Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned last night, I was dealing with the shocking mismanagement of the South African economy by the National Party over the last 28 years. I must say at the outset, in fairness to the hon. the Minister of Finance, that for a large portion of those 28 years he was as implacably opposed to the National Party’s strange ideologies as I am today. Just before the adjournment I supported an appeal by the hon. member for King William’s Town for a commission of inquiry into the land deal situation. I am referring to the payment of R2 million to the fat cat speculators at Port St. Johns in preference to other hardship cases, which is something which will be to the everlasting shame and disgrace of this Government. The Minister of Finance surely cannot be happy about this sorry state of affairs. The Minister of Finance must now learn to rule this show with an iron hand. Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the Minister is doing his best, but that he is being shunted around by other colleagues of his.

Mr. Speaker, the Klein-Karoo Land-boukoöperasie Bpk. is, I understand, sitting on R5 million of foreign exchange in the form of approximately 50 000 ostrich skins that are unsold because of total incompetence and amateurism in marketing. Private enterprise used to market these skins without any problem whatsoever, but then the Government intervened and gave the marketing of these skins to the co-op. The co-op has nearly 100% of the industry throughout the world. They operate on Government concessions and they have an absolute monopoly. The industry is, however, collapsing because the officials managing that co-op do not know how to market these skins. I understand that they offer commissions overseas of only 2%, and it is laughable to agents to attempt to sell those skins. I am told that the tanneries overseas used to stock 10 000 to 20 000 ostrich skins, but that supply has now been cut off. I have been informed that instead of expanding the industry, the co-op is advising the farmers to diversify and to cut down on their ostrich farming. The fanners have further been told that they can only slaughter on a quota basis. In other words, the figure of 50 000 is artificial, because if the farmers were not told only to slaughter on a quota basis and to diversify, that figure would far exceed the 50 000 mark. This loss in foreign exchange is only because the Government wants to pander to a few Broederbonders and a few empire builders in that particular co-op. I am told that private enterprise could dispose of those ostrich skins within a reasonable period of time. Now, we want to know from the Minister of Finance whether he is prepared to rectify this sorry state of affairs and investigate this matter immediately.

No, he is not.

Mr. Speaker, this sort of loss of foreign exchange is a sacrifice which the people of South Africa should not be called upon to make.

According to the Financial Mail, the Xhosa Development Corporation took control of a company called Stuttkor Houtnywerhede at the end of September 1975. Approximately two weeks later, in the middle of October 1975, the balance sheet was published, and we saw a loss of R618 500. Then the assets were assessed. The realizable value of those assets was R800 000, against balance sheet figures of R2,9 million. The liabilities, by contrast, were R1,8 million. What is the hon. the Minister of Finance going to do about this shocking state of affairs, or is this going to be another Government cover-up?

In an earlier debate this year I asked the Minister of Finance what he was going to do about the attitude of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, who regards the opening of the Nico Malan Theatre as a temporary phase. In fact, that hon. gentleman, together with the hon. member for Namakwaland, feel that other Nico Malans should be built for the other race groups throughout South Africa. I want to point out to the Minister of Finance that it cost approximately R12 million to build the Nico Malan originally. To build it today, it would cost approximately R24 million. We want to know from the hon. the Minister whether he is going to pander to the whims and the fancies of the hon. the Deputy Minister and build Nico Malans in all the provinces for all the race groups. That is a whim and fancy that the people of South Africa cannot afford.

We should like an assurance from the hon. the Minister of Finance that he will not pander to the fancies of that hon. Deputy Minister. We know that that hon. Deputy Minister is very powerful in the Cabinet, but we only hope that the hon. the Minister of Finance can resist pandering to him. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister of Finance to see to it that the Community Development Board and the National Housing Commission, which are sitting on land worth R322 million of which they have only sold R96 million, develop their short-term land. They are sitting on short-term land which is tied up and the money is not being used beneficially. A concrete example is Fairview and South End in Port Elizabeth. That land can be developed for 33 000 people and it can be fully developed at a cost of about R200 million. The income from rates will alleviate major problems, and I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he is going to insist that the hon. Minister of Community Development runs the affairs of his department far more efficiently than in the past. The people of South Africa made sacrifices to allow the ore berth at St. Croix in Port Elizabeth to be delayed by the Government. This has cost the country hundreds of million of rand in foreign exchange. The cost of this project has in the meantime increased nearly threefold. We should like an assurance from the hon. the Minister of Finance in this debate that he will see to it that that project is finalized urgently.

I should also like to show up the arrogance displayed by the Government in regard to the Physical Planning Act. In reply to a question which appeared on the Order Paper last year, we were told that 13 applications to establish factories and two for extensions were refused in the Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage area in terms of section 3 of that Act. In 1976 there were 19 refusals for new industries and three for extensions. When we asked for the names of the applicants whose applications were refused, we were told that we could not be furnished with the names because there were 16 000 files. What absolute nonsense! This is again an absolute cover-up. For the whole of the Republic the figure in respect of applications for new industries and extensions refused, were 1 765 involving 92 645 potential Bantu employees. I must assume that the answers are also not available as to who the applicants are in respect of the 1 765 applications.

Imagine, here one has the wholesale disruption of industry by draconian means and the losing of employment opportunities on a massive scale and yet the Government cannot furnish us with this very vital information. The hon. the Minister of Finance should be in a position to tell us how many of these 1 765 applicants agreed to decentralize after refusal of their applications. Those applicants who did not agree to decentralize are lost to the South African economy for ever. The contributions these applicants would have made to our economy would have been enormous. It is absolutely vital that the hon. the Minister of Finance furnishes us with this information. But as I know the Government, they will once again fail to furnish us with the information, not because it is not available, but because it is part of a cover-up process of the shocking way in which they are administering this country. There are 16 000 applicants. Can hon. members imagine the red tape and manpower involved in these applications on behalf of both the private sector and the public sector? It is an absolute waste of manpower to furnish these applications. Decentralization on a sound economic basis and the offering of incentives are wise, but why shackle industrialists who refuse to decentralize? This absolute shambles is to a large extent responsible for the stumped growth of our economy.

The question which arises is whether the Government is prepared to sacrifice ideology and allow normal expansion of the economy to take place. The loss of 92 000 Bantu job opportunities must not be seen in isolation. To this figure of 92 000, the numbers of White, Coloured and Indian employees who would have been employed in those factories must be added. If those 1 765 industrialists were allowed to expand, ten years from now one would have had job opportunities for a few hundred thousand employees. By the refusal of these applications the Government is sapping the life-blood of the industrial development of South Africa. We on this side of the House demand that the Government should allow economic sanity to prevail. In the circumstances I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Constantia. I believe that political parties who have sanity in this House will also support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Walmer made a highly emotional and venomous speech, one which was characterized by gross irresponsibility.

He gave you a fright.

On the contrary. I just want to give the hon. member some sound advice. The hon. member is talking from the back benches over there as if he has a swollen-head. However, the hon. member should take note of what happened to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the word “venomous” as applied to the speech of the hon. member is parliamentary?

The hon. member must withdraw that word.

I withdraw it, Sir. In any case, the hon. member’s speech was most irresponsible, because he does not take certain basic facts into account. He mainly dealt with the question of land transactions and so-called irregularities. Do hon. members know that during the years in which the National Party Government has been in power in South Africa, it was one of its characteristics to have any irresponsibilities or negligence concerning Public money investigated to the bone every time. The person who transgressed was exposed. The hon. member refers to “cover-up”. This Government has never been guilty of any “cover-up”. The last “cover-up” I know of occurred during the war years when they covered up the scandals concerning the De Beers transaction. That was the last time I heard of a “cover-up” in South Africa. Sir, we shall carry out our policy in South Africa. We know that it is an expensive policy under particular circumstances. However, we shall carry out the policy and if we need the land, we shall buy it in the normal way after proper valuation, as, is indeed being done.

