Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourned yesterday I was expressing concern about malpractice in both the private and the public sectors. This is something, I believe, which has become an increasing problem. I was referring to one aspect of this, namely consumer exploitation and practices that give rise to irritation. I referred to them in general terms.

One can accept that the State cannot protect people who are greedy or short-sighted. A reasonable consumer, however, must be given a fair chance to obtain a fair deal. Having talked about the general problem I now wish to refer to a certain number of specific areas by way of examples. The first one is the question of the cost of legal action. I am pleased to note that this matter has received some attention, and is still under consideration. I do think, however, that we must be very well aware that ordinary people often feel very frustrated and helpless when they find themselves in civil action situations, when either they wish to take action against somebody who has wronged them—an organization or some individual—or when they feel that some unjust claim is made against them by some big organization. The costs of legal action are such that very often, even if they win their case, people do not score financially at all.

A second example I wish to mention is that of the irritation that arises as a result of rising food prices in this country. Year after year the consumer hears that when there is a poor harvest he has to pay higher prices in order to cover production costs. When there is a good harvest the consumer is told that prices will have to go up because the surpluses are going to be exported at a loss. Not surprisingly, that causes considerable irritation.

Then there is also the question of sharp practice by some landlords; probably a small minority, but there are nevertheless enough of them to make life a misery for thousands of flat-dwellers. A fourth example to which I wish to refer is that of the problems that arise from monopolies. In this respect I should like to refer to a recent example. The estate agents recently became more formally recognized in law. Restrictions were also placed on estate agents. As a result it became a closed shop to some extent. In the latter part of 1982 this group of people decided that they were going to increase the percentage of commission charged by them. This commission was going to increase by more than 1% of the selling price of a house—despite the fact that the price of property has tended to rise faster than many other articles, estate agents even want to put up their percentage commission by something like 30% above what they received previously. The result of this is that on a house which costs R50 000 the commisssion will increase by more than R500, and on a property of R100 000 the commission will increase by more than R1 000.

The homeowner has no option but to pay.

And now, to move into a completely different field, I should like to address myself to the question of bribery and corruption. In this respect I wish to refer again to both the private and the public sectors, and to all levels of government. I think we can all recall some past issues such as the Land Bank loan scandal, the problem of overbulk buildings in Cape Town, where people were bribed, the Agliotti land deal, the issuing of roadworthy certificates in respect of vehicles that had not been tested, and many other examples that have occurred in the past. Some of these, I believe, were properly dealt with, while others were not.

More recently—late last year—we had the case of a highly respected leader in the mining industry expressing concern about dishonest practices in purchasing procedures in the mining industry. Very recently—earlier this month—we had widespread allegations of doctors being bribed by pharmaceutical companies to select certain products.

One can accept that bribery, corruption, exploitation and malpractices can never be stamped out completely. One must also accept that there is often a fine and indistinct line between malpractice and legitimate sales promotion. However, I believe that business, government, and everyone in public life has a duty to take strong action against malpractices wherever they may occur. It is a disease that has crept into our business and public life and which can result in those maintaining high standards being put at a severe disadvantage, and public confidence in Government and free enterprise dissipating.

There has been some progress. The SABS, certain retailers and newspapers have taken an interest, and they have all had an impact. We do need, however, a more powerful consumer council. We need ombudsman offices to assist the public and to advise the Government on problem areas. We need greater urgency when problems are identified. We need greater determination by leaders in all fields to stamp out unethical practices, and we need the Government to set an impeccable example.

I should like to draw the attention to the hon. the Minister of Finance to two things which, I believe, he should look at. The first is a widely held view that a person cannot support an Opposition party because he does a lot of business with the Government. This has been said to me on numerous occasions. In other words, these people believe that the Government is likely to discriminate against opponents of the NP when awarding contracts. What concerns me even more is the fact that most of these people do not even seem particularly surprised about the existence of the state of affairs that they suspect.

The second example to which I wish to record the strongest objections is the issuing last year of two leaflets—I have copies of them here—on the constitutional programme, one a substantial booklet and the other a one-page leaflet. There were 675 000 copies of these pamphlets distributed, only 14 000 of which were sent overseas. The cost of producing these leaflets was in excess of R68 000.

There was no justification for this expenditure whatsoever. These leaflets contain NP policy. They do not contain anything to do with the law of South Africa. They contain proposals of the NP that may be brought to this House at some stage. I believe these are Information Scandal tactics all over again. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information said during the past weekend that there is a shortage of money.

It is an abuse of the taxpayers’ money to use it for NP propaganda purposes. If this is to become a feature of government in this country, there is no hope that other malpractices will not flourish in the private and public sectors. I appeal to the hon. the Minister of Finance, as the chief custodian of public funds, to put a stop to this corrupt practice and to ensure that the Government sets an example by maintaining the highest possible standards of behaviour.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens mentioned quite a number of matters in his speech, matters of an economic and financial nature on which the hon. the Minister of Finance will certainly reply to him. The hon. member once again criticized the Government in respect of our economic policy, as he has every right to do. In particular, he spoke about the consumer and created the impression that this side of the House does not really look after the interests of consumers. It is a well-known fact that inflation is a problem, not only in South Africa, but in every country in the world. Just like any other country, this Government tries to combat inflation, because the Government and this side of the House have the interests of the consumer at heart.

The hon. member also raised the matter of the pamphlets that have been distributed in connection with our constitutional guidelines. In doing so, the hon. member tried once again to indicate that this Government was guilty of malpractices, because he said this while, in the same breath, he was warning against malpractices. I want to tell the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens that these constitutional guidelines have been approved by all the congresses of the governing party. [Interjections.] Therefore it is Government policy. It is not only the task of the NP to make these guidelines known to the public of South Africa. It is also the task of the Government to do so, because it is Government policy. [Interjections.] There are many people who do not attend the meetings of the NP, and they must also be informed. Those hon. members will not and do not wish to do it, and therefore this Government will do it, because it is its duty, its task and its responsibility to inform its voters and the public of South Africa. Therefore I want to say to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens that this money was well spent, because it was used to inform the public of South Africa. [Interjections.] If the hon. members are so dissatisfied now, I want to ask them: Have they lodged a complaint with the Advocate-General? Surely they can do that. If this side of the House is guilty of malpractices, those hon. members should lodge a complaint about us with the Advocate-General.

But the poor man cannot handle everything.

The hon. member for Langlaagte has been sitting there since the beginning of the session, and all he can do is to make a noise. When he was sitting on this side of the House, he helped create that legislation. If he is dissatisfied, the hon. member for Langlaagte can lodge a complaint with the Advocate-General and tell him everything he wants to say. [Interjections.] I want to say this afternoon that the Opposition parties in this House have the right to criticize the Government. They have every right to do so, and one expects it of them. When Opposition parties participate in debates such as this one, they must also produce alternative policies. From the nature of the case, they are the alternative Government and they will take over when this Government is no longer in power. I say that they have every right to criticize. In a country such as South Africa, however, with the complex composition of our population, it is particularly important that that criticism should be restrained as well as responsible. I have been sitting here since the beginning of the session, listening to the criticism expressed by various speakers of all the Opposition parties. Some of this criticism has been lacking in restraint. Some of it has been irresponsible. I want to refer this afternoon to the CP and the criticism that has come from their ranks. I shall come to the hon. members of the PFP as well.

First I shall deal with the criticism expressed by hon. members of the CP concerning the constitutional guidelines of the Government. Reference has been made to the chamber for the Whites, and this chamber has been dismissed as being of little account. In that chamber, as in the chambers for the Coloureds and the Asians, matters affecting our own interests will be debated. What is of greater importance to one than the matters affecting one’s own interests?

What are your own interests?

The hon. member for Rissik asks what one’s own interests are. I must point out to him that in that chamber, the matters affecting the community life of our people, our group, will be debated. Are there any more important matters to discuss than the things that take place in one’s community every day, where those things that are precious to one are preserved and developed, where one finds fulfilment every day? Is there any reason to be dissatisfied about the fact that representatives of the White population group will meet in their chamber and discuss these things? Is there any reason to be dissatisfied about the fact that elected representatives of the Coloured people will meet in their chamber to discuss the matters affecting their communities and to take decisions? Is there any reason to be dissatisfied about the fact that the Indians will do this? Then the hon. members of the CP should not run it down. The hon. members of the CP are now suggesting that these things are of no importance whatsoever; this is simply an insignificant little chamber where people will discuss various matters.

Then you are discriminating against the Coloureds.

No, we are not discriminating against anyone.

The Coloureds do not want it.

But the former hon. member for Waterkloof said that the Coloureds had accepted it with great enthusiasm; now the hon. member for Langlaagte says, however, that we are discriminating against the Coloureds. It seems to me that that hon. member does not know what is going on in politics from one day to the next. There is no discrimination whatsoever against anyone in these proposals. An election will take place so that the Whites may elect their representatives. There will also be an election so that the Coloured people may elect their representatives. The same applies in the case of the Indians. The representatives of each group will meet in the chamber for that specific population group to deliberate on matters affecting that particular population group.

You are hanging yourself.

No, I am not hanging myself. Surely the hon. member for Rissik approved of this in 1977. So he approved of the concept of matters affecting our own interests. [Interjections.] Therefore I think that the hon. member has hanged himself. Last year he found that he had already hanged himself, so he simple left. I am glad he left, because we do not want any corpses on our side; we want living members on this side.

I want to warn against this absolutely irresponsible and unrestrained criticism in a country such as South Africa, which casts suspicion on these absolutely vital things.

I want to take it further. A new noise is now coming from the ranks of the CP; they are now the champions of the rights of the Whites, and we on this side of the House are not. Suddenly we on this side have become the ones who sold out. The hon. members are playing this game, and in doing so, they are stirring up certain things in the ranks of the Whites. However, the hon. members of the CP are going to pay the price for this, because one cannot indulge in this absolutely irresponsible and unrestrained criticism in a country such as South Africa and then believe that all will be well in the country.

Apart from criticizing, surely there has been an opportunity to propound an alternative policy as well. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has had ample opportunity to do so, and so have all the hon. members of the official Opposition. What have we had from them? Not much. The hon. member for Bryanston made a speech yesterday in which he tried to draw pictures of what we on this side of the House were like. [Interjections.] However, he did not explain their policy. He steered clear of his party’s policy. [Interjections.] Of course, there is no policy, so I do not blame him. He is very good at making interjections, but when it comes to matters of policy, I do not blame him for descending to such a level … [Interjections.] … because there is not much to talk about.

However, we have heard that they are going to hold a national convention. We have heard some other things as well. They are going to have problems with the composition of the national convention, and while this national convention is deciding what the policy for this country is going to be, those hon. members will carry on quite calmly— when they are in power. I want to know, however, with what policy they will be carrying on. How are they going to govern while this national convention is still taking decisions, working out a policy for South Africa? On what basis, and according to what criteria, are those hon. members going to govern the country then?

Efficiency and justice.

Yes, that is exactly how we govern this country, and that hon. member shares in it every day. [Interjections.] Yes, wonderful! We have not yet come to the end of this debate. There will be more speakers on that side, and I should like them to rise and to tell us one specific thing. Let us suppose that a general election is held in this country next year, and let us suppose, furthermore, that they win that general election. [Interjections.] How will they govern the country then? On what basis will they do so? What are they going to do with the Coloured people? What are they going to do with the Indians? [Interjections.] Those hon. members have to call a national convention, after all. What are they going to do in the meantime, therefore? How are they going to govern? [Interjections.] Suppose it takes the national convention 10 years to arrive at any decisions. How are they going to govern this country in the meantime? [Interjections.] I should appreciate it if they would give us a reply. They have an opportunity to do so in this debate.

It is going to take us a few years to get rid of all the laws you passed.

This brings me back to the CP, because they, too, must produce an alternative policy. In fact, we heard from the hon. member for Barberton yesterday that they accept the creation and consolidation of independent States and that they will co-operate whole-heartedly in implementing that policy. I accept that. It now seems to me that the hon. members of the CP have broken away from the NP over one point only, and that is that some of them believed that the Coloureds and the Indians should have a homeland. There is something I should like to tell the hon. member for Rissik, as well as the hon. member for Kuruman, because they are the two honest members of that party. I say this because they have always believed in a Coloured homeland. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Rissik will not be offended, I hope, if I mention something which was said during a private conversation. It was the day after the caucus meeting last year. He said to me that even if everyone else came back, he could not come back, because he believed in a Coloured homeland. He also says that he never had a chance to talk about it in the NP. However, he has been sitting here since 1966. So he has been a member of the caucus since 1966. Why, then, did he not take the opportunities of stating his case in connection with the Coloured homeland? He never mentioned it. [Interjections.] No, he never mentioned it. That is their alternative policy.

No, you are not talking the truth now.

Yes, it is their alternative policy. [Interjections.] I ask the hon. member for Rissik where he raised it. He can simply tell me where. On what occasion, when he was a member of the NP, did he raise it? [Interjections.]

Simply ask your colleagues sitting around you.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister?

No, I do not have time to answer questions now. [Interjections.] The CP says that they have gone back to the time of Dr. Verwoerd. They say they have gone back to 1966. However, those hon. members have not even got to 1961 yet, for what did the late Dr. Verwoerd say in 1961? He told Coloured leaders that a Coloured homeland was not the policy of the party. They have not even got to 1948 yet. Does he know where he is? He is in the early forties, because that was when Dr. Oswald Pirow—and he was the only one—proposed a homeland for the Coloureds. He was the only one who drew the boundaries. Do hon. members know which parts he gave to the Coloureds? He gave them the south of South West Africa, Upington, the constituency of the hon. member for Kuruman, etc. Those parts he gave to the Coloureds. [Interjections.] In other words, that hon. member has not even got to 1966 yet; he finds himself in the distant past. No one since then has advocated a Coloured homeland. The first one to come up with this idea since Dr. Oswald Pirow is the former member for Waterberg, the hon. member’s leader. This is the alternative policy with which we are faced.

What about Gerrit Viljoen?

It is the right of Opposition parties to criticize and to produce alternative policies, but now we must examine the Government.

It is your right to …

Here the Government of the day is sitting. The hon. member for Yeoville would very much like to sit here, but he will not get here by way of the PFP. When we look at this side of the House and at the Government, we see that the Government has been very successful. It is successful from day to day. This Government has not come to a standstill yet. [Interjections.] This is clearly proved by the fact that while attempts are being made from the left to force us in a certain direction, attempts are being made from the right to force us to a standstill. That is what they want, after all. The PFP is trying to push us completely to the left, over the abyss of liberalism, and here on the right we have the reactionaries, who do not want to go any further because they are afraid. They say that we no longer have people’s interests at heart. They have come to a standstill. However, this party and this Government are going forward every day and are leading South Africa into a happy and prosperous future. The NP Government is able to do this because it deals with the realities of the times. The NP Government does not find itself in a dream-world with a policy which has not succeeded anywhere else. That is where the PFP finds itself. It finds itself in a dreamworld. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville need not sigh. After all, the hon. members cannot show us where their policy has succeeded. Nowhere in this world has their policy had any success at all. Let them show us where in Africa their policy has been successful.

As against that, we have an Opposition on the right whose vision of the future is an illusion which can never be attained or created. The illusion which the CP has about the future of South Africa may be one of a beautiful Utopia, but it cannot work out. They know in their hearts that it cannot work out.

You really are a doubting Thomas.

