Mr. Speaker, I move—

To begin with, I should just like to say something about the gold price. The fairly sharp drop in the price of gold over the past few days is mainly attributable to the downward tendency in the price of oil and the threat of a price war between the major oil-producing countries. In their turn, these complications are likely to lead to an improvement in the American balance of payments position, because the U.S. imports a great deal of oil, and also to a lower rate of inflation in that country. Because of this, the position of the American dollar in the international currency market is especially strong at the moment.

It was under these circumstances that the price of gold dropped from $503 a fine ounce at the morning price fixing on 22 February to $392 a fine ounce in Hong Kong this morning, after which it rallied noticeably, so much so that the price fixing in London at 10h30 this morning was $419,75. Under the present circumstances, greater fluctuations in the gold price cannot be ruled out. We must be careful, therefore, not to overreact to the short-term fluctuations in the price of gold. In fact, it would appear at this stage that the drop in the price of gold was excessive, judging by the recovery that has already taken place. In this connection it must be pointed out, too, that the average price of gold over a period of 12 months in 1982 was $376 per fine ounce, which is a good deal lower than the prevailing price of gold.

†In other words, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the market has already been discounting for a possible further fall in the oil price. I think the market has certainly overreacted in doing so. We are obviously going to witness short term fluctuations again—as I said a few days ago—but I still remain convinced that, over the longer term, the upward tendency that we saw throughout from June last year up to last week is going to resume. From our point of view in South Africa there is absolutely no cause for concern. Obviously a gold price of $500 per ounce suits us better than a gold price of say $400. However, I think our conservative approach to budgeting and financial policy, and therefore also to the forward estimations of the gold price, are well-known, and we will simply take this into account. Therefore I can assure the House that though we may be in for a little bumpy ride in the short term, the situation is certainly under control, and I do not have the slightest doubt that it will remain under control as far as our economy is concerned.

Order! The hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs has asked me to afford him the opportunity to make a brief statement. I now call upon the hon. the Minister to speak.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to a matter raised here last week by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, a matter relating to the supply of crude oil to South Africa. The hon. member also referred inter alia to the Salem incident and also adopted certain standpoints and made certain allegations.

In his reply to the debate in question the hon. the Minister of Finance furnished certain replies. Certain undertakings and agreements have been entered into between the Government and the Opposition parties concerned. Mr. Speaker, you will permit me to raise a few points in regard to this whole matter which, in my modest opinion, are of considerable importance to the Republic of South Africa. To begin with, I wish to point out that we are living at a time when there is a surplus supply of oil in the world, so much so that the Arab oil producers are at present selling a mere 50% of the oil they used to.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May I ask whether you have in fact approved of the gist of this statement by the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs? Are you satisfied that it is a personal explanation?

Order! I am satisfied that it is in fact a personal explanation, and I should ask the hon. member to give the hon. the Minister an opportunity of proceeding.

Mr. Speaker, to reassure the hon. Chief Whip of the PFP I wish to state clearly that I am not going to take this opportunity to get at anyone. I am merely requesting this opportunity so as to be in a position to prevent South Africa from being got at. [Interjections.]

World oil sales have dropped drastically. Because some of the oil producers have incurred financial obligations which at present they are no longer able to meet due to the drop in sales, the fact is that at present oil is relatively easy to obtain on the world market. Last week certain reductions in price were announced and could easily have given the impression that South Africa may accordingly purchase as much oil as it likes when and where and at whatever price it wants to buy it. In spite of the softening in the oil market, a determined campaign is still being waged abroad to have an oil embargo effectively imposed on South Africa. This has been the position since 1975.

†The Special Committee against Apartheid drew attention to the desirability of an embargo on the supply of petroleum and petroleum products to South Africa. To quote again from one of their decisions—

In December 1975 the General Assembly for the first time, as part of a resolution entitled “The situation in South Africa”, appealed to “all States concerned to take the necessary measures to impose an effective embargo on the supply of petroleum and petroleum products to South Africa”.

*Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to bore the House with pages and pages of campaigns launched by the Special Committee against Apartheid and the General Assembly and by way of appeals to the Security Council to take a decision to impose sanctions against South Africa in terms of Chapter 7. I can refer you to the Kairos group which has been launching campaigns and which are still attempting to have an oil embargo on South Africa imposed.

The point I want to make in the national interest is …

Well, make it then.

The hon. member need not feel so bad. I am merely making a statement. I can understand it being very difficult for the hon. member to realize what is in the national interest of this country. [Interjections.] The point I want to make is that the supply of oil to South Africa is and remains a sensitive matter, a matter which must be dealt with with the greatest circumspection and caution. We must see to it that in what we say and in what we make public, we do not place those people who provide us with oil in a difficult position or in an embarrassing position, nor in a position in which pressure could be exerted on them. [Interjections.]

Order! I wish to call upon the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs to make his statement in which a special appeal is made, as brief and concise as possible.

I shall, Sir. During the Salem incident my predecessor, dr. Van der Merwe, took the Opposition into his confidence and informed them with regard to that matter. The Opposition parties agreed to the method and way of dealing with this matter that was proposed by the Government. In that regard I can call to witness the hon. member Mr. Aronson and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. Those two hon. members will be able to confirm that. Apparently the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central was not at that stage a member of the caucus of any of the Opposition parties of the time. I therefore take it that the hon. member was not informed with regard to this matter.

I should like to appeal to the hon. members not to publicise matters relating to the supply, the sources of supply and the method of provision of crude oil to South Africa. I should like to refer to the Provisions of the Petroleum Products Act, 1977, section 4, in terms of which there is a prohibition on the publication of any information relating to the supply of crude oil to South Africa except with the written approval of the Minister in question.

By saying this I do not wish to dispute, even by implication, the privilege of an hon. member of this House to mention any matter. That is by no means my intention. However, I want to make an appeal to the sense of responsibility of hon. members. Due to the privilege of this House, an hon. member can stand up here and make known information which could be to the serious detriment of this country, but every hon. member has a responsibility to the country and therefore every hon. member must consider what is in the national interest. His judgment as to what is in the national interest is fundamental to the discipline he must impose on himself with regard to how far he can go with the privilege of the House.

Why do you not leave that to the Speaker?

Accordingly I appeal to hon. members not to discuss the Salem incident or any other circumstances or matters relating to the provision of crude oil in this House, because we could in this way reveal information which could be to the detriment of the country’s acquisition of crude oil. [Interjections.]

I do not expect of the Opposition to be uninformed with regard to matters of this nature and accordingly, like my predecessor, I am prepared to take the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central and his Leader into my confidence with regard to this matter. I shall inform them on a responsible basis, but I want to make an earnest appeal to them not to discuss this matter in public.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permissible for an hon. Minister to forbid the publication of matters which are recorded in Hansard after having been said in the House unless you, Sir, have deleted that from Hansard?

I do not consider this a point of order as such, but as far as the hon. member’s question is concerned a member of Parliament has absolute privilege in this House. What is recorded in Hansard can be reported and has been reported in the past. That is as far as I am prepared to go.

Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to respond immediately to the hon. the Minister of Finance in regard to the gold price, but I think he will forgive me if I deal with the second issue first and come back later to the gold price even though I actually believe that the gold price issue is more important for the future of South Africa than the dialectics which are presently going on.

I think it is important that we deal with this issue because the hon. the Minister I think has made really just two points in this long personal explanation, and that is that he says there is a campaign against South Africa in order to deprive it of oil, if possible. I think we concede that and we certainly do not want to assist in any way anybody who seeks to encourage that campaign. Secondly he says that nothing should be done here in the House, in debating a matter, which could be of such a nature as to jeopardize the security of the State or our ability to obtain oil—which South Africa needs— from certain sources. Again one has no problem with that at all, and I do not think it can be suggested that anybody on this side of the House, in this party, has actually done that. I think that is the crucial issue. What is fundamental is the fact that it is perfectly true that the former hon. member for Constantia, Mr. Derick de Villiers, was in fact brought into the discussions. A statement was issued which was not contradicted by anybody in this party, a statement which said that Opposition spokesmen had been consulted and that they had displayed a particular degree of understanding for the situation and had associated themselves with the proposed handling of the matter. That was never disputed. The statement was issued and was accepted. So there was no problem about that. Since that time, however, what has happened is something quite different. What has happened since that time is that there has been litigation in courts in other countries. There has, in particular, been litigation in Britain, and the case has been reported in the law reports. Those law reports are freely available in South Africa, as in fact they are throughout the world. The question that consequently remains unanswered, and which I hope the Minister will deal with today is: Why is it that the whole world is entitled to know what is in those law reports, yet not this House and not South Africa? [Interjections.] That is the question that someone is going to have to answer during the course of this debate. That is the question that members of the public are asking. Members of the public are asking: Why is it that people in Britain may know, people in countries antagonistic to South Africa may know, the Anti-apartheid Committee may know and every group that wants to work against South Africa may know, but the ordinary South African, the man who votes for either the National Party, our party or any other party, is not entitled to know? [Interjections.] That is a question I think needs to be answered.

The other matter that gains importance is why this issue has to be raised. Mr. Speaker, with respect, I have no quarrel with your earlier ruling, because I intended to raise the issue in a different form, for as far as I am concerned—and I believe the hon. members in my party are concerned—we subject ourselves to the Speaker’s ruling when it comes to what we may say and we may not say within the ambit of the rules of Parliament and the law in South Africa. We will not, however, submit ourselves to a statement by the hon. the Minister outside this House. [Interjections.] We are subject to your discipline, Mr. Speaker, and not to the hon. the Minister’s directive about what may be said and what may not be said, because the reality of the situation is that the freedom of speech of which you, Sir are the custodian—the freedom of speech of a member of Parliament— is a precious heritage. It is not a heritage born today or yesterday, but one that has been fought for for many years, and fought for in other countries, not only South Africa. Going back in history, perhaps the classic example is one dating from 1396 when a gentleman by the name of Haxey was condemned because he put forward a Bill to reduce the excessive charges of the King’s household, in other words because he did not like the Government’s expenditure. So, is it because I do not like the expenditure of the hon. the Minister of Finance that I should be in the same position as that gentleman?

You say it is too low.

Well, fortunately there are some respects in which the hon. the Minister does not resemble Richard II. I do not want to list them, but there are indeed some differences between the hon. the Minister and Richard II. What is, however, even more important is the fact that Henry IV reversed that decision and the freedom of the individual to speak in Parliament was established. As regards ourselves as we sit here in Parliament, every single member knows the provisions of section 8 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act. Every member also knows the provision contained in section 2 of that Act, which says—

That is precious to us and that is what is important to us.

I have tried to stress this because over the weekend, as we understand the press reports, the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs invoked the provisions of the Petroleum Products Act and sought in fact to prevent reports of what was said by a member of this House from being published in South Africa. I have read the hon. member’s speech and was present when it was made and, as I understand it, all he did was to refer to what was said in a decision in the House of Lords in England which is public knowledge. He said nothing that is confidential. He said nothing that is not known outside of South Africa. What he did do, however, was to express his concern that this had cost South Africa money, and I think that that is a legitimate concern.

The hon. the Minister of Finance said it is not even for this House to have questions asked about it because, he said, it is not the taxpayers’ money that is involved, it is not money for which a Minister is accountable because it is owned by a private company; but that private company is owned by South Africa and the money in that private company comes from the pockets of the taxpayers of South Africa. Therefore there is an accountability on the part of the Cabinet and there is a right on the part of the Opposition, the custodians of the rights of the ordinary South African, to demand explanations. Whatever anybody says about the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central on this issue, I want to say it is his right to ask how that came about, it is right to ask how public money came to be wasted.

I want to raise another issue concerning what the hon. the Minister did over the weekend. Surely it is the right of the public to know what a member of Parliament has said in this House. Surely the public must not depend only upon the ability to get a copy of Hansard. Surely there is a public right to know what in fact is happening in this House. There is a right to know what the hon. the Prime Minister says in this House and there is a right to know what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central says in this House. That is what democracy is all about. That is what Parliamentary government is all about. As I understand it, if in fact there is to be a threat to the right of the public to be told what goes on in this House, then the very fabric on which this House is based is threatened, the very fabric is threatened of what in fact debate is about.

Certainly, I accept what the hon. the Minister says about using circumspection to ensure that the security of the State is not jeopardized. I accept that completely. Certainly, we on this side of the House accept that, but the reality is that the whole world knows about the Salem lawsuit, the whole world knows about the report of the House of Lords—the whole world knows, but South Africa is not entitled to know and the hon. the Minister wants to stop South Africa from knowing by using his powers under the Act against newspapers.

Sir, he may be wrong, because reference can be made to provisions of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, and particularly to sections 29 and 30, in terms of which, should the Minister contemplate bringing civil or criminal proceedings against any newspaper, the defence could well be that the report, extract or abstract was published bona fide and without malice and that therefore the person accused could be acquitted. But why should we get involved in this criminal-law aspect? Surely the right of the people of South Africa to know about what is debated in the House is important.

That is why I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs whether he will not agree to the appointment of a Select Committee of the House to go into, not just the Salem affair, but everything that has happened here, including the powers he has exercised to stop the Press from publishing reports, and, if one likes, the allegation made by the hon. the Minister of Finance against the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. The whole of it could be investigated. It is not enough to say: “I have a suspicion that somebody has done something wrong”. If there is a suspicion, then the hon. member is entitled to be vindicated. If there is a question that the hon. the Minister for Mineral and Energy Affairs has acted wrongly in regard to these powers, then he should be prepared to agree to a Select Committee. If there is to be a question of investigating …

[Inaudible.]

Do you want to say that you agree to it?

Continue with your speech.

I thought you might agree to it. Sir, I mistook the hon. the Prime Minister to display what might be a reasonable attitude. I apologize for anticipating. As I was saying I do not think it is enough to say that he will tell the hon. leader of the PFP or the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. It is not being told that is in issue here; the whole circumstances surrounding the Salem affair should be investigated. If there is any suggestion that there could be evidence which was not led in the English courts, which was not considered by the House of Lords, then it can be put with safety before a Select Committee and it can be decided what should become public and what should not if there is a question of jeopardy in so far as the public interest is concerned. I therefore ask that we have such a Select Committee with the widest possible terms of reference so that the right of free speech of MPs can be put beyond question and that the right of the Press, of the media, to report what goes on in Parliament can also be established beyond doubt. If the law is not enough to allow publication the law should be changed to make sure that there is this right to publication.

May I, with respect, come back to the issue which the hon. the Minister raised in respect of the question of the gold price. Obviously everybody is concerned about the gold price going down because quite obviously a high gold price is of importance to South Africa. I want to say just a couple of things. Firstly, I believe a low oil price is in the long-term benefit of South Africa as it is in the long term benefit of the industrialized world and the Third World. If the oil price goes down, in the long term we will all reap benefits from it. The oil price should never have been allowed to ascend to the levels to which it did. It was a cartel which held the rest of the world to ransom. I for one have no regrets at the going down of the oil price, even if it means that there may be a temporary problem in regard to the gold price. In the long term a low oil price and a high gold price are not inconsistent—the hon. the Minister will agree with that—because there are so many other factors that affect the price of gold. We can in fact live with a low oil price and still have a high gold price in South Africa. My optimism for gold remains untarnished. I share that with the hon. the Minister. It is one of the few things we do share. I believe it will come right.

I also want to touch one some of the other things which have been said during the course of the Second Reading debate. Obviously, what one has intended to say has changed somewhat because of the time factor and having to speak as we have had to in these circumstances. However, there are a couple of things that I want to touch on. Firstly, the hon. the Minister took grave offence that this is called a “no-event budget”. He said: “How can you suggest that this should be a budget in which I should announce changes and prejudge what was going to be in the budget?” What is remarkable about this is that it is perfectly in order to announce a small reduction in the import levy but it is grossly out of order, in his kind of thinking to call for the total abolition of that import levy. That he does not regard as being proper. He thinks that it is perfectly in order to say now, in 1983, that he does not have to make any major announcements with regard to GST and other matters, while in 1982, just after an election, he had no difficulty in announcing an increase in GST and he had no difficulty in announcing an increase in the import levy. What makes it worse, in 1981, when we were going to hold an election within a short time, he had no difficulty in announcing a whole string of concessions. He therefore tailors himself to what the circumstances of the day require. What is remarkable, having said nothing and having said that this is really not a budget, the hon. the Minister finally says: “I suggest with great respect that this is indeed an extremely sound and satisfactory budget.” But if he did nothing, if he was not required to do anything, how can it be sound and satisfactory? All that the hon. the Minister did was to tell us that he wants R5 600 million, which is 14% more than he asked for last year, without a word of explanation and without one other factor to come in.

The hon. the Minister said something else, and I shall quote his exact words so that there should be no misunderstanding. He said: “However, is 14% such a terrible rate of inflation?”

For a developing country.

No, Sir. The hon. the Minister should read his Hansard. He qualified himself a little later.

Read it.