The UP’s attack on the Government regarding the budget, mainly concerns their statement that the economic problems in South Africa are due to the policy of separate development. This is their point of departure. I want to say that if we did not have separate development in South Africa during the years of National Party Government, there would have been very little of our economy left. On the contrary. I think it was due to this very policy and the implementation of it that we have succeeded in ensuring higher standards of living for all, including the non-Whites, in South Africa. We accept that it is an expensive policy to implement, but we also accept that the economic benefits arising from this policy are of far greater value to South Africa than any other factor in South Africa’s economy. The pessimism displayed by the Opposition in their attack on this budget, is doing South Africa no good. If we face the future with the kind of pessimism they displayed we shall never solve our economic problems in South Africa. On the contrary, we should also consider the benefits this policy entailed for the economy of South Africa through the years. I doubt whether more employment opportunities would have been created in any other way or under any other policy than under the policy of separate development. For instance, we have homeland development, on which I need not elaborate now, the decentralization of industries and the accompanying employment opportunities. There is also the development of border industries, which is absolutely phenomenal in certain areas and which created thousands of employment opportunities. The economic growth which this Government has made possible through the years in terms of its policy cannot be ignored. What is more, through its policy this Government created a national pride among all the peoples in South Africa, a national pride which brought about the motivation for people to want to do something for themselves as well. Sir, we cannot ignore the education and training facilities which have been created by this Government and for which provision is again being made in this budget. We provided these facilities because we believe that we can, through training, create increased productivity in South Africa. Sir, nor can we ignore the fact that we have labour peace in South Africa thanks to the actions and the legislation of the National Party Government, that we eliminated labour friction and that we are relatively free of strikes in South Africa, in sharp contrast with many other countries of the world. Sir, hon. members opposite maintain that our economic problems in South Africa flow from the policy of apartheid. But, Sir, there are, in fact, many countries in the world which have economic problems and which do not pursue a policy of separate development. This is a fact which one cannot ignore.

Furthermore, through its policy of decentralization, of influx control and physical planning, the National Party Government also prevented urban congestion at socio-economic and industrial levels, as is the case in many major cities in the world where a policy of decentralization is in fact being applied for reasons other than ideological or policy reasons. Sir, another aspect from which we cannot escape is that the Government has created fresh economic opportunities for industry and the manufacturing business in South Africa through this policy of decentralization. New cities have been built, housing has been provided and slum areas have been cleared through the implementation of our policy and through the implementation of the Group Areas Act.

Mr.Speaker, there is one final point which highlights the advantages of the policy of separate development and this is that we have, by removing unfair economic competition, afforded non-Whites the opportunity to develop economically. Sir, we have a capitalistic system here in South Africa supported by private initiative—an economy of free enterprise. This system, together with this policy of the National Party, has greatly contributed to raising the standard of living of all population groups in South Africa. However, this system also bears the seed of its own destruction within itself if we were to allow it to be undermined by commercial exploitation and by socialist pressure from outside. Sir, this capitalistic system has to be sold to Africa and other countries in the world which do not have a capitalistic system, because we have two conflicting ideologies in the Third World: that of communism and that of the capitalistic system. For that reason we shall have to have a close look at any deficiencies in this system and see to it that we eliminate these deficiencies. We want to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Finance on detecting certain deficiencies in this system and that he is going to remove them by means of this budget.

One of our major problems remains to be the problem of inflation. Perhaps too much has already been said about it; perhaps we are not so enthusiastic any more when discussing inflation; for that reason we no longer want to listen to them. But, Sir, it is a fact that inflation is one of the major single problems our economy has ever had to deal with. The major danger, however, lies in the fact that we might cause unemployment and bring about a possible recession through our eagerness to take measures in combating inflation. The latter condition is one which we cannot afford in South Africa, because of the inevitable social and political unrest and the economic recession and political implications accompanying it, especially in the light of the heterogeneous composition of our population in South Africa. Therefore, we have no alternative either. We simply have to combat inflation in spite of the danger of unrest which might arise if the Government were to wage its anti-inflation campaign in a detrimental way. However, in South Africa we have always been in the fortunate position to have had a far-sighted Minister of Finance, someone who was able to maintain the equilibrium. [Interjections.] We shall certainly have to pay attention to certain urgent bottlenecks in the years ahead.

We shall have to take into consideration the fact that the Government dare not submit easily to pressure which is brought to bear upon it concerning shorter working hours. Also, the Government dare not submit to demands for excessive social services, excessive unemployment benefits and wage increases which are out of all proportion to the cost-of-living index. Very few governments in the world have ever succeeded in remaining in power when they had to take unpopular measures to put their economy ight. As against this, this Government had the courage of its convictions in the past and particularly this year to take highly ineffective measures. However, this requires a government with the strength and the sight of the National Party.

If it is so proficient why are we in such a poor position?

Mr. Speaker, we are even prepared to take unpopular steps if it appears to be necessary in order to ensure the future of South Africa. Therefore, we want to appeal to the Opposition. That hon. member has made an interjection a moment ago but we want to appeal to them, for the sake of South Africa, not to criticize this Government and this budget to such an extent that it is detrimental to South Africa, irrespective of the political capital they intend making out of their criticism. Our economy will in no way profit by pessimism. The hon. member for Constantia referred to “This black day for South Africa.” Statements such as these are not beneficial to our country. We shall simply have to face the future with self-confidence and faith in our cause. Only then will our country and our economy be able to flourish.

From the nature of the case there are certain factors in our economy which have to be put right. The first is that we cannot escape the fact that we are living beyond our means in South Africa. Secondly: productivity in South Africa will have to improve. Various hon. members stressed this point. But we are still saving too little and wasting too much. I am especially referring to industry, to industrial wastage, but also to our private habits: the wasting of food, and money spent on entertainment and even the wasting f fuel. These are bottlenecks we cannot escape from. As far as productivity is concerned, I just want to quote what Mr. W. F. de la H. Beck, chairman of Mobil Oil (South Africa), had to say recently. He said—

In other words, we welcome the steps taken in this budget to improve productivity as well, but we have to appeal to our people once again that all possible means should be employed to rectify this matter. Sir, we were in the fortunate position in South Africa that, during the period 1971 to 1975, our gross national product increased by an amount of $3 500 million per year. However, the fact is that we should take cognizance of the fact that the amount dropped by nearly $1 000 million since January 1975. Therefore if we are unable to find an alternative for this loss, our standard of living will necessarily have to drop. But we are fortunate. In this respect the Government, thanks to its far-sighted planning, has already created opportunities for exporting minerals, i.e. at Richards Bay as well as through the Sishen-Saldanha project. Thanks to the farsightedness of the Minister of Finance he succeeded in avoiding a catastrophe through the devaluation of the rand last year by devaluating so that we did not experience a drop in our standard of living. However, the devaluation of the rand should be seen as a short-term measure, so that we can utilize the time to make further adjustments. These adjustments will have to be made as far as the curtailment of our consumer spending is concerned, and it is a fact that we shall have to do this slowly; we shall have to do this gradually to prevent recessions in our manufacturing business or an economic recession. However, I think it has become essential that we should launch an intensive campaign.

The hon. member for Johannesburg West also referred to this yesterday, to a “Buy South Africa” campaign and a “Fly South Africa” campaign, and he referred to transport as well. Sir, we have to accept, however, that in the ensuing year attention will have to be given to export and production to an increasing extent and we also believe that we shall have to give increased attention to manufactured products. I believe we have the labour potential also to be able to export manufactured goods to a far larger extent in future. Sir, as far as the future is concerned, I believe we have confidence in the future. We know that any despondency or pessimism may in fact mean economic suicide to us. In spite of certain economic adjustments through monetary and fiscal measures, we share the optimism of our hon. Minister of Finance.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to discuss another subject and refer to a speech which the hon. member for Umbilo made in this House on 17 February. On that occasion he advised the hon. the Minister of Finance in regard to the way he should present his budget. He asked the hon. the Minister of Finance to get his priorities right and to see the present situation in perspective. I should like to refer to this particular speech, not so much because it is the hon. member for Umbilo who made the speech but because he put policy of the UP. This then brings me to the attitude of the UP in respect of the so-called priorities. It gives one the opportunity to see how serious the United Party is in regard to the care of our lesser privileged people. As I have already said, the hon. member advised the hon. the Minister on 17 February in regard to the budget which he would present on 31 March. I think he was very naïve to have thought at that stage that he would be able to influence the hon. the Minister’s thinking to any extent because sound common sense tells us that the hon. the Minister had already done two things at that stage. In the first place the hon. the Minister already knew how much money he would have at his disposal for the 1976-’77 budget. He would also by that time have determined his priorities so that he could ascertain how much additional money he would have to collect in order to implement his priorities, and from where he was to obtain that money. In his Budget Speech the hon. the Minister also said the following—

Therefore, this was priority number one. He went on to say—

That is the second priority. He went on to say—

In other words, with all the financial problems which we and the world in general are experiencing, the hon. the Minister could nevertheless, in spite of the involved nature of the budget, also do something for the lesser privileged people as a group. One would like to have the assurance that the United Party do in fact fully respect and support the priorities that have been set by the hon. the Minister. However, what is of very great importance to me is whether the United Party is being fair in regard to the priorities that have been set by those UP speakers. It is a very popular and simple thing to make a plea in any budget for the poor and the aged. The question is however whether it is always fair simply to ask, to promise and to create the impression that they have another policy without mentioning the steps that the Government has taken and is taking.