When one works out the future of this country, one has to do so on the basis of the realities of this country. The NP has brought about development in South Africa in which every South African and every population group in this country can share. This is a fact. There have been economic setbacks, but we have overcome these. This country has largely broken out of international isolation. This Government has virtually dissociated this country from what the cry of our enemies used to be.

The hon. members opposite criticized our sport policy. I know that their leader has never agreed with our sport policy. That policy of ours has been successful, however. We have enabled South Africa to break out of its isolation. People are prepared to come and play against us. People are prepared to pay the price.

Yes, if you buy them.

The hon. member’s knowledge of sport is very limited. The world of sport has been taken over by professionalism, and no sportsman plays without remuneration today. South Africa, this despised country, has become a stable country under the NP, and it serves as a foundation for the economic development and general progress in which all the population groups can share. We must realize, however, that if the country is destabilized, chaos and unrest will take over. One can play with the country’s future, one can put one’s own interests first, one can start a personal hate campaign and so on, but every hon. member of this House must realize that if stability disappears and chaos and unrest take over in this country, we shall all pay the price.

Under the NP, peace has become an important feature of South African society. Peace is the most important requirement for the preservation of Christian and civilized standards and norms.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister who has just spoken, was discussing the battle between the NP, the PFP and the CP. Fortunately that does not apply to us in the NRP because his own hon. Minister admitted in the no-confidence debate that this party does offer positive alternatives and that we do make a positive contribution to debates. It is also our attitude towards this House and politics that when one criticizes, one has to offer positive alternatives which could be considered as alternatives. They must not be mere castles in the air, but practical alternatives which could work. We are finding increasingly that aspects of our policy, our alternatives, are being taken over by the Government itself.

† In the short time available to me I will make use of the invitation of the hon. the Deputy Minister to express some criticisms which, I believe, are very necessary and very much needed at this time. The first is that this debate, in its last day today, has been dominated by a “broedertwis” and by a by-election fever which has debased the debate by sustained outpourings of bitterness, insult and hatred which, with brief exceptions—I acknowledge them—is probably unmatched since the last world war. Here this afternoon we found ourselves back in that world war with the hon. the Deputy Minister going back to the “Nuwe Orde” of Oswald Pirow in the war years. When I say back to the last world war, I mean it literally as we have just experienced in the very speech which I am following.

That is not what he said.

He was bringing in the politics of that period, the politics of a Coloured homeland which he quoted as being debated during the last world war in 1943. Is that not taking politics back into history?

The CP says the PFP and ourselves do not understand the importance of this debate, the struggle for the hearts and minds of Afrikaner nationalism, the fight to go back into the lager or to trek into the 20th and 21st century—into the new Republic which lies ahead. In fact, we understand this fight only too well. We have suffered the technique of the exploitation of prejudice, fear and old hatreds for too many years not to understand it. These were the years of insults which we endured and which the Government is now enduring. They are insults that we experienced from both when they were in the same party—now the NP and the CP—in much more vicious form in the days when we were accused of being “kafferboeties, lands-verraaiers” and all the rest. Therefore we understand this exploitation of sentiment and of prejudice. What has happened now is that the poisoned fruit of those years of exploitation of emotionalism has brought South Africa to the brink of disaster. The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has himself said that we must “put South Africa above party politics”. The hon. the Prime Minister, whom I am pleased to see here, has said that South Africa “must adapt or die”.

I think it is time that it was said that the dumping of South Africa into the current bitter by-elections, in the middle of a critical process of constitutional development on which South Africa’s hopes for the future are balanced on a knife edge, is the last thing this country can afford. We would see in this debate the type of election that is going to be fought and that we can expect, with even the PFP trying to assist the CP with its eulogies about the hon. the Minister of Manpower, à la Stellenbosch where PFP supporters signed the requisition for the CP. And here we find them doing their best…

And Nationalists.

Yes, and Nationalists. It is interesting to see the technique of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in attempting to gain the balance of power, looking hopefully and licking his lips over the progress of the CP. I want to leave them there, however. I believe that these by-elections are an exercise in contempt for the electoral process in South Africa, treating as they are some 30 000 odd voters as “stemvee” to settle a “broederoorlog” between the NP and the CP. If all the members of the CP had resigned it would have been a different matter altogether. Then it would have been reasonable to test the electorate. However, there are only three seats involved and these do not represent South Africa. I only know of four examples since the war where hon. members have crossed the floor and have honourably resigned their seats and fought again. They were Bernard Friedman, Hamilton Russell and, after considerable coercion and pressure, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, and the hon. member for Simon’s Town.

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

No, Mr. Speaker; I have paid my tribute to the hon. member for being amongst the rare ones who succumbed to pressure to resign. But members in that party should not shout. They are the experts when it comes to crossing the floor. They hold the record, in that 15 members have crossed the floor and retained their seats …

Is that a new “broedertwis”?

That is a new “broedertwis”! The NP has had its quota also. There was, for example, the Bailey Becker group, Howard Odell, Harry Lewis, Marais Steyn and one or two others. I say that these by-elections will prove nothing. Meanwhile South Africa wants and needs change if it is given the proper leaderhsip. I said that these elections would test the nerve of the NP.

There have been some courageous speeches in this debate, speeches facing the challenge, but at the same time there have been too many attempts to prove that the proposed changes are nothing more than 1977. It would be a disastrous omen for the process of change if in the by-elections at the hustings this should escalate and it would be a betrayal of the Coloured and Indian moderates of South Africa. To them I say as I do to White moderates: “Bite the bullet.”

Sir, this party will not be diverted by this “broedertwis”. We will go on fighting for changes to the Government’s guidelines in order to make these more acceptable as a starting-point on the road to a peaceful future.

Mr. Speaker, there are other issues needing the attention of Parliament, issues which have been raised but have been perfunctorily brushed aside and lost in the war of who said what when. I would now like to come back to the daily struggle of people to make both ends meet.

We have had many sanctimonious platitudes, like “the Government is doing its best”, etc. But sympathy does not help the housewife to fill her shopping-basket with essentials which are going up in price every week and almost every day. Examples of these have already been given. What matters to the housewife is what eventually ends up on her kitchen shelf. Yet what she hears of is big business getting bigger and bigger, the rich getting richer and richer, while the small businesses are swallowed up and disappear. The suburban grocer, the smaller businesses disappear into the vast combines. All she hears is the music of the cash-register all the way to the bank, and all the time she sees her own money buying less and less each week, almost each day.

Then there are the producers who are being forced to sell to these vast conglomerates by the market volume, to grant discounts and credit terms so that before they get paid their goods have been turned over three or four times. We hear of control boards upping prices when there are surpluses, of food being dumped rather than to sell it cheaper, millions in subsidies to bring down the price of meat before the scheme was abandoned. People do not understand when people talk of the free market system. They talk of sacking the Price Controller. They say there is supposed to be a Competition Board but they see no results. These are the things we should be debating in this debate.

I have been talking about people with incomes. But what about the unemployed? The Minister of Manpower has an Unemployment Insurance Fund. I have here a report from Industrial Week in which it is claimed that it is taking up to six months to pay out unemployment insurance to people who are entitled to it. Here are photographs of the queues. When the official concerned was approached he said he could not give any information on the internal workings of the Unemployment Insurance Fund as there is a legislative secrecy provision on the failures to pay out unemployment insurance! But what about those without any insurance?

Sometimes that happens because applicants do not furnish the correct facts. It cannot therefore be blamed on the department.

Mr. Speaker, they give here the committees, the official bodies which are dealing with this. Perhaps there will be an opportunity to deal with this further under the hon. the Minister’s Vote, that is to say if he is back here. As I was saying, there are those without benefits, those without cover.

I have warned before that the most dangerous terrorist in South Africa carries no gun. He is a spectre of hunger and desperation stalking our townships, creating the seed-beds for revolutionaries to cultivate. The hon. the Minister of Law and Order should know this. Then there are also other problems that we should be debating. One of them is housing. We have debated the Black housing crisis, but there are also tens of thousands of Whites in a desperate plight with rentals sky-rocketing, with their homes sold from under them in order to create luxury or holiday flats.

One goes to the Department of Community Development and the officials there are extremely helpful and sympathetic. I have known, however, of officials bursting into tears in frustration at their inability to help people. They have a heart, they want to help. However, they do not have the means to do so. One sends people to organizations such as Tafta, Centenary Homes, Bill Buchanan, etc., organizations with years’ long waiting lists of aged people seeking accommodation. Yet, there is nothing these organizations can do about the situation. Only now and again one can be helped in an emergency. If one looks at the newspapers, however, one sees flats being advertised at R100 000 and R250 000 up to R300 000 each. This is what is happening to housing. The prices charged are way out of reach of ordinary people. The aged who have saved up all their lives see their income eroded to a worthless pittance. Even the pensioner, with a means test fixed at R116 since 1980, is in a hopeless situation. The means test was last lifted before that in 1972. It is fixed at the moment at a completely unrealistic level. If pensioners’ incomes are less than R116 a month they qualify for the magnificent sum of R138 a month if they have no other income but if they have an income of R118 a month that is the end of the story as far as they are concerned. There is nothing else for them. They do not even quality for television licence concessions or telephone concessions.

That brings us to communications. Loneliness is one of the sad things of old age. Here we have the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications increasing tariffs again. When these old people are moved from their flats to make way for the rich to move in, how are they going to be able to afford having their telephones transferred after 1 April 1983? Their telephone calls will cost more. The tariff goes up by one cent. The letters they write to their families will cost them 10 cents each to despatch.

Pthisis pensioners have not had an increase since 1981. It is an absolute disgrace. Every other pensioner has had an increase but pthisis pensioners have been blocked while a commission investigated. In this respect I charge the Cabinet. It is sitting on that report now, and those pensioners still have not had an increase since 1981. Meanwhile the Cabinet has the report but is too busy playing politics to deal with that real problem of human beings who are suffering. We have made so many positive proposals. I have not time to deal with them all now but I shall mention some of them.

We have, for instance, suggested that old buildings be bought to accommodate the needy. We have also suggested tax-free bond repayments in respect of self-occupied homes, as well as a national contributory pension scheme. The price of petrol is to be reduced by about one cent a litre. It is a welcome reduction, yet it remains only a token reduction. The cost of producing petrol at the refinery is approximately 30c a litre. The rest all goes to the Government. Just think of what could be achieved if one would really want to reduce the cost of living by reducing the price of that essential element of South Africa’s production costs. Instead administered prices remain steadily on the increase, while the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications keep on increasing tariffs, contributing towards the spiralling cost of living. What South Africa needs is a compassionate Government, a Government that will do more than merely sympathize and shrug its shoulders saying they feel sorry for us. I do not decry or minimize what has been done. A great deal has indeed been done in an attempt to help people but it is not enough to solve the plight of tens of thousands of South Africans. It is not enough to help them out of their despair. The situation in which these people find themselves is such that they say it is not worthwhile living any longer. On some occasions when I have called on people they have said to me: “Mr. Raw, I wish the good Lord would take me now.” When one sees this and experiences it in one’s own constituency and among one’s own people then I believe that one must go on fighting for these people in and out of season. One must continue fighting for more imaginative and more effective action to be taken. Because this is so, we shall lodge our protest by voting for our amendment in this debate. I think it is a tragedy that this debate has been in progress for three days now and that so little time has been devoted to these matters that affect the daily lives of these people while so much time has been devoted to arguing about who said what in nineteen voertsek. I hope that we shall soon see an end to this fruitless and meaningless debate which is going to hold back the process and progress of reform in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member for Durban Point to pardon me for not following up on his speech since I want to take this opportunity to make an important announcement.

I should like to refer to the statement by the hon. the Prime Minister at the end of last year in which he held out the prospect of a possible reduction in the prices of petroleum products in the new year. The Government is therefore extremely glad that owing to its careful handling of the Republic of South Africa’s fuel position and the sacrifices it has asked the public to make, and as a result of its sound financial policy and without endangering its supply position, it is now able to announce that a reduction in the price of petroleum products may come into operation with effect from 28 February 1983.

Further relief is also being granted to the industrial consumers of paraffin to the extent that the Equalization Fund levy on paraffin for industrial consumption is being reduced from 8,6 cents to 3,3 cents per litre to put it on a par with the levy on paraffin used for domestic purposes. I want to add the latest drop in the prices of crude oil on the international market, some of which were announced over the past week-end, were expected by us last year and have already to a certain extent been discounted in the reduced fuel prices. When the benefit of the falling prices, if this trend continues, has filtered through to the Republic of South Africa as well, a further reduction in the price of fuel is not to be ruled out. The increase of approximately 15% in transport rates on petroleum products was not put into operation at the same time as the general rate increases on 1 January 1983 by my colleague the hon. the Minister of Transport and we are extremely grateful to him for this. Provisionally, however, the intention is to cover these increased tariffs from the Equalization Fund as from 1 April 1983. When the next price adjustment is made these rate increases will be included in the sales price. Similarly, arrangements will be made with the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs for the implementation of the levy on fuel required by the National Road Fund for its road building programme during the 1983-’84 financial year will also be postponed until the next price adjustment, so as to be able to neutralize the effect it has of pushing up fuel prices.

Since 6 July 1981 petrol consumers have paid 1,35 cents per litre more than diesel fuel consumers towards the financing of our crude-oil purchases. It is necessary for these contributions to be placed on an equal footing again, but in order to blur the effect of this process, it will be done in stages. It was therefore decided to increase the Equalization Fund levy on diesel fuel by only 0,85 cents per litre so that diesel fuel consumers will nevertheless receive a reduction in the price.

† The reduction in the price of any commodity in present-day conditions is indeed an occasion for which to be grateful. It is trusted that this price reduction will play an active role in our fight against inflation and make a meaningful contribution to our economic welfare. I seriously call upon the private sector to avail themselves of this opportunity and to use this reduction in initiating and maintaining price discipline further.

*It is with great pleasure that I am now able to announce that the prices of petroleum products will be reduced as follows with effect from 28 February 1983: Petrol, 1,6 cents per litre; diesel fuel, 1,0 cents per litre; jet fuel, 1,5 cents per litre; paraffin for domestic use, 1,5 cents per litre; and power paraffin, 1,5 cents per litre.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure it was with very great pleasure that this entire House took cognizance of the wonderful announcement which the hon. the Minister of Mineral Affairs made this afternoon. I think, after having just listened to the complaints of the hon. member for Durban Point, that he can now tell himself that it has been a long time since he last had such a quick reaction to representations he had made, because it was only about two minutes ago that he was telling the Government what a inhibitory factor the fuel prices were in our economy and in our struggle against inflation, and here he has just been given a truly quick answer. [Interjections.] We thank the Government and the hon. the Minister.

I was not here on Friday when the hon. member for Waterberg made his last speech in this House. It will definitely be his last speech. However, I did read through his speech and my comment on it is that it is a remarkable speech for a man who wants to be the leader of a political party in South Africa in the present-day circumstances. It is remarkable because it indicates a total lack of insight into the politics of South Africa. It is remarkable because it tries to offer solutions to our serious national problems, which can only be called incredibly naïve. It is also remarkable because to me it proves that the CP does not really have a policy of its own for the problems we are struggling with today and does not have a viable alternative to the Government’s policy on population matters either. I may refer again later to my statement that they have no policy of their own.

I shall refer first to two statements Dr. Treumicht made on Friday in his speech in this House. He said his party realized that permanent White tutelage over or domination of non-White nations or groups by Whites is impossible and indefensible. Apart from the fact that by making this statement he was bringing himself into direct conflict with the HNP which does in fact believe this …

Oh, so we do differ from the HNP.