The hon. the Minister has a bad memory, and I am sorry about it. He has a terrible memory, because this is what he said—

There was a chorus from this side of the House saying “Yes”. Then the hon. the Minister went on to say—

He said it and then he qualified it. I say to the hon. the Minister that 14% is a terrible rate of inflation. It is a terrible rate of inflation for South Africa. I can quote him virtually every single one of his senior officials in the Department of Finance who will agree that it is a terrible rate of inflation.

Quote them.

And I can also quote every economist of standing. All say that this is a terrible rate of inflation. What the hon. the Minister has forgotten is that we complained two years ago about the way in which the money supply had got out of hand and said that it was due to mismanagement. The hon. the Minister claims to be a monetarist…

I never claimed that in my life.

The theories of the monetarist say that you only feel the effect of inflation two years later. Therfore we are paying the price today, if the monetarist theories are right for the mismanagement of the money supply two years ago. That is the reality of what has taken place. I wish I had lots more time because there are more fascinating things on which I should like to touch.

On Friday the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance, according to his unrevised Hansard, said—

Does the hon. the Minister agree with that? The reality of the matter, if the hon. the Deputy Minister says that we have the lowest unemployment that we have had of all time, is that the official statistics must all be wrong. The facts are that registered White, Coloured and Asian unemployed in October 1982 were 87% higher than in October 1981. The total number of people in employment, according to the latest statistics available, are 53 000 less in September of last year than six months earlier. Iscor laid off 5 000 people in 1982. Atlantis Diesel Engines has retrenched 10% of its staff. The number of Blacks employed in manufacturing, mining and construction, is 2,6% less in August 1982 than in August 1981. Sir, employment in a whole series of industries, which I can quote at length, has fallen. Yet hon. members on the other side of the House, knowing that there are by-elections ahead, say there is less unemployment in South Africa now that there has ever been. I submit that that is one of the most ridiculous statements that have ever been made. Against that the reality is that we have an economy in South Africa at the moment which is beset by unemployment, by a low growth rate and by high inflation, and for these circumstances we have a Government that is inept and unable to handle what is one of the most serious economic recessions that South Africa has experienced for a long time. That is our indictment of this Government.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville is entirely predictable. He is always at his very indignant best—or shall I say indignant worst—when he claims that freedom of speech of members of Parliament is being imperilled and that the Press is only able to publish what the Government wants it to publish, instead of being allowed to publish what it wants to publish. Sir, he is guaranteed always to step into the breach when any of these matters is dealt with because he is absolutely certain of getting headlines in the newspapers. [Interjections.] I do not remember the hon. member showing the same concern about the Sunday Express being able to publish what it wanted to publish about him and his “gang”—some 10 years ago. I do not remember him standing up for the freedom of speech so readily then. Sir, the only thing the hon. member wants to stand up for is for the Press to say what it likes, provided it is what he would like them to say.

Sir, let us look at the question of freedom of speech in this House and at the question of a free Press. Sir, no one, including the hon. member for Yeoville, will argue with me if I say that it is the duty of a free Press to give its readers the news-of-the-day or, what they like to call, “the public’s right to know”.

Including what is said in this House.

We are endlessly lectured by newspaper editors, managers and owners and by all those people who pretend they have all the answers, i.e. the political commentators. South Africa is the prime target for communist imperialism and of terrorist organizations like Swapo, the ANC and the PAC. Whilst South Africa’s young men are required to devote years and years of their active lives to active service on the borders and in the police and while many of them lose their lives in the process, the Government’s security legislation is fought tooth and nail by its Press opponents, and their followers here, if their freedom to report anything and everything in the way they want, is curtailed in any possible way. Their parrot cry usually is that they are beset by an absolute minefield of legislation, restrictive legislation. Any refusal by the Government to divulge sensitive information is met with a shriek of “cover-up”, “interference with Press freedom”, etc. In the debate on the Part Appropriation Bill last week, Opposition speakers were given extensive coverage in daily Opposition newspapers for their criticism of the Government’s handling of inflation, the rising cost of living, taxation of the poor, pensions and the means test.

On Thursday the hon. the Minister of Finance stood up to reply and delivered a carefully prepared speech lasting about one hour. I have his Hansard here, and I find that he dealt with the standards of living of the low-income sections of the population in altogether 15 pages. He showed that South Africa’s 6% general sales tax was by far the lowest in the world, with the average there being between 15% and 17%. He also gave comparative inflation figures showing that an inflation rate of 14% was the lowest among comparable developing countries. He referred to Government measures to alleviate the burden of inflation, measures such as food subsidies totalling, for example, R250 million a year, as well as bus and rail subsidies for the lower income groups, also totalling R250 million a year. All of these measures are specially directed at assisting the poor in fighting the problem of rising costs of living and of inflation. He quoted figures to show that, despite inflation, real wages and salaries, in the non-agricultural sector of the economy, increased by 3,5% in 1980, and by a further 4,4% in 1981. The real domestic product per capita over the whole population increased by nearly 5% in 1980, and by a further 2,2% in 1981. These figures reflect a significant rise in living standards in general in South Africa.

After comparing the light GST here in South Africa with the heavy value added tax overseas, the hon. the Minister dealt in detail with the amount of taxes paid by the rich and by the poor in the Republic. Two-thirds of our total income tax is paid by ten per cent who earn 30% of all income. The lowest paid—that is to say 50% of the population—receive about 20% of the total personal income and pay only 2% of direct taxes.

Just listen to His Master’s Voice.

Then the hon. the Minister gave figures of interest to all pensioners in South Africa. Every hon. member on this side of the House, as well as every hon. member opposite, is concerned about the position of pensioners. In 1982-’83, total social pensions amount to nearly R1 000 million, military pensions to approximately R29 million, and these two groups of pensioners had an increase of 135% over the last five years. The Government spends not less than 6% of its entire budget on pensioners, a number of whom in recent years also have benefited substantially by high interest rates which have augmented their investment income. The hon. the Minister also referred to the interdepartmental committee which was constantly reporting to him on the “means test” with a view to revising it, in the light of changing economic circumstances. Comparing pension increases with the inflation rate, the hon. the Minister pointed out that pension increases since 1948 were twice the increase in the cost of living over the same period. His Hansard reveals that the hon. the Minister devoted almost two full sheets to giving detailed examples of income tax concessions, medical and loan levy benefits to elderly people. Surely, these items that I have quoted and that are in the hon. the Minister’s Hansard, are hard news for the people of South Africa.

They are bad news! [Interjections.]

Surely to goodness, Mr. Speaker, the people of South Africa, who are hard hit by inflation, would have welcomed information given to them by the hon. the Minister of Finance. Surely, the farmers and the consumers were entitled to read what the hon. the Minister of Finance had said over four and a half sheets of his unrevised Hansard, on the subject of agricultural prices and consumer prices, as well as the current financial problems of the farmers. Do not believe for one moment, Mr. Speaker, what is said to the contrary. I have here reports, for example, of the local newspapers, The Cape Times and The Argus.

What about Die Burger?

On Friday, in their parliamentary pages … I have Die Burger here as well, and that newspaper covers the position very adequately, thank you. [Interjections.]

What the hon. the Minister said about gold is indeed fairly reported, and both those newspapers gave fair coverage to his remarks about gold. However, nothing is said about agriculture; no information is given about pensioners; nothing is said about taxation benefits for the elderly or about the consideration of the means test from time to time; nothing is said about real salaries and wages outstripping the cost of living. They also said nothing about low taxes paid by the poor, nothing about food and transport subsidies amounting to R500 million a year. Instead, a vitriolic reaction in two statements, not made in Parliament at all, but made presumably in the precincts of this House by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens about what the hon. the Minister of Finance had said in his Second Reading speech about the Government’s funding of a pamphlet setting out the Government’s constitutional proposals. Instead of dealing with what the hon. the Minister of Finance said, the second item of interest in the parliamentary pages of The Cape Times and The Argus is the comment by the hon. member for Pinelands, not on what happened in Parliament at all, but again in reaction to an anti-Nusas pamphlet distributed on university campuses. [Interjections.] Those were the comments published by those two newspapers, although appearing on the parliamentary pages. [Interjections.] Then of course we also have banner headline reports, on outside of Parliament reactions, by yet another backbencher, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, in regard to what the hon. the Minister said about the Salem and the reasons why that matter should be handled confidentially. There was nothing in regard to what the hon. the Minister had said, only that hon. member’s reaction to a speech made by the hon. the Minister in this House.

I want to make this remark today. Tickets to the Parliamentary Press Gallery are a highly prized privilege. The privilege is being grossly abused by many Opposition reporters sitting up there. It is high time that the owners of those newspapers, the managers of those newspapers and the editors of those newspapers, as well as the public, were told about this. I often look up at the Press Gallery and I do not see a single Opposition pressman sitting up there. The benches are empty. They drink tea with PFP Parliamentarians either in their offices or else are in the bar, and they publish press handouts by PFP speakers without ever hearing them speak in this House. I want to say that over the years I have been in Parliament the standard of Parliamentary reporting and, more particularly, the publication of reactions to what hon. members on this side of the House say in speeches in this Parliament, has been absolutely appalling and shocking.

Ever since you have been on that side of the House.

Besides the so-called Parliamentary page of the Argus and The Cape Times, there is a syndicated column by John Scott which is published in The Cape Times, The Natal Mercury and, as far as I know, the Herald, the Rand Daily Mail, and the Despatch. If ever there was a column that is calculated, under the guise of so-called humour, to satirize and denigrate Parliament as an institution, as well as selected Parliamentarians, then I say it is the column of John Scott which is about the limit and takes the biscuit. [Interjections.] He devoted most of his column on Friday to snide remarks about the hon. the Minister of Finance. Instead of saying what the hon. the Minister had said, he made snide remarks about the hon. the Minister being a nominated member of this House and having been a Senator previously. Then, of course, the rest of his column was devoted to publicity-seeking interjections by the hon. member for Yeoville. That was supposed to be “Friday in Parliament”!

Not only that. What did The Cape Times have to say on Saturday? Here we also have a heading reputed to reflect what had happened in Parliament. It was an attack by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens upon the hon. the Minister.

Do you read the column in Die Burger? Does it not also say the same thing?

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens had the hon. the Minister’s Hansard. [Interjections.] I am sorry, I am referring to the hon. member for Walmer, Mr. Savage.

Get your facts right, please!

The hon. member had the hon. the Minister’s Hansard in his possesion and the members of the Press certainly also had the hon. the Minister’s Hansard in their possession when once again “reaction remarks” of an hon. member of Parliament were published in regard to what had been said in Parliament. This sort of situation cannot continue. Surely the people of South Africa are entitled to receive from Press Gallery representatives a fair reflection of what is said here in Parliament, otherwise what is the use of having a Press Gallery. Nobody is suggesting that the Press Gallery should propagate the policies of this side of the House. Nobody is asking that. What we do ask, however, is that when a responsible Minister like the hon. the Minister of Finance makes a carefully prepared speech for over an hour and answers factually all the criticisms expressed by Opposition members of Parliament, he is surely entitled to have his views and his explanations reported in the Press the following day.

I think the explanation is probably this. This Press that supports the PFP Opposition has one objective in mind and that is to keep that party alive. It is having some difficulty in this regard. Since the Stellenbosch by-election, when that party’s representative lost her deposit, the newspapers have obviously decided to publish anything they can that an Opposition member of Parliament says so as to try to resurrect the fortunes of that party. It is a party that has fallen on bad times, since it started its policy of wrecking and boycotting institutions of Parliament. It is an Opposition party with a leader whose reputation, standing and image have taken a nosedive. [Interjections.] The Press and the PFP that it supports have no role to play in the democratic system here in South Africa. One sees this for example when not even fair publication can be given to speeches made in this House.

However, the people of South Africa also can read between the lines. The people of South Africa hear the hon. the Minister on radio, they see the hon. the Minister on television … [Interjections.] … they see what is written about the hon. the Minister of Finance in overseas publications. They meet many visitors to South Africa who deal with the status which the hon. the Minister of Finance enjoys in the eyes of the outside world. They are not fools. I think it ill behoves newspaper columnists to try to make one personal attack after another on this hon. Minister where he enjoys a standing among businessmen and professional people in South Africa second to none, and he is responsible for the excellent reputation in financial circles that South Africa enjoys in the outside world.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries will pardon me if I do not react to his speech. All he was actually doing was to wage war on the hon. members of the official Opposition.

On 17 February of this year in the course of the Second Reading debate on the Part Appropriation Bill I made a speech and on 24 February the hon. the Minister of Finance referred to my speech in his reply. I want to make something quite clear so that there can be no misunderstanding. I referred to articles that appeared in certain foreign commercial publications. I have those articles here. I am referring to a supplement which was published in The Institutional Investor and to a PSL publication. I said I was referring to the supplement of The Institutional Investor, but it was not a supplement. If the hon. the Minister maintained that it was not a supplement I grant him that.

That had nothing to do with my interview.

I did not say or insinuate that it had had anything to do with the hon. the Minister’s interview with the other publication. If that was the impression that was created I want to say at once that it is not correct at all. The other day I said if something is right then it is right and if it is wrong then it is wrong. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister sent me a very friendly letter in which he asked me to furnish him with the date. I have his letter here. I went across to the hon. the Minister and told him that I had the articles with me and that he could have them both. He replied that that was unnecessary as he received both publications. We are not concerned about which publications this article appeared in. That is irrelevant. It could have been any one, the Rand Daily Mail or Die Burger for example, because that is not what is at issue. What we are concerned about is $2 000 million which this periodical alleged had been taken out of the country. That is what is at issue. I promise to make photostatic copies of these two articles and hand them to the hon. the Minister after this, because I want him to have them.

I shall be glad.

I have nothing to hide; we are being honest and sincere.

This publication circulates in both the USA and Switzerland. As far as I could as certain it has a very wide circulation. I really do not know why the hon. the Minister became so sensitive about this and attacked me about this after I had put the specific question. When I made my speech the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs asked me across the floor of this House what I was insinuating. I shall quote from Hansard, Thursday, 17 February 1983, col. 1197, what my reply to this was—

The Minister came back and read out to me what people had told him. For the record I want to put this to the hon. the Minister. I am quoting the hon. the Minister’s reply. The hon. the Minister quoted the following in Hansard on 24 February—

That should read $2 000 miljoen—

This was a reply I wanted very much, and I accept such a reply from the hon. the Minister. However, can the hon. the Minister tell me—I shall accept it if he cannot do so today—how much of the profits have been taken out of the country legally and re-in-vested to protect their markets abroad? It is unlikely that the hon. the Minister will be able to furnish this information today, nor do I expect him to, but I should like a reply from the hon. the Minister. If the hon. the Minister cannot reply, I shall return to this matter later. But why did the hon. the Minister get so hot under the collar when I said there was something wrong with the administration. I do not hold it against the hon. the Minister … [Interjections.] … because I would probably have become angry too. After all, we have seen that certain things can go wrong with our administration. If an aircraft and soldiers can depart for the Seychelles without anyone knowing about it, surely money can also be taken out of the country? It has been said the Cabinet as a whole did not know about it. That is true. I accept that. But there are certain individuals who knew about it and who kept quiet about it. Why has no one replied to the questions asked by the hon. member for Lichtenburg on this matter? After all, it is a question of administration, is it not? Why was a reply not given to the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition either? It is all a matter of administration. If there is an hon. Minister in control and he does not know what really happened in the Seychelles it is a terrible thing. Good heavens, we cannot allow that sort of thing to happen. After all, it is not in the interests of some political party or other. It is in the interests of South Africa.

Let me take another example of something else that is being hushed up or kept under wraps. Surely we had such a case in the by-election in Germiston District when there was an opinion poll, something which is against the law in this country. It is not solely the hon. the Minister’s responsibility. Surely it is a matter of general administration. [Interjections.] I am referring to the Government’s administration now. The Sunday prior to the election everything was blurted out. A charge was laid against the Sunday Times; but why was no action taken? Was the matter hushed up? I should like to know what became of that case. I can give many similar examples. Yesterday there was another opinion-poll, and yesterday evening the whole matter was splashed on television. It was even stated that the information could be obtained from the Sunday Times.

However, I want to go further. Let us take this pamphlet on the guidelines of the party. 127 000 copies were printed at a cost of R29 671. This is taxpayer’s money. It is NP propaganda. No law in this regard has been passed by this House. If something like this can be allowed to happen, the NP’s party organizers may as well be on the pay-roll of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, because there is no difference. If this money is used to print the pamphlets, the party may as well pay its office staff on this basis. I therefore want to put a specific question to the hon. the Minister across the floor of this House. Is he satisfied with this situation? Does he agree that the taxpayer’s money can be used—and it has been used—to make propaganda for the NP? [Interjections.] This borders on a crime. I maintain that things cannot go on like this.

However, I want to leave the matter at that and touch on a few other matters in connection with finance. In the first place I feel—as does the Conservative Party—very concerned about the fact that the price of gold is fluctuating so wildly. It is not good for South Africa. [Interjections.] Of course those men have been to another conditioning camp this week-end. They have been brain-washed to such an extent that all they can do is shout. [Interjections.] They do not want to listen when someone is making a speech. [Interjections.]

