, I have realized that there is one thing that is impeding him a little. In my opinion it is that the hon. the Minister no longer has the freedom to carry out and realize his economic policy in an important way, as he has done in the past. I shall come back to this at a later stage. [Interjections.]

As far as the price increases are concerned, let us first examine Escom. Consumers in the rural areas were sent a circular in which they were notified that from 1 January the tariff would be increased from 16% to 36% in terms of section 14 of the Act, i.e. an effective increase of 17,2%. The hon. the Prime Minister then immediately said that they should reconsider the tariff, and all the newspapers blazoned it abroad with a great deal of fuss: Now the matter is going to be investigated. What did, in fact, happen? In the very next circular in December this was complied with, and what happened then? Escom said that it would not make the tariff so high; they would increase it from 16% to 31,5%—an increase of 15,5%. Surely that is farcical! They want to tell the consumers that the tariff has not been increased so drastically, but this is what happened.

What has happened in respect of the price of bread and so many other prices? There is nothing which has not gone up in price. In 1975 a loaf of white bread cost 14,5c; in 1979, 26c; and in 1983 it shot up to 53c, whereas a loaf of brown bread costs 35c. The day the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries was appointed Minister, he increased the bread price. It seemed as if he wanted the world to know that he was the new Minister. Of course, this was not necessary, for when his predecessor vacated this post, there was such a shout of joy throughout the country that everyone knew that there was a new Minister.

What has happened in respect of fertilizer? Its price has increased by 13,3%—a tremendous increase!

Let us consider the Railways and the Airways. Those tariffs have been increased by an average of 15%, while in April last year they had already been increased by 14%. Therefore within the space of one year they have risen by 29%. This is shocking and alarming.

What is happening with regard to housing? According to Oggendblad, the price of bricks rose by 9,5% on 1 November 1982, but on 1 April 1982 the price had already increased by 17%.

But it is Willie who makes the bricks.

There has therefore been a total increase of 28%. What has happened in respect of steel? Its price has risen by 14,5%. What has the hon. member for Tygervallei just said?

I said that Willie makes the bricks.

I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member … [Interjections.] since he is continually trying to make a speech while I am speaking. I do not want to be spiteful; I might hurt him.

The price of concrete rose by 10%. Where will we end up in this country if prices continue to rise in this manner? It seems as though the Government is simply closing its eyes and does not care what happens to prices.

We should look after the consumers and the workers, as well as the welfare of the general public. Firstly, one has to have employment. If one has employment, one has to see to it that one is not paid off. However, what has happened during the past year? We read, in an October edition of Oggendblad, about what happened at Iscor. In the preceding 10 months the number of workers had dropped from 70 000 to 65 000, and 40% of these were Whites. These are people who are not well off, these are people who struggle to look after their families. In December a further 1 500 workers were paid off. [Interjections.]

And you laugh about it?

Yes, they find it amusing when people are paid off.

What happened at Sigma yesterday? 700 people are being paid off temporarily. Fortunately they have said that these people will only be away from work for 10 days and at least they will receive 70% of their wage.

How many were dismissed?

It does not matter whether they have been dismissed or whether they will be re-employed, it is frustrating for them and they are unhappy.

Let us consider the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The hon. the Minister of Manpower is not present here now.

He has probably gone to Soutpansberg.

He has gone to say farewell.

What do we read in Hoofstad of 15 February? [Interjections.] I can understand that hon. members are whining; they have no respect for a good speech. [Interjections.] Moreover, it hurts them to see that the Government is doing nothing. The workers of South Africa are just a joke to them. The White as well as the non-White workers may get hurt for all they care. It does not matter. [Interjections.] They are in favour of this. [Interjections.] They are roaring with laughter! I quote from this newspaper article—

However, the Government is laughing about this. It is amusing! I quote further—

This is the position of the workers. This is what is happening, but the hon. the Minister of Manpower does not look after his department. He will not see to it that something is done!

Let us consider the workers of South Africa. Let us look at who they are. Approximately 30% of all employees in the non-agricultural sector are in the employ of the public sector, i.e. central Government, provincial administrations, the national States, the S.A. Transport Services, the Post Office, local authorities and other statutory bodies. This is how those people have to struggle! In a South African magazine on the economy, P. G. du Plessis said in 1979 that 2,7% of all undertakings in the manufacturing sector controlled 50% of the total turnover and that 6,3% of all undertakings employed 64% of all employees, and that 6% of all undertakings owned 85,1% of all fixed assets. Today that concentration is much higher. I shall come back to this at a later stage to show how the financially powerful are exploiting our people. However, the Government is not doing very much about this. [Interjections.]

Who are the financially powerful, oom Jan?

I am coming to that. [Interjections.] What is the growth rate in South Africa? In the past year, 1982, it was negative. In the first three quarters it was minus 0,6%. This is also the approximate figure for the year. I do not have the precise figure, nevertheless it was a negative growth rate. There is every indication that it is going to be negative in 1983 as well. If the growth rate is not negative in 1983, it will not exceed 1% in any case, and if these are the prospects for the next two years, our people are going to become progressively poorer. That is why I wish to say to the hon. the Minister today that we in the CP will support him in all respects to plan and to take steps now in order to bring about an upturn in the economy in 1984. I was pleased to hear the hon. the Minister say in his speech that he did in fact, intend doing so. The economy will have to be stimulated and problems will have to be eliminated in order to ensure economic growth.

How?

In order to achieve this …

How?

I am coming to that. In order to achieve this—and it is the CP’s policy to stimulate the economy and to have healthy growth in this country—we shall inter alia have to promote exports.

How?

Certain export concessions which no longer exist will have to be re-introduced. [Interjections.] Regions will have to be developed. In other words, there will have to be development in the border areas. [Interjections.] Taxes will have to be cut, and I am pleased that the hon. the Minister announced a cut in taxes today. However, there should not be a cut in taxes simply to try and win the elections in Waterberg or Soutpansberg. [Interjections.] This should take place in the interests of South Africa. [Interjections.] Projects which create income should be undertaken, e.g. the building of roads and dams, and this means that the necessary infrastructure should be extended to prevent inflation from once again becoming uncontrollable when there is an upturn in the economy in 1964. [Interjections.]

Yes, he is 20 years behind the time.

I mean 1984. Inflation should be combated purposefully. It cannot be completely eliminated in one year. That is true. However, there has to be the necessary planning. This is something which should be dealt with over a period of two years. Then the Government must not become panic-stricken as it did in September. They saw that the balance of payments position was deteriorating, and this caused a great deal of anxiety. However, when the balance of payments began to recover, GST was increased. We are opposed to taxes being summarily increased when Parliament is not in session. It was increased twice, and we request that when taxes are to be increased, it should be announced in the House so that the matter may be debated here as well, so that the interest of the opposition parties are not circumvented in this manner.

Interest rates have simply been left to soar. Arguments as to why this has been done have been put forward, but in a controlled economy such as that of South Africa, one cannot simply allow interest rates to float and to soar as high as they wish. This has caused tremendous inflation. I wish to say that the increased interest rates are being made an integral part of inflation. For example, this affects the building costs of houses and the rental of flats and houses. When interest rates are high, rentals are adjusted accordingly. However, rentals are not brought down or reduced when the interest rate drops. We shall still see that the rentals of houses and flats will remain as they are.

It almost seems as if the Government has been sitting and watching while prices have increased and they have done nothing to prevent this. The entire range of prices I mentioned, is unheard of. We have never experienced this in our history before. However, over the past year the Government has been obsessed with its new guidelines. If they had allowed the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to continue with this on his own, and governed a little better themselves, all would have been well.

It seems to me as if the hon. the Prime Minister is prescribing too much in respect of financial measures, etc. in order to have these guidelines approved. I get the impression that the hon. the Minister of Finance and his senior officials are not as free as they have been in the past to get on with their task, and that the financially powerful have far too much say in this situation. I shall come back to the financially powerful at a later stage and be a little more specific about this.

Who are the financially powerful?

The hon. member for Yeoville referred to the administration and so on. One of the first promises the hon. the Prime Minister made when he became Prime Minister was that there would be a clean administration. I think this was a fine promise and I think it is fitting for any Prime Minister to say this. However, what has happened? If there is good administration there ought not to be huge losses in the departments. I just wish to refer to the additional taxes which could have been collected. This has all been published in newspapers, and this is apart from the investigations of the Select Committee concerned. In the 1980-’81 financial year special investigations were instituted by the department— there are far too few people to do the work—and as a result of those special investigations taxes amounting to R13,8 million were collected. Now hon. members ought to know that a special investigation covers only a small part of the field which has to be investigated, but that investigation alone led to taxes amounting to R13,8 million being collected. The question is: How many millions of rands are there which have not been collected as a result of the fact that a comprehensive audit could not be carried out? In special investigations into salaries in private businesses it was found that earnings amounting to R37 602 000 had not been taxed. This already represents a large amount of tax. In the case of companies income amounting to R104 400 000 was not taxed. We want to know why this is the position in the administration. This is the responsibility of the hon. the Minister but it is not only his responsibility, but that of the entire Cabinet. I am not going to reproach this hon. Minister alone, since it is the entire Cabinet which should see to it that the money and officials are avilable as far as administration is concerned.

Now I should like to refer to a few other matters. When I speak of matters one is concerned about, I am not the only one who feels this way, but the whole world. I wish to refer to a special supplement to the Institutional Investor, an Americal publication. The hon. the Minister of Finance was interviewed by this publication and I quote what the publication wrote in connection with this interview—

Then it goes on to say—

What is happening in respect of our administration? I could let the hon. the Minister have this publication if he wishes. I think he owes South Africa an explanation. How could Mr. Harry Oppenheimer have taken $2 billion out of the country over the past two years, which makes him the largest foreign investor in the U.S.A. and Canada, and then still prescribe to South Africa what constitutional changes should be made? After the proposals of the President’s Council had been made known, he appeared on television all afternoon and said that the proposals were ideal and that that is what he had wanted.

What precisely are you insinuating?

I am not insinuating anything; I am calling a spade a spade. We want to know how the Oppenheimer group could have taken $2 billion out of South Africa. If this is correct, I am very happy. However, we cannot allow something like this to be blazoned abroad without making inquiries about it. I am asking that question and I do not wish to insinuate anything. If we do not receive the correct reply, we shall come back to this.