… Dr. Treumicht added something further. [Interjections.] He added that the realization that we cannot operate indefinitely in South Africa with domination over other nations … [Interjections.] … was closely linked to the White man’s refusal to be governed or jointly governed by any other group or groups. It is a basic principle of the NP’s national policy that the Blacks, Coloureds and Indians are recognized as being a permanent part of the country’s population under the Christian guardianship of the Whites. Hon. members will find this in article 13 of the NP’s programme of principles.

What do the Moslems say about that?

Guardianship is a well-known legal concept and inherent in it is the fact that it is a temporary state of affairs, that it must lead to emancipation. In ordinary life emancipation leads to coming of age and the right to decide one’s own affairs. In the political sense emancipation also leads to coming of age and the right to take one’s own decisions regarding the matters affecting one’s nation or one’s group, and both the NP and the CP—I think—subscribe to this principle. I do not think we disagree with each other on this. I think we are also agreed as to how we should accommodate the emancipated Black nations in South Africa in the political dispensation. I do not think there are serious differences among us on this. However, we come to the parting of the ways over the accommodation, in the political dispensation, of the Coloureds and the Indians. [Interjections.] The NP’s views in this connection are set out—and I do not want to elaborate on this—in the present constitutional proposals that have been accepted by the party’s congresses.

I should just like to refer to two of the cornerstones on which the policy is based. The one is self-determination and sole decision-making on group-specific affairs by each participating group, and the other is co-responsibility for matters of common interest.

What are group-specific affairs?

The accusation the CP is levelling at House is that its political emancipation process will mean that the Whites will be governed or jointly governed by other groups. Dr. Treumicht said so here on Friday. He made it very clear. I want to say that this is an untrue statement, as well as a gross misrepresentation of what the NP’s constitutional proposals in actual fact imply. The former member for Waterberg also explained his solution for the rectification of the accommodation situation to this House. His solution was a separate homeland for the Coloureds. With that he totally dissociated himself from the 1977 proposals of this side of the House which he and the hon. members opposite who support him have fervently defended since that date. [Interjections.] What is more, those hon. members also told us—and also told the country—that this was the only workable solution.

Three parliaments.

The time has now come, when we in South Africa think of the future, to think of workable solutions. When are those hon. members going to realize that the solution to our country’s problems must be practicable? I found it very significant, when I read Dr. Treumicht’s speech, that while he elaborated on how his party wanted to accommodate the Coloureds, he had very little to say about the Indians. He did not tell us how, according to the CP, the Indians must be accommodated and where they must have their heartland or homeland.

I referred to two of the cornerstones of the NP’s constitutional proposals, namely self-determination of group-specific affairs, and coresponsibility on matters of common interest. As far as co-responsibility is concerned, I want to say that when co-responsibility is being discussed, the CP members in this House are as silent as the grave. When they are pressed to comment on their standpoint on co-responsibility, as the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs pressed Dr. Treumicht to do on Friday, they come up with the most nonsensical answers. I want to say that in reply to a question put by the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, Dr. Treumicht gave a dangerous answer and illustrated how politically bankrupt the CP was. What was Dr. Treumicht’s reply to the question that hon. Minister put to him? The hon. the Minister asked Dr. Treumicht: “What do you and your party say about co-responsibility? How do you see it?” Then Dr. Treumicht drew a comparison to illustrate how he and his party saw co-responsibility. He referred to the hon. the Minister’s housekeeper and said that she was co-responsible for keeping the house tidy but that she is not the master of the house. I just want to say in passing that the hon. the Minister’s wife probably smiled when she heard him express that view because if Dr. Treumicht was right then she has the opportunity to tell the hon. the Minister: “I am glad to hear that in future you are co-responsible for keeping the house tidy”. She is now relieved of that duty. With that, what is the CP’s leader saying to the Coloureds and the Indians? He is saying to them: “We are prepared to give you co-responsibility for keeping the South African national and constitutional household running smoothly, but on one condition, namely that we remain the masters”. Surely that is what they are saying. That is the CP’s view of one of the cornerstones of our policy, coresponsibility. Sir, if you want a better illustration of a master-servant mentality I should like to know where to find it.

And these are the same hon. members and their leaders who piously told the NP that it is CP policy to do far more for the Coloureds and Indians in this country than we are prepared to do. This standpoint of the CP, authoritatively stated by their leader in this House, proves to me that that party, the members in this House and their supporters outside, are driven by a spirit of racism—I am sorry to have to tell them this, but it must be done—and by an unfair selfish desire for self-maintenance for the Whites. After all we had proof of this in the no-confidence debate when the former member for Waterberg told us here what things they would not tolerate.

And we will not either.

The hon. member for Rissik has confirmed this.

Will you accept a Zulu as Minister?

That is why we are telling those hon. members that we on this side of the House see the course adopted by the CP as one which will lead to confrontation and one in which there are inherent dangers for the future of South Africa. [Interjections.] If the hon. member for Langlaagte would keep quiet for a moment I would continue with my speech. It is just as dangerous a course as the course of concessions which the hon. members of the PFP want to follow. What does the NP say about this? In contrast with the CP and the HNP we say that we want to share responsibility. We believe in shared responsibility. We say that the time is ripe in South Africa for the Coloureds and the Asians to be emancipated from the political guardianship of the Whites under which they were in the past, and in future to decide their own affairs for themselves and to share with us the responsibility for peace, freedom and prosperity of South Africa.

The NP is moving towards a better future. When one moves forward one does not keep on looking back to an era or period prior to 1977 or 1966, or whatever. The future does not lie behind us. The only place where the future lies is ahead of us. When one reaches for the future one looks ahead.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ermelo attacked the CP and said that our policy was supposedly one of domination, of a master-slave mentality and of all the other ugly concepts one could think of. I shall return during the course of my speech to some of the arguments which the hon. member for Ermelo raised.

At this stage I wish to quote what the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs said about separate development, because separate development is the policy which the CP adheres to. The hon. the Minister said (Hansard, 26 January 1977, Vol. 66, col. 253)—

That is what the CP stands for.

I am pleased that you do occasionally read a good speech.

That is why we can say that we do not believe that there can be permanent domination of one nation (yolk) by another nation in South Africa.

Are the Coloureds a nation (volk)?

Yes, I call them a nation (volk). This afternoon the lion, the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs had an altercation with the PFP and told themthat they should state their policy. I think the hon. member for Bryanston was quite correct when he replied they no longer wished to state their policy because when they did so it was taken over by the National Party. The hon. the Deputy Minister also said that the hon. member for Rissik and I had always believed in a Coloured homeland. What I did in fact tell him was that if I ever had to choose between political integration and a homeland, I would rather choose a homeland.

The hon. the Deputy Minister wanted to know where the CP stood. He asked whether our position was that of 1966 or perhaps even that of 1948. I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that the CP does not look back. The CP looks ahead to the year 2000 in its endeavour to create a future here at the southernmost point of Africa in which each of the various nations (volkere) is able, within its own living space, to govern itself and live in peace. That is what the CP stands for. That is where the CP is going. I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that we have thrown off the chains of liberalism and therefore we in the CP can now fearlessly seek solutions to the Coloured problem in the direction of full self-determination and complete separation development.

I should now like to react to the speech made by the hon. member for Kroonstad, the hon. member who goes about with a huge guilt complex in respect of the Coloured people. With regard to his grovelling excuse to the Coloureds on behalf of certain Whites, he is merely siding with other liberals who apologize to people of colour every day for being White and for having believed in separate development in the past. The hon. member for Kroonstad flung a good deal of mud at the CP over the Bothaville and Parys by-elections. I should now like to quote to the hon. member from a letter which appeared in Rapport on 15 December 1982. Mr. Hendrik Steyn of Bothaville wrote—

I said it there frequently.

Mr. Steyn went on to write—

Who said that?

This was written by Mr. Hendrik Steyn. Hon. members must go and ask him—

I want to tell that hon. member that if one stands in the mud, one flings mud.

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

No, Sir. I do not have the time for that.

The hon. the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information said yesterday in this House that if any person said that he had made the following statement, that person was telling an infamous lie. I now wish to quote a letter from Prof. W. J. Verwoerd of Stellenbosch which appeared in Die Burger of 12 November 1982, and which read as follows—

Now I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister: Is it Die Burger which is telling an infamous lie or does the hon. the Deputy Minister wish to say that it is Prof. Verwoerd who fabricated a downright lie?

No, the person who says that that is my opinion, is telling a lie.

It stands between inverted commas in Die Burger.

I now wish to react to the speech made by the hon. member for Mossel Bay. He said that power-sharing had been the policy of the NP as long ago as 1977. He said that the representatives of the CP had not properly informed their voters about the 1977 proposals and had therefore misled their voters, had misled them since power-sharing was an implicit and integral part of the 1977 proposals. That is what the hon. member for Mossel Bay said. I want to ask the hon. member whether he did not also then, like CP members, mislead his voters by not telling them that there was in fact power-sharing in the 1977 proposals.

I did tell my voters that.

Did he say that? We shall go and ask the question in Mossel Bay …

Begin with your father-in-law. He will tell you.

To that hon. member who now wants to drag my family into this debate, I want to say that my father-in-law was chairman of the Blombosfontein branch of the NP for many years. He told me that it was on 24 February 1982 that he heard for the first time that power-sharing was now NP policy.

Furthermore, I want to ask the hon. member whether he did not use the pamphlet of the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs to tell people that power-sharing was not NP policy.

But surely we defined power-sharing …

I am still coming to the definition. I know why the NP is in trouble: They say one thing but do another. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Mossel Bay must not become so agitated.

Mr. Speaker, last week we were in the Mossel Bay constituency and I can tell you that that hon. member has reason to be agitated and nervous. Sir, I say the NP say one thing, but does another. A wonderful example of that is the question of separate beaches. Here in Die Burger of 18 February it is stated: “Aparte strande vir almal die ideaal van die NP”. According to this report Mr. Kriel, the MEC in charge of local government, said that the ideal of the NP was to create separate, but equal beach facilities for all; not to discriminate, but to promote racial harmony. But just a little further he says—

Separateness is therefore the ideal of the NP. In practice, however, beach facilities are being shared. The hon. member need only drive to Camp’s Bay or Sea Point to see how the Whites are being crowded out in their own group areas by Coloured and Black people on the beaches.

The other day the hon. member for Mossel Bay asked what the difference was between the three Parliaments in terms of the 1977 plan and the three chambers of one Parliament under the present plan.

If you want to quote me, quote me correctly.

I should like to answer this question of the hon. member. The 1977 plan was structured on an ethnic basis. In 1977 the NP said the Coloureds were a nation, a nation in the making. I am now going to quote from what I consider to be one of the most scientific analytical speeches of the ’70s on the political future of the Coloureds, a speech made by the hon. the Minister of National Education. In it he said—

He also said—

Let me also quote the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs. In this pamphlet of the NP he states that—

With regard to self-determination he states in this pamphlet, this information document of the NP—

I also want to refer to “Bangmaakpraatjies no. 5”, also compiled by the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, in which he states—

And what does the Prime Minister say? Let us see what he said to the Transvaal congress of the NP in 1981. He said—

In 1977 the NP structured its constitutional plan on the pure, well-founded principle of the self-determination of peoples. It is this plan which we used to explain the plans of the NP in the constitutional sphere. In it it was stated that every nation (volk) would have its own Prime Minister, its own Cabinet and its own Parliament. For the Whites there would be provincial administrations and local authorities, such as divisional councils and municipalities. The White Prime Minister and his Cabinet would govern the Whites within their geographic area. As far as the Coloureds were concerned, it was said that they would have their own Cabinet and Prime Minister, their own Ministers, their own Parliament and their own regional administrations. In this way there would have been three regional administrations in the Cape Province. In addition it was said that Coloured city councils and town councils would be established in their own geographic areas, in which Coloured freehold would be encouraged. In this, the Coloureds’ own Parliament, they would govern themselves within their own geographic area. As yet there was no mention of power-sharing. In 1982 the Prime Minister came forward and laid a new foundation for a new dispensation which deviated completely from the 1977 proposals. In 1982 he said that the Coloureds were not a nation (volk) and were not a nation (volk)-in-the-making. He said the Coloureds spoke Afrikaans and English, shared our culture and practised our religion.

Why did you not walk out then?

I did so shortly afterwards. But I shall come to that vociferous hon. Deputy Minister in a moment. The Prime Minister went on to say that Mrs. Althea Jansen and S. P. Petersen were closer to him than the hon. leader of the Opposition. He said the Coloureds were, like the Potuguese, a minority group. They were part of the South African nation. Sir, surely this is vastly different to what had been said in 1977. In this connection I should like to quote from Die Burger of 3 January 1982. In its editorial it referred to the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech in the no-confidence debate the previous day as a—

In addition Die Burger wrote—

The previous year the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning had said that the Coloureds and the Whites were in a crucible of nationhood. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, here we now find that the 1977 model, which consisted of three nations and three parliaments, was being replaced by a 1982 model which consisted of one nation of Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics, one fatherland, one geographic area, one legislative authority and one executive authority. Joint decision-making and deliberation at all levels. The 1982 model is therefore as follows: A multi-racial cabinet with the State President as chairman, one multi-racial parliament with three chambers under the same roof. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs has a great deal to say about the three separate chambers. However, he does not tell the nation that the Standing Committees which form part of the three chambers of Parliament will be multi-racial and will sit in the same chambers throughout to deliberate on almost all matters. [Interjections.] Consequently, as far as I am concerned, the difference between the 1977 proposals and those of 1982 is that the earlier proposals made provision for separate nations (volkere) and separate parliaments, each following its own road to self-determination, while the present proposals amount to a multiracial parliament and to one nation on the road to political integration. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, during the course of my speech I should like to react to some of the arguments raised by the hon. member for Kuruman. Firstly, there is one small matter I should briefly like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister of Finance.

In his speech yesterday, inter alia, the hon. member for Barberton dealt with agriculture. He criticized the Government and he emphasized what the Government is not doing in respect of agriculture. However, he made no reference whatsoever to what the Government ought to be doing in order to alleviate the situation. In view of what the hon. member for Barberton said, I am of the opinion that it is a pity that the agricultural industry is being dragged into the political arena in this way, and that agriculture is being used for petty political gain. There are a few things I should like to mention to the hon. the Minister in this regard.

Due to the tremendous drought, conditions in this country are extremely critical. The morale and inner strength of the farmers are extremely precarious because of this situation, and people are concerned about what awaits them in the future. In time of depression, if they are good years, agriculture may not be as adversely affected by the depression as the rest of the economy, commerce and industry. However, when one experiences a depression and a drought simultaneously, agriculture is doubly affected. That is why, as the hon. the Minister of Finance has put it, it is essential to review the situation and to investigate certain possibilities in order to establish whether farmers cannot be assisted with large sums of money.

However, it is not only last year’s debt which the farmers will not easily be able to repay. In addition, the farmers are concerned about how they are going to obtain the money to make provision for the crops they have to produce next year.

We wish to address a special word of thanks to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, who has investigated the entire field of agriculture, who visited many areas, gained firsthand knowledge, gathered information, and who is now in the process of devising plans and methods of assisting the farmers.

However, there are two aspects in particular I wish to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. The first is the drop in interest rates, something which we generally welcome in the economy. However, the question is to what extent the commercial banks have adjusted the credit facilities of the farmer who does not pay prime interest rates—and few farmers are in the fortunate position of paying prime interest rates—to the lower interest rates. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister of Finance to give urgent attention to this, particularly in view of the fact that a considerable share of financing is done by the commercial banks.