There is a problem with the gold price, but I want to make a suggestion which could perhaps be investigated. The gold price could soar. It could go up to $500 or $600 without anyone being able to predict this in advance. It could also drop to $200 without anyone being able to predict it. I want to suggest that the hon. the Minister consider changing the formula for the taxing of gold mines. It must be changed in such a way that when the gold price is high the companies pay far more tax. The additional revenue earned in this way should then be paid into a stabilization fund. It should not be allowed to come into general circulation because this causes other problems in South Africa, for example with regard to inflation. When the price of gold drops tremendously, as we have already experienced, the money in the stabilization fund could be used to assist the gold mines, because there are mines that are battling. Our gold mining industry is an important industry and we know that the cash flow of the gold mines alone exceeds the total cash flow of all the pension schemes and life insurance companies put together. The gold mines provide a great deal of work and are an important part of our economic life. That is why I think it is worthwhile considering my proposal. It may help the hon. the Minister in future.

I want to put a question to the hon. the Minister in connection with the loan he received from the International Monetary Fund. Could he tell us what conditions were attached to this loan? What is the interest rate and period and what are the other conditions? I want to make it quite clear that there is one thing worrying me, namely that the conditions attaching to it may be of such a nature that the Minister does not have sufficient room to manoeuvre in regard to his various budgets and his future economic and financial policy. We should like to know what those conditions are.

At the moment South Africa is experiencing a terrible, oppressive drought. I think all of us in this House are worried about it. The entire country is worried about it. The poor farmers in this country are going to have a hard time this year. I think the return from the agricultural sector is going to be very small. The annual exports of the agricultural sector are definitely going to drop, if there are any exports at all. We shall have to plan ahead for next year. We shall have to do something to stimulate and expand our exports. Goods will be imported and we shall have to pay for them. The gold price may drop. We have no control over that. We shall have to pay for the imported goods because the importation of certain goods cannot be halted. What is the hon. the Minister going to do to stimulate exports? Previously I have requested that exports be stimulated in some way or another. We should like to know what the hon. the Minister is planning in this connection. I also want to request that the planning be done as soon as possible so that we can give assistance in this connection.

In the document to which I referred the other day the hon. the Minister replied to 10 questions—and I have no fault to find with that either. I raised this matter on Friday during the debate on the private motion. I am now referring to the supplement to the Institutional Investor.

The interview?

Yes, the interview the hon. the Minister granted. I want to refer specifically to his reply to Question 10, the last question. I cannot find any fault with the other replies. On the contrary, I think they were very good. At the end he said—

I repeat: “political reasons”. We know the hon. the Minister and I want to tell him he must use his knowledge and talents to manage future budgets and the country’s finances in accordance with sound economic and financial principles, as he did in the past. The hon. the Minister must not allow “political motives” to throw financial matters into confusion. Particularly as regards the implementation of the constitutional guidelines of the NP, the hon. the Minister’s arm is going to be twisted until it hurts. We want to tell him to stay on his feet because South Africa’s interests come first. We must not harm South Africa for the sake of getting a project off the ground.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention to the speeches made thus far this afternoon—and it was remarkable to see that although the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Sunnyside are poles apart, they both displayed the same ambiguity one would expect to find among people who are working hand in glove.

I should like to refer briefly to what the hon. member for Yeoville had to say. This afternoon we witnessed an attempt by the hon. member to divert attention away from the division in his own party by attacking the Government. But one cannot divert attention away from the division in one’s own ranks by concentrating on the problems of inflation and unemployment and to a large extent wresting them out of context. I think it is high time the hon. member for Yeoville realized that he is not getting the loyal support he expects from the radicals in his party because he is trying to play the patriot one day and dance to the tune of the radicals in his party the next.

This afternoon the hon. member for Sunnyside pontificated about how the hon. the Minister should stand on his own two feet, that one should keep politics and finance separate, etc. I want to ask the hon. member what his party’s reaction is to the finding of the State Trust Board, which reported a week ago on the 10 million dollars that his former leader in the Transvaal, Dr. Connie Mulder, the former Minister of Information, caused to be spent on transactions involving the Washington Post and subsequently the Sacramento Union. Both Dr. Mulder and Dr. Rhoodie granted permission for the 10 million dollars to be commuted to an amount of 5 million dollars. The week before last the State Trust Board had to write off that amount. The kind of politics which is being practised by one of the most prominent members of the CP today, someone very close to the hon. member for Sunny-side, clouded his ability to make financial evaluations so completely that he plunged South Africa into one of the worst scandals this country has ever experienced. I want to go further. This former Minister to whom I have just referred, the shadow leader of the CP, is now courting the favour of members of the CP and cannot wait for the forthcoming by-elections to be over and done with because he knows that the two CP members who are going to stand in Waterkloof and Waterberg will not return to this House. When that happens, Dr. Mulder and Dr. Hartzenberg will contest the leadership of the CP. I want to tell the hon. member for Sunnyside that one of the most reprehensible pamphlets I have ever seen came into my possession this week-end. In this pamphlet an utterly reprehensible personal attack is made on the hon. the Minister of Defence, and through him on the Defence Force as such. Right at the outset of this pamphlet the Seychelles affair is referred to as a scandal. I have just referred to the Information Scandal which centred around Dr. Mulder, the former Minister of Information, and to how much it cost this country. They have the following to say about the Seychelles affair in this pamphlet—

Here we have for the first time an acknowledgement on the part of the CP and of the compiler of this pamphlet, Dr. C. P. Mulder, under orders from the information committee of the CP—he is still involved with information—in black and white that that debacle which he was in charge of was a scandal. The whole of South Africa must be told that the shadow leader of the CP, Dr. Connie Mulder, admits that the handling of the information situation at that stage, 1977, and even prior to that and also after that was a scandal, while he was in charge. Here he admits in black and white. I shall not go any further into the merits of this pamphlet. This will be dealt with by my hon. colleagues at a more opportune moment.

There are further questions I should like to put to the hon. member for Sunnyside. Since he acted so sanctimoniously here, as well as in the by-elections in Parys and Bothaville, I want to remind him that he said that any voter who intends to vote for the NP may as well tear the New Testament out of his Bible because no Christian can vote for the NP. That was one of the most reprehensible statements ever made in the history of this country. Dr. Treurnicht was at the head of that election campaign up to a certain point. When things began to go wrong towards the end of the election Dr. Connie Mulder came to the fore. When the leader of the NP, Mr. P. W. Botha, made the final speech in that election campaign in Parys, after Dr. Treurnicht had already made his concluding remarks, Dr. Connie Mulder came along and made the final speech on behalf of the CP somewhere in the Free State. I have already referred to his statements there and there is much evidence as to what he said. It is extremely interesting, and I wish I had the time this afternoon to read through the newspaper clippings of the years 1969 and 1970 regarding the rift or break-away from the NP at the time. I have newspaper clippings here that I obtained from the library and hon. members can take a look at them if they wish.

I just want to refer to one of the clippings from that period, written on 4 May 1969 by Dr. Andries Treurnicht when he was still the editor of Hoofstad. I just want to mention in passing that when the hon. member for Sunnyside made those slanderous allegations from house to house, his leader remained as silent as he always is and as he will continue to be in the future. The least one could have expected of Dr. Treurnicht as a former theologist was that he would call this CP representative of his to order. But to this day we have not heard a word from Dr. Treurnicht in this connection. On 4 May 1969 the following was stated—“Staggering turn in verkrampte/verligte clash. Treurnicht accuses Nats of forsaking God”. The man speaking here was a former editor of Die Kerkbode, the official organ of the N.G. Church, who later became the editor of Hoofstad. Remember, Mr. Vorster telephoned him at one stage and asked him where he, Dr. Treurnicht, stood. Mr. Vorster wanted to know whether or not he supported Jaap Marais and Stofberg or whether he supported the NP. One of the replies Dr. Treurnicht gave to this was: “Nats foresaking God”. That was as long ago as 1969. Today my reaction to that allegation is that it is “odious” and “abominable”. The fact of the matter is that he questioned the leadership of Mr. Vorster as well as the standpoint of the chairman of the board of directors of his newspaper, former minister Ben Schoeman. Dr. Treurnicht owes it to South Africa to tell us whether he is still in the same position towards Mr. Vorster as in 1969 and later when he was confronted by Mr. Cas Greyling when Dr. Treurnicht had gone to him and complained that Mr. Vorster did not want to appoint him to his Cabinet. When he asked Cas Greyling what he should do, the reply was: “You know Dr. Van Rhyn’s story of the hypocrites”. Sir, today we are dealing with the same person, who is now leader of the CP.

The CP is now more or less a year old. Normally one would expect a year-old baby to begin cutting its teeth, standing upright and, if it is a girl—because they are more advanced than boys—walking. But all we got was colic, whining, and a baby that was nore often wet than dry. Let us compare the leader of the CP to Moses—because he sees himself as the great light that must lead the nation—with his two supporters, Aaron and Hur. Aaron is the AWB. Here in this House we asked the hon. member to dissociate himself from the AWB; to repudiate the AWB. But to this day not a single member of the CP has reacted to this! They must also still tell South Africa whether they are satisfied with what has happened to the AWB in the interim. After all, we predicted that they are nothing but a second Robey Leibrandt or the storm troops of Hitler. In the interim the leaders of the AWB have been arrested because it was discovered that they were burying weapons in maize-fields. I maintain that the voters of Soutpansberg and of Waterberg, of Carletonville and elsewhere must take cognizance of these supports of the CP, and in this regard I also want to mention the HNP.

The CP has adopted the policy of the HNP piecemeal. Whether or not the CP and the HNP agree, they are heading for one of the greatest defeats in one of the most significant political revolutions in South Africa, which is that Mr. P. W. Botha’s policy for South Africa will lead to one of the most wonderful, most stable and soundest countries, not only on the subcontinent of Africa but throughout the Free World.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Brits would not mind if I do not comment on what he had to say because what he had to say was aimed at the voters of Northern Transvaal. It concerns a fight between his party and the CP.

Mr. Speaker, we are grateful to you for the ruling you have given in reply to a point raised by my leader, the hon. member for Durban Point. We are grateful to you for clarifying the right of members to speak in this House and the right of the Press to report on what is said here. As a matter of fact, we expected you to rule that way …

Order! While the hon. member is on the subject let me point out that as far as reporting by the Press is concerned, that does not come within my authority. The Press can report but the right in every specific case to report does not fall within my authority. The Press must ascertain whether they have the right to report or not.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Yeoville made a great plea for the right of Parliamentarians to freedom of speech in this House and I think every member in this House, including members on the Government side, agree that this right must be upheld at all times.

But having said that I believe it is incumbent upon me, as one who has also been involved in this so-called Salem affair, to put to this House my party’s point of view. In this connection I would like to have recorded in Hansard that I as my party’s spokesman on energy affairs at the time was asked by the then Minister concerned, Dr. Schalk van der Merwe, to attend a meeting in his office, a meeting which was attended also by the present nominated member Mr. Aronson and Mr. Derick De Villiers, the then spokesman on energy affairs for the PFP. The meeting was also attended by the chairman of Sasol, Dr. De Villiers. The Minister at the time, Dr. Van der Merwe, was very open and explained to us exactly what had happened and the problems that South Africa was going through at the time in obtaining oil supplies. I believe he had to take cognizance of the position South Africa was in at the time where there was an international shortage of oil and a great movement afoot to apply an oil embargo against South Africa. While we at the time may have had our own doubts as regards the wisdom of the deal that was struck in purchasing the oil in the first place—and, incidentally, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central was a member of this House at the time and as such a member of a caucus—we in the NRP discussed the matter at the time and in our wisdom decided, for the sake of South Africa, to go along with the hon. the Minister’s explanation of what had happened. He had also informed us that he would report back to us at a later stage, which in fact, he did. So, while we respect the rights of members of Parliament and of the Press, I believe it should be recorded that all parties were very much informed of exactly what had happened. The question that is in my mind is why the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has now decided to make public what many of us …

Because the House of Lords has given a judgment on it. [Interjections.]

I understand that but the point is that those hon. members were aware of the details … [Interjections.] On the other hand, it may be that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central just likes the publicity, or it could be because of the by-election in Waterkloof.

[Inaudible.]

However, be that as it may, I want to remind the hon. the Minister of Finance—and unfortunately I do not see the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs in the House now—of a debate that took place here in the House on Tuesday, 13 February 1979, when we were discussing this very levy on the sale of petrol, from which the Strategic Fuel Fund, and also the Equalization Fund obtain their funds. At that time we were very concerned about the fact that this money belonged to the public and that it was being extracted by means of a levy. We submitted that there should be direct Parliamentary control exercised over these funds. The debate to which I am now referring took place just a mere two months after the Information scandal debate for which a special short session of Parliament was convened in December 1978. I quote from what I said here in the House on 13 February 1979, as follows (Hansard, 1979, col. 584)—

I informed the hon. the Minister at the time that during the Committee Stage that was to follow I would move an amendment which would have the effect that the funds raised would be audited by the Auditor-General.

Regrettably, the hon. the Minister at the time failed to heed our warning. I should just like to quote what I said to the hon. the Minister during the Committee Stage that followed on 14 February 1979, and I quote from col. 626, as follows—

Mr. Speaker, I think it is regrettable that the hon. the Minister at that time did not heed our warning because had he done so these funds would have been audited by the Auditor-General, in a similar way as the Special Defence Fund is audited by the Auditor-General. Here again, I believe, we have an example of where the Government adopted the wrong attitude to this type of legislation.

However, getting back to the Part Appropriation Bill, I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister of Finance realizes now that, as reflected in the debates in which we have taken part during the session so far, the NRP is extremely concerned about inflation. We are worried about it because of the effect which it has on economic growth. I believe there is no doubt that inflation retards economic growth. Moreover, we are also very concerned about the effect this has on our standard of living.

Earlier this afternoon the hon. the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries mentioned tremendous subsidies which the Government has been paying—something like R500 million in respect of transport and food subsidies, and R1 000 million in respect of pensioners. It is clear that tremendous amounts are being paid towards subsidies, and it is also clear that the taxpayer is having to pay tremendous amounts of money in order to enable people to manage to survive. All this is the result of the excessive inflation rate we are experiencing. It is for this reason that we believe that the whole approach to our problem should be one of trying to identify the disease rather than trying to cure it. We should try to prevent the disease rather than cure it.

It was for that reason that I moved an amendment during Second Reading in which I demanded, inter alia, that the Government took urgent steps to contain the spiralling cost of living. My amendment had four legs, of which the third and the fourth asked for the application of the Maintenance and Promotion of Competition Act in order to prevent profiteering, and a revision by the Government of its policies towards administered prices and tariffs and the financing of State corporations. We are most concerned about this aspect of South Africa’s finances at the present time. I refer to the financing of State corporations, the monopolies that exist in South Africa and the effect that all of these matters are having on our standard of living. We have heard that certain very large industries have had to be established for strategic reasons. For instance, we have the Atlantis Diesel Engine plant. We have also heard about the manufacturers of fertilizer being promoted in South Africa because we need the fertilizer to produce the food that we require to feed our people. Food is a vitally important factor and without it we will just not be able to survive.

It is for this reason that I wish to quote a few figures to the hon. the Minister which I think will serve to reflect the very real concern that we feel about this matter. I want to quote certain figures from the Bulletin of Statistics for the quarter ended September 1982. I quote from the table dealing with farming requisites simply to indicate the rise in the cost of those articles that farmers require in order to produce the food we need. Since 1979, when the index was established at 100, the total increase in intermediate goods has risen to 279,3. Fertilizer has risen to 228,2 and fuel to 437,1. The total cost in respect of machinery and implements has risen to 271. Tractors have increased to 297,9. I could go on in this way, however, I do not have the time. I think from these figures it will be very clear that the input costs in respect of agriculture have risen considerably. I believe that we must also compare these figures with the farming price index—the price that the farmer obtains for his products. In this regard the overall increase is to 212,7 compared to the increase to 279 in respect of input costs. This is in regard to horticultural crops. When one looks at other field crops the index is shown to have increased to 214. It is interesting to note that in regard to horticultural crops such as viticulture, vegetables and fruit the position is even worse. The increases in this regard have been to 168, 159 and 186 respectively. This goes to show that the increase in the price that the farmer is receiving is way below the increase in his input costs. When one looks at the position of field crops—summer grains, for instance—ons sees that their index is up to 215,7. In the case of winter cereals it is 230,4. For the information of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance who is not here, the sugar cane price index—not the sugar price index—is a mere 156,1. This means that of all the crops produced in South Africa sugar cane has had the lowest increase in price.