One of the six things which the hon. member mentioned was the question of war pensions. We heard in the Budget Speech that the War Pensions Act was going to be amended. The hon. member for Umbilo also referred in his speech to the unfair ratio in the pensions that are paid to the various population groups, namely, Whites, Bantu, Indians and Coloureds. He said that the ratio of 4:2:1 was unjust. However, where does that ratio come from? Did the National Government create it? This is in fact something that we inherited. Why did the UP in their time find it necessary to use the discrimination of a sliding scale? There is also something else which the UP established when they were in power and which we eliminated. There was a still worse discrimination at that time. I am referring here to a distinction which they drew between the man living on a farm, the man living in the town, and the man living in the city. The National Government did away with that a long time ago. When the particular Act is reviewed, we will give careful consideration to these things mindful of where they have come from.

In the second instance the hon. member spoke about civil pensioners and also about Railway pensioners. In this connection the hon. the Minister mentioned these two things that are going to be done. Firstly, he mentioned a concession in respect of civil pensions and, on the other hand, the hon. the Minister of Transport gave the assurance that he was going to consider the pensions of the railway workers who had already retired.

Thirdly, there was the question of social pensions. Although the hon. member for Umbilo always has a great deal to say in regard to aged persons on behalf of his party, if I understood his speech correctly, in this case it is a question of caring socially for various categories of people. At the moment there are almost 200 000 persons dependent upon a social pension in some form or the other. Without the addition of the grants announced by the hon. the Minister in his Budget Speech, an amount of about R172 million will be spent in this regard this year. If one cuts a little deeper with the analytical knife, a few interesting things come to the fore, matters which in my opinion must be mentioned here. In the first instance I want to draw a few distinctions and in this regard I want to take the year 1948 as my year of departure. I know that hon. members opposite are sensitive in this regard and always counter this with the fact that this was 28 years ago. However, I have good reason for doing this. I shall deal with the other years later on. If we take the year 1948 as the year of departure, we see that in that year there were about 65 000 people who were receiving old-age pensions only. This figure has risen to about 130 000 at present. This is a rise of a full 100%. The pension that is paid has also risen. It has risen from R12 to R72, that is to say, by 500%

The total amount voted by the Government for spending in respect of these people has risen from R6,8 million in 1948 to R111 million for the present year, and this is without the additional concessions announced by the hon. the Minister. This amounts to a percentage increase of 1 460%. The hon. member for Umbilo gave the impression in his speech that almost nothing was being done and that this matter should be priority number one. Now he shakes his head but I think he should go and read his own speech. He said that this should be on a par with defence and other matters. I think that in this regard he is really on the wrong track. If we use any other year as the year of departure, we will find the same enormous increase. In actual fact these increases are far higher than the increase in the cost of living over the corresponding period.

In the case of the number of war veterans there has since 1966 been a decrease of 4 000. The amount paid to these people by way of pensions has however since 1966 risen by more than R4 million. Surely we cannot permit it to be said in this regard that the Government or the hon. the Minister does not look to the interests of the aged or social pensioners? In actual fact this is also not all that is being done for our aged. We all know ofthe medical services and district surgeon services which these people enjoy. We know of the concessions that are made to them in respect of hospitalization, medicines and so forth. It is very difficult to assess these things in terms of money.

There are also allowances to old-age homes.

My colleague reminds me that to this we can also add the large housing projects which exist and in regard to which millions of rand are spent annually by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and also the Department of Community Development. There are moreover the subsidies which the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions pays to voluntary welfare organizations. Those subsidies amount to about R20 million when one takes all these various groups together. Those subsidies are paid to welfare organizations for the purpose of rendering professional and other services for social pensioners. Then there is still an unknown amount which these organizations themselves spend in the interests of the aged and the people around them. When we add all these amounts together and also consider the grants that are made, we find that an amount quite easily in excess of R300 million is spent annually in the interests of our social pensioners on the initiative of the State and through the medium of voluntary organizations, which, after all, are by comparison with the State responsible for only a small percentage of the total amount.

Furthermore, there is the question of the relaxation of the means test. We can ask ourselves how it is possible that there could have been such a tremendous increase during this period. The reason is chiefly the relaxation of the means test, the one thing for which the UP are continually asking. When we consider the means test we find that from 1948 up to this year there has also been an actual rise of 500%. An old married couple in receipt of a pension can have assets to the value of R34 000 today and still be considered for the minimum pension of R24 per month. This of course is also related to their income. The two things controlling the means test are assets and income. What the hon. member has apparently lost sight of is the large number of concessions that are made before one arrives at the amount of R34 000 or whatever the amount may be. We only arrive at that figure after compulsory deductions have been made. In the case of farmers on a small scale for example, their profits are taken into consideration. In this connection a fixed amount is determined even though in actual fact their profit may be considerably higher. There are additional things which very often strike us, particularly in the case of the aged. I refer, for example, to the fact that there may be children living in the house with the aged person or the aged person may have a boarder or a room may be rented to a tenant, all of which can result in the aged person’s income being supplemented. All this additional income is not taken into account when the net income of an aged person is estimated.

But it has remained the same since 1972.

Yes, that is so, but the hon. member must really not leave these other factors out of the picture. The point to which I want to draw attention is that there are a number of concessions before one arrives at the maximum amount. Those concessions are made with a view to the fact that the aged person should enjoy maximum pension benefits. If an aged person has certain assets on which interest is paid to him, for the purposes of the calculation of his maximum income it is assumed that the interest rate is only 4%, while in actual fact the aged person may perhaps be earning interest at the rate of 8% or even 10%. There is, therefore, a relaxation which does not form part of the provisions actually laid down. All these things are done in order to benefit the pensioner.

I have already said that from 1948 up to the present the prescribed amount in order to be able to obtain the minimum subsidy has increased by 500%. In the case of the maximum it is a question of the difference between R1 600 in 1948 and R9 800 today. Hon. members can take any year as the year of departure, but if they take certain years, they will find that the graph shows an even sharper increase. We must also bear in mind that only 10% of our present pensioners who do not receive the maximum pension fall into this category. This means that only 10% of our present pensioners are really going to be benefited if the means test is abolished because the remaining 90% can already receive the maximum pension.

The hon. member also spoke about productivity and said that it should be increased on the part of the aged. In this regard I believe that there are also certain aspects which he may at some time be able to debate. I think for example of such a thing as a deferred pension. If an aged person does not apply for a pension when he reaches the prescribed age, but only applies at a later stage, he receives a larger pension because the attitude is adopted that the fact that he delayed his application has resulted in a saving to the State. If he defers his application for four years and works for a longer period he may receive as much as R11 per month more.

The hon. member for Umbilo and his party talk about priorities, but they are the ones who must get their political priorities right. I find in my constituency, and we have again experienced the fact in Alberton, that the people do not believe the promises made by those hon. members. If there is one priority that they must get right, it is that they must not promise people things which they are not prepared to give. Do those hon. members know what the result of such promises is? The result is that in the Alberton by-election the UP only received 874 votes on voting day. They did in fact receive a further 78 postal votes which brought the total number of votes cast for them to 952.

What did the Prog-refs get?

The National Party received 984 votes in postal votes alone; that is to say, 32 more than the total number of votes which the UP received overall. If something of this nature happens to a political party it is nothing less than shameful. The difficulty is that the UP is a political party which does not have its priorities right. The UP is a political party which goes around with cheap pension stories and which tells the people at Alberton and at Southhills—I do not know how many of the hon. members work there—that as soon as they come into power, pensions will be doubled. They also try to give these people the impression that they are being diddled out of their pensions by this Government.

Somebody asked how many votes the PRP received on the occasion of that election. Well, they did not even have enough money to be able to meet the deposit and so it was not possible for them to tell the electorate what their priorities were. However, I want to issue a warning to the UP that if they continue any longer in this way they will play into the hands of the PRP. The PRP goes out from the point of view that all barriers must be removed and that everything and everyone must be placed on an equal basis. The time will come when they will outbid the UP among the electorate and precisely on the grounds of the question of equality and a promise that equal pensions will be paid to Black, Brown and White. The UP will have to indicate to us where we are going to find the necessary funds for this purpose.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Westdene referred to Alberton, but it seemed to me that he had received a telegram from a certain Senator Worrall in which he was asked to make a speech about the question of pensions before the by-election took place in Durban North. [Interjections.] The hon. member made a defensive speech and it seemed to me that he wanted to make excuses for the fact that the hon. the Minister of Finance had not given the attention and relief to the pensioners that they should have received. The hon. member treated us to facts dating back to the days of 1948. All I can say to the hon. member is that our pensioners cannot pay for their groceries with the good intentions, the promises or the statistics of the NP. The hon. member knows that the present pensions are inadequate and that the relief afforded by the budget is not adequate either. He may say that there are problems, but I want to point out that the problems lie with the Government, for the Government is the one which is inhibiting the economy of the country and which is contributing to our inability to progress as we should.