The hon. the Minister must also tell us what has happened in respect of Die Transvaler.

A great deal has been said about the large number of people who have had to be paid off. The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, as the Transvaal leader of the NP, was jubilant about the wonderful achievement that Die Transvaler had become an afternoon newspaper. Some of Oggendblad’s people have been paid off— the report appeared in Oggendblad, as well as in other newspapers—as a result of the merger.

What does Oggendblad say?

This morning the editor of Oggendblad wrote that he had not said that. He had never claimed that.

What is your point?

We are saddled with this Press in South Africa. It reminds me of what happened during the Transvaal congress. Oggendblad had to disappear simply because its editor asked certain questions—I thought they were good questions— and questioned the constitutional dispensation. He was correct.

Surely it was not the NP that took those decisions.

Then the hon. the Prime Minister of this country—he is not my leader, but the Prime Minister—said that he did not know that editor but that he would pray for him. I hope the hon. the Prime Minister does not pray so fervently for me that I lose my job.

In conclusion, I wish to refer to the constitutional proposals. The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is working on them every day and I accept this. However, the hon. the Prime Minister is the one who gives guidance. The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning would not, after all, take matters out of the hands of the hon. the Prime Minister. However, the sovereignty of the White Parliament would be lost if the constitutional dispensation were to be carried out. Its self-determination would cease to exist. It cannot pass a statute of common interest to all if the Indians or the Coloureds do not a gree. There has to be agreement. It will go to the President’s Council and that body will decide. However, what does the hon. the Prime Minister say? I wish to quote from Hansard, 4 March 1968, col. 1508, where he said—

Now I wish to ask: Does the hon. the Prime Minister no longer have cornerstones? Where are his cornerstones now? Why are they coming forward with this “mixture” now?

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the hon. member for Sunnyside for the past 25 minutes with very great interest and with an even greater feeling of astonishment. We have many problems in this country, but we do have much to be grateful for as well. I think one of the main things we can be grateful for is the fact that the hon. member for Sunnyside is not our hon. Minister of Finance and never will be. I should very much like to tell the hon. member that in the light of what the hon. member for Waterkloof has done, the best and finest gesture he can make to the voters of Sunnyside is to resign. The hon. member does not live in Sunnyside any more. He is never seen there any more. He dare not go there. I doubt whether he has the support of 15% of the voters in his constituency today. [Interjections.] I doubt whether the hon. member would retain his deposit in Sunnyside. The only reason why the hon. member has not yet resigned, I think, is that he feels he will be called upon to offer his constituency to his leader, the hon member for Waterberg, after the forthcoming by-elections. I am afraid that this would be another futile act. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member that as far as Sunnyside is concerned, he is a political squatter and the sooner he realizes that, the better it will be for his voters whom he pretends to represent. The hon. member is the man who said in my presence two years ago, after the 1981 election, that he had been instructed by the hon. the Prime Minister to bring back those of his voters who had voted for the HNP. And this he was going to do by applying the brakes to the NP policy and by slowing down the ox-wagon, so that these people could climb aboard again. That is the mentality of the hon. member for Sunnyside.

Before I react any further to the hon. member’s speech, I should like to mention another matter briefly, a matter which I raised during last year’s debate as well. The guess of the hon. member for Rissik is correct. It concerns Die Patriot. I should very much like to talk about Die Patriot on behalf of Paarl, the constituency which was the cradle of the Afrikaans language, and also on behalf of the Afrikaanse Taalmonumentekomitee. Two arguments were advanced by the hon. the leader of the CP last year as to why they could not choose another name.

The one was that the paper was controlled by a separate company and that they had no control over it, and the second one was that it was a name that had been bought and that it was a very difficult matter to tamper with.

I have done a little research into the matter. I am sorry that the hon. member for Waterberg is not in the House today; I had so hoped that I would be able to talk to him for the last time. [Interjections.] The department responsible for the registration of newspapers confirmed to me that there was no question of the name Die Patriot having been bought, since the name Die Patriot, which was registered by dr. J. A. Coetzee in 1973, had lapsed because the newspaper never appeared. Therefore the name Die Patriot became available after the registration of that newspaper had lapsed because of its non-appearance. So anyone could have used it.

In the second place, they said that they did not have a say because the newspaper was published by a separate company. However, I just wish to quote another paragraph from the information I obtained—

And I could name the applicants—

If this is their official mouthpiece, but they do not have any say over its name, then I really do not know. I am very sorry, but I do not believe that story. [Interjections.] I wish to appeal to hon. members of the CP, in the interests of a name which has cultural and historic value—and I do not want to go into the whole matter again—and which is of very great importance to the entire Afrikaner people …

But you no longer care about the Afrikaner people!

… to choose a different name for that newspaper of theirs.

What do you still care about the Afrikaner people? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, this has been going on long enough. Therefore I wish to tell hon. members of the CP that we are prepared to help them choose a different name for their newspaper. [Interjections.] I have written down a few names here, simply to get us thinking. What about “The Tortoise” or “The Great Nostalgia” or “The Weeping Willow”, or perhaps, in the light of the latest events, when the hon. member for Waterberg made certain accusations against the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, but especially in the light of the present courtship between the CP and the HNP—and this, I believe, may prove to be the best name of all for their newspaper—“The Creeper”? [Interjections.]

The Creepy Crawly! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I now want to come back to the hon. member for Sunnyside in all seriousness. I want to put it to the hon. member for Sunnyside and his hon. colleagues very seriously that we do not have an option. In the world we live in today, it is necessary to be realistic, to go through life with open eyes, without blinkers, without engaging in ostrich politics, such as those that the CP is practising. However, one should think with one’s head, and not with one’s heart. For once I want to agree with the hon. member for Yeoville. He used the word here which I also want to use today. The hon. member for Sunnyside in particular is a yesterday person. [Interjections.] In today’s life, under today’s circumstances, one cannot even be a today person; one must be a tomorrow person. One must be a future person, a person who is able to take stock of the situation around him and to make the best of it in the interests of everyone in this country. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, today one has no option …

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member for Paarl suggesting that if one is an Afrikaner today, one has to be a citizen of the world tomorrow and renounce one’s identity as an Afrikaner? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member seriously expects me to answer that question. I want to say to the hon. member that we have no other choice than to take stock of the realities of today and to act accordingly. I just want to mention a few realities of the situation to hon. members. The hon. member for Smithfield gave hon. members a very clear indication of the real economic situation in our country at the moment. Let us examine it in more general terms. If the hon. member for Sunnyside is so concerned about the economy of our country, to what does he attribute the fact that of the 45 best investment countries in the world, South Africa is eleventh? To what does he attribute the fact that South Africa is one of the 20 biggest trading countries in the world? To what does he attribute the fact that overseas companies have invested 30 billion dollars in South Africa? To what does he attribute the fact that 2 000 overseas companies are registered in South Africa? On this great continent, South Africa has 6% of the people, but 40% of the industrial production. In spite of this, the hon. member for Sunnyside suggests that we are just a thirdrate country. [Interjections.]

Let us consider for a moment some other realities of today. Let us take, for example, the reality of urbanization. If ever a Government faced up to the problem of urbanization and tried to make the best of it, this Government did. Surely the problem of urbanization is not unique to South Africa. It is a problem which occurs in any developing part of the world. Drive through Africa and stop at Brazzaville. There you will see that a city such as Brazzaville is just one big city of squatters. Go and look at any city in America or in Europe. Wherever one comes, this urbanization is taking place. It is no use trying to wish that problem away and hiding one’s head in the sand. One must do something concrete and realistic about it. If ever a Government really tackled this problem, this Government did.

Let us look at the reality that South Africa is a microcosm of the world with a First World and a Third World situation. I want to say to the hon. members of the CP today that I believe that the Whites and the Christians came to South Africa for a purpose and with a calling, and that was to develop this country and to christianize its people, to build up an infrastructure and to create opportunities for people. What has been happening in the rest of Africa? The fact that this is our calling and that it is our responsibility cannot be used by us as an insurance policy as though we have nothing to worry about if this is so. We simply must be prepared to face up to the consequences of this.

What are the consequences?

The consequences are that we must be prepared, not only to Christianize every person in this country, but to educate and train him and eventually to afford him opportunities, the same opportunities we claim for ourselves. [Interjections.]

There are a few more economic realities I want to point out. We are faced with a Third World-First World situation, with a surplus of unskilled labour and a shortage of skilled labour. Surely the reality of the situation is that we simply have to go out of our way to provide people with the necessary training. Another reality which the hon. member for Sunnyside does not realize is that in our times of mass media, of instant communication, of international economic interdependence, one can never run the economy of a country in isolation from the rest of the world. We simply must take cognizance of what goes on in the rest of the world, of what goes on in the countries that are our trading partners and even in countries with which we have no contact whatsoever, because what is happening there has an effect on our situation as well.

There is another reality which I must point out. That is the reality that we are moving into a new situation in respect of the Coloureds and the Indians. That new situation has an effect on our economic situation. It is only realistic to say that it is going to have an effect on our economy, especially if Whites are going to demand that our own bargaining power remain absolutely intact in this process. Additional demands will naturally have to be made by the other groups.

You are capitulating in advance.

We shall have to be prepared to meet those demands. If we are going to increase the bargaining power of those groups in the years to come, and the Whites continue to adhere to the same standpoint under those circumstances which was adopted in the past and which the hon. members of the CP still advocate, we are going to overtax our economy. There is little doubt in my mind that in order to give effect to the appeal made by the hon. the Prime Minister for us to meet our Christian responsibility to the people of colour, we shall have to be prepared to make certain economic sacrifices as well, sacrifices which will not be permanent and long-term, but the best investment we can make for the future is to be prepared to lower our sights a little in the short and medium term, so that we may be able to accommodate the demands of others as well. I am convinced that the great majority of South Africans, and especially White South Africans, are willing to make go into the future in a spirit of sacrifice in future for the sake of a stable, secure and prosperous future for all in the long term.

Two events in recent weeks have very clearly demonstrated the confidence in our economy and its strength. The hon. the Minister of Finance also referred to these. In the first place, there was the loan of R1 200 million from the International Monetary Fund, and this in the face of a great political uproar and a lot of criticism. In the second place, there was the abolition of exchange control for non-residents and the influx of foreign capital which has actually resulted from that.