When one goes further and one takes a look at the farming price indices in order to discover what proportion of the retail price the farmers obtain, one finds that in respect of all crops the total is 47,3% of the total cost of the product when it gets to the market. In the case of grain products, the figure is 35,9% and in the case of dairy products, 69,6%. In the case of the sugar cane farmer the figure is 30,9% of the total price. Therefore, Sir, it is quite clear that the farmers of this country find themselves in a very serious position indeed. From the Additional Estimates of the hon. the Minister of Finance, we know that the agricultural financing for this year is going to rise to nearly R100 million. This amount is going to be spent in order to assist farmers with credit, with loan subsidies and so on. When one considers the amount with which the State is subsidizing foodstuffs, one finds that the bread subsidy has been increased to R194 million, the maize subsidy to R71 million and that the total amount of money spent on the subsidization of foodstuffs in the current year will be R294 million. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister of Finance that we have got to get on top of inflation otherwise these subsidies will have to be increased even more. If the rate of inflation continues as it is we will probably be subsidizing the people of South Africa to the tune of R1 000 million in three or four years’ time. Finally I want to put this point to the hon. the Minister. He knows that the sugar cane industry does not take a single cent of taxpayers’ money for research, for its extension service, for its marketing, for its exporting—all these expenses come out of farmers’ pockets. Not only that, but the Government does not pay a single cent in subsidizing the sugar price. Instead what has happened, is that the sugar industry is carrying a loan today of something like R190 million in order to survive. All we ask of the hon. the Minister and his colleagues is that they get on top of the inflation business so that we can lick this problem of rising costs once and for all.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with keen interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. He will forgive me if I do not react to his remarks directly, but I do want to take issue with him on the performance of his party in Natal because it is only in Natal where the NRP can effectively be judged; it is the only place where they are in government. [Interjections.]

*When one considers the performance of the NRP over the past 10 days, one is not surprised that that party comes back to this House with a smaller number of representatives election after election. One is not surprised that it is losing support…

But you made this speech last year.

… because in the province where it is in power it shows time and again that it hestitates unimaginatively in taking the initiative, and when it does act, it is only too willing to hide behind the NP Government as regards the consequences of its actions. Moreover, it is not always faithful to its own policy.

Several years ago the NRP had an ordinance on the Natal Statute Book which authorized them to provide facilities at various places, including beaches, for the various population groups, but over the years, in spite of their powers, they have never yet made any effort to develop those facilities. Over the past year, however, the new PFP regime in the Durban city council has taken the initiative in this regard. Last year they opened one beach, Battery Beach No. 2, to all population groups. They have just decided to do the same in respect of Durban North Beach, the municipal swimming bath and the children’s playpool.

The Durban beaches, in contrast to the greater part of the Natal coast, belong to Durban and have always belonged to Durban. Therefore the city council was apparently fully within its rights in taking its decision.

Then, last Tuesday, a large meeting of Durban ratepayers was held about this decision made by the Durban city council. According to newspaper reports, approximately 2 000 inhabitants of Durban attended the meeting. Various standpoints were aired in regard to this matter by, inter alia, Nationalists on the city council who pointed out that whereas the White population of Durban, by the latest count, was approximately 320 000, the opening of these facilities to a total population of 960 000—three times that number—could create an encroachment situation in respect of facilities that are already over-full for the existing White population of Durban. When one speaks about 320 000, one only speaks about the inhabitants of Durban, leaving aside the large influx of visitors from elsewhere. It was also pointed out, inter alia, that the existing demarcated beaches for other population groups in Durban had come nowhere near being properly developed. A vast majority of those present at this meeting voted in favour of an amendment insisting on the development of more and better facilities at more beaches in the Durban area, so as to make better provision for almost 1 million residents of the city.

At the moment the indications are that the Durban city council will disregard the decision of this meeting. Therefore it appears that it is to be left to the Durban ratepayers to make known their own decision on this matter at the next city council election. [Interjections.] In this regard one must take into regard that the concept of “local option” is not an element of the policy of the PFP, but that it is an element in the policy of the NRP.

That is why I called for a referendum.

The hon. leader of that party talks about a referendum. In fact, that is comic. His constituency is Durban Point, which is bordered entirely by beaches. However, he is really a voice calling in the wilderness of his own party. He is always calling for a referendum, but he does not do anything about it. No-one wants to associate himself with his standpoint, not a single spokesman in his party. [Interjections.] He is on the horns of a dilemma; on the one hand, the interests and—as he knows full well—the preference of his voters and, on the other, the actions of his own fellow party members in the Natal Provincial Council and the Natal Executive. [Interjections.]

After the PFP had made their decision in terms of their policy—in the process effectively taking the initiative in the field of provision in Natal—what did the Executive Committee of that hon. member’s party do then? When this initiative had slipped out of their hands, after an overwhelming majority at a meeting of taxpayers in the Durban area had taken a decision which could have left them in very little doubt as to what the local option would be, the Executive Committee of Natal issued a totally uncalled-for order relating to the rest of Natal’s beaches. Ten days ago the people of Natal had to wake up and read the following bold newspaper headline: “Open up Natal beaches—order”. Then a decision was taken by the Executive Committee …

A totally incorrect headline.

The hon. member …

It was admitted that it was a wrong headline.

The hon. member had better raise his problem with the editor of the Mercury. The point remains that what the standpoint of his party amounts to—in contrast to the wishes of the voters of Natal—is that the beaches of Natal be thrown open by order.

That is not true, and if you had any intelligence you would know it. [Interjections.]

Spokesmen of his Executive Committee said quite bluntly that where boards on Natal’s beaches reserved facilities for specific population groups, those boards had to be removed. [Interjections.]

The NRP allows the initiative to be taken out of its hands entirely, but that is not all. When things get too hot for them, they seek shelter. The NRP is fully aware of the standpoint of this Government concerning facilities on beaches. They know that it is the standpoint of this Government, as it is the standpoint of the NP Administration in this province—the other province that has beaches—that facilities on beaches should only be shared when, for financial or physical reasons, there is no possibility of providing similar facilities for other population groups. They know, too, that unlike the Executive Committee of Natal, this Government does not sit tight until the demand for facilities has become so great that they have to capitulate and simply make all facilities available.

Tell us what they have done.

The hon. members of that party know that the Provincial Administration in the Cape—the NP Administration—have established beach facilities for the Coloured community at Strandfontein at a cost of R4,4 million, and that this was done with the aid of the central Government, with financial aid. [Interjections.] They know, too, that 40 000 Coloured bathers make use of those facilities daily. The Executive Committee of that hon. member’s party knows that the Cape Provincial Administration, again with aid from the central Government, have developed facilities at Diaz beach at Port Elizabeth at a cost of approximately R900 000, and that in Cape Town, which is also controlled by PFP councillors, R2,8 million is being spent on facilities for other population groups.

They are afraid of the Progs.

The members of the Executive Committee of the NRP are therefore under no illusions whatsoever as regards the standpoint of the NP, as embodied in this Government and the Administration of the Cape, with regard to beach facilities.

What about Sea Point?

However, when things get too hot for them, they hide behind others. Not only do they drop the whole hot potato in the hands of the Administrator of Natal; on top of that, their leader in the provincial council, Mr. Frank Martin, felt called upon to convene a Press conference—that was last week—at which he contended, as was reported in the same newspaper: “Government to fund all-race beaches.” In other words, the leader of the NRP in the provincial council stated categorically at this Press conference that Natal could obtain R8 million from the central Government to develop facilities at multiracial beaches in Natal.

Read what he said. Do not put words in his mouth.

When we confronted the NRP’s MEC with this matter, he said—and I quote from Saturday’s newspaper—

In other words, it was not even a matter for Mr. Martin himself, but at a Press conference he made a tremendous statement about an interview at which he had not even been present.

Read what he said.

Then he went on—and again I quote—

My goodness! One does not have to be told by Mr. Frank Martin that we are sympathetic as regards that need. One need only look at what is happening in the Cape to know that the Government is sympathetic as regards the development of beach facilities.

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

No, Sir, I only have a few minutes left. [Interjections.]

How much did Richards Bay get from the Administration?

The MEC of the party of those hon. members simply went ahead and interpreted the sympathy they encountered as being support for mixed beaches.

No wonder he never got a job!

I do not want to make a case here for separate beaches or anything else. I think that what is more important here is the attitude of the NRP in regard to their own policy. There are hundreds of thousands of people who are not interested in beaches and bathing facilities, but every South African is interested in the question whether that party does indeed believe in what it terms “local option”. It is well known that there are local authorities in charge of beaches in Natal that are in favour of separate facilities. What is now going to happen with regard to those local authorities under the administration of the NRP? What is also important—and with this I shall conclude—is the question: What about the other spheres? Is one now to assume that the NRP, against a policy background of certain directives relating to facilities and beaches, is only going to allow this so-called local option after the policy of the party in power in Natal or wherever has already been clearly stated? Does this mean that the choice of local communities concerning facilities, schools, residential areas, etc., is to be increasingly limited in this way? That question must be answered by the members of that party.

The answer is: No.

Mr. Speaker, I shall react neither to the points raised by the hon. member for Umlazi, nor to his attack on the NRP. However, in due course we shall have to come back to the essential problem which the NP stands for, viz. the policy of the provision of separate facilities. There are serious reservations in respect of that policy. It is not only the question of encroachment. Indeed, we know that that policy creates a tremendous amount of friction on a large scale. However, I shall come back to that on another occasion. It is said and the hon. the Minister also said this—that the basic motivation and rationalization for this policy is the fact that it eliminates friction. I wish to state categorically that I know of no measure which creates a greater degree of dissatisfaction and friction than that very legislation concerning separate facilities on our Statute Book.

I should like to come back to the speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries. I wish to say to the hon. the Minister of Finance that if I had to choose someone to support me, that hon. Deputy Minister would be the last person I would ask to do so. The hon. the Deputy Minister and I have come a relatively long way together. His paranoid views concerning the Press are well known and have been for a long time, and he cannot make a speech without displaying that attitude. I wish to ask the hon. the Minister whether he agrees with this view and attitude displayed in respect of the Press. We are all concerned that events be reported fairly. If the intentions of the hon. the Deputy Minister are honest, he must see to it that the Afrikaans language Press interprets and reports in full what is said by the Opposition parties in this House. Secondly, he must also see to it that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information displays complete fairness in respect of the use of radio and television. [Interjections.] This is still a one-sided and paranoid attack on the English-language Press. What was the point at issue here? The issue was not the freedom of the Press. It was the right which the hon. the Minister arrogated to himself to prevent the Press from reporting what occurs in this House.

There are two elements which certainly have to be kept separate in this matter. The one is the question of the merits of the Salem incident and the other is the question of the right of the Press to report what occurs in this House in the light of the rights and privileges of members of Parliament and the privilege of Parliament as contained in sections 2 and 5 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act. It is in terms of those rights and privileges that the hon. member for Yeoville stated very clearly that we cannot accept the instruction issued by the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Deputy Minister must tell us whether he is, in fact, so interested in maintaining freedom of speech and the privilege of Parliament that he is prepared to abrogate that freedom. I expect a reply from him, since this is the essence of the matter.

As far as the question of the merits of the transaction is concerned, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti surprised me. The reason for this matter having been brought up despite any prior understanding or agreement, is that it can no longer be kept secret. It is public knowledge, as we are all aware. We must get away from this problem, with which we have often been confronted, that the entire world knows what is taking place and that only we in South Africa are prevented from knowing. That kind of parliamentary set-up, and that kind of freedom, are things I do not want in South Africa.

Unfortunately, I shall probably have to reply indirectly to the hon. member for Sunny-side at a later stage. However, I wish to say to the hon. member for Brits that it has become fashionable in the NP to refer constantly to discord in the PFP. That is ridiculous. Allow me to say at the outset that in any party people emphasize different directions. However, how the NP, who have recently lost a number of people to the CP …

Recently?

Yes, recently, in the history of the NP. How the NP can therefore judge other parties when it is suffering from the disease of discord itself, is simply beyond me.

I wish to say to the hon. member for Brits that we share his reservations concerning what occurred in the days of Dr. Connie Mulder. However, I wish to remind that hon. member that those things were done under the rule of an NP Government. There is no getting away from that fact.

I wish to come back now to something which I regard as being of cardinal importance. The hon. member for Yeoville said that freedom of speech was a treasure which, over the years, had been preserved for us in this Parliament and that is was something we should preserve at all costs in future. I also wish to refer to another important principle of our Western civilization and our parliamentary system, and that is the freedom of religion. It is important that we should be clear on that fundamental point as well. Allow me to say at the outset that I was shocked by an article which appeared in Die Burger on 23 February, an article concerning a speech made in Port Elizabeth. People said that they were shocked by the allegation made there, viz. that in the Parys by-election it was said that no Christian should vote for the NP.

That is untrue. That is not what was said.

I accept the word of the hon. member. According to the report in Die Burger—as far as I know this report has never been contradicted—at a meeting of the CP a Dutch Reformed clergyman from Port Elizabeth questioned the Government’s plan to include Indians in the new constitutional dispensation on the grounds that they were “people who bow before Eastern gods”. The report goes on to deal with the Reverend Mr. Pienaar who opened a meeting in Algoa Park addressed by Dr. Ferdi Hartzenberg, MP for Lichten burg, with a Bible reading and prayers. The clergyman said: “The Government has a calling to watch over God’s honour”. The question he was wrestling with, he said, was how this could be done if the highest authority of a people was to be shared with those who bow before Eastern gods. What this amounts to is that Indians may not participate in the government of this country because they supposedly bow before Eastern gods. According to the report, Dr. Hartzenberg associated himself with the Reverend Mr. Pienaar in his speech and said that he did not think—

The essential principle of the freedom of religion is that no person may be denied rights on the basis of his beliefs and that no person may be excluded from participating in politics on the basis of his beliefs. There could be other reasons. It could be a matter of race, culture or language, but if we fully accept the concept of freedom of religion, it is absolutely unthinkable that we could tolerate a situation in South Africa where a group was penalized because of its beliefs. It is not only the Indians that are affected. Very soon it would be other Whites. The history of Europe over the past half century makes it impossible for us to tolerate such a situation in South Africa.

You are treading on thin ice now.

I should very much like to know from the hon. members of the CP: Do they accept the desirability of the State discriminating with regard to rights, political and other, on the basis of the beliefs of an individual?

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

Unfortunately my time has expired.

Mr. Speaker, I find it extremely interesting that the hon. member Prof. Olivier has admitted in this House that there is, in fact discord in the ranks of the PFP. [Interjections.] He has not denied that discord does, in fact, exist. All he said was that he did not understand why we on the NP side were trying to locate that discord in the PFP. However, what is interesting is that he does not deny that there is discord. I wish to put it to the hon. Prof. Olivier, that I believe it is extremely important, that South Africa—or at least the voters, to whom they address their appeals— should know where they stand with the PFP, inter alia, as far as the subject of reform is concerned. I believe this is important, since that party will now have to state in Waterkloof whether or not it wants reform in South Africa. [Interjections.] Do they want reform or not? [Interjections.]

Order! I wish to point out to hon. members that there can only be one speaker at a time.

Mr. Speaker, the PFP will have to go and tell the voters of Waterkloof whether they want reform. However, I believe that the hon. member for Bryanston, the hon. member for Yeoville and probably the hon. member Prof. Olivier as well, are secretly hoping that the settlement with the Coloureds will succeed. Does the PFP want this? Or do they perhaps want it to fail to come to nought, as some hon. members in that party do? [Interjections.] Some hon. members of the PFP do, in fact, hope that it will fail. [Interjections.] The majority of the hon. members of the PFP do, in fact, hope that the present efforts to reach a settlement between White and Coloured will fail. [Interjections.]

There are members of your own party who want it to fail. [Interjections.]

I am not so sure whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not secretly hoping that this effort will fail. Mr. Speaker, if this effort were to succeed, it would cause much of their political basis to collapse, it would upset the very thing which they, with their subjective ideology, hold up to South Africa. That is why it is important for the PFP to tell the voters of Waterkloof whether they hope this settlement succeeds or whether they hope that it fails. [Interjections.] Today reform and change in South Africa are facts. We cannot get away from that.

Of course, there are two possibilities with regard to change. On the one hand, it could be a violent, revolutionary overthrow of the existing order. The other possibility is that of an evolutionary process of development, in which one can ensure that one retains control of the course of this process of change and reform. I believe it is obvious that if the latter method—that of evolutionary development—is not given effect to, the former method would come into operation automatically, as it were, since we would, infact, be playing into the hands of the revolutionaries. Therefore the question which each one of us in this House has to reply to, is not how we can escape the reform process, but how it may be controlled to the best advantage of all the people in this country. Then, too, we must reply to the question as to how reform may succeed in reality, which observable results are the best. I believe that the best observable results would be a decline in the problems which exist, a decline in the number and the extent of those problems, as well as an indication that groups are prepared to co-operate and to participate in this process of change in South Africa.

I do not wish to carry out a test now in order to determine whether this is, in fact, the case in practice. Suffice it to say that I believe that we are under way with the process of reform.

What is reform? [Interjections.]