The second aspect I wish to refer to, is financing by the Land Bank. The interest rate in this case is 16% at present, whereas the other credit interest rates have already dropped. I think attention should be given to this matter. I am aware of the fact that money was obtained at a time when money was expensive and when capital was extremely scarce. However, we would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would give this matter his attention. The next point is that in drought conditions, people sell their cattle. We are aware of the fact that in the past the hon. the Minister of Finance has given permission for a farmer to pay tax in the year in which it accrued to him when he sold cattle, and that if he should purchase additional breeding stock, this could be set off, and a refund made to him. The question I wish to put to the hon. the Minister is this: The farmers need the money now, but they are being forced to sell. If a farmer has to pay tax in this year of drought, it will be a double burden for him. I wish to ask the hon. the Minister to make this a book entry so that the tax does not have to be paid immediately, but that the farmer will remain taxable if he does not use that money to buy back his cattle at a later stage but that he may be refunded if he purchases additional stock. I should greatly appreciate it if the hon. the Minister of Finance would give his attention to these few matters and if he and the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, would reassure the farmers as soon as possible in respect of the degree to which they may be assisted as regards financial inputs, the drought and the manner in which this will take place.

I wish to come back to the hon. member for Kuruman and the hon. member for Barberton who spoke yesterday. It is clear to me that they put forward a sound case for standing by the 1977 proposals and for their endorsing those principles. [Interjections.] No, the principles contained in the 1977 proposals. Let us consider for a moment the course that was adopted prior to 1977. We were all members of the NP. We all formed part of the NP. What procedure was adopted? Yesterday one hon. Deputy Minister and today another hon. Deputy Minister quoted what Dr. Verwoerd had said in 1961 in respect of separate development. I quote—

This is what Dr. Verwoerd had to say with regard to the policy of the NP. He said this in 1961. Surely it is clear that from that time the NP has rejected the idea of a homeland for the Coloureds.

And integration as well.

Mr. Speaker, I should be pleased if the hon. member would allow me to complete my argument. A homeland for Coloureds was rejected at that stage. What procedure has been adopted since then? The Prime Minister said at that time that he rejected a homeland for the Coloureds. [Interjections.] Let us consider honestly the position as it was. We were dealing with Black nations, which the Prime Minister was also dealing with in that specific speech. There were real problems in respect of the establishment of independent Black states. From time to time, the Opposition parties levelled accusations at us in this House and asked us what we were doing in respect of the Coloureds. This was the situation. What was the reply to that question? There were various arguments in this regard, but we always emphasized the separation of the various groups. I concede this.

And now?

We are at that point now. However, what happened in the ’seventies? On the question of the constitutional development of the Coloureds, the Government appointed the Erika Theron Commission which made certain findings. After the Erika Theron Commission had made recommendations, a Cabinet Committee was appointed and the Government made certain inputs in order to deal with the constitutional position of the Coloureds. What was the result? The result was the drawing up of the 1977 proposals which we put to the public. The 1977 proposals were a justifiable constitutional substitute for a homeland and the creation of a separate homeland. What was the procedure in 1977? What did we advocate in 1977? What did the manifesto which we issued in 1981 advocate? Point No. 4 deals with the division of power between South African Whites, South African Coloureds and South African Indians. We said—

They agree with that.

Why did you go with us, Ben?

I shall tell you in a moment, but my question must first be answered. They said here that it was not practicable. I want to know whether they said this tongue in cheek at the time, or did they really mean it? If they really meant it, then they cannot support a homeland now, since this is in direct conflict with that. How can one argue differently? Then the manifesto went on to say—

This is what they advocated in 1981, but now they are asking: What are “matters of common interest”? They are asking: What are their “own affairs”? How could they justify this in 1981? How can they advocate a homeland now when they had rejected it from 1961 to 1981? The alternative is that they either never agreed with this, or that they now find it practicable, after Dr. Verwoerd had found it impracticable in 1961. Of course, there is another alternative. They say that they support Dr. Verwoerd, but they reject his principles. How can one get away with such double talk when it comes to practical politics? If the people have to judge how South Africa should be governed, one has to put before them pure, practical politics which are practicable within South Africa. It cannot be done any other way.

But the principles were deviated from.

No, the principles were not deviated from. [Interjections.]

I was asked why I did not agree on 24 February 1982. I dissented because I was not sure about the concept of “power-sharing” and what was meant by it, and I wanted to be sure about that. I want to know from them whether they are opposed to powersharing.

Yes, of course.

I want to know from them whether in 1977 they were infavour of the fact that in electing a State President, 50 Whites, 25 Coloureds and 13 Asians …

That is not power-sharing. [Interjections.]

If anyone can tell me …

Did you consider that to be power-sharing? [Interjections.]

At that stage I accepted that it was not the idiom of powersharing that the party was talking about, and I believe that this is still the idiom of the NP. However, one thing I should like to know is if 50, 25 and 13 come together and they vote, knowing that the majority vote will decide, and that is not power-sharing, what, then, is power-sharing? [Interjections.] The idiom in which the hon. the Prime Minister accepted power-sharing at that stage, is the idiom as described in the way these numbers are made up. The idiom of power-sharing which the hon. the Prime Minister rejected, is the idiom of power-sharing of the PFP. This is acceptable to me. [Interjections.] If one has made a mistake, should one continue to repeat that mistake, even if one is convinced that one has made a mistake? No, one must admit it.

Has it taken you from 1977 to 1983 to see that?

There is another little matter I should briefly like to deal with. [Interjections.] The question we should put to ourselves, is this: What is the situation in respect of acceptability? As far as the Coloureds are concerned, we know what the standpoint is, with all the problems involved. However, what course are the Indians going to adopt? The first question one should ask here, is to what extent the Reform Party of the Indians represents the will or views of the majority of the Indians, since I think the standpoint of the majority should be taken into account. As far as constitutional dispensations are concerned, we believe that the ideal situation for peace in the future would be for the Indians to accept the proposals of the Government at this stage and that they should fit in with them. However, if they reject them, one should automatically ask oneself: What other possible alternatives are available? There is the alternative of one man, one vote within the Westminster system which is being advocated in various forms by the PFP.

And you are rapidly going the same way.

The hon. member for Langlaagte keeps on making a noise. If one ties an empty tin to a donkey, it is not only the tin which makes a noise, but both together. [Interjections.]

They can tie me to you.

I am not quarrelling with that hon. member now. [Interjections.] I am in the process of stating a standpoint. [Interjections.] There is another possible alternative which should be considered, and that is that geographically and demographically, they are chiefly associated with Natal. There is also the fact that we are establishing independent Black States. If they should consider the geographic and demographic possibility of amalgamating with kwaZulu, which is affiliated to the Black Alliance, this is something which seems to be constitutionally practicable.

But you are rapidly on your way to joining us.

I do not wish to say that this would be acceptable to everyone, but this is an alternative one should face, something which the Indians might have to consider.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity of addressing a few words to this hon. House. Firstly, my sincere gratitude goes to you, Mr. Speaker, and other hon. members of this House for the warm welcome extended to my wife and myself on our return to this House. Allow me, too, to thank the former Speaker, the hon. member for Vryburg, for the special welcome that he and his wife extended to us. It is a pleasure to be back. It is also a pleasure to represent the new constituency of Walvis Bay. As we are dealing with the Part Appropriation now, I am privileged to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Finance on a Herculean task well done. He and his department are gaining recognition for this country, in the interests of South Africa.

Thanks to the mediation of the hon. the Minister of Finance, the Government has seen fit to establish a Walvis Bay account. We should like to express our sincere gratitude for this measure. The Walvis Bay account is being dealt with at present by the Department of Internal Affairs, but we have heard that it is to be transferred to the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning. Wherever it may be situated, I should like to request that this measure be retained. Hon. members will understand that as far as the provincial council and local government were concerned, Walvis Bay functioned under the by-laws of South West Africa from 1922 to 1977. There have been a number of processes of fastening and loosening the ties. There were financial measures which caused a great deal of concern. The setting up of an account for Walvis Bay has enabled us to overcome many of these prob 046380121ems.

As many hon. members are aware, Walvis Bay is situated approximately in the middle of South West Africa, wedged between sand and sea. It does not seem to me as though consolidation will be possible, but I do think that there is a possibility of bringing Walvis Bay nearer to the greater part of the Republic, viz. by linking Walvis Bay with the internal route of the S.A. Airways. Walvis Bay is bordered on one side by a desert and on the other by the sea. The cold Benguela current is an extremely rich fishing resource.

Was!

I could speak at length about the bird paradise, about the fisherman’s paradise of Walvis Bay, as well as about its hospitable people. When we speak about the sea, we speak of an enormous larder provided for us by our Creator. Those extensive resources along the South West coast are being over-exploited. The onslaught by foreign powers is tremendous. One of the main causes is the fact that it is the only fishing country in the world which has not extended its fishing waters to 200 nautical miles, or 360 km. Another problem linked to this, is the fact that the quota of the land-locked factories of Walvis Bay is controlled and administered by South West Africa alone. In due course we shall be pleading for a better dispensation in this respect.

Similarly, Walvis Bay’s desert is something to experience. Anyone who has never spent the night there, is missing out on something. This is true. When one is greeted by a breathtaking sunset and the vast silence of the night descends, when one finds oneself in the Kuiseb Valley between towering dunes on the one hand and empty desert on the other, one realizes how insignificant man is and how mighty the Creator. I think it does one good to withdraw into that loneliness from time to time and to recognize the insignificance of man.

In 1447 Bartholomew Diaz called at Walvis Bay and he named it the Gulf of St. Mary. Walvis Bay was annexed for the first time in 1793. It was annexed on behalf of Holland at that time. In 1795 Walvis Bay experienced its second annexation ceremony, this time on behalf of England, but for some reason this annexation was never ratified by British Parliament. A third annexation, once again by England, took place almost 100 years later on 12 March 1878. Until 1884 the Walvis Bay territory was administered under British rule on behalf of a magistrate in Cape Town. In 1884 an Act was passed in the Cape Parliament in terms of which Walvis Bay became part of the Cape Colony. Walvis Bay became part of the Union in terms of the Union Act of 1910, and in 1961 it became part of the Republic of South Africa. Act 24 of 1922 provided that Walvis Bay would be administered as part of the South West Africa Mandate from 1 October 1922. Proclamation R202 placed Walvis Bay back under the jurisdiction of the Cape.

It is interesting to note that although Walvis Bay became part of the Namakwaland constituency in 1977, the voters of Walvis Bay were unable to vote during the 1977 election because the voters’ roll closed on 31 August and Walvis Bay was included on 1 September. It is also interesting to note that, although Walvis Bay was part of the Green Point constituency from 1910 to 1922, Walvis Bay was never able to vote since, due to an oversight, the voters of Walvis Bay were never placed on a voters’ roll. Therefore Walvis Bay could truly be called the stepchild of South African politics, the stepchild no-one wanted, the plaything of history. The hope lives on in our hearts that we shall be welcomed home for once and for all, like the prodigal son of yore. We are looking forward to the fatted calf. Walvis Bay is ready to make its contribution. Walvis Bay welcomes the protective and helping hand of the giant of Africa. We should like to express our loyalty to the Government of the day. We are grateful that we can join in building a bigger and better South Africa.

It is true that Walvis Bay was represented in this House as part of the Omaruru constituency from 1950 to 1977. As I was privileged to be the representative of the Omaruru constituency from 1970 to 1977, I also feel a trace of sadness today, sadness because I can no longer represent the bigger constituency here, sadness because my former colleagues are no longer present. I should like to pay tribute to them as well, today.

However, when we speak of South West Africa, it strikes me that South West Africa is so easily dragged in here. I listened with interest to the hon. member for Sea Point, who saw fit to reprimand the Government because, in his opinion, they were not complying with the mandate agreement because, in his opinion, they give too much ear to the Whites in that area, because in his opinion the Defence Force is destabilizing the area. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, time does not allow me to point out landmarks achieved in South West Africa. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs pointed out that between R800 and R900 million is spent in the territory annually. These are enormous amounts. South West Africa is there for all to see. A tremendous infrastructure has been built up. One can drive along tarred roads from Cape Town to Oshakati and Ondangwa. There is also an electricity network throughout the territory. Agricultural development is also at the highest level. It is also true that agriculture is the largest employer in South West Africa. The security forces in South West Africa are not destabilizing. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine what the position in that area would be if those forces were to be withdrawn? There would be chaos in the territory.

I mentioned earlier that I have had the privilege of being a representative of South West Africa in this House for a long time. I have been privileged to live in the area for 36 years and to share the joys and sorrows of the people there. I farm in the far north of South West Africa. I wish to say, with great respect, that hon. members do not know what it is to sleep at night with a gun in one’s hand. Hon. members do not know what it is like when one realizes that one may have to take one’s leave of one’s leaders, one’s nation, one’s flag, one’s national anthem and all those things most dear to one. That is why I wish to make a plea for these people, that if at times, they irritate hon. members, if at times it seems as if they are kicking against the pricks, hon. members should remember that things are really not easy for them.

Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member for Walvis Bay, who is not new to this House, has now made his maiden speech as the hon. member for Walvis Bay. It was a nice restful speech and I congratulate him on it.

I think though it is sad that we should have an hon. member in the House who was elected by a constituency with under 3 500 voters. He received some 1 700 votes himself and yet he is entitled to a seat in the House while some Transvaal constituencies have up to 20 000 constituents. I would say there is something wrong with a parliamentary system in which that could happen.

I think I must react to the hon. the Minister’s announcement in relation to the petrol price here this afternoon. Naturally we in the official Opposition welcome the reduction in the price of petrol, diesel, oil, power paraffin, etc. We, like the hon. the Minister, hope that this will help in the battle against inflation in South Africa. We hope that it will help to bring the inflation rate down a few points. While we congratulate the Government on its decision, I do not believe that 1,6 cents per litre on a petrol price of something of the order of 60 cents per litre is really sufficient. If one considers that the drop in prices of Opee, British oil, Norwegian oil, Nigerian oil, etc., range from something like $4 to $7 per barrel, and when one considers that an average $5 drop in the price of a barrel of oil should reduce the pump price of petrol by some 3 cents per litre, and when one considers 1,6 cents per litre against that, it is not very much. If one considers further that the amount of 1,6 cents per litre is not even 3% of the retail price of petrol today, then I say it is a drop in the barrel. But there are other things to be considered. Firstly, the drop in oil prices brought about by the British, Norwegian and Nigerian decisions has obviously been taken into consideration, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether we have benefited by these drops in the prices or are we committed to a contractual price in terms of a contract signed by our Government some time ago which commits us to paying a fixed price for some time into the future? Secondly, we know there has been a long-standing drop in spot market prices. Thirdly, we know that the appreciation of the rand against the dollar has been some 10% in the last four months. That alone could bring about a decrease of 4 cents per litre. Then there is the fact that Sasol 3 is virtually completed today and consequently the vast sums of money for construction are no longer necessary. Then, one has read in the newspaper today of the fact that Secunda has made very high profits which has enabled them to pay dividends. Also, those profits are of an order which enables them to pay interest on their loan accounts, and I would assume also to self-finance expansion to a degree. Therefore I am not surprised that the hon. the Minister said that we may be able to consider another drop in the petrol price in due course. I say that we should not consider it in due course; we should consider it now. 1,6 cents per litre is, as I have said, less than 3% of the retail price of petrol. We should be able to bring the price down by a minimum of 3 cents per litre, and that should be done immediately.