I conclude by saying that all good things come in threes. The results of the three forthcoming by-elections are still being awaited, but they will be resounding victories for the NP. That will be even better news for our economy, for our trading partners and for potential foreign investors than the two events I have just referred to.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend getting involved in the “broedertwis” between the NP and the CP, but I agree with the hon. members for Paarl and Yeoville that we cannot relive yesterday. I do agree with them that the CP are yesterday’s men. I should like to submit to the hon. member for Paarl that we are the tomorrow’s men, because what we say today, becomes the Government’s policy tomorrow. Having said that, I want to say to the hon. member for Paarl that I believe South Africa is in a race against time. We are in a race against time. We have a population growth rate and we have a rate of economic growth, and if we fail to have our economic growth overtake our population growth, I am afraid we will lose the race. It is for that reason that we in these benches are most concerned about economic growth in South Africa. I must tell the hon. the Minister of Finance that unlike last year the hon. the Minister can come to the House this year with his tail in the air. He has so many things going for him this year that he can afford to smile and bask in the first few rays of sunshine breaking through the dark storm clouds to which he himself referred.

He must watch out for the lightning though.

What we say is: Good show for what he has done so far! I say that because there is no doubt that there has been an improvement in our balance of payments position and interest rates are coming down. In fact, there are quite a number of pointers indicating improvements in our economy. All we want to add, however, is: Keep it up, for heavens sake! I say this because the storm is not quite over. We believe that we still have an awful long way to go. We have not fully recovered economically. We still have a serious recession and we have heard of the unemployment that exists in South Africa. So we cannot afford to be complacent. As I said at the very beginning of my speech, unless the growth in our GDP can be maintained at a figure of at least 5% per annum, none of us should, I believe, feel satisfied. I would go so far as to say that if that does not happen, none of us will be secure as far as the future is concerned. What is more important, however, is the fact that it is only when our inflation rate drops from the present 13,8% to round about 5%—and that is the challenge I put to the hon. the Minister—that we can know that we have finally put South Africa on a firm economic footing.

The hon. the Minister may feel a certain degree of satisfaction, but we in the NRP will not be satisfied at all until we have achieved these objectives.

It is for that reason that I should like to move as a further amendment—

1. (1) takes urgent steps to contain the spiralling cost of living by—
   1. (a) reducing the rate of increase in Government spending;
   2. (b) reviewing all legislation which unnecessarily inhibits and restricts productivity and the growth of the economy;
   3. (c) applying the Maintenance and Promotion of Competition Act more effectively in order to prevent profiteering by monopolies and pricefixing cartels;
   4. (d) reviewing its policies towards administered prices and tariffs and the financing of State Corporations;
2. (2) reviews the means test as to alleviate the desperate plight of social pensioners; and
3. (3) desists from spending money on wasteful ideological programmes.”.

I believe that inflation is South Africa’s enemy number one. I say this because, as I have often said in this House, inflation is an economic evil. It robs the people of the purchasing power of life-long savings, and when I refer to savings I do not only mean cash. I also mean their pensions. It robs pensioners of the purchasing power of the pensions to which they have contributed throughout their lives. I believe it destroys the commitment of our people to the work ethic. It makes spendthrifts of our people and, I believe, also enables the rich to get richer through the unfair manipulation they are able to apply as a result of the financial advantage they have over others. In the long run, the ultimate consequences of inflation cannot be avoided. It eventually ends up with a recession or depression, as we have heard it referred to today, with its concomitant unemployment.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he is suggesting that I should not agree to a sugar price increase? [Interjections.]

Had that hon. Minister’s predecessor, who is sitting in that front bench now, not played politics with the price of sugar some seven or eight years ago, when he reduced it for political reasons … [Interjections) … we would not have been in the position we are in today. [Interjections.] It is that hon. Minister’s predecessor who prevented the sugar industry from building up an adequate stabilization fund, so he must not come and play politics with me now. [Interjections.]

I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to some cuttings, in case the Government do not keep their ears close to the ground. In The Citizen of the fourth of this month, under the headline “Agriculture warns Cabinet of rising cost crisis”, one reads—

The article goes further to say—

For the benefit of the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, it also states that—

Then towards the end of the article, it says—

Then in an article which appeared in The Natal Mercury of 12 February under the headline “Recession causing mounting bankruptcies” one reads—

Finally—and this, I feel, is a rather serious development—on the fourth of this month a report under the heading “Inflation demo call by union” appeared in The Citizen. It says there—

I think that this illustrates that the people, be they workers or businessmen, are all very much concerned about inflation.

I was pleased to hear today that so many hon. members are talking about inflation and giving their views on how it can be overcome. I think that what we should try to debate, during this session at least, is how we can overcome inflation. I would say that our basic monetary and fiscal policy has been put on a rather sound base at the present time.

As I have already conceded to the hon. the Minister of Finance, I believe he has made some substantial advances in this direction.

For growth and security our trade balances must stay in the black. We must never allow South Africa to go the way so many other countries have gone in recent years. The hon. the Minister referred to this during his speech. I should just like to draw his attention to Time Magazine of 10 January—he has probably seen it already. The cover speaks of “The debt bomb—the worldwide peril of go-go lending”. On page 5 there is a list of countries, to which the hon. the Minister referred. Brazil had a total foreign debt at the end of 1982 of $87 billion. It takes $30,8 billion to service that debt, which represents 117% of the total value of that country’s exports. Zambia has a debt of $4,5 billion. To service it is going to cost $2 billion, which is 195% of that country’s total exports. No wonder the Director-General of Finance, Dr. De Loor, expressed a degree of gloom, as reported in the Business Argus of 29 January. With reference to the world debt the report said—

Then he goes on to say that the International Monetary Fund can ask these countries to discipline themselves. He went on further to say—

I mention this because I believe we have to face the grim facts of the situation we are in; that is to say, we have to come clean with our people and tell them how much we have to bite the bullet in order to overcome inflation.

It is not only the balance of payments that needs to be looked at, but it is also Government spending and the fiscal policy of the country. I believe the political consequences of the fiscal policy of a country have to be faced, as they have been faced in Britain and the United States. That is the only reason why they have been able to bring their inflation rate down to the level it is at today.

What about the unemployment rate?

The hon. member for Yeoville implies that I want to raise the unemployment rate. I do not believe any of us would like to see unemployment in this country. However, before we, as is the case with many countries, are able to reverse the situation I regret to say that there has to be a certain degree of unemployment. Whether that hon. member believes we can do without it, I do not know. I would like to know now he would do it.

I believe that while the degree of economic prosperity or economic depression between nations may be entirely relative, the basic economic principles which cause either to occur are irrefutable, and I put that to the hon. member for Yeoville. If we want our economy to grow at an annual average rate of 5% or more we have to utilize all our assets to best advantage. I think the hon. member for Smithfield referred to this. We have to utilize our assets in the most productive manner. Productivity is the key to economic security and prosperity. This implies that all the assets—as the hon. member said—involved in our economy have to be productively utilized. It is not only men or machines, but also money. That is why we in our amendment call upon the Government to take urgent steps to reduce still further the rate of increase in Government spending. Governments around the world are battling to reduce their expenditure. Too great a proportion of their money has been spent on non-productive projects. I put it to the hon. member for Yeoville that in so doing too many people—Government employees and others—have been employed in nonproductive jobs. To pay for this Governments have borrowed or printed money which just fuelled the fires of inflation. It could not go on for ever. I put it to the hon. member for Yeoville that that is the reason why we have depression, bankruptcy and unemployment. We cannot have it both ways.

Besides calling upon the Government to cut back on the rate of growth of its spending we also call upon it to review all legislation which unnecessarily inhibits or restricts productivity and economic growth. Regrettably, for example during the past few days in this House, the Government has amended the Road Transportation Act—I put it to the hon. the Minister of Finance— which will do exactly that. It is going to reduce the efficiency and the productivity of the private road-users in South Africa. The basic reason for this legislation which was put before us by the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs was to—he admitted it— protect the jobs of 250 000 SATS workers. I repeat: Nobody, least of all the NRP, wants unemployment, but in the long run economic reality will insist that all employees— certainly a very large percentage of them— are going to have to be employed productively. I do not have the time to go into this in great detail, but as I mentioned in my speech during the no-confidence debate, we do have such legislation as the Environment Planning Act and other legislation which places restrictions on the mobility of labour and we believe that these should definitely be reviewed.

I now wish to turn to the inflationary effect of monopolies and price fixing cartels and the effect that they have on our economy. I do not think that there is any doubt in the minds of any hon. members here that this party believes in the free enterprise system. We believe in the right of the individual to sell his labour to his best advantage. We believe in the principle of fair profit on one’s endeavour and also of a fair return on one’s capital.

Do you believe in the scrapping of the Group Areas Act?

I myself am a capitalist and I do not make any bones about it. I also doubt whether there is a single hon. member sitting in this House who is not a capitalist. Anybody who owns a house, anybody who has a building society savings account or a bank savings account and anybody who owns shares in companies is a capitalist. I believe that this is good because our economy is founded on capital and it is founded on capital that is saved by our people. And there has been too much of what Time refers to as “go-go lending”, namely, people spending money they do not have; they are not saving their money. However, there is what has been termed the ugly face of capitalism, and that is the face of greed and avarice to which I have referred before in this hon. House. I believe that nowhere is this better seen than where there is no competition. The very foundation of the free enterprise system is built on competition. Without it the system simply will not work. Monopolies and price fixing cartels stifle competition. In fact some of them enslave the smaller manufacturers in that they are forced to sell their goods at a price which the monopoly decides upon. When a smaller and less financially well-off entrepreneur starts up in the same field of activity as some of these giants, he is either ground into the dirt through short-term price-cutting by these people or, alternatively, he is simply bought out. In both events the public suffers because there is no competition. These monopolies add to inflation. They cover up their own inefficiencies and their high prices simply result in an unfair transfer of wealth to them from their customers.

The hon. member for Smithfield said that inflation can only be beaten through increased productivity by all sectors including the private sector. I submit that it is only through competition that one can in fact get higher productivity. If there is no competition a firm can be as inefficient as possible and charge what it likes.