The question is therefore, in the light of the uncertainty caused by the process of change, what form of fear arises out of or is linked to this. The first is the fear of change as such; the fear of the uncertainty about what lies ahead. This certainty causes the tendency, which one encounters among the Whites in particular, to choose to maintain the status quo. The other fear which arises is the fear which develops into a stampede approach, particularly because it is argued that too little is being done too late. This gives rise to an over-reaction, which ultimately leads to a psychosis of “bolt and abandon all”. The first fear is as detrimental as the second. The first fear leads to nothing whatsoever being done, thereby playing directly into the hands of those who wish to bring about violent revolution. The fact of the matter is that a sensible Government must take both these extremes into account, but at the same time it must try to control that process so that order and peace may be maintained throughout the process, and so that the Government may retain its leadership role throughout the entire process of change. I think that that is essential. If it cannot participate, what hope has it of assuming a leading role in this process?

When we look at the two opposition parties—the CP and the PFP—to ascertain what role they are playing in this process, it is remarkable that the one—that is the PFP—is trying to get away from its embarrassing situation. The PFP are trying to get away from that by concentrating on matters which are of no importance, as far as the essential question of South Africa is concerned. Today they are trying to concentrate on matters such as destabilization and such as the Salem incident.

Now something has fallen into their laps with which they may purchase a little fun, but nowhere do we encounter any positive participation in the real debate, which this ought to be about. All one gains from them, is the impression that they are occupied with this stampede psychosis I spoke about.

On the other hand we have the CP, that wish to maintain the status quo, that do not wish to recognize a process of change—who are not prepared to play a leading role in that regard and who are also not prepared to perform an executive role in this process. [Interjections.] Indeed, they are quarrelling as to whether they are standing fast on the status quo of 1977, 1966, or perhaps even 1948. Perhaps it is there that they are standing fast now. Not one of these parties is capable of playing, or prepared to play, a constructive role in this process we are engaged in. They simply level negative or destructive criticism and never wish to play a constructive role. The CP states that it is now dealing with a constructive proposal in the form of the homeland policy for Coloureds. I just want to quote something from their constitution, and I wish to say to them that they, too, should go and tell the voters in Waterberg and Soutpansberg word for word what it says here. It is completely confusing. In paragraph 2.2.2 of that constitution they state—

In paragraph 2.2.3 they say the following—

How one is to reconcile these two standpoints, is difficult to say. [Interjections.] I say to those hon. members: Go and quote this, word for word, to the voters of Waterberg and Soutpansberg. They must not put their various interpretations of this to the voters, since apparently each hon. member in that party has his own interpretation of what is understood by a Coloured homeland or a chequer-board policy or whatever. [Interjections.]

We must have clarity as to whether we wish to take part in this process of reform in a constructive way. I gain the impression that at some stage or another, if we have not yet reached it, we shall have to come to the point where we will have to ignore the official Opposition and the CP for the purposes of this constructive debate which has to continue. I say that we shall have to ignore them, since the official Opposition already find themselves in the position that they have shunted themselves onto a sideline as a result of their own boycott approach. As a result of their boycott actions they have shunted themselves onto that sideline, and this means that at this stage they are incapable of taking part in this debate constructively and actively. The same applies to the CP. [Interjections.] In the forthcoming elections we shall see that they are not capable of participating. We shall have to carry on and leave the official Opposition in whatever phase it may find itself at any particular time, according to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The CP must also determine at which particular stage in the past it wishes to stand fast.

Mr. Speaker, being one of the so-called “yesterday people” I find it interesting that I should be the one to deal today with the present-day reality in our politics, viz. the by-elections that are at hand.

Before coming to that I want to give the hon. member for Johannesburg West, who has just been speaking, good advice about questions he asks about the policy of the CP. He must go and read the speech made by my leader in this House on Friday, 18 February. I think that it was one of the finest speeches by a Statesman ever made here.

I shall also deal very briefly with the hon. member for Umlazi who, by implication, pleaded for exclusively White beaches. I agree with him, of course. However, I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance whether it is possible in terms of the new Government guidelines for a Coloured or an Indian to become the Minister of Finance in future.

You could have asked me that question.

I take it that it is possible, but I find it remarkable that a member of the NP is calling for White beaches, whereas the new guidelines are aimed at introducing Coloureds to the Cabinet.

What was it in 1977?

To judge by the signs of the coming by-elections, I find it very interesting to see how the new NP has recently—I think it is since the founding of the CP—made new allies which, to the old NP, had always been old enemies and old opponents. Here I refer to yesterday’s Sunday Times: “No to Dr. No.”. By implication the Sunday Times is advancing the cause of the NP and is explaining here why Dr. Treurnicht has no chance of winning the by-election in Waterberg. It was interesting that during the by-election in Germiston District last year, a newspaper carried out a similar survey. According to the analysis of that newspaper the CP would only have obtained 18% of the votes, but eventually the CP, if I am not mistaken, obtained more than 40%. [Interjections.]

What are the real, factual situations if one sets them against this report in the Sunday Times?

After all, we do not believe that newspaper.

This is one of the most nonsensical tales I have ever read in a newspaper. [Interjections.]

Order!

What is the factual situation as far as that by-election is concerned? [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must afford the hon. member an opportunity to deliver his speech.

Last week Die Vaderland said: “Kandidaat laat die NP skarrel—Gert se verlede te veel vir Waterberg”. What happened in the NP in Waterberg? My lifelong links with the NP until last year give me sufficient background knowledge to read between the lines and see what has happened in the NP in Waterberg. The report tells us that the executive committee of the NP divisional committee of the Waterberg constituency made a unanimous recommendation to the divisional committee that a certain Mr. Oosthuizen be appointed candidate for the NP. What happened? The divisional committee rejected the unanimous recommendation of their executive committee, and what is more, he was the favourite of the former member for Soutpansberg! What a weak executive committee the NP has in the Waterberg constituency, when its unanimous recommendation to its divisional committee is totally rejected? I also read in this report…

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

No, there is no time.

I read in this report that 69 members of the divisional committee voted. Experience has taught me that on average, three members per branch represent a branch in a divisional committee. Since 69 members voted, I read between the lines that approximately 23 branches of the NP were represented. What are the facts, in contrast to this report in yesterday’s Sunday Times that the CP has no chance? The fact is that at the moment, the NP has approximately 23 branches in Waterberg, as against the CP’s 21 operative branches in the Waterberg constituency. [Interjections.] I mean 61 CP branches. [Interjections.] The divisional committee of the CP can consist of 180 members as against the 69 of the NP.

Another former opponent of the old NP, namely the financially powerful in South Africa, have also, since the finding of the CP, entered the picture as an active ally of the NP. I have therefore with me the 27th June edition of the Sunday Times, the main headline of which states: Wanted: R5 million to crush Dr. No. R5 million is being asked to destroy Dr. Treurnicht. [Interjections.] When one goes on to read the report, one sees that the leaders of the NP, …

Do you, then, also read the Sunday Times?

… Ministers of the party, have held closed meetings in Johannesburg with leaders in the business world and asked them to contribute R5 million towards destroying Dr. Treurnicht, because Dr. Treurnicht would supposedly frustrate their business ideals. According to that report this is what is being said. [Interjections.] It is interesting to note that a week later, on 1 July, a report in Beeld appeared entitled: Goue geld vir die NP. A week after the Sunday Times published its article, an article entitled “Goue geld vir die NP” appeared in Beeld. [Interjections.] These are the new partners of the new NP … [Interjections.] The old opponents of the old NP. [Interjections.] We, on the other hand, are people who have obtained our funds by way of silver bullets. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member an opportunity to deliver his speech.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We, as members of the CP, are people who do not receive our funds in amounts of tens of thousands of rands or millions of rands. We get them in the form of silver bullets, not only out of people’s pockets, but also out of the heart of every member of the CP. [Interjections.] That is how we get our funds. Nor are our funds used to destroy other people. Our funds are used to promote a cause, a cause that we put forward as an ideal. We believe that the more strongly one states one’s own case, the weaker one’s opponent becomes. However, we do not deliberately set out to destroy our opponents, unlike those hon. members, who said that they needed money to do that.

An interesting phenomenon occurred in Parliament on Friday, 11 February. The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning paid a compliment to the Leader of the CP and myself. That morning my hon. leader moved a motion in this House, and that afternoon the hon. the Minister had to reply to the motion. He made the odd reference to my hon. leader’s motion, but then left it at that. My conclusion is that he was not able to reply to it immediately. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister then turned to me and referred to the speech I had made the previous week on another motion. He then devoted much of his speech to a reply to my speech. In the first place, he took it amiss of me for having given notice the previous year, when I was still in the old NP, of a motion of thanks and appreciation for what the NP had done and meant for South Africa over the years. The hon. the Minister took it amiss of me that I withdrew the motion on 26 February.

No, I did not say that.

Because the NP accepted the policy of power-sharing on 24 February; in other words, it turned its back on much of the past, I naturally could not proceed with that motion.

But surely you know that what you are saying is untrue.

It is not only I who say that the NP has turned its back on certain matters of the past. Members of the Government have said so themselves, as I shall indicate. In 1980 one read—

Mr. F. W. de Klerk—

Mr. Louis le Grange said on 21 March 1980 (Hansard, col. 3262)—

That story is so hackneyed by this time!

The hon. member for Benoni also said on 21 March 1980 (Hansard, col. 3255)—

Then I also want to quote Dr. W. D. Kotzé. Three weeks before the Prime Minister accepted power-sharing as part of NP policy, this frontbencher of the NP said (Hansard, 1February 1982, col. 73)—

That is what hon. members on the Government side said.

Then the hon. the Minister also took it amiss of me by implication for having supposedly, according to him, differed with the proposals of 1977. It is not only I who say that the proposals have changed; other people say so too. Here the Reverend Allan Hendrickse says—

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

I am sorry, but I do not have the time. Mr. Speaker, I could continue in this vein. The hon. the Minister took it amiss of me for saying that the Labour Party did not accept the guidelines of the Government.

That is not true either. That is not what I said.

I have it here—

After that I said that it was a threat. The Labour party were going to use this system of the Government to destroy the system as such. I want to say that the CP has an honest case to state—I shall not dwell on that again at this point. I merely want to repeat: Go and read the policy speech of our hon. leader last Friday. I can say that on 10 May, Waterberg and Soutpansberg will show where the sentiments of the voters of South Africa lie.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Meyerton who just resumed his seat, now says that they walked out of the NP on 24 February over the concept of power-sharing. That concept was very clearly defined by the hon. the Prime Minister and those hon. members knew very well what the position in that regard was. They were itching to leave and they were just waiting for an opportunity to get out of the NP. There is no doubt about that. With regard to the 1977 proposals, one wonders why they do not stick to the 1977 policy as they understand it now. If that policy was a correct and good policy up till February 1982, why do they not accept it as policy?

The hon. member said that they referred to their policy in the no-confidence debate and consistently after that. However, when one analyses what those hon. members said in debates up to the Friday when their hon. leader moved his motion, you do not find one jot or tittle—except in reply to a specific question—about what their policy and political philosophy is supposed to be.

They now talk about the alliance between the NP, the moneyed interests and the Sun day Times. This is utter nonsense and rubbish, and they know it as well as we do. The NP states clearly that it is not true. I want to say further that it will be thoroughly proved in Waterberg that what the Sunday Times said, is in all probability true. However, we are not going to let ourselves be lulled into complacency by what has been said in that newspaper. We are going to work in Waterberg, Soutpansberg and the other constituencies and give them a proper thrashing.

I believe that all political parties in the House should try to find and offer solutions for the problems of the day. The constitutional proposals of the Government, as discussed and negotiated with interested parties and as accepted with enthusiasm by the NP congresses, are the fruits of political thinking within the NP over a very long period of time. As was indicated by the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, this side of the House does not regard the proposals as the final answer to all our problems, but as the best we can put forward at present in the light of the realities of the day and if we want to retain a stable Government in the country. All parties in the House, in writing and by way of explanations, give details of and reasons for why they believe in a particular solution or solutions to the political problems in South Africa. I believe that all parties in the House unanimously accept the fact that in the light of our heterogeneous population structure the Westminister system no longer offers a solution to our constitutional problems.

We cannot reason with hon. members of the official Opposition at all, because it is counter-productive. In addition their views are not in keeping with the realities of the politics we encounter in South Africa today. As regards the CP, we ostensibly agreed with them on policy until 24 February 1982, but did we really agree? Apparently those hon. members do not even stand by the 1977 proposals as they understood them on 24 February 1982. Surely a Coloured or Indian homeland, which they accept at the moment, is just not possible.

According to a pamphlet the CP is now apparently distributing at the beginning of their election campaign in the Northern Transvaal, they accept the policy and principles as laid down by Mr. Vorster. Is what is stated in the particular pamphlet really what they said? Can one of those hon. members assist us in this regard? Is that what they accept? Do they stand by what Mr. Vorster said in 1974,1975 or 1977?

Not a peep out of them.

Resume your seat and we will then give you an answer.

When one looks at Skietgoed which was published in 1974, one sees that Mr. Vorster stated very clearly what the approach of the NP was with regard to the Coloureds and the Indians. I am referring to Skietgoed published in November 1974, according to which Mr. Vorster said the following—

Mr. Vorster made it very clear that there were areas in which the Coloureds would have the sovereign say and that there were areas in which the Whites would have the sovereign say, but that there were also common areas for which solutions would have to be found and about which there would have to be joint discussions. At the moment this is definitely not accepted by those hon. members. Surely they are running away, even from what Mr. Vorster said in 1974. That is what it seems like to me, anyway.

If we were to look at what the hon. leader of the CP said, even in his speech on his motion on the Friday before last, we see that for the first time this session he spoke purely and clearly about the homeland concept. It is then that it becomes so difficult for me— and this is really not opportunism now—to understand how, he as leader of the NP could still say in November 1981 that practically speaking it was simply no solution at all. In fact, he said this on 1 April 1982 in this House as well, in Hansard, col. 4098, and also on 15 April 1982 in the Bellville town hall. At that time he also said that a homeland for Coloureds could not work; it was out. Afterwards he apparently, at the time of the congress the CP held in Pretoria, changed his mind suddenly and said that a homeland policy for Coloureds was an ideal solution. I wonder to what degree he was pressurized at the time to say that by AET, under the leadership of Alkmaar Swart. Those hon. members, I believe, at that stage probably accepted the small degree of pressure from that direction.

The approach of this side of the House has consistently been that as far as the Blacks are concerned, they should be accommodated freely on a fair basis in their own areas and that they should have their own sovereign Parliaments. We also accept that this is not possible for the Coloureds and the Indians. However, we say that in accordance with the principle of justice, the principle of the Bible which we accept, we must try to find a solution for the Coloureds and the Indians as well. The NP say that they cannot get separate homelands and that practically speaking it is no solution at all. We must try to find another solution. I believe in all sincerity that those hon. members are at this stage perhaps trying, in accordance with what the Bible tells them, to create a separate homeland for those people, which would then offer a solution to the problem. I want to say once again that practically speaking I cannot see that it will in fact be a solution for the political problems of this country. Indeed, the hon. leader of the CP stated clearly when he spoke in this House last week that this principle of justice was accepted by him and by that party, and I am referring here to col. 1256 of Hansard of 18 February 1983, where he said—

He continued to say in col. 1257—

Here he puts it in clear language for the first time. Now I ask with respect: Is the principle of justice, as it appears in this speech, really reconcilable and compatible with what the hon. leader of the CP said in his speech during the no-confidence debate? He very clearly said that the Whites were being deprived of their self-determination in the name of Christian love and justice. He said that he as a White person could not accept this and that ever increasing numbers of Whites in South Africa would not accept it either. And so he continued. Those hon. members will very clearly have to take a stand on how they see the principle of justice and the claim to justice. In respect of those things they say with, regard to a separate homeland they will not get away with a swindle. They will have to try to spell out very, very clearly in this House what their intention in that regard is. At this stage this House and the country’s electorate are completely in the dark. As was evident at the meeting in Maitland the other evening, members of the CP are at this stage not very clear about what their views in this regard are either.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Roodepoort will forgive me if I do not follow him in his battle against the CP. He has obviously had one eye on the by-elections in Waterberg and Soutpansberg. With all due respect, I just want to say that the future of South Africa will not be decided in Waterberg and Soutpansberg. There is no doubt that they are two of the most conservative constituencies in this country and anybody who wants to imply that the pace-setting changes that have to be made in South Africa are going to be made there, is on the wrong track. It would perhaps be better if hon. members on the other side give a little more attention to what is going to happen in Waterkloof, especially the hon. member for Johannesburg West who made such a fuss earlier about dissention in the PFP. This is, of course, an old political tactic, and I would have thought that the hon. member for Johannesburg West would by now surely have learned the lesson that it is a tactic which one can only persevere with if you can carry it through to the end. If you cannot, at one stage or other, at least produce some proof, you only make yourself ridiculous in the eyes of the voters and elsewhere. Consequently I invite the hon. member to test that allegation of his in Waterkloof or at any other place where a by-election may possibly be held and where the PFP is involved.