The hon. member for Westdene should have listened to the hon. member for Newcastle, because the statement made by the hon. member for Newcastle contained the truth. He said, amongst other things, that the National Party admitted that its policy was an expensive one. I agree that it is an expensive policy, but why should the pensioners pay for it? [Interjections.] Why should our elderly people pay for the policy? The Government is giving an additional R8 a month to the pensioner, but what about the additional taxes and what about the increasing rentals, not to mention railway fares which have also been increased? I want to point out that not only the elderly people, the retired people, but the whole population of South Africa, will have to pay dearly if we continue with our present policy. I am not referring only to paying dearly in terms of money. We shall also pay dearly in terms of race relations and in terms of the security and stability of our community.

†I think we should get back to this issue, because throughout this session, except for the first few days of the no-confidence debate, there has been an air of unreality. I have listened to the speeches, and it would appear that the hon. members on the other side are living in a dream world. They keep on saying that we have a few problems, but that there is nothing basically wrong. All is not well in South Africa; all is not well with us at the present time. I believe that there are many things which are wrong—very wrong—and if we drift along in the way this Government is allowing South Africa to drift along, all of us—that includes all the hon. members of this House and the whole population—will run into serious trouble. I believe that if we carry on as we are carrying on at the moment, all of us in South Africa are in for dire consequences. The issue with which we are concerned is not just a question of how prosperous we are going to be or what progress there is going to be. The issue is whether South Africa is going to survive as an orderly and developing peaceful society. This is the issue to which we should be directing our attention.

I want to look at some of the realities of the South African situation at the present time, at some of the trends which are becoming evident within the South African society. If we are prepared to be frank with ourselves about the realities of the situation in South Africa, we will realize that unless the Government— and I put the onus on the Government—fulfils its one key obligation, its solemn obligation which it has given to Black and White in South Africa and to the whole world, to get rid of race discrimination, it is leading South Africa to disaster. That is the situation, Mr. Speaker. The warning signs are there. It is no use us in this House looking past them, ignoring them and closing its eyes, for then we will not be able to see the warning signs. We must look at these warning signs and must see what we are going to do about them. This Government is failing to fulfil its obligation. It either has not got the courage or does not have the policy or the will to do what it said it would do, namely get rid of race discrimination. Let us just look at some of the realities. I do not want to dwell too long on the question of external affairs. We have had a very rude shock in this field during recent months. Our loneliness, our isolation, has been mercilessly exposed. The détente exercise of the hon. the Prime Minister, which looked like bringing peace to Southern Africa, which looked like extending dialogue and relaxing tensions in Southern Africa is, right at this given moment in time, in ruins.

Did you not welcome détente?

Of course I welcomed it, but I am saying that it is in ruins. Whatever African leaders are saying in private, not one of them is prepared to associate with us in public. Presidents like President Kaunda of Zambia and President Seretse Khama of Botswana were co-operating last year with the hon. the Prime Minister. Last year they were co-operating with South Africa in trying to get a peaceful situation in Southern Africa.

Who instigated that?

Now they are taking a much tougher line, not only on Rhodesia, but also on South West Africa and on apartheid within South Africa. If the hon. the Minister of Justice “broms” over there, let me say to him that we are being spumed by our former friends in the West. We know that when we went into Angola, we found ourselves on our own. Nobody would come to our aid. Nobody would stand by us in spite of the fact that we were claiming that our involvement there was an involvement of the free world. Recently, when there was a resolution before the Security Council to the effect that we were the aggressors in Angola, the Western powers …

Do you agree with that?

Of course I do not agree that we were the aggressors in Angola, but let us realize what has happened. Britain, Italy, France, America and Japan—our five major trading partners—were not prepared to defend us with their vote, nor were they prepared to protect us with their veto. We ask: Why? Does America not like us? Does Great Britain not like us? Does Japan not want to trade with us? Do hon. members really think that President Kaunda and President Seretse Khama are pro-communist? Do they think that the States of Africa want the Russians and the Cubans to intervene? Do they think that Great Britain and these other countries are now taking the side of the communist world against the free world? We know what the truth is. The fact is that the advantage of having South Africa as a friend and an ally is offset by the liability of the Government’s policy of apartheid. This is the simple truth. I do not like it, but it is the simple truth. Think of the 17 perceptive questions put to the people of South Africa by Dr. Jan S. Marais. If one looks at those questions, one will see that one question is as follows—

So, with all the rights and wrongs of the issue, let us realize that our foreign policy, our isolation and our relationships in Africa are directly related to the policy of the Government and to the question of the discrimination within South Africa.

Let us now leave the external situation and look at some key areas of the internal situation. Much has been said during this debate about our economic situation. However, let us look at the realities.

May I ask the hon. member whether he prefers apartheid to communism?

I reject both apartheid and communism.

Which one do you prefer?

I prefer neither of them. I prefer a free community. [Interjections.] I prefer the free world, not apartheid.

[Interjections.] I do not prefer communism and I do not prefer totalitarianism—even if it were to be either apartheid or communism. They are both horses from the same stable. [Interjections.] To apply either of them involves totalitarianism and authoritarianism.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Sea Point entitled to say that the National Party and the communists are horses from the same stable, thus implying that the National Party is communist?

What is the point of order?

The hon. member for Sea Point said that apartheid and communism were horses from the same stable.

The hon. member for Sea Point may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the trends in our economy. Let us look at them seriously, not as the hon. member for Newcastle did. We know that we have got what some people call “galloping inflation”, retarded for a few months through the collective action programme, but we all know that inflation is going to take off again as a result of this budget and as a result of the budget of the hon. the Minister of Transport. We know that we have a continuing and a serious balance of payments problem. We know that there is a lack of confidence in the investment sector in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: With great respect, further to the question asked by the hon. member for Lydenberg, I want to ask whether it is permissible in this Parliament to say that the official policy of this Government and communism are horses from one stable?

Is apartheid the official policy of the National Party, then? [Interjections.]

Order! Would the hon. member for Sea Point repeat what exactly he said? I did not hear it properly.

Mr. Speaker, I was asked whether I preferred apartheid or communism. I said that I rejected both because they were horses from the same stable.

You said that apartheid and communism were in the same stable.

I say they are horses from the same stable.

Order! The point of order is whether it is unparliamentary for the hon. member to say that communism and apartheid are horses from the same stable. The essence of political debate is that an hon. member states his case in this House and that other hon. members who follow him, speaking immediately after him or at a later stage, reply to it and state the other side of the argument. The point of order is that “from the same stable” means that the official policy of the Government is equated with communism. I should be glad if the hon. member for Sea Point would phrase the matter differently and say that he did not mean to equate the policy of the Government with communism.

Mr. Speaker, I proceeded to explain …

Withdraw!

I was not asked to withdraw. I was asked to expound my argument. I explained that they both required a totalitarian or an authoritarian system of government for their application. [Interjections.] That is the way I phrased it; that is true. Both of them, apartheid and communism, are in the same stable.

Would the hon. member just withdraw that by saying that he is not equating the policy of apartheid with the policy of communism?

Mr. Speaker, I abide by your ruling and I withdraw it. I am not equating it with communism. The hon. member told me that there was a choice between two policies. Consequently the one cannot be equated with the other. Of course they are not the same, and I did not say they were.

Just say the one is a white horse and the other is a red one! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to highlight the realities of the trends and the dangers that are developing in South Africa. I want to leave the economic side of things, because much has been said about it and I unfortunately do not have more time to deal with it.

Mr.Speaker, let us look at the political trends that are developing amongst the communities in South Africa. Make no mistake about it; the Whites are becoming less certain about their future and they are feeling less secure, because they do not know where this Government is taking them. They are constantly asking questions. One need only read what was written by Prof. Wimpie de Klerk in Rapport this week. Just read the questions. When it comes to the issue of land, those questions cannot be answered. When it comes to the question of Black citizens from the homelands living in South Africa, they do not know how to deal with it. When it comes to the question of the Indians or the Coloureds, they do not know the long-term future. I want to say this to the hon. the Minister of the Interior: It has been interesting that in this session of Parliament, unlike other sessions, there has not been a single speech by a leading frontbencher in the Nationalist Party spelling out the policy of their party. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must obey my ruling. They can reply to the hon. member when it is their turn to speak.

Mr. Speaker, this has been the tenor of the whole debate and of this session of Parliament. There has been no statement of policy. I can recall the hon. the Minister of the Interior standing up session after session and saying: “Never, never, will these lines meet.” But we have not heard him this session. We have not heard hon. members on that side telling us about the urban Blacks, about the Coloureds, about land consolidation. Mr. Speaker, there is an element of insecurity developing amongst the White people because of the failure of this Government to tell them where they are going.