Two nights ago a gentleman by the name of Mr. Robin McGregor, who is the author of the book Who owns Who, appeared on SATV. He presented a table which showed which large financial groups in South Africa owned the most shares on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. I believe this was very interesting indeed. We find, for instance, that Anglo American exercises control over 52 of the companies listed on the Stock Exchange. I believe that we are indebted to this man for bringing this information to our attention. I believe that the free enterprise system should be open to all and not just a few. Therefore we call upon the Government to apply the Maintenance and Promotion of Competition Act more effectively. We believe that the principles contained in this Act are good, but we do not believe that the Government is doing its job correctly in this particular regard.

Finally, I wish to call upon the Government to review its policies towards administered prices and tariffs and the financing of State corporations. At the present time the hon. the Minister’s tight money policy has all but eliminated demand inflation. A major cause of inflation today and the rising cost of living is the costpush inflation resulting from ever-increasing electricity tariffs, post office tariffs and rail tariffs. I believe that something has got to be done about it. I sincerely hope that the hon. Minister will heed these views of the NRP. I believe we have to be honest with ourselves, and that we also have to be fair to the public. We cannot call upon the public and upon the private sector to make sacrifices in the course of the fight against inflation, while at the same time allowing the State merrily to proceed on exactly the opposite path.

Mr. Speaker, I have run out of time. I just want to conclude my speech by referring the hon. the Minister of Finance to an article which appeared in The Sunday Times of 19 December 1982. The heading reads: “R23 billion loans for the public sector”. In the report it is stated that loans amounting to R23 billion will be raised by various public sector corporations such as the Atomic Energy Corporation, Escom, Post and Telegraphs, etc. In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister made mention of the amount of money which the public sector takes out of the economy. I believe that he should perhaps have a second look at it. I am very delighted to see that he has set up a committee to look into the priorities of the various sectors of the South African economy. I nevertheless appeal to him to take cognizance of this leg of my amendment to which I have now referred briefly.

Mr. Speaker, in his final remarks the hon. member for Amanzimtoti referred to a newspaper report stating that over a certain period the public sector, or public corporatons, would be borrowing R23 billion. The hon. member thought that was too much. Unfortunately he did not, however, seek any detail himself in connection with what items he would like to be eliminated.

As we all know, some of the public corporations—most of them—are spending money on matters that are absolutely essential. Should the hon. member, however, feel that any particular item are non-essential, then what he can do is …

I shall give them to you.

The hon. member cannot give them to me now. He does not have the time to do so. What he can do, however, is give the hon. the Minister a list of all the items he feels are non-essential, and I am convinced that the hon. the Minister will refer the list to his department, where all those items which the hon. member for Amanzimtoti feels are non-essential, will be looked at very carefully. In any event, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister’s department will scrutinize the expenditure of public corporations very carefully, in the same way in which they scrutinize Government expenditure.

Furthermore, the hon. member lodged appeals with the hon. the Minister in connection with many matters that are receiving daily attention. He also dealt with the matter of inflation; I shall deal with that somewhat later. The hon. member expressed approval of the Government’s monetary policy. I must say I appreciate his attitude because, at least, there was a constructive viewpoint expressed by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti in this regard. He also called upon the Government to cut further Government expenditure but once again the hon. member does not provide us with any details. I understood the hon. the Minister, however, to say that he has a Priorities Committee under the chairmanship of the Director-General of Finance, a committee that is examining all these things very, very carefully. Therefore, should the hon. member for Amanzimtoti feel that there are items that should be deleted from the hon. the Minister’s budget, he should make representations to that Priorities Committee.

The hon. the Minister should appoint me on the committee,

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, although he has experience of serving on committees, is not quite good enough to serve on that Priorities Committee. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, listening to hon. members of the Opposition parties criticizing the financial administration and the state of the economy, I am tempted to ask certain questions. Why, if everything is so bad, are thousands of skilled and well qualified immigrants from all over the world anxiously waiting for a chance to settle in South Africa? Why do tens upon tens of thousands of people come from all the surrounding States to look for work in South Africa? Why did the IMF agree to grant South Africa a loan of R1 240 million? Why is the hon. the Minister of Finance able to relax exchange control? These are but a few questions that cross my mind. The answers, of course, are very simple. People, both inside and outside South Africa, look at our country objectively. They have great confidence in this country, in its potential and in its people, and they show it by investing in this country.

Theo, you have really learnt a lot since you have become a Nationalist!

If the Opposition considers the situation more objectively, they could do far more to encourage investment and confidence in South Africa than is presently the case.

Mr. Everingham, the Prog MPC in the Cape Provincial Council, made allegations yesterday, as reported in The Cape Times of this morning, to the effect that he definitely knows of companies that are not paying the taxes they should. He mentioned a survey of 10 large industrial companies and used the terminology “that they were legitimately avoiding massive amounts of taxation”. He then went on to blame this on the Government department concerned. If in fact these companies are paying taxes that they are required to pay by law then there is no problem and I cannot understand the reason for his complaint. However, he went on to say that they were paying 28,1% on their profits in spite of the fact that the tax rate was 46,2%. In saying this he appears to have alleged that there was some form of tax evasion. However, he did not give any details other than to blame the hon. the Minister’s department for the fact that these companies are paying 28,1% instead of 46,2%. In view of the fact that Mr. Everingham has this knowledge and knows the names of the companies that he has alleged are short-changing the Receiver of Revenue, he has a duty to report this matter to the Commissioner for Inland Revenue. If he fails to do this, one can only arrive at one of two conclusions, namely, either he is unable to substantiate his allegations or he is prepared to condone a possible criminal offence. In view of his statement that these companies are legitimately avoiding massive amounts of taxation, he cannot have it both ways. Either what they are doing is legal or, if they are doing something that is illegal, he must bring it to the attention of the department. I want to put this question to Mr. Everingham: What about the public officers of a company and the outside auditors of a company? Surely they must in the first place satisfy themselves when they sign the balance sheets that those balance sheets are in order. [Interjections.] I know the hon. member for Yeoville is touchy about this. However, this is a central Government matter and yet one finds that a member of the provincial council is debating this matter in the provincial council. [Interjections.] This falls under the purview of Parliament so I cannot see what the objection of the hon. member for Yeoville is. I say that if Mr. Everingham has proof of his allegations he will be doing the country a service if he submits that proof to the authorities. If he does not prove those allegations then I call it scandalous rumourmongering because, according to him, he was dealing with 10 top industrial companies in the country. My guess is that Mr. Everingham looked at the balance sheets of 10 possibly public companies and did not take into account the fact that they received dividends on which they do not pay tax, as well as the fact that there are legitimate legal concessions that are deductible before tax. However, he has a duty to explain these allegations because they made the headlines and gave the impression that something was wrong in commerce and industry in South Africa.

The Opposition is unhappy with the way in which South Africa is being administered, more particularly with reference to financial administration. This excludes the NRP. Whilst the Opposition is unhappy with the Government let us see how foreign financial experts view South Africa. The United Nations General Assembly approved a resolution calling upon the International Monetary Fund to reject a loan of R1 240 million to South Africa. The resolution was approved by a 121 votes to three with 23 abstentions. Various anti-South African groups campaigned actively against South Africa getting that loan. Despite all this enormous pressure the IMF dealt with the application on merit and endorsed South Africa’s financial policy by lending it that R1 240 million on reasonable terms. The hon. the Minister of Finance, his colleagues and his department are to be complimented on this achievement and on the fact that they have managed the South African economy so well. The loan was obviously granted as a result of and a tribute to South Africa’s economic performance over a period of years. I presume that even the Opposition would be happy to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Finance and his team of experts on this achievement. When it comes to the internal financial policy, if I may call it that, of the Government, then the Opposition put the hon. the Minister and the Government on one side. They blame them for everything and separate them from the departmental team. The same departmental team of men who assisted the hon. the Minister over the years to achieve that recognition by the IMF, also assisted and advised the hon. the Minister on the various aspects of the local economy. Obviously the hon. the Minister as the political head accepts full responsibility, but at the same time his decisions must be based on expert advice. All that the hon. members of the Opposition have achieved is that they are telling the financial world inside and outside South Africa that they have no confidence in the way the hon. the Minister and the department administer the financial affairs of South Africa. The financial world has, however, rejected these prophets of doom and gloom on the opposite side to such an extent that their confidence, backed by investments, has enabled the hon. the Minister to relax exchange control.

The hon. members refer to inflation as though this is something that the Government created. Inflation is international and one cannot isolate our economy as though we are living on an island. Our trading partners are going through the worst economic recession in living memory, and obviously this affects our situation. This was highlighted in an editorial of a newspaper that is a keen supporter of even the PFP, namely the Evening Post that wrote on 4 August 1982—

There can be no doubt that when our trading partners improve their situation, we in South Africa are well poised to take the advantage and to capitalize on that situation. In the meantime, in order to assist the effort against inflation, no stone must go unturned in the efforts to increase productivity. Self-discipline in spending has been imposed on the Government and on the public sector, and if the response by the private sector is on the same level, then we shall go a long way in fighting inflation.

The hon. the Minister has always expressed the role of gold and the future of gold. Despite the refusal in certain quarters to let gold come into its own right and despite a country reducing its gold holding by public auction, gold has managed to hold its own and fared very well over the last few years. It is apparent that there is a complete loss of faith in currencies, and more and more countries are returning to gold. I realize that an increase of over $100 an ounce per year is worth more than R2 000 million per year to South Africa. I know that the hon. the Minister and his department will watch the situation carefully, but I think the time may be ready to consider a nice gold swop at the moment. An expert on gold said—

He then went on to say—

These remarks and other detailed remarks were made about gold internationally. They were made some three years ago and by none other than by the hon. the Minister of Finance in the budget debate of 1980. The hon. the Minister has shown his confidence in gold, and what he said then, applies equally now. What he said then, was proven to be correct and we have seen what happened to gold in the meantime.

Why do you not quote your Hansard of 1980?

There is nothing wrong with my Hansard of 1980.