However, Mr. Speaker, last Friday morning a drama unfolded here close to Cape Town, a drama which, unfortunately, has already become a regular occurrence for South Africa and especially for the Western Cape. This was when the Western Cape Administration Board for the umpteenth time carried out a mass arrest of Black people in the KTC camp at Nyanga. A small army of administration officials, policemen, with dogs and tear-gas, police vehicles and last but not least also a few armoured cars closed in on the inhabitants, herded them together and arrested them, while their shacks were knocked down and set alight. To the uninformed observer who was perhaps to survey that scene, it would probably have seemed as if the authorities had declared war on a group of our population. For the more informed observer it would certainly have become apparent that that was not very far from being the truth.

Later some 250 Black people appeared before the court one by one, later in groups of 10 and still later in a single group so that their trial could be postponed. It was a pathetic procession of despondent people who are caught in an unendurable dilemma. They were people for whom the choice simply lies between indescribable poverty, hardship and even famine in the areas they come from, and, on the other hand, a life here in the urban areas where at least a better chance of acquiring work and food exists. Of course then they must accept that they will have to continue to exist as fugitives.

During that court session one of the presiding officers said in reply to an application for bail on behalf of one of the accused—the particular accused happened to have a small child—that the child would be better off if he were to be locked up in Pollsmoor prison together with the parent than if he were to continue living in the bushes. Of course, this sums up the dilemma of people who choose that kind of life, an existence under a flimsy shelter among the Port Jackson bushes of the Cape Flats, because for them this is the best of very many absolutely pitiful options. If it is the view of a presiding officer that someone would be better off if he were locked up in prison, it of course casts a terrible reflection on the situation created by this Government for those people.

†While we were sitting there observing this tragic procession we could not but feel some kind of resentment towards the Administration Board and its officials, as well as towards the presiding officer and those who had made the arrests. It was almost necessary to pinch oneself in order to realize that it was in fact the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, that friendly hon. Minister, who is sitting over there in his bench now, who presides over all this evil. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I use the word “evil” with great circumspection, but nevertheless with great conviction. That hon. Minister with his abounding enthusiasm and his disarming manner, that he can preside over such tragic procedures and events of that nature … [Interjections.] That hon. Minister is the one who, together with his colleagues, have decided that Whites have the exclusive right to determine where Black people may move, work and live in this country, and where not. They have decided that Blacks should be relegated to an inferior, semi-stateless situation in this country. Particularly in the Western Cape, they have created a situation in respect of the so-called illegal Blacks, that is only comparable with that of a stray dog without a licence. That is how bad the situation is, Mr. Speaker. The harassment to which these people are subjected is almost incredible, and I wonder how often the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development actually exposes himself to that sort of situation. I wonder how often he witnesses that in order to establish for himself just how bad the situation is. All that is done by that hon. Minister and his Government in pursuit of a policy which is nothing short of political madness. Quite apart from the woolly thinking underlying the policy of separate development, the hon. the Minister knows that the particular application of that policy in the Western Cape amounts to sheer lunacy. In spite of all the agony and the hardship that they have created, this policy is a hopeless failure. In answer to a question by my friend, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens at the end of 1981, it was made clear that there are as many illegal Blacks in this area as there are legal Blacks. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell me what has happened to our society here in the Western Cape as a result of the fact that there are twice as many Blacks in this area as the hon. the Minister thinks is good for us. What has happened here? What has come about that is so terrible as a result of this situation? I believe that nothing has happened and I believe that nothing will happen even if that figure is doubled. In fact, I also believe that the situation could possibly even improve, particularly if these people are allowed the basic human right of living some sort of settled life.

When this hon. the Minister took over this portfolio of Co-operation and Development—it had a different designation at that stage—there were hopes that he would bring about certain reforms, that he would possibly help to ease the burden of Blacks and that certain meaningful improvements could be effected in regard to the position of these people. The hon. the Minister has a way of making a speech which impresses greatly. It greatly impresses those who do not listen to it too carefully. However, today the situation is very different. The hon. the Minister is now applying restrictive measures in respect of Blacks in this area with as much insistence as any of his predecessors. The only difference is that he does so with a smile instead of with a scowl, and now and then he sheds a crocodile tear. I say with conviction that the hon. the Minister has now become a symbol of the frustration of the Black people in this area. His promised good intentions are simply not taken seriously any longer. In fact, one may well preface the hon. the Minister’s speeches with something similar to what is found on the title page of a novel, namely: “Any similarity between existing circumstances and the situations described in this speech is purely coincidental and bears no relation to reality”. [Interjections.] This hon. the Minister’s reign in his department has reached a new infamous high. Last year more Blacks were arrested in the Western Cape than in any of the previous five years, and more of these arrested people were fined than in any of the previous five years. In all, 23 000 people were arrested for pass offences in the Western Cape alone. These 23 000 people who were arrested were dealt with as criminals for no greater sin than that they wished to move about their own country according to their needs, a right which in the case of Whites, nobody will ever question in this country.

I want to conclude by saying that while we were sitting in that courtroom, I was aware of the misery of these people. I was aware of their terrible misery. However, I also want to warn the hon. the Minister that I was aware of defiance as well. I was aware of defiance in the manner and in the minds if some of those people. A few weeks ago, this hon. the Minister had the audacity—in fact, he was not audacious; it is unfair of me to say so. He accused the former member for Waterberg of being racialistic in his attitude. He referred to the fact that the name of that former hon. member was mentioned in the Cilliers report. I want to warn the hon. the Minister to be careful lest at some future stage his name also features in the same sort of situation in a similar report dealing with some ghastly riot in this area.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to react at any great length to the speech made by the hon. member for Green Point, except to say that his Van der Merwe forbears are definitely not very proud of him. He referred to a matter which in our society is a very important but also a very difficult one. He referred to urbanization which is at present taking place on an uncontrolled basis, and I want to assure him that it is as much a cause for concern to this side of the House as it is to him. We also want to tell that hon. member that uncontrolled urbanization cannot be allowed in South Africa because we have seen what hardship it led to in other parts of the world.

I should like to return to another namesake of mine, viz. the hon. member for Meyerton. The hon. member once made a speech in this House in which he referred to the poplars. He said that when the poplars turn white, the sheep come home, they come back to the fold. He made a very dramatic speech that day. He said that the people who had deviated to the right in politics should come back to the NP; they should come home because it was winter in South Africa.

That was the old NP.

I want to tell the hon. member that the NP has stuck to its principles, now as it was then. If there are any sheep that must come home, it is those sheep. The poplars are white and South Africa needs all the people in this country. They must put their shoulders to the wheel and work for a healthy continued existence in South Africa.

You must first chase the goats out of the fold. [Interjections.]

The hon. member referred to a few matters which presented themselves as misrepresentations in his speech. He said the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning had inter alia taken it amiss of him for having withdrawn a certain notice of motion on the Order Paper. If I remember correctly the hon. the Minister did not take it amiss of him; the hon. the Minister argued that in that proposed motion of the hon. member for Meyerton, which dealt inter alia with the Government’s good statesmanship, the 1977 proposals of the NP were also implied. Surely all of us know that those 1977 proposals also implied certain things, inter alia the forming of a Cabinet on a 7:4:3 basis. We also know that that Cabinet was to have had executive powers.

But what is that Cabinet called?

We can call it what we like. Let us call it a Council of Cabinets. Nevertheless it was still said that that Council of Cabinets will have an executive power as the present Cabinet has. [Interjections.] The former Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster, said it in this House, and if the hon. members of the CP can read Afrikaans, they will read that he said that that Council of Cabinets would have executive powers as the present Cabinet has.

Why did the Coloureds not accept it?

All we can say is that we are quoting facts which were stated in this House by the former Prime Minister, but the hon. members of the CP run away from facts with which they previously identified. In a sense I feel quite sorry for them, because it is not pleasant to have to back down if one realizes that you are in a corner.

Something else to which the hon. member for Meyerton referred was the fact that the Labour Party, according to him, had rejected our guidelines, but there was something very important in this connection which he did not quote. He did not say that the Labour Party had said that, in spite of the fact that they advocated “one man, one vote” and rejected the guidelines, they were nevertheless prepared to negotiate. Why do hon. members of the CP omit to mention important points when they discuss these matters?

Perhaps these hon. members should have a talk to one another in their caucus. Although the hon. member for Maitland said the Coloureds had rejected it, the former member for Waterkloof said that the Coloureds had applauded it with acclamation.

Yes, why?

Who was telling the truth—the hon. member for Meyerton or the non-returning former member for Waterkloof? The hon. member for Meyerton and his allies are prepared to negotiate in this House with a party which is prepared to advocate “one man, one vote”, but they are not prepared to negotiate with Coloureds.

What is the difference?

They are prepared to sit in this House together with people who are advocates of “one man, one vote”, but they are not prepared to negotiate with the Coloureds, and now the hon. member for Langlaagte wants to know what the difference is. I say the difference is colour. [Interjections.] I am now saying that the hon. members of the CP are racistic in their approach to politics. I cannot do otherwise than say this to them. They have a racist approach. [Interjections.]

Order! I ask the hon. members of the CP to afford the hon. member for Springs an opportunity to deal with the speech of their colleague, the hon. member for Meyerton.

It is my dubious privilege to have known hon. members of the CP longer than most other hon. members in this House. I have known many of them for a very long time. I have known the hon. member for Sunyside since 1955. The hon. member who is not returning I have known since 1958, and so too the hon. member for Rissik. [Interjections.] At a certain stage the hon. member for Langlaagte was a colleague of mine, and I also know the hon. member for Jeppe very well. [Interjections.] Because I know them so well, I should just like to say a little something about them.

Gerrie, we are related.

Yes, it is one blot on my name which I would like to rectify in this House if I could. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Rissik is a 1969 model Nationalist. We have heard before how they threw him into a fish-pond in 1968, but there are two things that I can say in favour of him. In 1969 he voted National in the Provincial Council election in Ermelo. [Interjections.] I beg your pardon, 1959. I still dealt with his postal vote. [Interjections.] I can also testify that the hon. member was a Republican. In those days the hon. member was an active member of the ASB, as was the hon. member for Brits, and I. I only had one problem with him. When I asked him whether the ASB should make a statement on our becoming a Republic because Nusas had done so he said it was a political matter and he did not think that the ASB should make a statement on it. [Interjections.] That indicated that at that stage he was a young model Nationalist. He was not prepared to issue a statement on behalf of the ASB. [Interjections.] Therefore we have come quite a long way together. The hon. member for Lichtenburg, the hon. member for Rissik and I made up the executive of the Nasionale Jeugbond branch. We had to drag those two hon. members into this. They were not really keen to be active. The hon. member for Lichtenburg and the hon. member for Rissik did serve with us on the same executive committee, but it was not yet the field in which they wished to be active. [Interjections.]

Was he also a UP supporter?

No, he was a Nationalist. I think that, unfortunately, we planted the seeds of politics at that stage. If only we had left them alone at that stage!

I should like to discuss a few things with those hon. members. I now wish to tell the National Party MPs of the Transvaal that I am now going to apply the bridging technique on them. [Interjections.] I am not going to use the shoving style now, but the bridging style. [Interjections.] They are not the only people who can lay claim to conservatism. The real conservatives are sitting on this side of the House. [Interjections.] After all, I am one of the old labelled verkramptes. I think hon. members on that side of the House almost had a heart attack when they saw that I was not crossing the floor with them. [Interjections.] The hon. members on that side of the House must realize however, that they do not have a sole right to conservatism. [Interjections.] The real conservative people in this country are sitting on this side of the House. [Interjections.] As far as conservatism is concerned, there is one thing which is important, and that is loyalty. Conservatism and loyalty are two things which are inseparably linked to one another.

To whom should one be loyal?

However, I question their loyalty. [Interjections.] I am indeed going to discuss principles now. First of all, though, I want to offer a short definition of conservatism. I looked up the word in HAT, and it is stated there—

Apparently it suits those hon. members to make this political definition applicable to themselves. [Interjections.] But conservatism comprises more than mere desire to preserve the existing political order. Hon. members on this side of the House are conservative in their way of life, the pattern of life they follow, which consequently implies a whole lot of things. It is not merely a question of wishing to preserve the existing political order. [Interjections.] The NP is synonymous with progress. If we develop and make progress, we will not be conservative in the sense of wishing to preserve the old order, as in the definition which is applicable to them. The NP has always been a party on the move. [Interjections.] It has always been on the move. It is not only on the move under the new dispensation or under the present hon. Prime Minister, but the NP is a party which has survived since 1948 as a result of its ability to change and tackle and solve the problematical circumstances of the day with the kind of inputs applicable at any given juncture.

Where are you moving to?

The NP’s conservatism is inter alia anchored in our principles, and because we have principles …

What are those principles?

I shall tell the hon. member what our principles are. Our principles are stated in our constitution and that is why we know we can, with our policy and views move a long way out. Let me explain what our principles are. This party believes that God controls the destinities of people and nations. This party also finds the solution to South Africa’s problems along Christian-National lines. Herein lies our anchorage and herein lies our inalienable and profound conservatism. [Interjections.]

The CP walked out of the NP as a result of so-called changes. Why did they not walk out when the NP rejected repatriation for the Indians as a practical policy? Why did they remain then? Or is it their new policy now? Have they gone back to repatriation? After all, they are moving backwards. [Interjections.] Why did they not walk out when we rejected repatriation as a policy? Why did they not walk out when we changed our policy when Dr. Verwoerd renounced a homeland for Coloureds? Why did they not walk out when our sports policy changed? Why did they not walk out when we effected a very profound amendment in respect of work reservation and when we changed our manpower policy? Why did they not walk out then?

We only walk out over important things like the sovereignty of Parliament. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon. members that the policy and principles of the NP are still vested in our recognition of the diversity of people, the diversity of cultural communities.

Do you remember the Loskop Dam speech?

I shall discuss that speech. If I have time, I will come back to the Loskop Dam speech. As a member of the NP I want to say that it is not only the members of the CP who can lay claim to the Afrikaner cultural heritage. The CP does not have the sole right to the Afrikaans culture. No vital and well-established culture allows a political splinter group to hijack it, and the NP and the hon. members on this side of the House will not allow the members of the CP to hijack our Afrikaner-hood. It is the inalienable right, the birth-right of every individual to preserve and expand his cultural heritage.

Can we also do it?

I just want to say that in the NP there will always be such Afrikaners. The CP misuses cultural organizations to allege, and to try to prove, that the NP no longer stands by its Afrikaner cultural heritage.

What cultural heritage? Please specify.

The last matter I wish to raise is the fact that the CP claims Christianity and Christendom as their sole right.

Now you are talking nonsense.

On a few occasions now an incident in Parys has been referred to, but there was also an incident in Germiston District where the hon. member for Sunnyside told someone—I do not wish to mention the person’s name, unless someone insists …[Interjections.] It was my wife. He told my wife and another woman: “I am very sorry, but if the person is a member of the NP, it is impossible for him to be a Christian.” [Interjections.] Does the hon. member admit it? [Interjections.] Is the hon. member saying that my wife lied to me about the incident? [Interjections.] I just want to tell hon. members of the CP that to be a Christian is a gift of God. Only by believing in Christ can one receive the grace to be a Christian. It is not in the hands of the CP to say who can be a Christian and who cannot.

Mr. Speaker, it is fitting, perhaps, that the Third Reading debate on the Part Appropriation should have ended on a positive and fairly lively note. The hon. member for Springs made a very effective political speech—it is true that it was not a financial speech, but anything is permissible in such a debate— and I want to thank him for his contribution. I think he had our hon. friends of the CP rather worried with the blows he aimed at them.

I want to thank hon. members who took part in the debate. I think that on the whole, the debate was conducted in a positive spirit. There was one exception, however. I do not want to dwell on it, but I just want to say that I was very sorry to hear the speech by the hon. member for Green Point. I think it would have been better if the hon. member had not made that speech.

†When a young hon. member of this House in wishing to refer to any matter which is his right to refer to decides to do it by way of an attack on one of the most senior and respected hon. Ministers of the Government it seems to me a very great pity that that should be done. I listened to the hon. member for Green Point to see whether he had any substantive arguments but he had none. His whole speech was an attack on the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. For what purpose? It did not impress the House. I do not know whether it impressed any of his colleagues on those benches, but it certainly did not impress the House as a whole. You know, Mr. Speaker, you cannot sit in Cabinet with a colleague for nearly 11 years and not get to know him. I should like to say today that the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, whatever may be said of him, is a God-fearing, upstanding South African gentleman. He is a most sincere man and he is doing his very best in one of the most difficult portfolios we have.

Hear, hear!

I think this should also be borne in mind. I do not object to any man, as far as I am concerned, criticizing and putting his point of view, but let us leave these rather unfortunate and unworthy personal attacks where they belong. Let us leave them alone.