That is not true.

As regards the Blacks, let us make no mistake about it: there is a degree of growing confidence on their side. There is an increasing sophistication, but I am sorry to say there is also an increasing degree of militancy. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about the impact of Mozambique, Angola and Rhodesia on Black South Africa, because they see changes coming in their direction. This is how they see it. Make no mistake that world trends and urbanization are making the Black politicians more sophisticated. Make no mistake that race discrimination is making Black people more militant. I know hon. members get excited when Chief Gatsha Buthelezi or Mr. Sonny Leon make a speech. Then they say: “There is a militant; there is an extremist.” But, Sir, these are not the extremists. These are the people who are being attacked by the young militants in the Black communities. The hon. the Minister knows that beyond the Buthelezis and the Leons there are the Sasos, the Black Peoples’ Conventions, Black Power and the whole concept of Blackness and getting together. Much of it is positive, but much of it is negative too, and some of it anti-White. These are the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

Emotionally, are we a relaxed society? No, Mr. Speaker; the White people are living in a state of increased personal tension. They are concerned about rising living costs. They are concerned about housing. They are concerned about how to make ends meet. They are concerned about the future. They all know that there is a degree of insecurity, and economic insecurity, developing in South Africa. It shows in the crime rate, in the rate of alcoholism, in the suicide rate, in the divorce rate. These are all the barometers of tension within a society. If you take the Blacks, will the hon. the Minister say that there is no tension there? Of course, there is not only tension, but there is frustration and anger as well. It arises in housing, in amenities, in overcrowding, in transportation, in job opportunities, in humiliation, and in the ceilings which are constantly placed over them and their development. Mr. Speaker, it is also manifesting itself in the crime rate, in labour tensions, in bus boycotts, in demonstrations. I believe that the townships of South Africa, are becoming the tinder-boxes of South Africa. They are the places where we can anticipate an explosion, unless we change our pattern and unless this Government does one simple thing. It must carry out its promises to get rid of race discrimination. Mr. Speaker, we are becoming an increasingly divided country. There is White patriotism and White militancy. Whites are getting together, but so are Blacks getting together in a new hostile solidarity. Sir, I do not believe that we can go on like this. I do not believe that we can weather the storms ahead as a divided community. We cannot go ahead if we operate on this basis, and the hon. member for Johannesburg West was correct. He said there must be a new attitude; we must regard one another not as enemies, but as friends.

Mr. Speaker, we will not be able to do that unless we get rid of race discrimination. While we might argue and disagree across the floor of this House about the long-term constitutional future for South Africa, I believe that there is a much more immediate and urgent problem, and that is the problem of getting rid of race discrimination whatever the long-term future may be. [Interjections.] We say that we are agreed when it comes to getting rid of laws and practices which offend against individual dignity. We say that we are agreed when it comes to getting rid of inequalities which are unjust towards one section of the community. If we are agreed on this then I believe that both sides of this House should concentrate in a very positive way on trying to get rid of that discrimination. This Government has made a commitment. It sent ambassador Pik Botha to the United Nations and said that we would get rid of race discrimination. We are going to challenge this Government: Even within the framework of your own policy, show us that you are going to do this. Have the guts to do this. I say to the hon. the Minister of Finance: When you stand up after this recess, tell us what you are doing to fulfil Pik Botha’s pledge to get rid of discrimination. We will challenge Cabinet Minister after Cabinet Minister to tell us what they are doing. We do not want the vague answers or the evasions that we have had before. This Government should realize that we are in an hour of pending crisis. We are moving into a period of crisis, and it does not help for the hon. member for Carletonville to smile.

You are weak-kneed!

No, I am not weak-kneed. That we can dismiss with contempt. I do not need peace-time heroes to tell me what I should do in the defence of my country, any more than I need war-time saboteurs to tell me what I should do in the defence of my country. [Interjections.] There are five things which I believe this Government should do. The first is that I believe that in eliminating race discrimination, the Government must stop worrying about the HNP or the verkramptes in its own ranks. I believe that the Rissiks and the Sunnysides will come into line, and if they want to get out, we give this Government the assurance that for every step it takes in getting rid of race discrimination in South Africa, even if it loses a member on that side, it can rely on the support of us on these benches. [Interjections.] I believe that the Government has an obligation to give a lead. The hon. member for Johannesburg West mentioned the churches, local authorities and the businessmen and also the State. I believe the State itself has a critical and vital role to play in giving a lead in this whole field of the elimination of race discrimination. Just as the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs launched a joint action programme to tackle inflation, so I believe the Government should call together the people of South Africa, call together leaders and call together this Parliament and say: Let us have a joint action campaign to get rid of race discrimination in South Africa. Let us unite in this field. Let us get this Parliament talking to the people and not always over their heads. I believe Parliament and the Government must deal with certain practical areas in which the discrimination of inequality is the most damaging in the field of housing, in the field of education and in the field of wages and job opportunities. These are the three critical areas. These are the three flash-point areas.

We look to the Ministers handling these particular portfolios to give account to this House and to the people of South Africa for how they are getting rid of race discrimination in their respective portfolios. Finally, I do not believe that the campaign to get rid of race discrimination can be undertaken by the Government or by this Opposition on its own, but only by Black and White and Brown getting together. I know the hon. members opposite reject the concept of a national convention to discuss the constitutional future of South Africa, but I believe that the Government should seriously consider having a number of conferences with Black and Brown people to discuss the question of race discrimination. Just as the Minister of Economic Affairs and the Secretary for Commerce called for a congress on the question of job opportunities and the economy of the country, so I believe that this Government should take the initiative. Let them listen and let them talk. Let Whites and Blacks talk together at conferences and meetings and decide on the way in which the Government should get rid of discrimination. It is not for us to find the priorities. Let the people who are affected by discrimination state the priorities. Just take note of what has been achieved at Windhoek in the Turnhalle discussions in a short space of time. They have reached agreement on a whole range of matters relative to discrimination, for instance the creation of an open university. [Interjections.] There is housing, education, job opportunities, and getting rid of humiliating circumstances. Sir, I want to make this quite clear. A country with strained external relations, a country running into economic difficulties, a country where there is political uncertainty, in a country where there is emotional tension, a country where there is group division is, we believe, a country that runs the risk of not being able to weather the gathering storms. The remedy lies in the hands of the Government. The Government must launch “operation survival”, an operation to save South Africa, an operation to take it out of the present situation and into a situation of hope. I believe there is hope for South Africa.

You are politically weak-kneed.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister allowed to refer to the speech of the hon. member and to say that he is politically weak-kneed?

The hon. member for Sea Point may proceed.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister to forget the weak-kneed story, to forget the negative story. We in these benches believe that this is a great country, a country with a tremendous potential, but we also believe that it is being wrecked by the policies of the Government. If we want to avoid a conflict situation in South Africa, then that Government there and this Opposition here have to co-operate to do the one thing which has now become a national commitment, and that is to get rid of race discrimination in this country.

Mr. Speaker, one often dreams of somebody attacking one while one’s hands are tied behind one’s back so that one cannot hit back. Now, this is the unfortunate position in which I find myself today. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat and I became members of the Provincial Council 21 years ago and four years after that both of us became members of this House. While he was speaking, I wondered whether he had seen in the newspapers that there is a competition for the leadership of his party. He must have, otherwise I do not know why he became so serious and excited. But now that I am no longer allowed to speak as a provincial Councillor I do want to tell him that somebody once asked what “horse sense” is. To that the answer was “Horse sense is the sense a horse has which prevents it from betting on man”. But at least I can open the stable door at any time of the night and bring out the right one, no matter what it’s colour may be. But the hon. member has withdrawn that part referring to the stable and I do not want to be unreasonable now and make a further attack on him. Another thing I am sorry about, is the degree of satisfaction the United Party derived from his speech. From their faces it was clear that they were glad they no longer have allies in the party of that hon. member.

Sir, we all have the right to criticise, but I think that if there was ever a time when one should be guarded in one’s speech, then it is the present time. I think that if one criticises, one should do so according to merits and one should do so objectively and, as a previous speaker said, one should do so in such a way that what one says is not detrimental to one’s country and it’s people. One should not do so in such a way as to encourage or give pleasure to one’s enemies or prospective enemies. For that reason I do not like words like “shambles”; “shame and disgrace”; “the Minister is allowing himself to be shunted around”, for they are derogatory and refer to the person and not the principle. Every now and again we could at least give a little satisfaction, too, and show a little gratitude where it is due. I thought of asking the hon. members on the opposite side if they would not like to go and read “As you like It” again, where this is sung—

or—

But that is not what I want to discuss, Sir.