The more we can manufacture and the more we can convert our minerals and raw materials and refine them, the more job situations will become available. I should like the hon. the Minister to consider greater incentives perhaps for the conversion or refinement of our raw materials. The South African economy has been strong financially when many of South Africa’s trading partners have been experiencing the worst recession since 1930. Unemployment in Britain rose to a post-1930 record of over 3 200 000. According to Time magazine of December 1982, unemployment stood at 10,5% of Western Europe’s labour force. According to the same magazine, the debt of developing nations is at least $500 billion. In the same article attention was given to Mexico’s debt of $80 billion to $85 billion. It is said that a major default could gravely undermine—perhaps even collapse—the present financial order. Despite these enormous debts, the US Federal Reserve Bank Chairman, Mr. Paul Volcker, has warned the commercial banks that they could precipitate a global financial crisis if they stopped lending money to the developing nations. In other words, the only solution he envisages is one of extending more credit to those who are unable to meet their liabilities today.

Let us look at our situation. We have First World and Third World components, with all the complexities involved in such a situation. I would think that our Third-World component would, at least, be termed a developing component. Perhaps the same argument could even be used in regard to our First World component. South Africa has never asked for any form of extensions as regards repayments. In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, we have been able to repay many loans before the due date. Despite the depressed international situation, South Africa’s economy continues to be a beacon of light to investors. The relationship between the public and the private sector thawed as a result of the Carlton and Good Hope conferences, according to Mr. Raymond Parsons, the chief executive of Assocom. I should like to quote further what he said on that occasion—

During last year the Government announced incentives and concessions for regional growth, and from 1 April 1982 to 30 November 1982 there were applications to the tune of R843 million for new industries or extensions to existing industries. Most of these industries were attracted to areas where unemployment was a serious factor. This R843 million was approved during a year when the economy had slowed down. When the economy improves, I have no doubt that the private and public sectors will vastly improve on this amount. With the expenditure of the R843 million, there will be employment opportunities for 46 000 people. If there is an average of say five people in a family, this means that over 200 000 people will benefit from the expenditure of this R843 million, and that benefit will percolate through to everyone else in the community. The amount of R843 million will be spent in various regions and the impact will be felt by all those regions. The interesting thing is that 46 of these applications came from outside South Africa, an amount involved totalled R83 million. The State and the private sector, I am sure, will co-operate to give the highest priority to decentralization and deconcentration.

I have no doubt that with the financial policy the hon. the Minister and his department are adopting, he will encourage great sums of money from overseas, bigger investments from overseas for South Africa. I also have no doubt that he will encourage commerce and industry to invest on a far greater scale than ever before in South Africa. Equally there is no doubt in my mind that when the upturn in the economy comes, South Africa will be—as it has always been in the past—one of the leading nations for other countries, and for South Africans, to invest in.

Mr. Speaker, I move as a further amendment—

1. (1) to deal with present and future employment needs of South Africans;
2. (2) in regard to the staff problems in and management of the Public Service;
3. (3) to combat the problems of inflation and exploitation and the hardship which they cause to large sections of the population;
4. (4) to give greater protection to the ordinary citizen against growing crime, particularly in the urban areas.”.

I am sure the hon. member Mr. Aronson will forgive me if I do not reply at length to what he said. To sum up, I get the general impression that he is for the Minister.

In 1977 the then Minister of Economic Affairs appointed a study group under the chairmanship of Dr. Klue. Its purpose was to formulate an industrial development strategy for South Africa and, as the House is aware, this group has just produced its report. The study group was given a large degree of discretion as to the area it wished to investigate. It interpreted its brief broadly. Industrial development, the report states, cannot be viewed independently of general economic development. It has produced a development strategy which it believes to be consistent with the economic system of the country and which matches the guidelines that were produced by the hon. the Prime Minister at the Carlton conference. For these reasons an analysis of the Klue report can throw light on a whole number of aspects of the South African social, economic and political situation. It is a valuable document, produced by competent people, but it reflects an unfortunate tendency of people serving on commissions to accept too unquestioningly the parameters set by the politicians who appoint them.

Despite the group’s claim to having interpreted its directive as broadly as possible, I believe it has not been challenging enough. The result is a good analysis of our economic situation except in those areas where it impinges on Government ideology. When this happens, the group’s members do not translate their economists’ appraisal into appropriate recommendations. For example, the group recommends the elimination of factors which distort market forces and disturb the relative prices of labour, capital and equipment, but fails to examine the labour market where geographic immobility causes extreme distortion, or the land market where the Group Areas Act makes a mockery of plans to use the market mechanism to achieve economic results. The study group warns, directly, against the fragmentation of markets, but fails even to mention the most shattering fragmentation of all, viz. the rash of unviable, quasi-independent Black States, each of which will exercise an unco-ordinated initiative in both purchase and production.

In a time of severe capital shortages and where lack of capital could seriously hamper growth, the report lays heavy emphasis on the need to husband capital resources. It points to industry’s record in the utilization of capital and criticizes it as wasteful, but what the report does not say is that in three critical ways this is the result of the Government’s own policy. Firstly, the Government made investment in capital plant so attractive to industrialists through the special allowances that many operations which really should have remained manual were mechanized. Secondly, it made the employment of Blacks in the industrial areas so difficult, so inefficient and so impaired by bureaucratic interference that an industrialist would frequently prefer to mechanize in the interests of a less stressful life. I think we have all seen many cases of this. Both these moves were deliberate. They formed part of a policy, which is still very much alive, of keeping the Blacks away from the urban areas. Thirdly, by a system of very cheap money, now changed, the Government made the purchase of plant and equipment very attractive to industrialists.

The circumstances in which the Klue group deliberated were peculiar. In 1977 it was constituted. In 1979, long before it drew up its report, the hon. the Prime Minister laid down guidelines for an economic strategy at the Carlton conference. In 1981 it was completely pre-empted by the industrial development proposals issued by the Economic Planning branch and only in February 1983 could it produce its report. It is no wonder that it apparently regards whole areas of the economy as somebody else’s affair. This seems to substantiate the general belief that commissions and committees are created at whim and that neither they nor anybody else is quite sure what each is supposed to be doing. It probably also accounts for a feeling one gets when one reads the report that the industrial decentralization proposals, because they have the hon. the Prime Minister’s support, are almost inviolate and are tacitly or unenthusiastically endorsed by the study group. This is where a major opportunity was lost. It knew that a massive decentralization programme was going to be put into effect in an attempt to make independent Black States more credible. A study group of this nature should have analysed the economic consequences of the Government’s manipulation of private enterprise for ideological reasons rather than to produce an orthodox economic analysis of the situation. What the Klue study group failed to do was to examine the Government’s decentralization policy from an economic point of view, and either endorse it or condemn it. That it could purport to produce an industrial development strategy for South Africa without doing that, is to me quite incomprehensible. I believe it shows a reluctance to examine and expose an infant monster. Why do I say this?

To understand what is involved one must first of all develop a sense of proportion for the magnitude of the sums involved. The Department of Information states that the Development Bank will be able to make available some R650 million a year by the mid-1980s and over R1 000 million by 1990. As a comparison the gross domestic fixed investment in all private manufacturing enterprises in the five years from 1975 to 1980 averaged only R1 350 000 per annum.

One must also examine the incentive benefits offered to firms to establish themselves in decentralized areas. I recently calculated that if a factory with a capital investment of approximately R2,5 million and employing some 800 people were to move from the PWV area to an area which entitled it to maximum incentive benefits, it would be subsidized by an amount in the region of R9 million over a 10-year period. These figures illustrate the strength of the obsession that drives this Government to create independent Black States. It is an obsession. These States form the structure of apartheid and are not possible without a decentralization of industry to stabilize the Black population in its traditional geographic areas. The Klue study group’s concern about major aspects of the economy comes through clearly in the report. The value of the report is that it can be used as a yardstick against which to judge what is known in the new jargon—it is a jargon—as the Government’s plan for the spacial dispersal of industry in a new constitutional milieu. The Klue report states that the utilization of the sources by industry requires serious reconsideration. It points to industry’s poor performance in many respects. As things stand at present, says the Klue report, there is no economic justification for developing industry at the cost of the primary sectors. The study group’s concern about the shortage of capital is a recurrent theme which runs right through the report. It states that sensible planning will base economic and industrial strategy on the assumption that capital will be a scarce factor of production, that growth will be limited by capital accumulation which is unlikely to be adequate to reduce unemployment. Despite these reservations it does not appear to have analysed the likely impact of a decentralization scheme of the dimensions described. The nearest it could get to addressing this problem and the problems that will develop, is a suggestion that there should be co-ordination between such bodies as the drafters of the EDP, the Board of Trade and the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism on such matters as incentives. One would certainly hope so. After paying its respects to the decentralization programme in a paragraph which states “It is urgent to secure a distribution of economic activity to relieve economic and social pressures on the large cities”—a statement which there is no attempt to justify—the report produces a set of guidelines on spacial distribution of industry. These by no means deal with the matter adequately, but nonetheless, they should make us all stop and think. Among others the following points are made: Firstly, industrial development will not be sufficient to attain the goals of the development policy. It recommends concentration on agriculture, commerce and services in the national States. Secondly, a policy of redistribution of economic activity should not be taken so far as to harm the metropolitan areas; in other words, do not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Thirdly, decentralization must be productive at least in terms of socio-political objectives. I am sure we all have different ways of measuring these. Fourthly, it warns against too many ineffective development points. Fifthly, it calls for a strengthened Decentralization Board.

When the hon. the Prime Minister tells us that in eight months there will have been 612 applications to the Decentralization Board for concessions and that of these 599 have been approved, like someone counting trophies, I feel there is a dire urgency that the economic impact of the decentralization programme should be examined by yet another commission. I call for such a commission. I have a conviction that the Government is so mesmerized by the illusion that the decentralization policy might salvage grand apartheid that it refuses to subject this policy to a proper scrutiny. This scrutiny should cover its effects on costs, on exports, on established industry, on alternative development, on inflation—which incidentally the Kleu Report never mentions—on unemployment and on other related matters. The implications of what the Government is doing could have the most serious consequences for our economy. Let us get suitably qualified people to have an objective and dispassionate look before the whole economy is distorted.

The Director-General of the Department of Co-operation and Development gave evidence before the President’s Council and he said—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Walmer really did not stir me up. In the past the hon. member for Yeoville had a far better perception of finance than the hon. member for Walmer. The voters of Walmer definitely made a poor choice when they did not reelect the hon. member Mr. Aronson in Walmer. There is one favourable remark I want to make about the speech of the hon. member for Walmer, and that is that it would go down very well in the lecture room of an economy class.

Where there are people with intelligence; not you lot (“julle ou spul”).