I now want to get on to the subject of my prepared speech this afternoon. I want to keep within the oil sphere and perhaps expand a little further on what I have just said with regard to the amount of money that the Government takes out of the cost of one litre of petrol. My information is not confidential; it is taken from Lloyd’s Law Reports. I have them in front of me here, namely 1981, Vol. 2, starting on page 316, and 1982, Vol. 1, starting on page 369. These are part of the public record in Britain and they are available to all and sundry.

They are no secret. The world Press has reported on these court cases in full. Only South Africa has been kept in the dark.

The facts, Mr. Speaker, are as follows, and I quote (Lloyd’s Law Reports, (1982) Vol. 1, page 369)—

Apparently Sasol acted on behalf of the S. A. Strategic Fuel Fund Association. A condition of the sale was that finance should be arranged for the purchase of a tanker. It was therefore arranged for a letter of credit to be made available for the amount of $12,3 million. That credit was arranged for 21 days, and it was opened on 26 November 1979. I quote again from Lloyd’s Law Reports, as follows (page 372)—

The South Sun’s name was subsequently changed to Salem. I quote further—

They then offered her on charter. A company called Pontoil of Switzerland, who were absolutely innocent, chartered her to load a cargo of about 200 000 tons of crude oil from Kuwait for transportation to Europe. The cargo was loaded and the Salem set sail on 10 December.

I have a further quote that applies here. I think I am going to run out of time, however. Therefore I am not going to quote it.

Before the vessel reached Durban Pontoil sold the cargo to Shell. The Salem was moored on 28 December at Durban and discharged its oil. She sailed again on 2 January 1980, and was scuttled off the coast of Senegal. The S.A. Strategic Fuel Fund Association paid the conspirators in full and sold the oil, presumably to various South African companies. Shell claimed for its loss and was ultimately paid out $30,5 million by the S.A. Strategic Fuel Fund Association. These are the bold facts, and to quote Lord Denning: “A gigantic ship was used for a gigantic fraud”.

The purpose of raising this matter in this House is that the bodies concerned in buying the oil were State bodies, and the funds were public funds for which this Government should be responsible to this House. [Interjections.] There is also an illustration within this documentation of the premium South Africa was paying at that stage for its oil supplies; a premium directly caused by the abhorrence with which the world regards the policies of apartheid practised by this Government; a direct indication of the cost of apartheid to the South African taxpayer.

The S.A. Strategic Fuel Fund Association contracted with these crooks to purchase plus-minus 1,5 million barrels of oil at $34,50 per barrel. The Petrol Intelligence Weekly of 7 January 1980, which I also have in front of me here, quotes the price of crude oil from Kuwait on 1 December 1979—as close as I can get to the date on which the oil was uplifted from Kuwait—at $25,50 per barrel. This is a difference of $9 per barrel. For 1,5 million barrels we find therefore that we have paid $13,5 million in excess of the quoted price. That is for one shipload. Multiply that $13,5 million by the number of shiploads we receive each year, and the extra costs to the motorist, the taxpayer, the foreign exchange position, the inflation rate and the economy, must be remarkable. Therefore, my first question to the hon. the Minister of Finance: Are we still paying such a heavy premium or has that been reduced? This whole affair, I believe …

Must I answer you?

Yes, please.

It has been considerably reduced; in some cases it is negative.

Well, Mr. Speaker, if that is the case I should firstly congratulate the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs on putting right the errors of his predecessors. Then, however, I should ask him why the price of petrol has not then come down considerably. [Interjections.]

I shall reply to that in due course.

I also want to ask the hon. the Minister when this happened. Not only have we been getting it cheaper than quoted prices but we have also not been paying a premium. I say this because if this happened some time ago I should like to know what has happened to all the funds that have gone into the Equalization Fund since then.

There is a glut on the oil market.

Well then, bring the price down. Perhaps the most urgent question arising out of this whole affair is the complete lack of control over public funds by this House. An amount of $30,5 million has been paid out of these funds because a Government concern became a receiver of stolen goods. There is no other way to express it. However, the first knowledge of this in this country we find to be a court case in Britain. When the facts were published in the South African Press, the hon. the Minister’s predecessor used his very wide powers to stifle discussion. To whose advantage was the stifling of that discussion? It certainly was not to South Africa’s advantage because the whole world already had the facts. Whom were we protecting? Were we protecting South Africa or were we protecting the NP and its Ministers?

The Minister does not buy the oil.

The situation is that there are two companies incorporated in terms of the Companies Act. The first one is SOF (Pty.) Ltd. and the second one is SFF Association. On 17 February of this year I put a question to the hon. the Minister in this connection and he replied that the shareholders of the SFF Association were the IDC and Kon Oil—I found that an interesting name, Sir!—which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the IDC. They have a 50% shareholding each. They have the same directors as SOF (Pty.) Ltd. The directors are exactly the same in both cases. Therefore, these eight people control enormous funds flowing into the country. These enormous sums of money are public moneys. Normally this additional amount of $30,5 million that we had to pay out for this stolen oil would surely have been reported to the Select Committee on Public Accounts and a full discussion would have been held, if necessary in secret as has been the case in the past. However, this did not occur. The Auditor-General does not audit these funds and the decision of the directors is presumably therefore sufficient authority for paying out any sum of money such as this amount of $30,5 million. Parliamentary control has been bypassed and this is wrong because it can lead to all sorts of abuse and mismanagement. My second question is therefore: Will the hon. the Minister of Finance confirm that he has in fact no control over the funds paid into the State Oil Fund and controlled by SOF (Pty.) Ltd., or the funds of the Equalization Fund controlled by the SFF Association, and will he make representations to the Cabinet so that firstly, he has a measure of control and secondly, that the Auditor General shall audit these funds? It should be noted that an amount of 3,725 cents per litre on the price of petrol is paid into the SOF. This will bring in some R242 million per annum. The Equalization Fund collects 9,8 cents per litre and this will bring in some R637 million per annum. Therefore, in total we are looking at a figure of some R880 million per annum. This is an amount of money that makes the funds used in the Information scandal look like small change.

There are many further questions I want to ask in this regard. Who are the people we dealt with? What are their names? If this information cannot be given for strategic reasons, are we to assume that we will continue to do business with these crooks? Secondly, what steps are being taken to bring these crooks before a court of law? Thirdly, what steps have been taken to recover the amount of $30,5 million? Fourthly, who was responsible for negotiating this deal? Fifthly, was any Cabinet Minister asked for authorization or informed before the contract was signed? Sixth, was the South African involvement mere gullibility or was there a suspicion on the part of our negotiators that this oil would be illegally obtained? Seventh, why did we pay over $50 million for oil without ensuring that the sellers had legal title to that oil? Eighth, was this monstrous stupidity or a deliberate shutting of the minds to the possibility that existed and which finally cost us, the South African taxpayers, some $30,5 million? I therefore recommend that a Select Committee of this House be appointed with representation from all parties to investigate this affair so that firstly we can attempt to recover the R30,5 million, secondly so that we can prevent a similar occurrence in the future and lastly so that we can establish better parliamentary control over taxpayers’ funds that amount to nearly one billion rand per annum.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central will forgive me if I do not react to his speech. [Interjections.] Where I come from, the PFP is not a factor. I should therefore prefer to address the other hon. members in the Opposition, namely the CP.

Particularly in the debates on the manpower legislation the hon. members of the CP argued fairly strongly on behalf of the farming community, but in the debate on the Part Appropriation Bill they had very little to say about or on behalf of the farmers. In the debate on the manpower legislation the hon. member for Brakpan saw fit to suggest that farmers kept their Black workers on the tractors 24 hours a day. Of course that is absolute nonsense. The hon. member Mr. Theunissen suggested that farmers were afraid that there would be control over the safety of their workers. Once again, of course this was a transparent effort to woo the farmers for their votes because he did not seem to be aware of laws obliging farmers to pay unemployment insurance. Apparently he is unaware that in terms of those laws, farmers have a responsibility towards their workers.

What is worse, Dr. Treumicht, who represented one of the largest and most progressive farming communities in the country, and who is a very clever man, either does not know what he is talking about or was blatantly misleading the voters of this country. He spoke about 2,1 million hectares being in the hands of Coloureds as against the 350 000 hectares that comprise kwaNdebele, but he neglected to mention the difference in the quality of the land. He also neglected to mention the difference in viability as a result of distances from markets and places of employment. I also want to give the following assurance: Go and make enquiries; there is no person or department that can say exactly how much land in this country is at present in Coloured hands. Where Dr. Treumicht got those figures from is therefore also a mystery to me.

It is a great pity the hon. member for Barberton is not here at the moment. At one time the hon. member was the leader of the agriculture study group of the NP. The hon member, who must also be their chief spokesman on farming, saw fit to devote no more than 20% of his entire speech in this debate to the farmers—and that is all. What did he do? By chance he had read a report in the Kouter in which it was stated that the budget for agriculture had dropped from 6,4% in 1965 to 1,9% in 1982. However, he neglected to mention what had happened to the Defence Budget during the same period. He neglected to mention that if the farmers were asked, they would say they preferred our security to receive priority. But the situation is far worse even than that. He said that in 1981 the agriculture budget totalled R460 million, as against R399 million in 1982. He said it was a disgrace. However, he did not even take the trouble to find out what was involved. Hon. members will recall that he said in the same speech that the greater part of that agriculture budget was spent on bread subsidies and other consumer subsidies. According to him the drop in the figure was due to the fact that the consumer subsidies had been reduced by R50 million. However, in 1981 there was major flood damage and the Government spent an additional R33 million on relief to farmers.

However, he neglected to tell the truth about farming. Why did he—and his entire party—neglect to mention the truth about farming? There are two reasons for this. In the first place, they want the vote of the farmers, bacause they know the farming community is naturally conservative. However, we are not narrow-minded. In the second place, they do not know what is going on in farming. However, they are noisily trying to put in their oar.

We on the Highveld have experienced a drought this year in comparison with which the 1933 drought pales into insignificance. In 1933 the people moved to the South-Eastern Transvaal, the part of the world of the hon. member for Standerton, to find fodder, grazing and water. Volksrust, which is situated in that area, does not have water. Water has to be brought to the town by road. Nor is there any fodder, grass or grain. There is nothing in our part of the world. In my own town we have a grain elevator which can handle 1,2 million bags of maize. Normally we handle 1,3 million bags. This year we shall not even handle 100 000 bags. I wonder if we shall even handle a single bag. Do hon. members realize what is happening there? We do not have water. My people are telephoning me every day. They are drilling 4, 5 or 6 boreholes. They are paying R18 a metre and then they may strike water in only one borehole, or else they may fail to strike water at all. We cannot sell our livestock. There are no markets. During the past year the consumer price of meat rose by 20%, but not a cent of that increase in the consumer price found its way into the hands of the farmer. When I listened to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens—he probably prefers to be called by the English name of his constituency—I felt like calling him “the hon. member plus something else”. [Interjections.]

What does the drought mean to the farmer on the highveld? Do hon. members know what it means to us? We have no cash flow. We have to sell land. We have lost our creditworthiness. In addition, the co-operative has no cash flow and no revenue from handling and selling grain. However, it has to continue to provide its services. It too has its creditworthiness. What is happening in our co-operatives? Two-thirds of the trading assets of our co-operatives consist of member debtors. Two-thirds of all the money with which our 5 local grain co-operatives run their affairs—last year it was a total of R650 million—is in the hands of the farmers. Where are we headed this year?

Another matter we must not overlook is the question of the Black people on our farms. Normal practice in farming is that the Black man’s salary consists of two components, viz. a monthly salary and a lump sum payment “behind the machine”, as we call it. That is about half his salary. What is going to happen to that Black man’s salary if the farmer does not have money? How are we going to deal with this? We shall have to give this aspect our serious attention.

Having said all this, I maintain that our problem is of a dual nature. In the first place we must maintain the creditworthiness of the farmer and the co-operative, and in the second place, we must supply the farmer and the co-operative with a cash flow by supplying credit. These are the two important matters and I want to call upon the hon. the Minister to give us a decision on these two aspects as soon as possible, because they are linked to land prices and if the land prices collapse, the creditworthiness of the co-operative will collapse together with that of the farmer, and nothing will remain of the local farming community.

There is a third point I want to touch on, a third essential solution. Farming, and particularly maize farming, has become a very risky business. In the past we were as aware of the risks inherent in the tremendous high inputs as we now are. Today we find that it costs more than R300 per hectare just to produce maize. In order to offset the precariousness of our industry, we shall have to change over to a system whereby the farmer deposits the money he makes in a good year in the Land Bank and only pays tax on it when he withdraws it again. This may sound strange, but the precariousness of farming compels us to do this. However, I want to make an appeal for us not to do this irresponsibly; the money with which the farmer is helped by the Land Bank would be linked to the amount of money he invests in the Land Bank in a good year. We are not begging the Minister for favours, but asking him to enter into a contract with us to stabilize the maize industry.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member who has just sat down. I must say I think he actually gave a very good speech, setting out the plight of the farming community. As someone who comes from the city, I do not understand much about farming, but I do appreciate the fact that the farmers are having a difficult time.

On Thursday the hon. member for Amanzimtoti made the comment in this House that all the parties in the House believe in the capitalistic system. I think he is right, although we might have a different interpretation of what we mean by capitalism. For example, the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs does not quite have the same idea about a free enterprise system as I have, but I think that, if one looks at the economic philosophy of the various political parties here, there are two things which are central to them. The first is that we believe that a person should be rewarded for effort. Those who work harder and smarter should derive more benefit than those who do not.

Secondly we believe that a person should not be penalized for trying to provide for himself. In South Africa we do that. I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister of Finance particularly the question of the social old-age pension. A person who has made no provision for his retirement whatsoever in South Africa can get a social old-age pension of up to R138 per month. In fact, he might get a bit more because if he postpones taking his pension by one year to five years he gets an additional R5 to R13 per month. He can therefore get as much as R151 per month. The problem I have is that a person who gets R117 per month from a pension fund does not qualify for a social old-age pension. In other words, we have got a situation where somebody who has made no provision whatsoever for his retirement is better off than somebody who has tried to provide for his retirement. I think that this is illogical and cannot be defended morally at all. The situation is even worse. Not only can he get more, but a social old-age pensioner in South Africa gets various benefits which a private, civil or Railway pensioner does not get, for example the bonus of R60 per annum, concessions on TV licences and that sort of thing. So we seem to have something against people who try to provide for their retirement via a pension fund. The problem seems to lie with the means test. Mr. Speaker, let me give you another example: If you were retired as a single person and you invest R30 000 at 16% per annum you would be getting R400 per month. You could then qualify for a social old-age pension, but somebody who gets R117 from a pension fund does not qualify.

What is the solution? I think the problem can be overcome in a very simple way. Instead of using a capitalization rate of 4% on the means test for pensions, we use 6%. That gives us a figure of R174 per month. It is interesting that this figure is very close to what a person would be getting as a social old-age pension if his various benefits are taken into account. If he postpones his pension for five years he gets R5 per month more, plus the concessions on the TV licence and the telephone installation. I think the first thing we can do relates to the means test for people receiving income from pensions which is out of line. Alternatively one could make benefits which social old-age pensioners receive available to civil, Railway and private pensioners.

I have raised this question with the hon. the Minister before. The more I read the more I become concerned about the problem of providing for the aged. We have a couple of examples overseas and we must learn from them. In South Africa we have the opportunity to take steps before the disaster befalls all of us. The social security bill of Holland is now equal to 42% of its national income. In Denmark, another country which is known for its social benefits, the foreign debt, mainly as a result of social benefits, is equal to R4 300 per head. The USA social security system is paying out R24 million per day more than it is getting in.