†With your permission, Sir, I want to convey my thanks to the House for the way in which I was received here after an absence of a whole decade. It is often said that one’s entrance and one’s exit in public life can be compared with one’s birth and one’s burial. Both are associated with tears, or shall I put it the other way around and say that both are associated with flowers and very often with tears. I cannot help but miss all the old heavy-weights that we worked with in our time, men like Dr. Verwoerd, Paul Sauer, Strijdom and Swart on this side of the House and men like Piet van der Byl, Harry Lawrence and Douglas Mitchell on that side, men who in their time made a handsome contribution towards giving colour and tradition to this House, and however able and talented their successors may be, they were men who fought and acted in a style and fashion which suited the demands of their times. I wish to pay homage to them. They were men who were never afraid to speak up without fear or stood up to be counted for the cause in which they believed, men who, on both sides, led us in a constitutional way to where we stand today.

I also cannot help noticing the wealth of talent that I see lurking in these benches among the men who have joined the ranks of this party. I see evidence here of breeding and talent and upbringing and integrity, and I am sure that with the necessary guidance and training and experience, their contribution to debates in future will be of great value to this country.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture is here. I want to convey a few thoughts to the hon. gentleman today about a very old subject, a subject as old as the hills, as old as mankind itself, a romantic subject, an everyday subject. I want to speak about bread. Although mankind cannot live on bread alone I want to speak on bread. I say that it is an everyday subject because we ask for bread every day; we want it daily. That is why I say that it is an everyday subject. I say it is the oldest subject because it is as old as the hills, as old as man himself, and I say it is a romantic subject because, as you know, as a result of the fact that women allowed themselves to be led up the garden path, they were told that they must henceforth earn their bread by the sweat of their brow. It is also a “cereal” story, but I hope it will have a few grains of truth. Sir, we all know the story of the seven lean com ears and the seven fat com ears, and I hope the Minister will lend me an ear today. We know all the proverbs of bread that have arisen in connection with bread and the indispensability of bread, proverbs like “broodsgebrek”, “brood-nodig”, “wiens brood met eet”, “casting your bread upon the waters”, “taking bread from a person’s mouth” and so on. You will agree with me, Sir, that this subject is of paramount importance. It is also a subject of political significance, or at least it has become a subject of political significance, as I have been trying to point out.

Sir, wars have been waged and lost on bread. Marie Antoinette is reported to have said, “if there is no bread, give them cake”. Jan van Riebeeck received the first deputation from Rondebossie, the constituency of the hon. member over there. That deputation asked for the price of wheat to be increased from five guilder per bushel to 10. They got seven eventually, I believe. Hon. members all know the story of Burton’s bread that brought a Government to its knees in the early twenties. That is why I say that the story of bread is a “cereal” story. Mr. Richard Cobden, in Sir Robert Peel’s time in Great Britain, said this in 1846 in Manchester, in talking about the corn law—

One would think that this was said in 1976 and not in 1846. Lord Beaverbrook said in August 1930—

Sir, to prove my statement that bread has become a subject of political significance, I wish to quote what was said by Prof. Heady when he spoke at a conference in Durban last year. In referring to the shortage of wheat in Russia, he said this—

*Sir, in The Cape Times of Saturday, 6 March, we read that a Russian Minister of Agriculture, just like his predecessor, had been dismissed. This is a good reason for our ensuring that the Russians do not come here, because we do not want that to happen to our Minister of Agriculture and his Deputy. I quote from The Cape Times—

Sir, I do not want to be at loggerheads with the Minister of Agriculture over the price of wheat, because he knows, as all of us do, that no price can compensate a farmer for poor crops or a crop failure, but what I find disturbing is that our farmers are becoming fewer in number. This reminds me of the story of an old married couple who had to work hard to make a living. The father left home early in the morning and returned home late at night. They had many children. Near the house was a vlei near which the children played during the day. One evening, when the father returned home a little earlier, he said to his wife: “Old woman, you must count the children now because it seems to me a creature is devouring them.” We do not want a creature to devour the children of the Minister of Agriculture, because we are dealing here with human material which we need very much.

Sir, recently Prof. Aucampe said the following at a meeting of farmers in Klerksdorp—

About 1 000 young farmers were being trained annually in agricultural high schools, agricultural colleges and university agriculture faculties, but only about 75% of the high school graduates, 50% from the colleges and an insignificant number from universities went farming.

Sir, this applies to all sectors of farming, but I am particularly concerned with the wheat producers, the people whom I represent here. The section which I represent, is the oldest and most settled section of the country as far as wheat production is concerned. Although this part does not have the best soil in the country, it has a constant rainfall, and it so happens that while South Africa produced 2 million tons of wheat this year, a quarter of that was produced in Rûens and in the Swartland. We shall have to take note of that. We need the wheat which is produced in other parts of the country as badly, but I want to suggest that we should take these people into consideration. The creatures are not only devouring the weaker children now, but are also turning their attention to the bigger children. We have already completed the process of eliminating the smaller farmer. He was eliminated because his farming unit was too small. This process is virtually complete. However, it now seems that there is another dangerous factor at work. In the older wheat-producing areas, in the Western Cape winter rainfall area, there are farmers who make their living on between 500 and 600 ha of ground. These farmers are strong people. They do not like to make use of credit. They do not wear out the doorstep of the Land Bank begging for alms. However, it happens that when these farmers reach middle-age—even if their farms are fully paid for—and need a new tractor, combine harvester or other implement, it does not pay them at their age to place an unnecessary burden upon themselves or upon their land by acquiring the implement which they need. What is the result of this? The farmer does not want to sell his land. He therefore leases it. In this way only a small group of big farmers will in due course remain in this part of the country, that part which it is my privilege to represent. There will be more lessees than owners of land, and the love of the soil which is so necessary, will be lost in the process. Surely we all know that, as an undertaking grows in size, it inevitably loses affectiveness. In the same way their love of the land will also be lost.

As I have already mentioned a large amount, R90 million has been included in the budget for the stabilization of the bread price. I am in two minds about this myself. On the one hand the farmer in me says that it is a subsidy to the consumer. On the other hand the consumer in me says it is a subsidy to the farmer. It is a large amount of money and when we analyse it we see that R90 million is equal to 2 million tons of wheat. I have not gone into detail, but I did not believe it was necessary. Mr. Speaker, if a quarter of that amount were to be applied to support this industry in another way, it might only be necessary to increase the price of a loaf of white bread by one cent, which would mean a saving of almost R20 million.

I do not want to take any more of the time of this House. I only want to add something about the bread price. According to the Landbouweekblad of 27 February this year a 900 gramme loaf of bread cost 30 cents in Beunos Aires, 31 cents in London, 44 cents in Ottawa, 54 cents in Canberra, 65 cents in Tokyo, 67 cents in Washington, 88 cents in Bonn, R1,09 in Stockholm and R1,12 in Paris. Now, I should like to ask whether the time has not arrived to give further attention to that enormous expenditure, i.e. whether if the wheat farmers have to be subsidized to that amount, it is not being collected at the one point, from wheat farmers, only to be pumped in again at another point. I referred to Professor Heady here earlier. I want to conclude by quoting him once again. He arrives at the conclusion that production can be increased by increasing the yield per unit, by increasing the area and by using land more intensively. However, he emphasizes this point: “Increasing food production has come to depend much more on capital input than on land.”

While people in the private sector were eager to invest in agricultural land in the past, they are no longer as keen to do so today. Financial institutions in which the savings of the public are being invested, find it more profitable to invest money in property development or in other business enterprises. I believe that the hon. the Minister could profitably investigate whether some undertaking or other cannot be established in the private sector from which the savings of agriculture cannot be re-utilized for agricultural financing.

Mr. Speaker, I am hardly able to congratulate the hon. member on a maiden speech. However, I am able to congratulate him on his second speech in this House as a newcomer, this time after an absence of more than a decade. We regard him as a moderate and popular member of this House and wish him a happy stay here—till the next election, but not after that. [Interjections.]

†Mr. Speaker, in our business world there is a growing tendency which amounts to a defeating of the provisions of the Companies Act. This tendency, which has developed over the years, is to register shares in the names of nominees and in the names of nominee companies. In some cases the motive is to keep a person’s business private, for perfectly legitimate personal or business reasons, but in other cases it enables a person to hide from prying eyes the fact that he holds a high percentage of shares which might constitute a contravention of the Monopolies Act.