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must withdraw the words “julle ou spul”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the words “julle ou spul” and replace it by “all the hon. members of the NP”. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must withdraw those words unconditionally.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them unconditionally, but I replace them by the words “hon. members of the NP”. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

The hon. member for Bryanston said that we on this side of the House lacked intelligence. He spoke about “ons hele spul” who lacked intelligence. Actually I took it that he meant it with reference to everyone in this House. Therefore it makes no difference as far as I am concerned. Surely, then, it includes him too. [Interjections.] This is, of course, a place where we have to debate.

Let us debate then. Let us leave personalities out of the picture and conduct a proper debate.

I want us to debate properly now. I want to put it to the hon. member for Walmer that his remark in connection with the Klue report compels me to provide him with certain items of information. Throughout the time that they were preparing that report, Dr. Klue and his working group co-operated with the people that we call the special constellation committee. The special constellation committee … Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bryanston need not sit there laughing. I say this because the hon. member for Walmer is now calling for the appointment of another commission.

But I thought the constellation had disappeared. [Interjections.]

No, the constellation has definitely not disappeared.

But I thought it was now “confederation”.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that when the hon. member for Yeoville was speaking, I did not make a single interjection. He must please give me a chance to speak too, now. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Walmer must take into account that the Klue Committee co-operated with the special constellation committee throughout. The hon. member is therefore being critical of the fact that the Klue report is appearing now. I want to put it to the hon. member that the compilers of the Klue report had a clue what this was about. I can assure the hon. member of that. That, too, is why the Government has no problems with the recommendations contained in the Klue report, nor with the standpoints adopted in that report. Indeed, these are matters which the Government is trying to deal with. The Government is trying to deal with them in terms of its policy. However, what the criticism levelled at the Klue report by the hon. member for Walmer amounts to is that it is based on the policy of the NP, on the ideology of the NP. What the hon. member is opposed to, is that one cannot now employ as many workers as one wishes in a place like Johannesburg, for example. The hon. member is also opposed to section 3 of the Planning Act still incorporating certain restrictions with regard to employment.

Why do you hate Johannesburg so?

Surely we have debated this matter. The hon. member for Yeoville wants to know why I hate Johannesburg. I do not hate Johannesburg. After all, the hon. member for Yeoville Uves there, and I like the hon. member for Yeoville. [Interjections.] However, I shall deal with the hon. member for Yeoville later. The fact remains that we debated this matter in this House at the instance of the hon. member for Yeoville. He introduced a special motion to that effect. On that occasion we debated the question whether the Government’s initiatives would kill the metropolitan areas. The Government’s standpoint has consistently been—and still is today—that whereas we want to effect the maximum degree of decentralization, we do not intend …

You are murderers.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Has the hon. member for Yeoville the right to say that we are a lot of murderers? [Interjections.]

Order! What did the hon. member for Yeoville say?

Mr. Speaker, I said that they were murderers because they wanted to kill the metropolitan areas. [Interjections.] They are murderers of the metropolitan areas.

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville must withdraw the words “you are murderers”.

But, Mr. Speaker, they are killing the metropolitan areas. [Interjections.] Very well then, I withdraw them.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing, of course, that I can say of the hon. member for Yeoville. He is not a murderer. That is for certain. However, I do not know whether he might not be guilty of culpable manslaughter. That, of course, is an entirely different matter. Of course, one element of culpable manslaughter is that one can do certain things due to negligence; things which may, of course, claim the life of another man in the process. If, then, we were to be negligent by affording the metropolitan areas, too, the necessary stimulus to be able to compete with those areas in which we want to implement deconcentration …

You are negligent; you do it deliberately.

Now the hon. member repeats his allegation that I am a murderer! [Interjections.] The Government’s policy is very clear. The Government does not intend disturbing the rhythm of the metropolitan areas in the sense in which the hon. members over there are afraid it will happen. At the same time, the Government has the responsibility of ensuring that deconcentration is duly implemented in this country. The opposition parties ought to recognize that it is not only in South Africa that there is a need for deconcentration. Throughout the world a policy of deconcentration is pursued. Now, because we want to pursue this policy in South Africa those hon. members link it specifically to the policy of the NP. [Interjections.] Those hon. members can take their own policy and test it against that. They are also in favour of deconcentration. [Interjections.] Yes, but those hon. members say that they would pursue deconcentration without ideology, without a policy.

For purely economic reasons.

If those hon. members say that they would deconcentrate for purely economic reasons, then what is wrong when we, too, deconcentrate for economic reasons?

No, you do it for political reasons.

That hon. member wants to interpret this as having been done for political reasons. The fact remains that those hon. members do not want to perceive that the Government is in earnest in seeking to pursue deconcentration in this situation.

You separate, you do not deconcentrate.

Mr. Speaker, I prefer to speak to the hon. member for Yeoville. Today I do not want to fall prey to the same temptation as that which the hon. member for Walmer succumbed to. I want us to talk politics a little; thus far this debate has been far too calm.

I should like to put a few questions to the official Opposition, and the first one I put to the hon. member for Wynberg. When the Defence Force launched the attack in Maseru and performed certain functions there, the hon. member for Wynberg made certain remarks.

Is the hon. the Deputy Minister the new Minister of Defence?

No, I am merely asking. [Interjections.] I did not lose my job, as the hon. member for Yeoville did. I still have mine. The hon. member for Wynberg made certain remarks to the effect that the Government of Lesotho ought not to become too excited. They were informed in advance that if they acted in that way, viz. if they accommodated people there who launched attacks on South Africa, follow-up operations would be carried out against them. What the hon. member in fact said was that the actions of the Defence Force were correct. Did the hon. member say that?

The hon. the Deputy Minister should read my statement. [Interjections.]

I do not have the hon. member’s statement with me here, but I think that what I have just said is quite correct.

You must just tell Magnus that he must not damage the casino there. [Interjections.]

I do not have shares in that casino. [Interjections.] I again ask the hon. member for Wynberg, since he made that remark, whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has at any time supported him unequivocally, yes or no. I merely ask this because it is an important question. [Interjections.] No, it is a simple question to answer. Perhaps I should put it to the hon. member for Yeoville.

I support him.

The hon. member for Yeoville supports the hon. member for Wynberg. Now I want the hon. member for Yeoville to inform the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he supports the hon. member for Wynberg.

Yes, of course.

Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is obliged to state directly: Yes, he supports the hon. member for Wynberg.

But the man is not present. How can he reply to it? [Interjections.]

Surely I can speak to him even though he is not present. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition can take part in this debate.

Is the hon. the Deputy Minister opposed to the terrorists being thrashed?

No, I am merely trying to find out whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is opposed to it.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is this normal debating, when a dialogue is being conducted between the hon. member who is on his feet and an hon. member who is sitting?

But he is asking questions.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs is putting questions to members of the official Opposition and I am of the opinion that they may react to those questions.

Sir. I am enjoying it.

Order! No, the hon. members of the official Opposition should really not reply to the questions even before they have been put. [Interjections.] Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

I am fully aware that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not present, but the hon. member for Yeoville made his speech here today as if he was prepared to take over. As far as I am concerned, he has already replied to the questions, but the present hon. Leader must also reply to them.

Having put questions to those hon. members, I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton whether she associates herself with the statement issued by the hon. member for Wynberg. [Interjections.]

Make your own speech. [Interjections.]

Sir, I am honoured to have been the person who was able to entice the hon. member for Houghton into speaking Afrikaans in this House. I want to ask her whether she agrees with the statement made by the hon. member for Wynberg. She must not tell me now that I must make my own speech. The other day the hon. member for Albany told me that I could answer by nodding my head, and at the time I nodded my head and gave an answer. Surely the hon. member for Houghton can do so, too.

You could not manage to mislead her.

No, I did not say I had misled her; I said that I had enticed her to speak Afrikaans.

The hon. member for Houghton must give us her answer because this is a serious matter. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North said in this House that he did not belong to any secret organization; and that included the clique of the hon. member for Houghton.

“Alleged” clique.

Very well, “alleged”. Let us, then, say “alleged”; that is not so serious. Nevertheless there is an insinuation.

The hon. members for Yeoville and Wynberg will agree with the statement made by the hon. member for Wynberg, but the hon. members for Houghton and Pinelands will not agree. The hon. member for Sea Point will probably not agree either. The difficulty is that we now want to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition where he stands. A great deal has been said about what the PFP candidate in the Stellenbosch by-election said about Swapo and so on, and now there are a number of questions that we want to put to the hon. members.

But then you must put the questions clearly.

To begin with, I want to put a question to the hon. member for Yeoville. As a colleague, he owes it to us to tell us why he is no longer the PFP’s chief spokesman on Defence.

I resigned.

Did he do so in writing and furnish the reasons for his resignation?

Yes, I did.

Can the hon. member tell us what the reasons for his resignation were; why he no longer wanted to be chief spokesman on Defence?

Because I am now chief spokesman on Finance. [Interjections.]

But that he has always been. The hon. member for Yeoville was chief spokesman for both those portfolios, and what is more, he managed it with ease, because he is a hardworking and very intelligent man.

Every member of the caucus who was chief spokesman for more than one portfolio resigned one of them.

We are not in favour of “one man, one vote”; we are in favour of “one man, one portfolio”.

This is a very important matter which took place at a very important time, and what took place was very illuminating, because the hon. member for Yeoville was the chief spokesman on Defence and several questions were placed on the Order Paper for reply by the hon. the Prime Minister with regard to Defence matters and for reply by the hon. the Minister of Law and Order concerning matters affecting his department, but the hon. member for Yeoville did not put those questions. [Interjections.]

I put 30 questions to the hon. the Minister of Finance.

I give the hon. member credit for that. The questions on Defence matters were not put by the hon. member for Wynberg either.

I put the questions.

The hon. member for Wynberg did not put all the questions; the hon. the Leader of the Opposition put the majority of them.

Go and count them.

We can go and count them. [Interjections.] I should just like to round off this matter. [Interjections.] Those hon. members are always wanting to tell us that there was division in our ranks. It is true that there was division in our ranks. [Interjections.] There the other part is sitting. I shall get to them in a moment. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville said that the hon. members of the CP were more dangerous than those of the NP.

I do think they are more dangerous, but that does not mean that you are such a fine fellow. [Interjections.]