They are going bankrupt.

Yes. We can ask why that has happened. It is important to ask that because we must see if it is going to happen in South Africa.

There is, firstly, the question of inflation. There is no doubt about it, inflation makes it very difficult to give a person a pension which is based on a final salary income if one has been providing in the years before for incomes at a much lower level.

The second thing is that the population is living longer. At the turn of the century in the West the average life expenctancy was 42 years. Today it is in excess of 70 years. In the USA if you are 70 and you are a male you can anticipate living for a further 15 years and if you are a female you can anticipate living for a further 19 years. In South Africa women are actually even hardier than men because here they live seven years longer than men on average.

They have an easier life; that is why.

What are the results of this fact that more and more of the population are in the aged category? In Sweden one person out of six is over the age of 65 years. The results of this are that fewer people must provide for the retirement of more for a longer period of time. In the United States—we were talking about their social security system—when their social security system was originally started there was approximately one retiree for every 12 workers. At the present moment there are 116 million people working in the United States and there are 36 million pensioners. In other words, the ration is roughly one in three. One may ask: But what about South Africa? In 1973 the cost of the social old age pension was R88 million. Ten years later, in 1982, the amount was R399 million—I am taking the actual figures for the year ended March 1982. This represents an increase of 353% in 10 years just for social old age pensions. When one looks at the population projection, we know that the number of people in the aged category in South Africa is going to increase. Taking, for instance, the group 6f people just over the age of 65, one finds that the figure for 1980 was 1,05 million. By the year 2000 it will nearly double to the figure of 1,84 million. By the year 2020 the figure nearly doubles again to 3,60 million. By the year 2000 we are going to have to provide approximately 5 million people with some sort of pension in South Africa. In other words, if one looks at the total population, one out of nine will be receiving a pension. In South Africa at the present moment only one out of 20 falls within the aged category.

In South Africa we have some very unique problems. When one looks, for example, at the Black population, one finds that roughly 50% of that population are under the age of 16 years. When one looks at the White population, one finds that approximately 25% are under the age of 16 years. The best way to describe this is actually unparliamentary, but it is like having one’s finger caught in a vice where one’s finger is being squeezed from both ends. At the young end one has a large unproductive population and then at the other end one also has an increasing unproductive aged population. What is the result? One is going to have to draw the income to pay the benefits from a smaller and smaller segment of the population. We have another problem in South Africa because that group, particularly the skilled workers, i.e. the White community, spend a fair amount of time at the present moment in the Defence Force. Therefore from an economic point of view that is unproductive. It might be justified on other grounds, but it is unproductive.

And retirement age is coming down all the time.

Yes. I now wish to refer to another matter and that is the cost of equalization of pensions when we have our parliament here with three chambers. At the present moment there are approximately 112 000 Coloureds and Indian pensioners in South Africa. When the Coloureds and Indians come here, are we going to give the Coloured and Indian pensioners a social old age pension that is lower than that of a White? I think that is going to be hard to do. Just the cost of equalizing that is approximately R80 million per annum. It is roughly 20% of the 1982 social old age pension bill. There are also other factors in South Africa such as urbanization, and what is the solution? I do not believe that we can leave it to chance. I think that we must now take this problem in South Africa by the hours and what we have got to do are some very fundamental things. The first thing is that every employer must provide a pension fund for his employees.

The second thing is that every employee should be compelled to belong to a pension fund, just as people are compelled to have third party insurance on their motor cars. Thirdly, I think we must tackle this problem of the tranferability and vesting of pensions. I believe it is essential that if one is going to derive the benefits from one’s contributions one must have transferability and vesting of pensions. I can appreciate, however, that there are problems. Nevertheless, I submit that if we cannot execute this in a holus-bolus fashion—for political reasons perhaps— let us at least then begin to execute it even if we do so piecemeal amongst those people who already belong to pensions funds.

I visited an old-age home in my constituency last week. In fact, those people were very lucky. As I sat there, however, it seemed to me that the outlook for the aged today was grim. I think the outlook in 20 years’ time is going to be even worse, and if we do not start taking action now I believe the problem is going to be unmanageable.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Edenvale will forgive me for not following his tracks by referring to the same subject he discussed here this afternoon. Getting back to politics, however, I should find it interesting to know where the hon. member for Edenvale stands in respect of what the hon. member for Yeoville said in the House a couple of days ago. He said the problem today was that the forces against reform came from the extreme right and the extreme left. Yesterday the hon. member for Constantia said that this Government had over many years sown the seeds of revolution in this country. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Constantia must find himself on the extreme left. It would therefore be interesting to know where the hon. member for Edenvale stands. [Interjections.] Nevertheless, be that as it may, I should like to point out that in this session so far we have listened to many lessons in morality.

*Mr. Speaker, the orthodox moralists on the left hand side of the House are those who hold the view that the only axis around which a just society in South Africa can turn is absolute justice and absolute morality as seen from the point of view of the individual. However, the fact that people are moved by other factors, for example language, cultural and group considerations, as well as economic power factors and other circumstances which grew out of history, they fail to take into account at all. In their whole concept of justice only a vague concept of a plural democracy exists, which they use as a premise on which they base their condemnation of hon. members on this side of the House who, having regard for all the other additional factors, want to work out a just dispensation for everyone in this country. The world around us is full of examples of where existing societies were obliterated in the name of so-called perfect justice. To build a more just dispensation with the existing materials is not an easy task and to abandon it is tempting. The temptation also exists to substitute the materials and the building process for an instant paradise which only bears the semblance of justice.

Of course they are not the only people from whom we receive lessons in morality. We also received lessons in morality from the hon. members of the CP, people who now find themselves in the position where it seems that they want to call up the citizens and the farmers of the country to a last ditch fight to the death, as if that were the highest price one could pay for one’s country. Their leader, the former member for Waterberg, said that he would not countenance a new dispensation with Coloureds and Indians in this country. He said that we should stop provoking the Whites in this country with a political solution which would mean suicide. Only this afternoon we listened to the lamentations of the hon. member for Barberton here, and now they are travelling like would be Jeremiahs through the country, through towns and cities calling on the people to take a stand against this new dispensation. The hon. member for Kuruman said here this afternoon that their policy was unshakably loyal to separate development. On the face of it their standpoint seems completely orthodox. It seems to be in accordance with separate development, but what the hon. member forgets is the fact that they absolutize the facet of separateness in the policy and do not understand or do not want to carry through the normal consequences of the development facet.

Do not put words in our mouths.

With their pretence at orthodoxy they will succeed in moving a large number of nervous old ladies deeply, but in the meantime they are spreading pessimism in this country which is hanging like a pall of poison-gas over our streets, and it is time we get rid of it. Fortunately the time for that is not far away.

Those hon. members pay so much attention to the past that I thought I would quote them something out of the past. I am sure that those hon. members will agree with the famous words of Pres. Kruger when he said: “Take what was good from your past and build your future on it”. I am sure that those hon. members, just as we do, agree with these words of Paul Kruger. If they agree with those words of Paul Kruger, then they must also accept their other implication, namely that you cannot build a future on something from the past that was not good or on something from your past that is no longer good.

But you run away from everything.

You must abandon the things that are no longer any good, because the future is more important than tradition, and I think the hon. member for Barberton should take a little cognizance of this. The survival and the life of a nation are more important than its history. Those hon. members are very fond of teaching others, but unfortunately they are people who themselves find it very difficult to learn. Paul Kruger was a man of wisdom and of strength and these two characteristics are things which we in this country need today as we do our daily bread. The unbreakable synthesis of strength and wisdom is what we need in this country today, strength which is grounded in the authority of principles, strong principles, and wisdom to understand the signs of the times and is then able to convert them into constitutional deeds. However, those hon. members do not learn. They are now going to the “bergs” to fight an election and I think it will be a good thing if they learn a few lessons from nature and from the mountain ranges around them. The simplest little animal in the mountains from which they can learn is the lizard. They must go and learn from the lizard. The lizard is a very good little animal and he can teach those hon. members a good lesson. If the lizard panics, he loses his tail and not his head. [Interjections.] Last year the NP lost its tail, and there they sit! Then the tail grew himself a head, but still they did not learn, because then they went along and lost their head—he is not here any more. Those hon. members can undoubtedly do themselves a lot of good by learning from nature.

What we do not need in this country at the moment, is the words of plastic heroes who tell us: We will tolerate this, we will not tolerate that. We do not need plastic heroes who talk so readily about what they would tolerate and what not.

If one considers the excitement at present, I want to say the boldness of the hon. members and especially the boldness which we saw from them on Friday, it makes one think that the present politics has the same effect on these hon. members as that which the porter in Macbeth said the influence of alcohol was—

What we do not need in this country are people who call on the farmers and the citizens in the rural areas to come and fight in the last ditch and to maintain the status quo with its elements of revolution and strife. The Afrikaners are too healthy and too strong and too vigorous for that type of nonsense. In opposition to that nonsense the NP and the Government have put a resolute decision to make the collective future of our children and ourselves in this country safe, good and honourable.

At the moment we are in a difficult situation both at home and abroad. Delicate negotiating processes are taking place and when one is involved in a delicate negotiating process, a relentless and unbending attitude like the one shown by hon. members, is the one attribute one should not display. A relentless attitude can lead to us losing the peace, and if one adds to that relentless attitude an element of insolence as well, one makes the margin between peace and war even narrower. What hon. members must understand, is that we in this country do not have a thousand miles between the possibility of peace and strife. The margin between peace and war in this country is a very narrow one. I almost want to say that one could see the conditions and the situation in South Africa at the moment—they love the past, do they not—as being the same as the conditions that prevailed in the Afrikaner Republics in 1899. At that time Pres. Kruger was also involved in a delicate negotiating process and the margin between war and peace was also very narrow. Thomas Pakenham recently wrote a book about the Anglo-Boer war in which he said—

If Thomas Pakenham should live long enough to write a book 20 years from now about what the situation was in 1983 and 1984, it would surely be the epitaph to a disaster if he were to say then—

I sometimes get the impression that the super-conservatists reject the chance of a compromise in this country because they do not realize that there is a chance to reach a compromise. [Interjections.] These people can cause us to lose the peace because they are too petty-minded to accept change in human and social relations in this country. [Interjections.] Their conservatism is a golden calf behind which they hide their cowardice, and the quicker we get rid of them, the better.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very great pleasure for me to speak after my hon. colleague, because we actually have similar aims. He went back quite a long way in history and quoted some statements made by the late President Paul Kruger, but since the CP is so fond of delving into the past, I want to take them quite far back in history in the course of my speech this afternoon, and I hope you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to say what I should say. [Interjections.] Having listened to the debates in this House over the past few weeks, one realizes that the mere protest of the Opposition parties is purely negative. It reminds one of the words of the philosopher who said that a critic is like a hen that cackles while the other hens are laying eggs, and until she succeeds in laying an alternative egg, she will do nothing but cackle. [Interjections.] In a few days’ time, it will be exactly a year since the CP left the ranks of the NP and formed their new party. We have been struggling ever since to find out what positive solutions they have to the problems of South Africa. [Interjections.] Unfortunately, the few alternatives we have extracted from them with great difficulty are not practicable. I am referring, for example, to what has been mentioned again this afternoon, namely the creation of a homeland for the Coloureds. The other alternatives amount to turning back the clock, with chaotic results. [Interjections.]

Tell us about that Black school at Queenstown.

This brings one to the conclusion … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Kuruman must please stop making injections.

… that the existence of the CP is based on personal aspirations to take over the leadership of the country. The hon. the leader of the CP, who was until yesterday the hon. member for Waterberg, would like to become the Prime Minister of South Africa.

He will never set foot in this House again, let alone become Prime Minister. [Interjections.]

Order! Only one hon. member is speaking. We cannot all talk at the same time.

Without bringing down the Bible to the political level—and the Bible is being put to a lot of political uses these days—I do want to prove here this afternoon, by recounting an episode from ancient history, that there is nothing new under the sun. [Interjections.] I read in the Second Book of the prophet Samuel how King David was ruling towards the end of his life. This was in the year 1090 B.C. [Interjections.] In spite of much adversity, David was a very good ruler.

Harry cannot hear you.

Harry can hear me very well. David managed to unite the various factions among the people, and judging by his building programmes—so we read— there was economic prosperity in Israel. However, King David had a few problems which were causing him a lot of trouble. He had a few sons who were causing him a lot of trouble. One of his sons was a man called Absolom. This Absolom murdered his brother and had to flee the country to escape the blood-avenger. After three years in exile, the King felt sorry for him and allowed him to return to his country, but he was not allowed ever to look on the face of the King. This Absolom did various other controversial things as well. Among other things, he set fire to some ripe barley belonging to the commander of the King’s army, out of pure spite. We may take it, therefore, that this Absolom, the King’s son, ended up by being banished from the King’s home.

If this Absolom had lived in our time, I suppose we could confidently have given him the name of Treurnicht. He got it into his head that he wanted to take over the kingship himself. He had no alternative policy. He simply wanted to be King. [Interjections.] The hon. members must listen now. They do not know the Bible. [Interjections.] So he stationed himself at the gates of the city every day and made subversive speeches for the benefit of passers-by. He must have been an eloquent speaker, because he impressed the people and I read that he even kissed them to show them how much he loved them, something like the communist greeting one sees on television. When this Absolom considered that he was popular enough, he bought himself a chariot and horses and he got 50 men to march in front of him when he was driving through the streets. [Interjections.] These were 50 very fine and strong men who had to impress people and who could also cheer him on. [Interjections.] In our time we would have called them the AWB. [Interjections.] One may also suppose that this Absolom would have wanted to get the women of his time on his side, a kind of women’s action group, to help him carry posters. In our time we would have called this women’s action group of his the Kappiekommando. [Interjections.] Or we would have called it the Black Sash. Absolom carried on in this way until the time was ripe for a coup d’état. One wonders where he got the weapons from.

From the maize-fields. [Interjections.]

It was probably smuggled out of the King’s barracks and buried in various places until he needed it. [Interjections.]

Absolom also pursuaded one of the King’s councellors to become his counsellor. This man’s name was Ahithophel.

Daan! [Interjections.]

Perhaps you should ask the members of my party to be quiet, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

Order!

If this Ahithophel had been living today, his name could have been Van der Merwe. However, he was not one of the ordinary Van der Merwes. He was a man from the priestly class who probably went around with the Law of Moses under his arm. Ahithophel’s position with Absolom was more or less that of Operational Chief of Staff, because this man had to plan the whole military campaign. However, we read that his counsel was defeated. It led to the failure of this coup d’état. I suppose we should warn our modem Absolom this afternoon that the counsel he receives may also be defeated, which may cause his enterprises to fail likewise.

In the process which is repeating itself here, we make the acquaintance of another dubious character. While King David and his men were advancing against the resistance movement, a certain man called Shimei was walking along the road, cursing the King and throwing stones at the King’s men in a cloud of dust. If there had not been so many soldiers around the king, he would probably have had the temerity to assault the King. In our time, this man Shimei would probably have been called Van der Merwe too. [Interjections.] He would have been one of the spitting Van der Merwes, for in all likelihood, he also came from a place where manners were so rough that even the canaries sang in bass tones. [Interjections.]

It is very interesting to note that this Shi mei came back and apologized to the King and that the King forgave him. Later on we read, however, that when Solomon succeeded the King, he called Shemei in and told him: “Listen, my friend, you are a political threat to me. Go and build yourself a house and live in it. You are not allowed to leave it.” He left his house one day to go and look for two of his slaves and he lost his life.