I should like to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries for his contribution. I think if one looks at it carefully and objectively he made a real contribution today. [Interjections.] What was the point he was making? What have we increasingly come to witness among certain organs of the South African Press, what I would call the Opposition Press? It does not apply to all, but let us take The Cape Times as an outstanding example over the past few days. We have had a debate for several days and all sorts of criticisms have been thrown at us. Fair enough. Issues mentioned were pensions—they say they are not high enough—the cost of living is too high, inflation is too high and we are taxing the poor. The debate ended on the Tuesday evening and I had to speak on the Thursday. I worked very hard with my officials, which is fair enough, and I said to them that we should get the facts once again, the latest facts, and give them to the House. I think in fairness it can be said I did so. What did The Cape Times do? The Cape Times did not publish my speech or made any reference to it. The Cape Times had given considerable emphasis to the criticisms. I have no objection to that, but when a Minister, whoever he is, cames to the House, and says that he takes matters seriously and gives the facts as far as he can possibly find them, then any newspaper which sets itself up as and likes to call itself a reputable newspaper should honour the first precepts of decent journalism, namely to be fair and to state the facts. How did they report my rebuttal of these attacks? They did not report it. The only thing on which they reported briefly was in regard to what I said on gold. But for the rest, what did they do when I dealt with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central on the Salem affair, which I did at some length? They went and got a statement from him and published that under a big headline and in the statement they pushed in a couple of sentences of what I had said. [Interjections.] The same thing happened in the case of the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens. I dealt with the points he had made and they did not report that. They came and got a statement from him and published that under a big headline as well and then pushed in a sentence and a half of what I had said about it in the course of his statement, which nobody normally will see.

[Inaudible.]

Please be quiet, my friend. If you have something constructive to say, then say it. I ask: What sort of reporting are we coming to? That was the point the hon. the Deputy Minister made. He raised that point and I think he did a service to this House because I think many of us are going to watch this. The hon. the Deputy Minister was absolutely correct in drawing attention to the fact that certain members of the Press Gallery—if that is their work and not that of their editors—should look to their responsibilities because they are in a highly responsible position in this hon. House. That was the hon. the Deputy Minister’s whole point. Hon. members opposite like to try to look upon this as a lighthearted thing, but I do not. It happened to be me today, but it happens to all my colleagues at one time or another.

What did we find in the debate on Friday on inflation? I was not here, but apparently the hon. member for Walmer dealt with certain aspects and The Cape Times published a report on the debate. All that I could find on this debate was that they simply said “Savage attacks Horwood” or words to that effect. That is fair enough. The report said: “In the course of a scathing attack …” They might have said “in the course of a Savage attack” if they had wanted to be clever. But they said: “In the course of a scathing attack, what did he say? He said the Minister was guilty of a half-truth because he did not tell the House …”—I was talking here about the GST—”… that in Great Britain they have a GST which is high because they have given all sorts of exemptions.” But what did I say in my speech. The hon. member had plenty of time to see it in Hansard. The Cape Times did not publish anything I have said about the matter, but they also had my speech before them in publishing that comment of the hon. member. I said—

—that particular type of tax, the GST and not the value added tax—

That is what we avoided—

They all said to me that they had made exemptions with the result that their tax rate had simply gone through the roof. That is the point. How dare the hon. member then say to me that I was guilty of a half-truth for not saying that they have given exemptions? I have said on every occasion that that is the greatest weakness that they have ever had. So maybe the hon. member would like to correct his statement and maybe The Cape Times would like to correct it. We shall see. If that is a scathing attack, then I think the scathing part of it falls back on the head of the hon. member and on the newspaper that was so quick to report him.

But just on that point, what else did The Cape Times report on that debate? The hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance handled that debate and other hon. members on all sides of the House spoke as well. Not another single one of them, however, was reported. That was the only report that I could see in Saturday’s Cape Times. The hon. member of the PFP for Walmer was singled out as making a scathing attack on the Minister, which it so happens was an absolutely unfounded attack. The hon. member was wrong. However, these matters go to the root of public life in this country. I am not prepared to minimize them and I do not think that any responsible member of this House is going to minimize them either. Increasingly this is the technique that is being adopted. A year or two ago this sort of thing was not done. At least, when an hon. member got up and rebutted an argument, any responsible newspaper, even if it did it in a concise way, would at least say: Look, I published the criticism and now I shall at least give some publicity to the rebuttal. But that is not what The Cape Times says. It goes running to these hon. members who are in trouble as a result of the rebuttal and it gets statements from them while the debate is on. It was in the middle of the debate. This debate was in the course of taking place and it was going on today. Instead of making statements outside Parliament, why did those hon. members not speak in the debate today? That is the sort of thing that is happening. I am very much obliged to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I think he has definitely done a service to this House today and I think it is going to be increasingly recognized.

I should now like to thank the hon. member for Amanzimtoti for explaining quite clearly what happened at the discussion with the hon. the Minister on the Salem affair. I think it is right that we should have the facts confirmed, and I appreciate very much his having done so. The hon. member made an interesting speech, I thought. In one respect, however, I must point out to him his submission was not entirely correct. That was when he said he thought that in a case like this the auditing should be done by the Auditor-General. We must be very careful. As hon. members know, the quality and the standard of auditing in this country by all registered and qualified auditors is very high indeed, and I do not believe that one can say that because an audit of the SFF Association’s books is done by qualified auditors who happen not to be on the Auditor-General’s staff, that means that the audit will in any respect be inferior. In fact the whole auditing profession has very high standards, and I think we must realize that.

Mr. Speaker, will the hon. the Minister not agree that the Auditor-General is responsible to this Parliament—and this is the point—whereas private firms of auditors are not?

That is undoubtedly so, Mr Speaker. However, as I tried to argue last Thursday, these funds are not public funds in terms of the definition of public funds. It is public funds that are audited by the Auditor-General. If the hon. member will look at those Acts to which I referred, he will see that that is in fact the case.

That is a mere technicality.

Well, it is a very important technicality indeed, because that is the description offered in law, and we are bound by that. The Treasury and the Auditor-General—the Government as a whole—are indeed bound by that. Until we change the nature of those funds we are having this done in exactly the right way.

That is perhaps what we should do.

Be that as it may, I have no doubt myself that the auditing is being done in a scrupulously responsible and correct manner.

Then, I should like to refer to the sugar price. I think the hon. member for Amanzimtoti said he had the impression that the Government was not subsidizing the sugar industry at all. In fact, it is subsidizing the sugar industry. The latest increase in the sugar price would have been higher if the Government had not found some bridging finance. I have to mention this to the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the Government is only lending them the money to serve as bridging finance.

Well, we will talk about that a little later when that money has to be repaid. We will then see how much we get back. [Interjections.]

*This brings me to the hon. member for Sunnyside. I am pleased that he has explained what exactly he meant in his speech, because the way it is printed in Hansard, I believe, my interpretation of it was quite correct. The hon. member said that that quotation of his had appeared in the Institutional Investor. As he said today, however, it seems to have appeared in some other newsletter, which I have not seen. However, it had absolutely nothing to do with my interview with the Institutional Investor, an interview which, as the hon. member himself conceded, was not a bad one, except, he said, for the reply to one specific question. In that respect I have to differ with him, of course.

Then there is the question of the IMF and the loan we negotiated from the fund. The hon. member for Sunnyside wants to know the conditions to which it is subject. Although it is not the normal procedure to reveal those conditions, the IMF itself saw fit to divulge the relevant conditions, because they were the subject of so much discussion, and because the matter received so much publicity when our application was being considered by the board of the IMF at the time. The IMF itself divulged those conditions in its own publication, IMF Survey. The hon. member for Yeoville recently asked me a question about this, a written question, the reply to which I approved a few days ago. I shall make that reply available to the hon. member for Sunnyside as well. I believe it will give him the information he wishes to have. There is only one thing I want to add. The hon. member wanted to know whether my room for manoeuvre as a Minister of Finance was not being restricted by the fact that the IMF had imposed those conditions upon us. That is not the case at all. We satisfied those conditions even before the agreement was entered into. The hon. member will see that when he studies the conditions. Therefore it has absolutely nothing to do with the matter. It was actually a transaction which held great benefits for us, benefits which we still observe every day. We obtained an amount of R1 240 million, at an interest rate of just over 6%; a loan which we would otherwise have had to raise abroad at an interest rate of approximately 13% or 14%, because, of course, we had to finance the deficit on the balance of payments which existed at that time. This has to be done by the Reserve Bank. So it is saving us several million rands. The question of the drought and its effect on exports are matters which are thoroughly taken into consideration in the adjustment of our policy, of course. I think that as we proceed with the investigations of the Jacobs report, and in the light of the debates that are still to take place in this House, the seriousness of our approach to this matter will be very clear to the hon. members.

†Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville said that I am a monetarist. I do not la bel myself at all. I do not think I am a monetarist or a supply-sider. I just battle along according to the best lights I have. I do not think one should attach labels to anyone. It is not as easy as that.

I always thought the hon. the Minister was a follower of Milton Friedman.

I do not think the hon. member for Yeoville put his foot into it too badly today, so I think I shall leave him at that.

May I ask a question?

Yes, certainly.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what the attitude of his Government is in regard to the proposal we made to have a Select Committee appointed to go into all the aspects of the Salem affair that was raised here. There was the allegation of the hon. the Minister himself against that of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, the question of the restriction on publication in the Press and the Salem affair itself. Will the hon. the Minister tell us what his Government intends doing in this regard?

Yes. That proposal was made this afternoon and I want to answer it immediately. This matter was dealt with in the statement I read to the House that had been made by my hon. colleague, the former Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. That statement put the matter as fully as we felt as a government it could be put. The hon. member may remember that we stated categorically that the SFF had also been swindled, apart from Shell. It was not only Shell that was swindled. I think that that whole matter has been put as clearly as we can put it and I do not see what this type of comprehensive Select Committee can be expected to do at this time in respect of a matter which is a delicate one. As far as the Government is concerned, I believe that we have acted in difficult circumstances with every sense of responsibility and I really cannot see what else we could have done. What weighs very heavily with me is that at the time the hon. the Minister concerned went so far as to consult with senior representatives of each of the Opposition parties. There is no doubt whatsoever that that was a frank discussion and, as we have heard again today, those Opposition parties accepted the position as it was put to them. Why then, years later, do we now have to have a Select Committee which the hon. member will admit is a very vague concept in his own mind? [Interjections.] No, Mr. Speaker, the fault does not lie with us. We have done everything possible to handle this matter responsibly and I cannot accept the fact that a resonsibility lies on the Government to set up an inquiry of this nature. Where is it going to get us?

The hon. the Minister suggested the appointment of a Select Committee himself on Thursday.

No, no. The hon. member is very far off the point. What did I say? I said that there was an Act which this Government had passed—and for very good reason—covering this very delicate field. I said that it seemed to me that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central—it is a pity he is not here at the moment—had contravened the provisions of that Act. That was my view. I also said that if I was correct then it would also seem to me that the hon. member had breached a privilege of Parliament as well. That was my view. I then said that as he had asked for the appointment of a Select Committee, I thought it would be more appropriate if a Select Committee were to inquire into whether the hon. member had not been in breach of Parliamentary privilege. That was the position. [Interjections.] That is exactly as I put the position. The whole situation is set out in Hansard.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to hold up the House for very much longer. I think I have dealt with most of the points that were raised. I should just like to say that in the period of the few days since this debate began we have witnessed a very substantial change in what we call one parameter affecting our economy, namely the gold price. This is an enormous factor in our economy. The price of gold has fallen very substantially. In fact, one may say that it fell by about $100 before picking up a little today. A fall of $100 per ounce in the gold price over a full year means a loss in income coming into the country from the sale of gold abroad, a loss in income in hard cash of something like $2 100 million, and it could be a loss in revenue to the State through the loss in goldmining taxation of perhaps something like $1 200 million; but obviously this depends on the grade of ore that is mined, on the costs of the golds mines, on escalations, on how much they write off in capital expenditure in a particular year, and so on. Broadly speaking, however, and to point out the effects of the gold price, I can say that if the gold price falls on avarage $100 over a full year, the Exchequer could lose at least $1 200 million, which is an awful lot of money.

Do not be so pessimistic; things will come right for South Africa.

No, I am not a pessimist; I am a realist. The hon. member is anticipating wrongly. I am putting this matter factually and I am saying that despite that, so sound is our basic position that, as I said earlier today, it is not a matter for concern; it is a matter for careful budgeting and careful financial policy. It is not a matter for concern, and the gold price will recover. As surely as we are here today, the gold price will recover—it is a question of time. Therefore I say that if we have that setback in the sense that it has fallen, we must take account of it and we must arrange our affairs accordingly. When it picks up, we shall get the benefit as we have done in the past. As I stand here I have, despite the serious depression in the whole world economy, the greatest confidence in the future of the South African economy. As I have said—I should like to say it again in all humility—I think under the lead of the hon. the Prime Minister this country is well governed, I think its finances are in good order and I think we can go into the future, whatever it may hold, with a feeling of great confidence; it is up to us to see that we fulfil our destiny.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is clearly going to have an important effect on the future of the SATS. I believe that the Bill has been an unfortunate one in the House during this session because, as has been mentioned previously, it introduces different principles to those in the Bill which the hon. the Minister of Manpower introduced, namely the Basic Conditions of Employment Bill. At the Third Reading we must look at the effect of the Bill now that we are possibly going to pass it.

Some of us have received Statistics in brief on the Republic of South Africa, 1983. If we look at the effect this Bill is going to have and if we take into account the pattern of growth in the South African economy, the increase in the numbers of employees, we can clearly see that the SATS are not going to be immune to those same trends in the rest of South Africa. It is quite clear—I believe the voters of Waterkloof should know this fact—that this Bill is effectively entrenching job reservation. There is the Minister’s determination to treat Black employees as guest workers and when they cause any trouble or they have any problem, they can have their contracts terminated when it suits him and be shifted off to those countries which he regards as independent. Once again the contrast between this Bill and the hon. the Minister of Manpower’s legislation on basic conditions of employment is obvious. Now, what problems are we going to see arising from this Bill, at least as I see it? In the other areas of employment in South Africa we are going to have increasing skills amongst Black workers in the realm of union organization and in negotiating. Already we have seen that one of the Fosatu unions has been prepared to enter into an industrial council agreement. So one is going to get increasingly sophisticated leadership in the ranks of Black labour leaders, and the effect is not going to be isolated from the S.A. Transport Services. One is going to have the S.A. Transport Services moving forward with this legislation in a direction contrary to that in which other industrial relations or management-employee relations are being developed in other parts of South Africa. That is, of course, going to have a serious effect—I believe a bad effect—on the labour situation in the SATS.

This Bill effectively entrenches job reservation through clause 6 which classifies people, and I believe that in Waterkloof Dr. Marais is going to have problems explaining this kind of Bill to the voters he is trying to get to vote for the NP on the left, because this Bill, and the kind of interjections we had from the hon. the Minister during the recent debate, has made it clear that the S.A. Transport Services stands firmly for job reservation and classical apartheid.

I believe that we also have to look at the effect of the Port Elizabeth strike which occurred during the past year. Unfortunately— whether the hon. the Minister likes it or not—the International Transport Workers Federation, or whatever it calls itself, is going to be interested in what goes on in the SATS and is not going to regard Blacks who come from countries which were formerly part of the Republic of South Africa as guest-workers. There is going to be increasing pressure on the SATS, particularly in our ports, because in those ports they know that they can get to the very heart of our problems.

In introducing this kind of legislation I do not believe that the hon. the Minister has done any forward planning. It is my prophecy that he is either going to have to change his regulations very dramatically, or else he is going to have to come back to this House with amendments to this legislation. I believe he will have to amend clause 6 to allow more and more Black people to become permanent members. Unless the hon. the Minister changes his regulations dramatically, to virtually circumvent clause 6 in which people are classified into various types, and unless he is prepared to allow citizens of the Republic of South Africa, or of territories which were formally part of South Africa, to be permanent employees, he is going to have trouble, not only from the unions, but also from his own Black staff association, because his own Black staff association will begin to insist that they should be included. So I believe he is going to have serious problems as a result of the introduction of this Bill.

The hon. the Minister and the management of the SATS are always stressing that they are running a modern business. They want to run the organization according to modern business practices, but this kind of legislation is not the stuff of which modem businesses are made. This is the kind of legislation with which to ran a State coporation in the classic socialist sense. It is not the kind of legislation one associates with a modern business corporation. If the hon. the Minister is serious about running a modem business corporation, he will have to come to this House with different legislation. The message, to me, is that the SATS still has a long way to go if it wants to be a modern and efficient business and this is the way it is going to ran its industrial relations.

We are unhappy with this Bill and have said so. I believe that the voters of Waterkloof should be aware of the kind of legislation that is still being introduced by the NP. I think that someone involved in industrial relations, as the NP candidate in Waterkloof is, would be ashamed if he had to defend this Bill on the basis of good business practice.

Mr. Speaker, as is his wont when discussing this Bill, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North again voiced criticisms regarding the conditions of employment.

Before I get to that, however, I want to refer briefly to the positive effect of this Bill. I feel that where there were shortcomings in graded posts these have clearly been eliminated in that in future, transport workers will be afforded greater security. In this way shortages will be alleviated and this problem will be overcome.

This Bill is aimed mainly at ensuring that the available manpower will be better utilized, by way of these conditions. The legal procedure is being changed to simplify matters and the new conditions of employment will also facilitate training programmes at all staff levels.