That hon. member must not worry about that. The hon. members of the PFP must clarify this point for us.

I should now like to turn to the hon. members of the CP. [Interjections.] I have just been informed that apparently the leader of the CP was able today to postpone the agreement date for the possible agreement between the CP and the HNP until Monday. [Interjections.] I am informed that Mr. Jaap Marais no longer stands firm on his ultimatum of 12 hours, because on Saturday the CP is going to have an extended meeting of its top management. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Lichtenburg, as chairman, need only nod to me to indicate whether I am right or not. Do the hon. members deny that the hon. member for Waterberg contacted the leader of the HNP today to ask for postponement until Monday?

Go and fish in your own dam.

I beg your pardon? [Interjections.] Do those hon. members deny it? [Interjections.]

Why are you so inquisitive? [Interjections.]

Apparently the hon member for Lichtenburg denies it. [Interjections.]

What does it matter? [Interjections.]

No, it is very important. I again ask whether the hon. member for Lichtenburg denies that the hon. member for Waterberg contacted the HNP to make an arrangement of this nature.

I deny it. [Interjections.]

I shall drop that point for the moment. We can discuss it again tomorrow. [Interjections.] I now just want to sketch the background to this matter. To me this is a tragic thing that is taking place now. The hon. member for Waterberg accused the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning of crawling on his knees, etc. However, I have never before seen so much crawling as is going on now. [Interjections.] Really, that one has to crawl to maintain a 50:50 situation, whereas the “claim to fame” used to be that they would be all-conquering! There was no doubt about it. [Interjections.] I now want to put a few straight questions to those hon. members. It seems to me as if an agreement is now going to be reached. [Interjections.] I want to put my questions, because to me this is a serious matter. [Interjections.] Give me a chance now. The hon. member for Barberton will have many more opportunities to speak to me. I want to put a question to the hon. member for Lichtenburg. Does he agree with the policy of the HNP that Afrikaans should be the only language of South Africa?

You know what our policy is. [Interjections.]

There is now going to be a 50:50 situation. Does that hon. member agree with the policy of the HNP that Afrikaans must be the only official language of South Africa?

No. Have you not read our programme of principles? [Interjections.]

The policy which those hon. members presented yesterday and the day before, surely can no longer be applicable if they are negotiating a 50:50 partnership with the HNP.

Read the document.

Does the hon. member for Lichtenburg agree with the policy of the HNP that Bophuthatswana ought not to be an independent State?

Surely we said that there are differences between the HNP and ourselves. [Interjections.]

Then we must now ascertain what those differences are. I have been watching the situation very carefully and thus far it is only the CP that has made concessions to the HNP. As yet the HNP has made no concessions. [Interjections.] However, we are being accused by hon. members of the CP of being the people who have departed from the road which the NP has always followed. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Sunnyside should be the last to talk. About policy he knows absolutely nothing. If the hon. members opposite are going to associate themselves in an election agreement with the HNP, who say that they do not recognize Bophuthatswana as an independent State and that they only recognize Afrikaans as the official language of this country, then they would do well to consider what they are doing.

Go and read our principles.

There is no point in saying at this point that I should go and read that stuff. The policy will be rendered invalid by the agreement entered into with the HNP. The hon. member need only ask the hon. member for Yeoville what happens when one does such things.

You go along with Allan Hendrickse. [Interjections.]

That is exactly what my next question is about. The hon. member for Waterberg said: “I do not take it.” I want to ask the hon. member for Barberton what he says.

Yes.

Does the hon. member for Lichtenburg agree with what the hon. member for Waterberg said?

Of course.

All the hon. members?

Of course.

If that is the situation we find ourselves in with regard to this matter, then I should like to know since when the hon. members do not accept it. Surely they did accept it?

We have never accepted power-sharing.

Surely they did accept it. After all, congresses were held in that regard. There were caucus meetings about it.

I want to go further. The other day, we were discussing the Bill relatintg to the borders of specific States, the hon. member for Pietersburg said that he stood by the quota of 1936.

Yes.

Does the hon. member for Lichtenburg agree?

Yes. [Interjections.]

Now I should like to quote something. I said to the hon. member for Barberton—and I am sorry to have to speak to my friend Ferdinand in this manner …

Never mind, you need not be afraid.

No; in any event it will not prejudice the relations we have maintained. The fact is that on 7 February 1979 the hon. the Prime Minister made an important announcement in this House about a matter concerning which the hon. members of the official Opposition are constantly hurling the accusation at us that we have not dealt with the situation of the Black people, whereas we have dealt with the situation of the Brown people and the Asians. The statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister in this House on 7 February 1979 was a clear indication that the situation of the Black people would also be dealt with. What is at issue now, however, is the 1936 quota. At the time the hon. member for Lichtenburg was a Deputy Minister.

Yes, at that time things were still going well.

At the time he was the Deputy Minister and the hon. the Prime Minister said the following (Hansard, col. 242)—

What was that aim? Surely it was consolidation.

Now I just want to put a question to the hon. member for Lichtenburg. On 6 August 1980 the hon. members for Lichtenburg and Waterberg were still members of the Cabinet and on that day I, in my capacity as chairman of the commission, moved the consolidation proposals and pointed out that the 1936 quota was being exceeded. The hon. the Prime Minister asked everyone present to consider them. However no-one told me that the 1936 quota may not be exceeded.

Those matters have even now not been disposed of.

But that is not the point. [Interjections.]

You are still struggling to make a decision.

Yes, we are struggling. This is not such an easy matter. However, the point here is the remark made by the hon. member for Pietersburg. I want to say to those hon. members that they must not subject my friend to such bad treatment. He had a great deal to say about consolidation and about Black people, but those hon. members are now desperately casting back to the HNP ideas of 1969. In 1969 Ferdinand was not HNP, I can assure hon. members of that. I am not so sure of the hon. member for Rissik or the hon. member for Sunny-side. The hon. member for Rissik will, of course, deny that he was ever a United Party supporter at any stage of his life.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, Sir. The hon. member for Rissik may deny that he used to be a United Party supporter. We can attest to the fact that during the ASB congress of 1958—the hon member for Lichtenburg and the hon. the Minister for Internal Affairs will remember this—we formally celebrated the conversion to Nationalism of the hon. member for Rissik by duly dousing him in the fishpond in front of the hostel. [Interjections.] In that way the occasion of Daan van der Merwe joining the NP was celebrated. The hon. member for Rissik cannot deny that.

I hope that the courting going on between the HNP and the CP gets serious now and that it will result in a wedding. Such a long-drawn-out process of courting and moving closer to one another and staying together will eventually lead to togetherness. Togetherness leads eventually to fatherhood. This is the kind of thing that the hon. members had better accept. These are things that will happen. We must now have clarity about this matter and we are only going to have clarity in this regard if the hon. members continue with this courtship. The further they take the courtship, the better it will suit the NP because there are hon. members in the CP today who believe that the CP is not at the same level as the HNP. Those members of the electorate will come back to the NP because they will see that in fact there is no longer a difference between the HNP and the CP.

At a later stage I shall ask the hon. member for Barberton what his attitude is with regard to certain matters relating to consolidation. We shall still be coming to that.

Now I wish to turn to the theologians in the CP. I do not really wish to speak to the hon. member for Pinelands now, because I do not know whether he is still a theologian.

He is a revolutionary theologian.

There are a number of theologians on our side of the House, too, with whom we can speak if we like. The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs will know what I am talking about. There is a recognized principle …

Mr.Speaker, I understand I heard the hon. Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries say of the hon. member for Pine-lands that he was a revolutionary.

Did the hon. the Deputy Minister use that word?

As far as I remember I said he was a revolutionary theologist, or he believed in the theology of revolution.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must withdraw the word “revolutionary”.

I withdraw the word.

I think the best way for me to explain the NP’s policy so that those hon. members could understand … It will be more difficult for hon. members of the PFP to understand. I just want to say to hon. members of the NRP that they must not take it amiss of me if I do not count them at this stage. [Interjections.] There was once a great philosopher, Dooyeweerd, who formulated the doctrine of sovereignty which is recognized by all Western democracies and churches. It embodies the right of every group, of every person, every institution and every factor to possess its own sphere of sovereignty. At the same time it is recognized that there is no place or factor of sovereignty that does not overlap with other spheres of sovereignty. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, to begin with—I shall come back to other aspects later—I just wish to raise two matters relating to the financial side of the debate being conducted, matters which I should like to propose. The first matter which is of great importance to me is that not all of us in this country are rich people or capitalists. There are many people who have a hard time of it financially. If one goes to the shops every month one finds that there is not one month in which one can buy the same value for the same amount of money as in the previous month. There is a constant increase in the price level. It may be that the hon. the Minister of Finance does not often go and buy groceries himself, but we poor fellows who have to do so find, month after month, that the rising prices do not keep pace with what one earns. If we do not set out to plan a drastic remedy in this regard, we shall eventually have the situation where some of our people will really be unable to continue to live above the breadline. Accordingly I want to make a very earnest appeal that something be done to combat price increases. When the price of milk, butter or cheese rises—rises that can benefit the farmer—the fact is announced in banner headlines in the newspapers so that everyone may know it. However, when it comes to the goods in shops, goods the price of which rises systematically month after month, we find that this is not spelt out on the front pages of the newspapers, although they are increases that hit our less well-off people hard—and here I am not referring to Whites; this applies to the non-Whites as well—as far as the maintenance of their families in a decent fashion is concerned.

In this regard I also wish to say that in my opinion the hon. the Minister must please take another look at the question of the public servant. It may be all very well to say that we must withhold the salary increases for public servants for a time. But these people in the service of the State are those very people who, in this country, pull the hind-yoke in order to make effective everything in this country, in respect of whatever service. Some of these people fall into the lower income group and suffer just as much in the face of the constant price increases that we are experiencing.

Another matter I should very much like to stress is the question of housing. I am convinced that this is another source of disquiet for the hon. the Minister too. I know that there is an increasing number of our people who, due to the extremely high prices, are unable to acquire a home of their own. I know there are many arguments we could advance. There are those who say that the young people want to fly too high. They want to build too big a house, for example one with two or three bathrooms and two garages. They keep two cars. They want everything right at the outset. They do not want to start as simply as we started. However we may argue, I say to hon. members today that it is really becoming more and more difficult even for the young person who is willing to start with something simple but who wishes to have a place of his own. Accordingly, I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister, as far as housing is concerned, to take another look at the possibilities that have already been created in an effort to see whether something more could not be done.