I want to say for the edification of the Progs that detention orders were not invented by the NP. Solomon invented them more than 1 000 years before Christ. It was a Jewish plan. [Interjections.] Then we read that the forces of David joined battle with the forces of Absalom in the wood of Ephraim. Absalom was riding on a very unreliable little mule, Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.] Sir, in a tense moment the little mule dived under a tree without considering his rider, and the poor rider, Absalom, was left hanging from the tree. I find it very difficult to find a suitable name for this mule. I have pondered the matter at length. I could have called it either Connie or Jaap, but my difficulty was that I had another 17 names I could have given the mule.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I want to raise an issue which has now become a matter of course in this House that there are certain writings which are holy to people in the House. What is now happening is that those Scriptures which are holy to some of us—I hope all of us—are now being used for party-political purposes and I believe it is a matter of sacrilege. I do not believe that we should reduce the Holy Scriptures to a matter of this type of party politics. I think it is creating an atmosphere in the House which, together with the raucous laughter and behaviour which I for one do not find to be in accordance with what I believe the Scriptures, which are holy to some of us, should receive, does not accord with the respect that we have been brought up to believe the Scriptures should receive. Whereas it may be funny to some people I want to register my protest. I regard this as a matter of sacrilege in the way in which the Bible is being treated in the House.

Order! The hon. member for Queenstown may proceed.

I want to say to the hon. member for Yeoville that this is simply a parody, a comparison I am drawing. I have just as much respect as the hon. member, and perhaps more, for the Bible and for the Old Testament in particular. That is why I know it so well.

If the Bible had mentioned the sex of the mule, I would very much have liked to call her Germiston, because that was the place where she first let her rider down.

We also read that David’s men found Absalom hanging from the tree and killed him there. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Yeoville and to ask whether you ruled that the hon. member for Queenstown could go on speaking in this vein.

Order! I do not believe that it is out of order and sacrilegious when an hon. member of this House draws certain comparisons with current events on the basis of history as recorded in the Bible. Nor do I gain the impression that any ridicule is intended when the hon. member for Queenstown draws comparisons in the way he has just done. Therefore I rule that the hon. member may proceed with his speech.

Mr. Speaker, just before all the hon. members of the CP walked out, I was describing the scene where Ab solom was hanging from the tree by his hair. [Interjections.] Now I just wonder whether there are any turpentine trees to be found in the Soutpansberg. Now I come to the most important part of the story. It really is a pity that the hon. members of the CP have walked out. I wanted them to listen to this. In the last part of the episode which I am briefly recounting here, King David sits weeping and mourning for his son. He does not rejoice at his own victory; he mourns for his son. This has been our experience as well. During the parliamentary recess, the NP scored four resounding victories over its opposition parties in by-elections. However, we could not rejoice at this, because we were weeping for the rift in our people, a rift which was brought about by the same hon. members who have just walked out.

See how many congregations of our own churches are faced with dissension among their members. See how many fine cultural organizations, built up over many years, have been destroyed because our nation has been split in two. Look at our schools. How many teachers, people who have to educate our children, sit glaring at one another in the staff-rooms as a result of this rift in our nation which has been caused by the same people who have just walked out of this Chamber? Can we rejoice when, sitting here in Parliament, we have to listen to Afrikaners reviling one another, while our political opponents deride us, and the people of colour regard our predicament with glee.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Whip has indicated that my time has expired. However, I just want to say that the hon. members of the CP should realize how perfectly they are playing into the hands of the communists, who are trying to destabilize us in every sphere. The communists’ tactic is to divide us into small groups, to destabilize our politics, to brainwash our children with bad literature, to subject them to evil of drugs, and many other things, too numerous to mention. All these things suit our enemy down to the ground—the Red Bull which stands at the gate of South Africa and threatens to destroy us. What will it avail us to stand up in this House and to shout, “I am a true South African. I follow Dr. Malan. I follow Genl. Smuts I follow Dr. Verwoerd. I follow this man and I follow that man”, while South Africa is crumbling beneath our feet and there is no longer a South Africa to celebrate?

Mr. Speaker, I listen with very great interest to the speeches made by the hon. member for Caledon and the hon. member for Queenstown. Allow me to refer right at the outset to the hon. member’s statement in connection with a “ware Afrikaner”. Who is a “ware Afrikaner”? When I speak about “Afrikaner” I have in mind what genl. Hertzog said, namely that every person who puts South Africa first is a “ware Afrikaner”. There are people on this side of the House, hon. members of the PFP, who are prepared to go and fight for their country when they believe it is necessary to do so. Those are the “ware Afrikaners”. I detest the remarks made by the hon. member for Queenstown when he imputes disloyalty to other people, and that the only people who can be “ware Afrikaners” are those people to whom he refers.

You are overreacting. [Interjections.]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am just as much a “ware Afrikaner” as the hon. member for Queenstown. [Interjections.] I have listened to the speeches made in this House and I feel very sorry for the people of Waterberg and Soutpansberg. If the quality of the speeches that they are going to hear for the next two months is the same as that I have heard in this House over the past three days and is going to be repeated there, I do not think the voters will come to any meetings towards the end of the campaigns there. I am reminded of a song which I heard when I was at Stellenbosch about “Bobbejaan klim die berg om die boere te vererg”. That is exactly what is going to happen in Waterberg and Soutpansberg.

I should now like to talk about something else. I want to talk about the goose that laid the golden egg and not about the hen and its “gekêkkel”, of the hon. member for Caledon. I want to refer to a remark made by the hon. the Minister of Finance the other day in Johannesburg when he said—

The abolition of exchange control in respect of non-residents is further evidence of the free market philosophy of Dr. De Kock. With the gold price as strong as it has been, this step was well timed. There is probably very little risk of a major sell-off of South African shares and other foreign investments while the gold price remains strong. At the same time, while the gold price remains strong, this step will not serve to remove excessive liquidity. We have superliquidity in this country. On the other hand, any substantial fall in the gold price or any untoward political event, internal and external—and the CP and NP are creating the conditions for untoward political events—could well spark off a major sell-off by foreign investors of their South African holdings. Another Sharpeville or another Soweto may have dire consequences. One of the main problems in respect of this is the large institutional cash flow to which investment opportunities in the domestic capital market are restricted at present. The solution would be to allow the institutions, viz. the insurance companies and the pension funds, to place a certain proportion of their funds abroad. There could be conditions attached to such increased investment by them, for example, investment in Government securities, in return for concessions to invest abroad. I shall deal with that a little later. However, dividend and earning yields on investment portfolios overseas are not as attractive as they were in the ’70s vis-à-vis similar investments in South Africa. Thus institutions would have to go into interest-bearing securities. Long-term Government stock, for example, in the United States currently pays about 11% which, with the American inflation rate running at about 4%, gives a very atttractive real interest return of 7%. However, the problem is that investment in the long-term interest-bearing securities overseas would be exposed to an exchange risk that could be very large. On the other hand, the South African authorities could allow the institutions to invest funds in short-term investments such as the Eurodollar market. At present, according to the records that I have, the rate is about 9,5% which, together with the relative forward cover discount, places an overall return of about 12,3% or 12,4%. This compares with a rate that was 10,8% a week ago and is now lower than 10,2%, which is currently obtainable on six months’ deposits in the domestic market. In other words, there is a favourable turnaround of from 1,5% to 2,5% which should make short-term investments abroad very attractive to our institutions, and some of the excess liquidity could be removed in this way. The major problem in relation to liquidity at this time is the very substantial amount of money that is coming into this country. These amounts are coming into the domestic money market because of the high gold price and as a result of South African companies borrowing trade finance at very low interest rates overseas where the off-shore borrowing is left uncovered in relation to the exchange risk. This money drives down interest rates and seriously undermines our efforts to reduce the inflation rate through monetary policies. In this regard, I should like to quote the following extract from the Sunday Times of last Sunday—

Last Friday we saw which way the wind was blowing when the latest issue of South African Treasury Bills fell a spectacular 166 points to 9,56% from 11,22%.

The question we have to ask ourselves is: How can we solve this problem? I believe the time has arrived when the South African monetary authorities must allow a certain number of things to be done.

The first proposal I wish to make is that they could allow the South African banks to place deposits overseas. Such deposits would yield acceptable interest returns after deduction of the relative exchange cover discount. Secondly, the Reserve Bank could pay the goldmines for their gold in dollars, not in rand, and allow the mines to invest portion of those dollars abroad.

Where will they get all the dollars from?

Thirdly, the Treasury could require the goldmines to pay part of their taxes in dollars. The Reserve Bank would then pay part of its dollar receipts from its gold sales over to the Treasury, which could invest such dollars abroad, and in this way build up a dollar stabilization account which could serve as a device for evening out the impact of the volatile gold price on the South African economy, thereby in effect stabilizing the gold price for the South African economy. Finally, the Reserve Bank can of course remove excess liquidity from the domestic market by conducting open-market sales of Government securities in the traditional way. Unfortunately, however, the Sunday Times also referred to this in regard to the problems that one will experience as well as the cost involved if one attempts to do so internally. It states—

A combination of these methods can be used and I feel that the time has come when this should be the initial step that should be taken to free South African residents from exchange control. The control of assets purchased and the repatriation of dividends and interest and the return of capital to South Africa when the assets are sold can still be controlled by the banking institutions on behalf of the Reserve Bank. For too long have the residents of South Africa been carrying the burden of exchange control. In this regard I want to say that there are too many who are afraid that it will have a serious effect upon the South African monetary position. I would like to quote the words of Clough who said—

I should like to conclude by drawing the attention of the House to a number of articles in the Sunday Express over the past three weeks. In this regard I feel very seriously that the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare and the hon. the Minister of National Education should consider the appointment of a judicial commission in order to investigate all the allegations that have been made not only against a certain company but against all the pharmaceutical companies in South Africa. Things have even gone so far that at this stage they are implicating State hospitals and State organizations and their officials. If one looks at one page, one sees that even an ex-member of this House has been called to give account. The reason is that in Bloemfontein there was a mental hospital by name of Oranje Hospital which had both White and Black patients. According to this article the ex-member of this House and one of the gentlemen mentioned in the article built a Black hospital in an area known as Bophuthatswana. The ex-MP provided the patients for this particular gentleman. What is the problem? He was really providing this man with his cash flow because it was the State that was paying per patient-day for the care of these patients. There are large numbers of problems quoted here, and this is now getting to the stage where, unless the Government takes immediate steps to have a judicial commission to investigate this, there is going to be a tremendous feeling of unrest. The front page bears the heading “The Deadly Medicine” under which it is said that this is a medical scandal. The Government is requested to so something about it, and the sooner the better. The way in which to do something about this is to appoint a judicial commission. We want a judicial commission, and not the type of commission that was appointed by the Administrator of Transvaal to investigate the allegations made by the Sunday Express. What we want is an investigation into the depth of what is actually happening in the pharmaceutical industry vis-à-vis our public hospitals in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to contend that I am a true Jew, and I think the hon. member for Bezui denhout will agree with me when I tell him that he is a little confused as regards his conception of the ethnic groups in this country. I think that he is a true Jew, and I respect him for it. If he wishes, he can also be a good South African and a true South African, but he is surely not an Afrikaner, nor will he ever become one.

Another incident occurred at a late stage in the debate, one which causes disquiet. Points of order were raised here objecting to the speech of the hon. member for Queenstown on the grounds that he was supposedly misusing the Bible. It was remarkable that while the hon. member was speaking, neither the hon. member for Yeoville nor the hon. member for Rissik showed any tendency to object. Apparently the hon. member for Yeoville objected at the mention of the word “Jew”; I infer this.

But you are deaf!

The hon. member for Rissik sat throughout this speech laughing at the wit and humour, but when the hon. member for Yeoville stood up he, too, stood up and the whole of the CP walked out with him. What inference are we to draw other than that this was part of the circus that those hon. members sometimes make of this House?

And you are the clown!

One objects when such matters are used to hide behind the Bible in respect of this type of conduct. As far as I am concerned it is scandalous.

This year’s Part Appropriation attests to tenacity and perseverance which creates further confidence in our economic ability to resist the draining effect of recessionary conditions. It was unnecessary to introduce further drastic measures. On the contrary, it was possible to make small concessions. As an agriculturist it is only natural that I should express concrn at the severe drought which has done hundreds of millions of rands worth of damage and is causing farmers to develop a financial leeway that will be difficult to make up. One is concerned, too, at the situation of our canning industry in South Africa today. One is also concerned about the present bottlenecks in the wine industry. One feels that these things are part of the problem which those people who are maintaining our economic stability struggle with, and we want to thank them for assistance in the past and express the confidence that it will be possible for them to improve these conditions further in the future.

Although South Africa has many plus factors in respect of its welfare in the economic and other spheres, South Africa is probably the country with the greatest number of bottlenecks or problems in regard to its survival. The gravest of these problems is probably the indisputable hostility of Russia which, with its communist-imperialist ideal, leaves no stone unturned in its effort to achieve its aim. South Africa is in the crossfire of this struggle. The latest weapon in the struggle against South Africa is the dissemination of the idea that South Africa is a powerful bully which, with its own gain in view, and to the detriment of underdeveloped African countries, is doing everything in its power to destabilize those struggling countries. Not a day goes by in which propaganda transmitters in their hundreds, bent on attacking South Africa, do not refer in some way to the so-called destabilization campaign undertaken by South Africa. This is a process of undermining aimed at disparaging South Africa’s defence system in the eyes of the world in an effort to neutralize it. Something that is stunning—it is in fact shocking, contemptible—is the fact that the enemy of South Africa has apparently achieved its greatest breakthrough ever by managing to get the Opposition parties in this House to join the destabilization chorus. Not only do they join the chorus. Of their own accord they seek to attack South Africa’s Defence Force in all spheres and in every way, to make out that South Africa’s Defence Force is marked by self-righteousness and corruption. One need look no further to obtain examples of this campaign. One need only read the speech of the hon. member for Jeppe in the no-confidence debate to see how he confirms that he and his party walk shoulder to shoulder with the Defence Force of South Africa. They make out that they are patriots who would never leave the Defence Force in the lurch. Only a few sentences after that he states that the hon. the Minister of Defence should resign and he calls for a commission of inquiry into the Seychelles affair. What impression does this create other than that corruption and irregularities are occurring in the Defence Force? If the hon. member contends that there is a difference between the Defence Force and the Minister, I want to ask him where he thinks the Minister obtains his knowledge of Defence Force matters? Who does he think commits these offences, who initiates them, who carries them out—the Minister or the Defence Force? Who, in his opinion, does these things? How on earth can he expect us to take any notice of his hypocritical allegation, on the one hand, that they support and are the allies of the Defence Force and, on the other, that the Minister of Defence should resign?

The Pretoria News made a big fuss of the fact that mention was made in the report of the Auditor-General of overexpenditure in the Defence Force. To give an indication of the impression created due to this reporting, let me quote the following—

In other words, the Defence Force is wasting and squandering the taxpayer’s money. This is the impression that is being disseminated; so much so that it was necessary for the Chief of the Defence Force to issue a statement in which he stated the facts of the matter categorically and furnished ample evidence that there had been no wastage, and in which he criticized the newspaper for publishing that report. As a result the newspaper published a report stating the following—

The report goes on—

One asks oneself whether we in South Africa, in the times we are living in, can afford to have people in this country, newspapers, parties and individuals, acting in such a way, and then still believe that we can resist the onslaught being launched against us. According to a report I have before me, Dr. Treurnicht, while still a member of the NP, said at a youth conference that what Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd dreamt of was the vision of adv. John Vorster, and is now being given practical effect by the Prime Minister Mr. P. W. Botha. If he recognizes that the leaders of the NP guided it in a certain direction and that, as he contends, the present Prime Minister is merely taking the matter further, then can we not refer him to the extract he quoted from Cicero? In a debate in this House he said that Cicero had said that a nation could survive its fools, even the ambitious ones, but not treason in the inner circles.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 73.