This will ensure that the SATS will have a motivated work force that will be intensively and well trained. This Bill will also place emphasis on the skills of the staff. It will emphasize the importance of productive people and will lead to more effective control of proper, responsible and supervisory positions. In the entire implementation of this Bill the transport workers can also be refined and tested so that new programmes can be undertaken in record time. This can be achieved by effective selection of staff.

The Bill also concerns staff associations. For the sake of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, I want to say that the principle of the freedom of association is maintained by this Bill. He referred to clauses 26 and 27. I do not know what he is so worried about, but nowadays he is terribly worried. He worries about everything under the sun. Of course he is worried about Waterkloof, because he knows his party is going to suffer a terrible defeat there.

Clauses 27 and 28 deal with the negotiation machinery available to employees of the SATS. As I made quite clear in my Second Reading speech—the hon. member might as well go and reread it—at the request of the federal council of staff associations of the SATS, a task group was appointed in 1981 to investigate the possible restructuring of the consultative council with regard to conditions of employment, in which everyone was included, as well as the alteration of existing statutory provisions relating to the SATS’s arbitration machinery—and I emphasize arbitration machinery—with a view to the possible elimination of specific shortcomings. The fact is—and I repeat this—that representatives of every staff association served on that task group. He need not, therefore, be concerned about that. Indeed, we can see that this legislation is the fruit of the staffs own labour. After all, the SATS has a right to decide on its own affairs. Outsiders may not interfere.

To return to the conciliation board, I want to point out that under the old dispensation a staff association seldom if ever approached it, owing to the red tape involved. The new set-up as explained by the hon. the Minister is absolutely streamlined and it will be possible to use it to good effect in terms of the new dispensation. I want to emphasize the fact that the Federal Consultative Council of Staff Associations of the S.A. Transport Services, a body representing all the various staff associations, is looking forward eagerly to the implementation of the new machinery for negotiation.

Can the hon. member not realize that through the principle of freedom of association that will be embodied in the legislation, the staff associations will be the only official spokesmen for the Coloured, Indian and Black employees in graded posts? The Federal Council of Staff Associations has even amended its constitution to make provision for the affiliation of the Coloured, Indian and Black staff associations in the S.A. Transport Services.

Does the hon. member now want to bedevil relations between the S.A. Transport Services and the staff associations? Does he want to sow unrest? Does he not want the existing Coloured and Indian staff associations that have already been allowed to affiliate, to come into their own and to work in the new dispensation?

With the realization of this ideal it will be even easier to negotiate on general matters of policy. There will be new conditions of service for all the races and it will definitely be possible to improve the quality of life of all. There will be an effective utilization of staff. The old method of identifying managerial potential, whether it be White, Coloured or Black, can now be made more effective. Anyone, whatever his colour, can now be developed if he has the potential to develop and is enthusiastic about his work. Strong and weak points in grey areas are now being brought to the fore.

Purposeful management means that a specific goal is set and that the extent to which that goal can be achieved, is realized. In this way the needs of the country are met. Excellent results can now be obtained when people in all grades and working conditions can be used efficiently and effectively. Within the framework of the legislation a skill can be developed through which the administrative and technical careers of these people can be dramatically improved.

In my Second Reading speech I referred to apprentices. Every year 2 600 apprentices in 39 different trades enter this field. The legislation is therefore creating new opportunities.

The legislation is also creating new opportunities for the use of female labour. The way is now clear for women to achieve new and greater heights. They can become cargo controllers, service drivers, supervisors, instructors and constables and they can attain the rank of lieutenant. Women are also interested in becoming horticulturists. They can also become draughtswomen, pharmacists and health inspectors.

The hon. member was so worried about the fact that there was a prohibition on strikes. I want to make it quite clear that no employee—including employees and organizations outside—may instigate or take part in in a strike. This will not be allowed in terms of the legislation. That will be the effect of the legislation. They may not depart from existing standards. They may not resort to incorrect and faulty methods, nor may they adopt undesirable procedures. They may not diminish their output. They may not bring about a deterioration in working conditions, because that will not be allowed. This means that under certain circumstances, more productive work than usual will be done. There may not be adverse conditions that paralyse the punctuality, regularity or diversity of any service of the S.A. Transport Services. Do hon. members of the PFP want the efficiency of the S.A. Transport Services to be in doubt?

After all, the Bill is not making such a tremendous change in comparison with what the position was in 1960. In conclusion, I just want to quote here what Act No. 22 of 1960 provides. Section 28 reads—

1. (1) Whenever a dispute arises between the Administration and a considerable number of its servants as to any conditions of employment, and the dispute cannot be amicably settled through the Conciliation Board or otherwise, and is causing or likely to cause serious disorganization in the workings of the railways, ports or harbours, the Administration shall report the matter to the Governor-General.
2. (2) On receipt of the report referred to in subsection (1) the Governor-General shall, unless the dispute be otherwise previously settled, appoint a commission of impartial persons to investigate the cause of dispute and to make recommendations in reference thereto.

In clause 27 of the present Bill, provision is made for the appointment of a conciliation board. If hon. members look at clause 27, they will see that it is exactly the same as the previous provision. In future, representations will be made to a conciliation board on which the General Manager, the Minister, the staff associations and the Federal Council will be the executive officers.

I therefore feel that this Bill should also be supported wholeheartedly in the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, we are now dealing with the Third Reading of this Bill. Certain subjects for discussion have emerged to which attention will really have to be given, subjects which are of cardinal importance to the worker, to the White worker in particular under the present circumstances. It was disclosed that the workers’ associations and the Management of the S.A. Transport had no idea at all that this legislation would also be law in a dispensation with a tricameral Parliament. The hon. the Minister said that the top management of the SATS had made these recommendations for practical purposes. At no stage was the new dispensation taken into account when this legislation was being prepared. I accept without qualification that the staff associations were not thinking of the new dispensation when they commented on the legislation. Does the hon. the Minister wish to imply, however, that he did not know that the new dispensation could cause great problems for the White worker, particularly under a coloured Minister in the tricameral parliament? Does the hon. the Minister wish to deny that the discussion in the inner circles of the National Party was of such a nature that covert models had to be used in order to have the new guidelines in legislation accepted?

Where do you get that from?

That hon. member was never in the inner circles. He moves around on the outskirts.

Were you there?

Why is the hon. the Minister trying to drag the officials into a matter which the political head of the department should deal with? Why does the hon. the Minister wish to drag the officials into this? Why does the hon. the Minister not wish to accept responsibility for this legislation? There is one thing which every employees’ association will have to bear in mind, and that is that this legislation may be detrimental to them when they are subject only to a Minister. Under the present dispensation, the dispensation as it now stands, a Minister is accountable to this House for what he does or does not do. When a worker is not satisfied with the actions of the Minister he may go to his MP and that MP can call that Minister to account in this House. But under the proposed new dispensation there will be no such opportunity because the Minister will not then be an elected member of any of the chambers. He is appointed by the President and may be a White, a Coloured or an Indian.

As long as it is not a Barnard.

Sir, as we know the hon. the Minister will not qualify for any of the three.

Do not be insulting.

I am still coming to the insults. As I said, Ministers will be appointed by the President under the new dispensation. The hon. the Minister made the disparaging remark that the President would only appoint a person who would be able to do the work. What I want to know is whether the President will be able to appoint any person who is a Coloured or an Indian as General Manager. The hon. the Minister must tell us. Surely he must know this legislation. He is here in Parliament. Sir, it seems to me the hon. the Minister is not prepared to reply to my question. The hon. the Minister is not prepared to lift the veil on the workers’ future under the new dispensation. If the hon. the Minister does not wish to give a reply, I shall do so. It is clear that under the new dispensation the President may appoint any person as General Manager. [Interjections.] Hon. members may laugh if they wish, but surely what I am stating is a fact. Hon. members are embarrassed; that is why they are laughing.

The hon. the Minister is dealing with this legislation while the Government does not wish to allow its new dispensation to become known, at least not before the by-elections in Waterberg and Soutpansberg. He is already in a fix. [Interjections.] There is a question I wish to put to the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs. [Interjections.] If I could just have the hon. the Minister’s attention, I wish to put a question to him. [Interjections.] I wish to put the following question to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs purported to be quoting from my Hansard. While he made as if he was reading from my Hansard …

No-one can read your Hansard! [Interjections.]

… he made such quotes as the following: He alleged that I had said they were sly and they wanted to cheat. Just before that he had referred to the officials. The hon. the Minister knows just as well as the next person that the officials do not place legislation on the Statute Book. The hon. the Minister knows that very well. Why does he then quote from my Hansard and put words I never spoke in my mouth? Of course I am not afraid of the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs at all. He can do me no harm; not as far as my voters are concerned either. My voters know me. I just want to know what kind of example this is which an hon. Minister sets when he—and this happened while some of his top-ranking officials were present here in this House— quotes from the Hansard of an hon. member of this House in the way in which he did it the other day. Under the pretext of quoting from my Hansard, the hon. the Minister said things which were devoid of all truth. [Interjections.]

I think that the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs has demonstrated to us this year how he diminished himself in his present portfolio, particularly after the last few fights which he started. They were completely unnecessary. The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs said, with reference to me, that I had been a disgrace to the NP caucus. Oh, they were supposedly so ashamed of me. [Interjections.] Of course they were ashamed of me. It was because I stood up in the caucus and said certain things. If the hon. the Minister wants to disclose caucus secrets, I shall also do so. I stood up in the caucus and spoke out about something that was wrong. It had to do with a matter concerning the hon. the Minister of Manpower. It was in connection with White workers.

Order! I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member. However, that matter is completely irrelevant now, while we are dealing with this Bill. The Bill under discussion is concerned with the conditions of employment of the S.A. Transport Services. The hon. member must please confine himself to the Bill now.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I agree with you. However, the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs referred to me and said that I was a disgrace. He then added that everyone was simply laughing at me. If I am not mistaken, the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs is known as Hendrik the Joker.

Oh, get lost! [Interjections.]

It seems that the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs tells the best jokes in the country. [Interjections.] I believe he is known as a joker. I do not think that anyone … [Interjections.]

Order! No, the hon. member cannot carry on like this. I have just given a ruling, but the hon. member keeps on ignoring it. I direct the hon. member to confine himself to the Bill from now on.

Mr. Speaker, I am referring to excerpts which the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs quoted here in this House. The hon. the Minister intimated here in this House that the workers of the SATS would not receive salary increases this year. He also added how delighted he supposedly was at the fact that the workers of the SATS, people who had for many years already proved their loyalty and good faith, were once again satisfied to accept with resignation that they would not receive an increase. On the same occasion, however, the hon. the Minister said that he had reserved R400 million for salary increases for people of colour. That money was supposedly meant to allow them to achieve salary parity with the Whites. [Interjections.] Merely in order to give coloured workers salary parity with the Whites, the hon. the Minister kept R400 million in the pipeline. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, do you see now? The hon. the Minister told us in this House that he was going to apply R400 million to introduce parity for people of colour. The hon. the Minister can twist and turn as much as he likes and crack as many jokes as he likes. He will not be able to get away from the fact that he is, as it were keeping R400 million in the pipeline for people of colour while the ordinary worker is not going to receive an increase.

I find that pipeline story of the hon. member so amusing!

That worker is not going to receive any increase. The hon. the Minister said that he and his colleagues had on various occasions held talks with the workers. He also told us how satisfied the workers were. I think that if one has such a work force as the one the hon. the Minister has, then he should at least go into the legislation which is before Parliament to ensure that those people are not detrimentally affected by it. Year after year we pay tribute to the workers for what they are doing for South Africa. Every year hon. members on all sides of this House pay tribute to the Railwayman. However, the hon. the Minister is neglecting his duty, because he does not go into the legislation to prevent his workers from being detrimentally affected as far as the new dispensation is concerned. The hon. the Minister is the person who should examine that legislation and prevent it from being placed on the Statute Book. [Interjections.] I would suggest to that hon. Minister that he confine himself to Fisheries. I think there will be enough work in that connection to keep the hon. the Minister fully occupied.

In all these talks that have been held over this period, one important point emerged and that was that every workers’ association that was involved with this legislation, as well as dissentients who work for the State, will have to take note that “Minister” is now being substituted for “State President”. They must realize what the problems in this connection are. If one wishes to introduce reform, one should have the courage of one’s convictions to tell the public what you are in fact going to introduce. One should tell them: My reforms are as follows. The reform which I am proposing will lead to all people receiving equal treatment under the SATS legislation, and a Coloured or an Indian from the three chambers may be appointed as Minister. [Interjections.] Yes, the hon. member is quite correct. A Coloured or an Indian can also be appointed General Manager. The only man who does not know it is the man who ought in fact to know it, and that is the hon. the Minister. If the hon. the Minister will admit that this is in fact the position, then he must also tell us that he will ensure that this legislation will not come into operation as a law under the new dispensation and that it will be amended. If he wants to do that, then he should make an effort today to rectify what he has bungled. A very difficult period lies ahead for us, and that truth which the hon. member for Standerton told, that small, lean man that he referred to, will be verified. The Government will have to admit that it cannot hide behind stealthy reform. The time has come when the Government will have to admit that it is engaged in reform which it has to explain to the public. It will have to tell the people what they can expect in future. Can the hon. the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information tell me whether a future Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs can be a Coloured or an Indian? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member cannot put questions on future Ministers of Mineral and Energy Affairs now. At present we are discussing this Bill, and for the last time now I ask the hon. member to confine himself to the Bill.

Sir, I can tell you that quite a few blows have been dealt out in the meantime, and after such blows one sometimes wanders off the subject a little. [Interjections.] This Bill must be read in conjunction with Act 22 of 1960. If one does that, one does not really find any great difference anywhere. There are better definitions, but there is a difference in clauses 2 and 3, because that is where the sting of the new dispensation comes into the picture.

†One day the reformers by stealth will pay. They will certainly pay in South Africa just like Rhodesians are paying and other people paid after there was reform by stealth in their countries.

Mr. Speaker, there is a well known saying that everyone has a cross to bear, but I do not think this is the time or the place to bewail my lot. However, this is the second time in the course of dealing with this Bill that I have had to speak after the hon. member for Langlaagte. We have here a very important piece of legislation. It is legislation that directly and radically affects the conditions of employment of the workers of the SATS, but what did we get from the hon. member for Langlaagte and to a great extent from other hon. members of the CP as well? On both the occasions I had to listen to the hon. member for Langlaagte, all we heard were vindictive attacks by the hon. member on the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs. The hon. member constantly referred to the proposed constitutional dispensation and suggested that it would be the end of the world for everyone, including the workers of the SATS, if this Bill were to be placed on the Statute Book and were to remain there under the new dispensation. In the Second Reading debate already I gave the hon. member the assurance that we, the Government, the NP, would see to the best interests of the workers of the SATS.

We have been doing so all these years.

The hon. member for Langlaagte must stop worrying now because he does not understand what is involved. The hon. member is never relevant and you, Sir, had to call him to order the other day and even had to ask him to resume his seat. You had to do so again repeatedly today. In the future the hon. member may possibly be known as the hon. hypothetical member for Langlaagte because he sets up an hypothesis and builds all his arguments on it. Then he sets up another hypothesis and builds his arguments on that—and that is how he carries on. Actually the hon. member is insulting the officials and therefore also the employees of the SATS through many of the things he has to say here. The hon. member is underestimating the intelligence of the people he professes to serve in this House. He uses words like “reform by stealth”. That hon. member does not know the meaning of the word reform. He does not want reform in this country. His mind is so clouded with naked, blatant racism that he can no longer think straight or confine himself to what is at issue in the Bill before us.

I do not want to give any further attention to the hon. member. I feel sure the hon. Minister will deal with him as he deserves, particularly with regard to all the questions he put to the hon. the Minister.

I also want to refer to the contribution by and certain things said here by hon. members of the PFP, specifically the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg North and Pinelands. As far as I am concerned those hon. members showed a strange oversersitivity with regard to unregistered trade unions and pressure groups like the General Workers’ Union. The hon. member for Pinelands as well as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North made it quite clear that they were not speaking on behalf of these people, but the reaction we got from them reminded me of the saying: If you tread on a jackal’s tail he howls loudly. I must say that the denial of the hon. member for Pinelands greately upset me. The hon. member for Umlazi referred to this matter and kicked up a fuss about the fact that in their official organ, The Cape Times, the PFP has become the spokesman of the General Workers’ Union. I want to repeat that allegation here because the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North referred to it again this afternoon. He referred to international organizations. I am making this accusation because it is in line with the specific political philosophy of the PFP. They want to internationalize labour relations in the SATS. That is what those hon. members are concerned with. In my Second Reading speech I also referred to the fact that they wanted to destabilize and now internationalize labour relations and labour peace in this country. This is a dangerous standpoint, not only for South Africa but also for the SATS in particular.

In conclusion I want to say that the Bill before us is really streamlining and modernizing the old Act. I want to say that we really believe that the officials and workers of the SATS ought to feel happy about these conditions of service that have been placed on the Statute Book for them and that these conditions of service are keeping abreast of the demands of our time. That is why I should also like to support the Third Reading of this Bill.