At best, the motive is innocent, and at the worst, dishonest. However, in all cases it gives rise to suspicion, and the whole system is liable to abuse. It is in any event, in my opinion, a means of circumventing the provisions of the Companies Act, wherein special provision is made for company registers to be inspected as often as is necessary. This afternoon I want to take an example of nominee shareholdings. Hon. members will recall that, at the end of 1974, I dealt for half an hour in this House with the question of whether there was really a free and independent English-language Press in South Africa, and also with the question of who controlled it. I was moved to do this because of the extraordinary secrecy that surrounded the Press shareholdings, and because, over the last few years, the whole of the English Press had come to push the Progressive-Liberal viewpoint to the exclusion of any other argument, viewpoint or policy. I maintained at the time, and I maintain here again today, that we have to contend with a uniformity of policy and outlook resulting from what is virtually a monopolistic combine. The share structure of Saan appeared to me then to indicate that the Saan interests were so interlocked with The Argus that for all intents and purposes, The Argus controlled Saan.

I cannot possibly, in 20 minutes today, deal with all the abuse heaped upon my head when I made this allegation, or with the criticism by owners, editors and political columnists— much of it contradictory—for having made this suggestion. I can and will, however, deal with a very significant factor in all the attacks on me, i.e. the failure to give the true facts, if indeed my facts were incorrect, and then I shall move on to what I want to call this afternoon “the saga of the sale of the Saan shares”.

Let me deal with The Argus first of all. Why could they not say, for example, who the beneficial holders are of 15,3% of the shares in the Argus Company which are registered in the names of the Standard Bank nominees? If they belong to the JCI company in which, according to “Facts”, a Johannesburg publication, Anglo American has a 48% shareholding through nominee companies, why not say so? If the second largest shareholder in The Argus, according to the share register, is another nominee company called Amosite Nominees (Pty) Ltd., which holds 11,6% of the shares in The Argus, why can they not say who the beneficial holders of those shares in Amosite are? Perhaps Mr. Slater, the chairman of The Argus Group, will tell us why it is that 383 490 Argus shares are held anonymously and unidentifiably by these nominee companies?

Let me now turn to Saan. I said at the time that the largest single shareholding in Saan was that of The Argus Group, with 32,8% of the shares. I said that the second largest shareholder in Saan was Union and Rhodesian Mining and Finance Company. It was part, I said, of the so-called majority shareholding grouping in Saan which centred on the Abe Bailey Trust and the Abe Bailey Estate and their traditional allies on the Saan board. It took Mr. Louis Luyt to come with a bid, which was announced on 23 October last year, for there to be public confirmation of what I said in that debate about Saan and the shareholdings, a speech for which I was pilloried. The Louis Luyt bid was R4,50 per share for the Bailey shareholdings in Saan and it certainly resulted in some interesting revelations and some fascinating views on the rôle of a newspaper by the newspapers themselves.

Let me now turn to The Cape Times for a moment. After it was made known that Louis Luyt was to bid for Saan, in The Cape Times at first there was despondency, despair and a feeling of hopelessness. They were even moved to write—

Then we have the candid friends of Saan, the first one being The Argus which was probably still smarting because its Company’s bid to take over Saan two years ago was prohibited by the Government. This is what The Argus said about Saan—

Then The Argus stated—beating its chest.

Then one has the contribution of the editor of the Financial Mail, who stated—

Then we have that newspaper that comes out on a Sunday!! The Sunday Times, writing about the present owners of Saan, had this to say—

Can you believe it?

Would anyone recognize this self-portrait of the Sunday Times? This is what the Sunday Express had to say—

Then there was the dramatic fight-back, and if I quote from The Cape Times it is only because I do not have ready access to the Rand Daily Mail. However, anything The Cape Times says one can double up for what the Rand Daily Mail would say! The Cape Times states the following—and let me say here that any resemblance to rats in a trap is purely coincidental:

The following Sunday there came the dramatic announcement by the Sunday Express of a counter-bid being prepared by businessmen in Johannesburg, with a view to preventing “this fertilizer king”, Mr. Louis Luyt, taking over Saan.

Let us look at the techniques, pressures and strategies used. The Hill Samuel Merchant Bankers’ financial manager, Mr. Jones, was foolish enough to say publicly that his bank was advising Mr. Luyt and that if his initial bid was successful, it would be extended to all shareholders. He said—

What foolhardiness and frankness on the part of Mr. Jones! Exactly as was to be expected, The Cape Times was able to announce the very next day that Hill Samuel, the merchant bankers, had withdrawn from all participation in the Luyt bid!

Let us look at The Cape Times again. The Cape Times applauded the statement by Mr. Clive Corder that one does not sell a newspaper group like furniture and a horse and cart. They also said that however apolitical Mr. Louis Luyt might be, he would surely appreciate that South African newspapers are just not ordinary businesses to be disposed of on the basis of rands and cents, however attractive the financial offer, “because they are inextricably involved in the political process”. Here we should bear in mind the Sunday Times’ article stating that the newspaper did not promote any sectional or political interest whatsoever!!

Then we have the stratagem proposed by the Financial Mail under the heading, at the end of October, of “The Blocking Tackle”—

What a pity!—

The editor of the Financial Mail then suggested that it was possible to block Mr. Luyt and any subsequent bids for Saan. He said—

A far-seeing man was this Mr. Palmer of the Financial Mail, or was he actually an active party to the intrigue to which I am now going to refer?

A few days after the news of his intention to bid for the Bailey shares in Saan, Mr. Luyt asked Sir De Villiers Graaff to join him in buying Saan. Sir De Villiers agreed and made a statement on the Saturday night in The Argus, setting out clearly his unreserved belief in the freedom of the Press. The first week of November was a week of feverish activity. Prior to the weekend, and after Mr. Luyt’s bid was made known, McPherson, the chairman of Saan is said to have been over to see Mr. Harry Oppenheimer in London. Immediately after his return, he flew to Cape Town on the Sunday to see the Bailey representatives and their associates. On the Monday Mr. Lindsay, the Chairman of the Bailey Estate, announced that the Luyt bid had been rejected. Mr. Luyt then publicly increased his bid to R6 per share, which was R1,50 above his previous offer and was higher than any of the financial journalists discussing the Luyt bid had been able to value the Saan shares. This offer was also summarily rejected, with a short statement by Lindsay to the effect that “The Saan shares are not for sale at present.” No explanation was given by Saan or McPherson, nor any by Lindsay or Corder—just a stunning silence until, about three weeks later, the same Lindsay confirmed the rumoured sale of some of the Bailey shares in Saan, but refused to say to whom, how many had been sold or when they had been sold, especially when they had been sold. Die Burger then asked Mr. Lindsay when the shares were sold. Mr. Lindsay said that the sale could well have taken place by the time he used the words “at present”. Why should the shares not already have been sold? Then Mr. Walton, the managing director of Saan, said there had been no indication that the basic control in the company had changed. And would you believe it: Every single Saan and Argus-group newspaper was suddenly satisfied that the freedom of the Press was no longer in danger and they expressed their satisfaction with a deafening silence or, as I would put it, with a sickening silence. What extraordinarily secretive wheeling and dealing!

I intended making this speech, or a similar one, in the no-confidence debate when we did not, in fact, know for sure what we now know. Let me tell you, Sir, what I was going to say then. I quote from my notes—

Yet within one month of this statement by Lindsay, it was confirmed that in fact they had been sold, but that no one was to be told to whom they were sold, for how much they were sold or when they were sold. Everybody wanted to know. The members on the staff of Saan wanted to know. The poor unfortunate minority shareholders of Saan wanted to know. My notes read further—

I quote further from my notes—

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

Not under any circumstances.

I am not surprised.

What has a race-horse owner got that a fertilizer king has not got? Has he, whoever he may be, to paraphrase the Financial Mail talking about Mr. Luyt: “the sensitivity, the sophistication and the tact? Does he have the tact and temperamental detachment desirable in a man who seeks to mould policies and shape the destiny of a major newspaper group with the hallowed traditions of the English-speaking group in South Africa, or is he only the front for others, as I believe to be the case?”

Now, on the occasion of the budget debate, we are given a Press hand-out, but of course not the details of the shareholdings. We are given the details that another trust The Advowson Trust has been formed to acquire at 400 cents per share, i.e. 50 cents less than the first Luyt bid and 150 cents less than the second Luyt bid, the BJI and the Lindburgh shares, or 11% of Saan, and a further 8,5% of the Uni-Rhodes erstwhile 20% holding in Saan controlled by the Bailey interests, giving a total shareholding in Saan of 20%. Unknown businessmen have provided in cash R1,6 million. The Advowson trustees, like the Nusas leadership clique, are a self-perpetuating body. The trustees include one Israel Maisels, a dedicated Johannesburg Prog, and adviser to the Rhodesian Zaan and Zapu leaders at the Victoria Falls conference …

If that is not a smear, I do not know what is.