Mr. Speaker, this House is really an interesting place. We have just been conducting a long financial or budget debate but politics dominated it entirely. I think that in the circumstances, Sir, you will permit me to move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we have gone a long way with this Bill and, Sir, as you will remember, we in these benches voted against the Bill at the Second Reading. In fact we divided on the Bill for a very valid reason. Perhaps the speech which I made earlier this afternoon in connection with the control of Parliamentary funds is of interest in view of the Third Reading of this legislation which the House is asked to approve.

We must recap from these benches that by passing this Bill this House will abrogate its own control over how much money is taken from the taxpayer out of the cost of a litre of petrol.

I think in view of the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs’ announcement this afternoon that the price of petrol will be reduced at the pump by 1,6 cents per litre we should ask the hon. Minister of Transport Affairs, who is about to introduce a levy of 0,7 cents—which is what he has told us he will levy—in terms of the Bill in front of us, whether, if he did not impose that levy, the price of petrol could be reduced by 2,3 cents per litre? The hon. the Minister shakes his head. This is extraordinary. The hon. the Minister told us at the Second Reading that the levy of 0,7 cents per litre was not going to increase the price of petrol. He has also said that even if we did not impose that levy, we would not be able to lower the price by more. It does not make sense. It simply does not make sense at all.

The crux of the matter in this Bill is obviously that by passing this Bill, we are giving, the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, acting in concert with the hon. the Ministers of Finance and Mineral and Energy Affairs, the right to levy any sums they like on the cost of 1 litre of petrol to the motorist. That we do not believe is right. We reiterate our opposition to the Bill. We believe it is bad legislation. We believe it is Parliament simply giving away control over its own funds and over taxation and moneys raised from the public. This is a very bad parliamentary principle and we oppose the Third Reading of this Bill

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, has expressed his disappointment on so many occasions that one is beginning to think that he is not really in earnest in this regard. The problems which the hon. member is experiencing with the legislation were clearly spelt out to him at both the Second Reading and the Committee stages. After all, none are so deaf as those who will not hear, and none are so blind as those who will not see. I am afraid that this is more or less the situation we have reached with that hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief in this Third Reading debate and I just want to say that the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs was kind enough today to place his seal on this Bill by announcing a reduction in the price of petroleum products. By his doing so the Government approved that it was in earnest about this matter. Moreover, it kept its promise that a reduction in the price of petroleum products would be announced at the earliest possible opportunity. We are grateful for this concession, and I believe that it will have a very marked effect on combating inflation. We realize that the reduction is not a large one, but we express the hope that it is merely the beginning of better things to come.

The passing of this Bill is an important milestone and constitutes a step in the right direction as far as the National Road Fund is concerned, in that the National Road Fund will by these means be provided with the necessary funds to continue its road building programme. This road building programme is in the interests of our country, its prosperity and progress. I pointed out in the Second Reading debate that the shortage of funds had an extremely detrimental effect on our road building programmes. It was spelt out very clearly, also to the hon. member who became so upset a few moments ago, that planning for the future was rendered difficult and even impossible if the necessary funds were not available. Important programmes were delayed and construction companies went under. It was also pointed out that whenever programmes had to be postponed, the resumption of those programmes at a later stage would cost more money. It is now possible to proceed with the large schemes, for example, the Du Toitskloof tunnel, bridges on the Garden Route, the Warm-baths by-pass, the southern national ring road and the Free State and Natal through roads, since this legislation makes it possible for these schemes to be continued. Were it to have been impossible to continue these schemes, we would have found ourselves in serious difficulties. The great truth to be remembered is that a good road is the biggest saver of fuel. This is a truth we must always bear in mind. It can save the road users millions and in the end it benefits everyone, the entire country. The sooner a road can be built, the greater the saving to the motorist. A properly planned road system makes the largest contribution to the economic development of a country. This is particularly true of South Africa. Here we have to contend with extensive regions, with numerous geographic obstacles and a lack of internal waterways. There are large areas which are sparsely populated and which cannot be served by a railway system. In such cases roads are the principal means of communication. This should always be borne in mind. Good roads are an investment not only for the present but also for the future. Consider the Roman roads which today, after two thousand years, are still in existence and still form the foundation, the backbone, of the highways of modem Italy, of Greece, of Rumania, of France and of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Speaker, before resuming my seat, I should like to inquire from the hon. the Minister whether he has given attention to the request made during the Second Reading, viz. that he should endeavour to obtain a percentage of the price of fuel for the Road Fund instead of a fixed amount.

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Kempton Park, I am also pleased that as a result of this legislation the National Road Fund will have additional funds with which they will build the much needed highways in South Africa. I want to make it absolutely clear that we in the NRP are pleased that this has happened because we too believe that a thriving economy such as ours and a growing economy, we certainly hope, require good roads. The main reason why this legislation has been brought before the House is because the National Road Fund ran out of money. The reason it ran out of money is because of inflation. There is no doubt about it. The tenders that came in for certain works were way above what was originally estimated and the fact is that the National Road Fund ran out of money. It is for that reason, as the hon. the Minister says now, that he is hoping to get approximately 0,7c per litre from the sale of fuel and that this money will go into the National Road Fund.

We are a little disappointed—seeing that the subject has been raised—that the reduction in the price of fuel was limited to 1,6c per litre. We believe that the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs could have done far better, and I think he is being a bit niggardly with a 1,6c per litre reduction in the price of petrol More than that, we believe that there should have been greater decrease in the price of diesel because diesel is one of the major input costs in agriculture, industry and transportation. If we want to fight inflation, we should put a greater emphasis on the reduction in the price of diesel rather than petrol. I think if the hon. the Minister had proposed a reduction of 1,6c per litre in the price of diesel and 1c per litre in the price of petrol he would have shown the country that he was more interested in the input costs of industry, commerce and agriculture in an effort to fight inflation. Therefore we are very disappointed.

We know that the producer price of petrol is approximately 30c per litre and we know that it is selling at the pumps at more than double that. Therefore the State is taking a very nice chunk out of the present price of fuel because, as I say, it is about a 100% mark-up. Granted, there is about 3,5c for the retailer, which is his profit, but the State takes its national road levy, which we are discussing at the moment, it takes 6% on GST, there is the Equalization Fund and the Strategic Fuel Fund—tremendous amounts of money that are going to the State as a result of the sale of fuel. Therefore we believe that the State could have struck a major blow in the fight against inflation by reducing the price of fuel further.

Having said that, the hon. the Minister knows that we in the NRP cannot support him on this Bill because it is a matter of principle with this party. I do not want to belabour the point, but I hope that by repeating it the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs will have no doubt in his mind why we are opposing this Bill. We in this party believe that whenever this legislature extracts money from the public, for whatever reason, that that decision must come to this House for approval. The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs must not say that the hon. the Minister of Finance can increase taxes, etc. That hon. Minister comes back to this House with his budget …

I shall also come back.

That is no use because he does not come with a budget. [Interjections.]

That is a stupid argument.

The hon. the Minister says that it is stupid. Then he must say to the people of South Africa that the NRP is stupid in opposing this legislation because the NRP believes that this Parliament, and not that hon. Minister, must approve of an increase in any levy or any tax that is extracted from the public. Therefore we cannot support the hon. the Minister. The other reason is the secrecy clause. Why we have to have so many secrecy stipulations in legislation in this country I really do not know. I was given a sheet of paper the other day which gives a complete breakdown of the price of fuel and of how every cent of that price is applied. A few years ago I was given statistics showing the quantities of fuel we had bought at the spot price, etc. I know it is illegal that it should have happened. It is possible, however, to get this information, and I am quite sure that our enemies do have this information.

It is for these reasons, Sir, that we will not be supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is surprising that such a short and neat and good piece of legislation can arouse so many fears, not only among hon. members of the official Opposition, but also among hon. members of the NRP. It is therefore probably as well for us to make enquiries to ascertain whence these fears arise.

As is now also evident from the speech of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, their fears arise from their suspicion that the rights of this House will be assailed. The hon. the Minister said by way of interjection that that was a ridiculous argument. I, too, believe that this is really a ridiculous argument. Indeed the fact is that if hon. members on that side of the House were in future to be concerned about an amendment to the levy, they would, after all, have the opportunity, even if there were a clause imposing secrecy in respect of the announcement of the levy by means of a question to this House, to learn from the hon. the Minister whether the levy was to be increased or not.

I see no reason on earth why this hon. Minister—good man that he is—would not reply when hon. members asked him questions of that kind. There is no reason why that information should be kept confidential. Surely, then, this House can exercise its rights to debate the issue of such an increase. There are therefore no grounds whatsoever for the fears harboured by hon. members opposite.

A further reason for their fears is, of course, the fact that hon. members opposite are afraid of the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs. [Interjections.] I now want to ask—I almost want to say with tears in my eyes—why they should be afraid of this hon. Minister. If they are in fact afraid of the hon. the Minister, they should be aware that such an amendment to the levy must also have the approval of the hon. the Minister of Finance, a man who is very close-fisted, as all hon. members are already aware. It must also have the approval of the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. There is therefore no foundation for that fear of theirs either.

Hon. members opposite are of course inclined to set up straw dolls and then knock them down again. In this regard I have in mind, for example, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central who, in the course of his speech, said he expected the hon. the Minister to increase the levy overnight—that is what he said in his speech—by 30c per litre. What foolishness is this from the hon. member? At present the levy is 3 cents per litre. This gives a return of approximately R154 million. A levy of 30 cents would thus give a return of R1 500 million, or even more. This is the sort of argument that was used during this debate. I do not think there are any grounds whatever for the doubts voiced by hon. members opposite. For that reason we should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on this statutory amendment. We believe it is a good amendment. We fully support the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I feel sorry for the hon. the Minister … [Interjections.]

When are you going to resign?

Mr. Speaker, as far as my resignation is concerned I just want to tell those hon. members that I do not do horse-trading. [Interjection.] If those hon. members are prepared to swop their horses for rabbits they must go and do so else-where. [Interjections.] The principle of this measure has now been accepted and the arguments of the official Opposition that the hon. the Minister is now going to exercise arbitrary powers should, in my opinion, be disregarded at this stage. What is important is the success of this legislation in achieving the aim for which it was introduced. The aim of this legislation is basically to obtain money in an effort to complete uncompleted projects and other projects in connection with roads in South Africa. One of the projects affected by the introduction of this measure is the southern bypass in the Johannesburg area, the so-called N 103.

I am sure the hon. the Minister will permit me to say a few words in this connection. I must say that I was under the impression, as were the people of Johannesburg, that this decision we are now sanctioning by way of legislation had already been taken last year and that the hon. the Minister already had this money to build these roads. It was a great disappointment for us to learn that it was not possible to keep to the programmed decisions with regard to that road. The road runs through my constituency and I am therefore aware of the frustration of the people in the southern parts of Johannesburg. The building of the Gillview interchange was already to have started in March/April of this year. The Gillview Ridgeway road was to have been started six months later, in September/October of this year. The Reading-Gillview road has been completed but is just standing there, as it were. No-one can use it. The road cannot be opened because this would lead to traffic congestion at the end of that road that could not be accommodated. The P 72 Provincial road from Vereeniging has been completed. The City Council of Johannesburg’s road from the city centre to that road has also been completed and all that is necessary now is for that interchange to be built to link those roads. This project is of the utmost importance and it surprises me that hon. members of the PFP and of the NRP cannot see their way clear to making these funds available to eliminate this bottleneck in the southern parts of Johannesburg. [Interjections.] This new arrangements will be capable of solving the problems of the southern part of Johannesburg. The question is: When will these funds be made available? I say that any delays will be catastrophic as far as that section of road is concerned. It surprises me that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said: “The longer it takes, the happier we are”. The hon. members of the NRP also told us that they could not support this measure and that they were going to oppose it; in other words, they do not want this money to be paid into the Roads Fund so that these roads can be built. [Interjections.] I know the hon. members are opposed to this measure because of certain arbitrary powers the Minister may be given. However, there have been hundreds of examples in the past of legislation in which Ministers were given these rights and these powers. Johannesburg is really in trouble. We have a population of almost 2 million people—Whites, Blacks and Coloureds— who have to make use of those roads.

I want to make a final appeal to the hon. the Minister. He is now going to receive these funds and I just hope that that road will be built. However, we want to tell the people in the southern part of Johannesburg that the hon. members of the PFP and the NRP do not want those funds to be made available and that if the hon. the Minister does not get those funds he will not be able to build the road.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. members for Turffontein said exactly what I said in the Second Reading debate. This House is going to divide because I am asking for 0,7 cent per litre in order to build the southern bypass and roads in Natal. [Interjections.] Even if I were to have tried to collect the 0,7 cent per litre in the way favoured by them, they would have tried to vote that down as well. However, those arguments do not hold good. I do not want to waste the time of this House at this stage; suffice it to say that we replied to all those arguments in the Second Reading debate.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central became so entangled that he never noticed that an amendment had been effected to clause 2 i.e. that the Bill shall come into operation on a date fixed by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette.

*He asks whether this 0,7 cent levy is included in the reduction of 1,6 cents per litre announced by the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs.

Of course I never said that.

When I moved the amendment during the Committee Stage I said that we were not going to introduce the levy of 0,7 cent at this stage because the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs was desirous of decreasing fuel prices. [Interjections.]

*Now this is the kind of argument which is being used. Of course, the hon. member did not expect that we would decrease the price of petrol by 1,6 cents per litre.

It should have been more.

My goodness me! Now all of a sudden it should have been more. Well, I had prepared myself for a reduction of 1 cent per litre, and when the hon. the Minister advanced his arguments in favour of a reduction of 1,6 cents per litre in the Cabinet, I was only too pleased. He also asked me not to introduce my levy of 0,7 cent per litre at this stage. He said there might possibly be another fluctuation in the world prices of oil at some later stage and in that case we could take it from that.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he would have been very unhappy had the reduction been 5 cents per litre?

Of course not. That is also a stupid question. The hon. member said that the consumer price is 60 cents— those were his words—and the price that the seller pays is 30 cents per litre. He should remember that is the price at the coast. The cost of transport must be added. He should remember too that in Pretoria one is paying 64,3 cents and not 60 cents. There is also a deduction on behalf of Sasol. Surely the hon. member knows the whole story. One should also bear in mind what the price of fuel is in Africa and in the rest of the world. How do those prices compare with ours?

But we are better than they are.

In Zimbabwe the price is $1,20. What is the price in America where they have their own oil wells? My goodness gracious me!

*The hon. member for Fauresmith is a fine fellow. He is a splendid fellow, and so are those people from Fauresmith. Had I obtained a little more money, I would have had the roads tarred in his constituency.

I want to tell the hon. member for Kemp ton Park that with a view to building roads, I should very much have liked to see a percentage included in the price of fuel. I think that is the ideal. In 1935 we received 17% of the price of fuel for the road fund, but at present we receive only 4% despite the fact that prices have escalated. I hope the day will come when I shall be able to succeed in having us operate on a percentage basis, and then we shall eliminate all these arguments.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.