The hon. member for Yeoville made one flagrant mistake this afternoon with reference to the CP. Apparently he thinks that because the PFP and the CP are opposed to the NP in this debate, we are in fact bedfellows. The hon. member then intimated that he would not want to be the bedfellow of the CP under any circumstances. But, Sir, under no circumstances do we of the CP wish to be bedfellows of the PFP. Therefore he must not interpret the fact that the CP and the PFP are together opposed to the NP in this debate as meaning that we identify with one another in regard to certain ideological matters. The opposite is true. We differ radically. The fact that we are jointly attacking the Government concerning a number of matters does not detract from the fact that there is justification for two opposition parties against the governing party.

The hon. member went on to refer to members of the CP as people from the past. The hon. member for Paarl referred to the hon. member for Sunnyside as a “yesterday man”. In fact, that is a compliment, Sir. It is a compliment to be linked to the past and to live from the past, through the present into the future. A year ago hon. members of the NP quoted with great acclamation the words of President Kruger to the effect that we should take from the past what was good and noble and build the future on it. The fact of the matter is that the CP has not renounced the past. On the contrary; the CP is anchored in the past so that it may take from it what is good and with it, enter the future.

It is a notable phenomenon that the CP has become the common enemy of all political parties in this House and is constantly being attacked by them. The reason for that is that the CP holds fast to those principles which the NP held fast to, proclaimed and advocated for 33 years as the principles on the basis of which peace and justice were possible for everyone in this country. Among those principles is the principle of separate development. We also understand thereby the right of the Whites to self-determination and the division of power among White, Coloured and Indian so that each may have his own autonomous Parliament to be able to govern himself. It is because the CP holds fast to these principles that it has become the enemy of the NP and is constantly being attacked and disparaged by the NP. Because since a year or more ago the NP has accepted power-sharing as a policy, a policy of co-determination, of political integration and the throwing open of our Parliament, the White Parliament, to people of colour. The late Dr. D. F. Malan said that throwing open the doors of our Parliament to bring in people of colour was a liberalist concept. Therefore the governing party are today nothing but liberals, people who introduce liberalism into the politics of the day. In contrast, the CP stands for nationalism, viz. national identity. In this country we fight for the continued existence of the national identity; for the right to self-determination, something which is an integral part of the national identity. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, for 33 years the NP walked this road that we are walking today and for which are now being abused. They have deviated from that road because the late Jan Hofmeyr has been reincarnated politically in the person of the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. [Interjections.] That liberalism of the late Jan Hofmeyr is also the liberalism that has now taken root in the NP and is flourishing there. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, in this regard there is something I just wish to point out. Reference is being made to the proposals of 1977, and particularly to the statement that the Council of Cabinets would be concerned with deliberation and co-responsibility. Today, however, that co-responsibility is explained as a form of power-sharing. Moreover, it is now being accepted that even in 1977 this amounted to a form of power-sharing, and that accordingly it was at that time already accepted as such by us, whereas now we supposedly want to reject power-sharing all of a sudden.

But that is true, after all. [Interjections.]

At the time you all agreed with that. [Interjection.]

In the absence of the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, I now ask whether he still stands by the explanation of this he provided in 1977 or not. If he still stands by it, I want to know whether at the time it was trickery or fraud, or whether he was really being honest. [Interjections.] I quote from the now very well-known election document of 1977, in which, under the heading “Bangmaakpraatjie nommer 2” …

Do you still stand by that, Frans?

The hon. member for Krugersdrop must not try to sidetrack me now. [Interjections.] At the time the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs said the following, and it is here in black and white. I quote—

And now, Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.] No, it is unnecessary to get to excited at this point. Just listen to the following words of the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs in this same document. It reads as follows—

In no way is provision being made for power-sharing. That is what is stated here. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, in no way did this make provision for power-sharing. It is stated here in black and white, in clear Afrikaans. [Interjections.] Now it is being said that the term co-responsibility—that is the term that was used at the time—means the same as power-sharing. At the time, however, it was said that this did not in any way make provision for power-sharing. At that time, then, co-responsibility did not mean power-sharing. [Interjections.]

At the time we said to the people that the NP rejected power-sharing in whatever form. We stated this clearly because the NP never drew a distinction between kinds of power-sharing; with the possible exception of the hon. the Minister of Law and Order. He contends that he did so. [Interjections.] However, let us see what the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs said about the Council of Cabinets. After all, this is now being held out to us as a kind of umbrella Cabinet. [Interjections.]

What did Daan say?

No. Let us now listen to what the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs said about this; not to what Daan said. The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs said that the White Parliament would retain all powers except those that is decided to transfer. It is stated here in black and white. I quote—

There we have it. This … [Interjections.]

Where is their morality now? [Interjections.]

After all, that is what we announced from platform to platform in 1977 and 1981. In the 1981 election manifesto there is not a single word about power-sharing. [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot permit a dialogue between the hon. the Minister of Law and Order and the hon. member for Koedoespoort. The hon. member is making a speech and hon. members must afford him the opportunity to complete it.

Mr. Speaker, the manifesto of 1981 expressly provided that the NP stood for the division of power among Whites, Coloureds and Indians and a system of consultation and co-responsibility as far as matters of common concern were concerned. [Interjections.] At no time since 1977 has the NP said that it repudiates the Minister of Internal Affairs. At no time has it said that co-responsibility means power-sharing, whereas the Minister of Internal Affairs said: In no way is power-sharing provided for in these proposals.

May I ask a question? The hon. member states that the NP has never repudiated the Minister of Internal Affairs. Has the hon. member read the speeches made in this House by the leader of the NP in 1978, viz. Mr. B. J. Vorster, on the same subject? [Interjections.]

No, he is now replying … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister of Law and Order has now put a question to the hon. member for Koedoespoort and he must now give him the opportunity to reply to that question.

The former Prime Minister, Mr. B. J. Vorster, with reference to the matter to which the hon. the Minister of Law and Order has now referred and concerning which he put the question to me, said the following in August 1982 with reference to … [Interjections.] Sir, surely he is replying to what he said in 1978. [Interjections.] Sir, Mr. B. J. Vorster knows what he said in 1978 but he … [Interjections.] He explained in 1982 what he meant when he said it in 1978. [Interjections.] This is what he said—

[Interjections.]

Order!

I want to refer to the question of self-determination.

May I please ask a question?

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to answer further questions. I no longer have the time. I want to come back to the question of self-determination. I want to tell you that the NP’s so-called self-determination in its constitutional proposals is out and out co-determination. [Interjections.]

Order! I shall no longer permit this general discussion across the floor of the House. The hon. member is making a speech and hon. members must afford him the opportunity to complete it. I do not want to hear any dialogues across the floor of the House.

It is a pretty poor speech.

I can understand the hon. member saying that it is a poor speech. Any speech that hurts him, is poor. With regard to this issue of self-determination I want to refer, in the first instance, to what the late Dr. H. F. Verwoerd said about it. He said—

Later he goes on to say—

He adds—

That is what Dr. Verwoerd had to say. I want to quote another person of a more recent date. He had the following to say—

And then that person went on to say that he expected of the President’s Council that they would create the opportunity for Whites, Coloureds and indians to give effect to their right to self-determination even now, and eventually to govern themselves. The hon. member who said that was the hon. member for Virginia, and I ask him whether he still stands by that.

Mr. Speaker, I listened in growing disbelief to the hon. member for Koedoespoort, because the hon. member spent his entire speech excusing himself and his colleagues in those CP benches for sitting there. We expect of the hon. members of the CP to spell out to us their vision of where South Africa will have to go, but they are living in the past. The hon. member for Koedoespoort devoted his entire speech to quotation from the past, and made no contribution by way of informing us where they were going.

When I took my place in this House for the first time approximately 18 months ago, I cherished very high expectations of the hon. members who represent the electorate of South Africa here. I recognized that we would have different opinions, that there were different standpoints in this House, but I always thought that at least we would have one common goal. That common goal would be our love of South Africa and the idea that South Africa should always come first. How profound was my disillustionment when I saw that the hon. members of the official Opposition had begun to propound and echo the views of people who are ill-disposed towards South Africa, when it became clear to me that as far as they were concerned, South Africa did not enjoy a high priority. My disbelief was still greater in February last year when the hon. members of the CP no longer had the courage to stand by those things that they had propounded over the years or to fulfil the solemn promises they had made to the voters they represent. Accordingly we found ourselves in the position that in this session the hon. members of the CP assumed a cloak of selfrighteousness, while in the dark comers and behind closed doors in the meetings they held, for example in Parys, they sang a different tune. In their unseemly haste to undermine and besmirch this Government and harm South Africa, the hon. members of the CP spare nothing that is sacred to this nation and this country.

I want to mention examples of this. Unfortunately my time is limited. We shall shortly be having parliamentary by-elections in Waterberg, Soutpansberg and Water-kloof, and those voters will also be bombarded with the absurdities that the electorate of Parys were bombarded with in the recent by-election. I am sorry that the hon. member for Sunnyside is not in this House at present because he owes the people of Vredefort an apology for not having scrupled even to unleash the devil in the hearts of people by telling them that if one was a member of the NP one should tear the New Testament out of one’s Bible and should no longer dare go down on one’s knees to worship in the name of Jesus Christ. What kind of morality is that? When we cornered him about that he attacked Die Volks blad. While I am talking about Die Volksblad, I wish to say—and I do not wish to tread on the toes of other media in the country—that Die Volksblad in the Free State is a model of responsible journalism in this country. Then that hon. member ran to the Press Council, but what did the Press Council do? The Press Council rejected his charge in toto.

There is another matter in regard to which we want to call hon. members to account. I think that the most scandalous statement made in that by-election was probably a statement by the hon. member for North Rand. I quote from Die Volksblad of 30 September 1982—

I think that is a scandalous statement and I take it upon myself in this House this afternoon to say on behalf of every honourable member in this House—I repeat: On behalf of every honourable member—to apologize to every Coloured soldier attached to the S.A. Defence Force who is prepared to sacrifice his life for this country so that we can all live here in safety, for the ill-considered statement of the hon. member for North Rand in the Parys by-election.