Max Borkum, the Prog-Reform midwife, Frank Robb, a well-known Cape Town Prog., the same Tenderini of racehorse fame and Chari Cilliers, a partner of the firm of the firm of Bowman, Gilfillan and Blacklock. What else do we know? We know that Mr. Lindsay has been rewarded with a seat on the Saan board. We know that Mr. McPherson has been rewarded with a seat on The Argus board. We know that Hewitt, the managing director and Slater, the chairman of The Argus, are to serve on the Saan board, no doubt to protect the interests of the single biggest shareholder in Saan, viz. The Argus group! What else do we know? We know that Kingsley of The Argus has become the deputy managing director of Saan. We know, too, that the Financial Mail now says that Saan being now secure from another take-over bid and with editorial freedom virtually guaranteed, everyone should be happy.

I conclude by asking: Who is happy? Are the Saan minority shareholders happy? Are the Bailey and Lindburgh heirs and the ultimate heirs happy with R4 per share when they could have had R4,50 or R6 per share? They must surely have been consulted and have given their agreement; so I take it they must be thrilled!! Are the Saan employees happy with The Argus now firmly entrenched as their eminence grise? Are the Saan and Argus employees happy that they can find jobs in South African journalism if they should lose their jobs either with Saan or The Argus group? Is the South African Society of Journalists happy that The Argus group has now taken over Saan to all intents and purposes and is it happy with the exchange of directors between The Argus group and Saan, something they were not happy with before? Mr. Speaker, was I not justified, when I spoke two years ago, in saying that there is no independent English language newspaper or Press voice in South Africa, but that in fact there is a monopolistic combine? Have I not at least this afternoon made out a case for an investigation into the holding of shares in the names of nominees in all companies, and more especially in the Press world?

Thank you for that speech.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to fall on the neck of the hon. member for Simonstown and give him a kiss—it might prove to be the kiss of death—but I do want to tell him that he made a very good speech, a necessary speech. The hon. member must please not take what I am going to say in the next few moments as applying to him personally; in view of the speech he has just made he does not deserve to have it applied to him.

Looking at the frontbenchers of the UP, I cannot help calling to mind the expression “how the mighty hath fallen”. For the sake of courtesy I shall start with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as leader of those people. I recall the speech he made in the no-confidence debate this year and I want to tell him that that speech attested to a sober and responsible approach which gave us the impression that he was trying to lead his party back to its former status as a worthy Opposition in South Africa, an Opposition which was aware of, and wanted to perform, the duties of an opposition. Unfortunately, shortly afterwards we discussed the Internal Security Commission Bill, and what a contrast! The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was with Japie more than he has ever been with him before and the hon. members on his side vied with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to see who could display the least responsibility, speak least to the point and do the most harm to the vital principle of internal security. We were really disappointed. However, where was the hon. member for Bezuidenhout when all these things were taking place. Of course he was in the Transvaal, where he was trying to impress upon the Transvalers by means of the new progressive approach, of which he was the architect and which his party had adopted in Parliament, that he was going to out-Harry Harry so that the UP could again become the powerful party it once was in the Transvaal. Lo and behold! The hon. member was then given his big opportunity to show how he would lead the UP to its former glory, because after all, there was a by-election in Alberton. I want to say in all honesty that because I was not in Alberton, I have only been able to judge the position there on the basis of figures given to me. However, I get the uncomfortable impression that the hon. member only succeeded in chasing all the progressive United Party supporters out of the UP, thus causing them to ally themselves with the Hertzogites. I do not know whether I am right, but that is the impression I gained. Sir, since I am referring to Alberton, I am sure you will allow me to welcome the hon. member for Alberton to this House and extend my heartiest congratulations to him on his brilliant victory. I shall not tell him that I hope he will stay in Alberton for as long as the NP holds that seat, because who wants to become as old as Methusela and still be sitting in this House? I do not believe that such a wish would be a good wish. I do not have the time to dwell on that very interesting group of people, but my farmer’s sense of propriety will not permit me to leave them without saying to the hon. member for Sea Point that I sympathize with him because I am told he has a very sore neck through having to look over his shoulder constantly in the House of Assembly. [Interjections.] Unfortunately, I cannot offer him the consolation that the reason for his looking around will dimish, either. The only consolation I can offer him is that possibly his neck will grow crooked in time, thus making it no longer necessary for him to turn it so far round.

During this budget debate, as has been the case in the past, we heard ad nauseam that the ideological policy of the NP was responsible for practically everything that was wrong. Surely it is ridiculous to refer to the ideological policy of the NP. If it is an ideological policy, then it is the ideological policy of South Africa, because has South Africa not returned the NP to the House with steadily increasing majorities at every election since 1948, so that we now sit right around the House, up to that growth in the politics of South Africa? If that is the case, then surely it is not the ideological policy of the NP, but the ideological policy of South Africa. However, I must point out that it is not an ideological policy; it is a policy determined by the circumstances of and the conditions in South Africa. Africa is going through a severe period of transition, a period of adaptations, and through the years the NP has geared itself to adapt to changing circumstances in a developing continent, a continent which is outgrowing the period of colonialism and is adapting itself to a period of freedom. South Africa in particular is a multi-national but, at the same time, a multi-racial country, because its inhabitants not only belong to a diversity of peoples, but to various races as well. Its inhabitants speak different languages, have different cultures and customs and uphold different traditions. The NP is engaged in adapting itself to this diversity and building a future which takes this into account.

I must mention and discuss briefly five basic aspects of the South African point of view. The first is that South Africa is a Christian people. As a Christian people it does and must confine itself to the basic principle laid down for us in the Bible: “Love thy neighbour as thyself.” I believe that this is the one message which we should continue to proclaim to each other: We must love our neighbour as ourselves, irrespective of the people or nation to which he belongs and the colour of his skin. And I believe, too, that this will involve our being able to say to ourselves that we should not do to others what we do not want done to ourselves. Because this is so, the second thought follows naturally from it, viz. that we should never disregard the human dignity of another person. That is the second point of view of this country, viz. that the human dignity of people should not be disregarded. Now, I do not want to assume a pious expression and state that we in this country have never been guilty of this. I know that we have many problems in South Africa. We have many adjustments to make. We have a great deal to say to each other. In many respects we can improve on our actions of the past. But I believe that our people have the will to do this. It is difficult in the circumstances we are living in, and what makes it most difficult for us is not always the behaviour of those people on their own initiative, but is often the behaviour of people from this House, people like the hon. member for Walmer, as he was today. Sir, I shall make no further reference to him. I shall respect your ruling. But it is people who stand up in this House and accuse the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Education and myself of having said in the past year that the Coloureds must leave the Nico Malan theatre. Sir, that is a typical example of the kind of thing that is happening here, viz. that the Coloureds are only in the Nico Malan temporarily. We did precisely the opposite. We advocated that those people should have their own theatre like the Nico Malan before long, in terms of our policy. In reply to the hon. member for Newton Park, who asked whether the Coloureds would still be able to come to the Nico Malan, I said:“Yes, they can definitely still go there on invitation,” meaning that if they have their own theatre in their own areas, they will not be treated like contemptible people but will still be allowed to visit the Nico Malan.

The third aspect is that every people has its own identity of which it is proud, an identity which means something to it, its own nature, its own culture and its own tradition. The failure in other countries, where the identities of peoples were disregarded and where an attempt was made to integrate them, affords the most conclusive proof of the statement I am now making here. We know that integration has never yet succeeded, even in countries which have been far more amenable to integration than South Africa. From this it also follows that power cannot be divided. In other words, we in South Africa know that if one shares with other peoples the power which the White man has over himself, problems will arise in this fatherland of ours. Now, there is always the old story to the effect that this is supposedly a piece of ideology which we are clinging to and which we are strangling ourselves with. However, what are the facts? We know that division of power will only lead to friction and unrest in our fatherland and that is why we are not prepared to toy with that idea. But while we say that, we believe in not begrudging what we demand for ourselves, to any person or any nation or any population group in South Africa. This is our policy and we are constantly engaged in carrying out that policy. I know that I lack the ability to express this in the finest Parliamentary language, but to put it mildly, it is really unfair that a member like the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Reform Party can sit in his bench and maintain that we in this country are heading for difficulties as a result of selfishness. The policy of the National Party is a policy which provides that I will willingly let every person have what I demand for myself, and if those people would only be prepared to stand up now and say that they were prepared to test our policy and we were able to argue about this, then surely we could have very fruitful debates in this House and we could surely make a great deal of progress.

A fifth duty or approach by this Government is that as long as it is the guardian in this country, it is responsible for the peace and order of all the population groups in South Africa. Now I challenge any man to say that this budget which the hon. the Minister introduced did not make provision for the carrying out of that responsibility. That policy is one which provides for the security of everyone, whether White, Black or Brown, and gives them the assurance that they are safe in South Africa and can live in this country in safety.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will permit me just to congratulate the hon. member for Namaqualand on this level-headed speech. I am grateful to be able to say today that it has done me good to listen again to the hon. member as a pious person, particularly, Sir, if you listened to the speech made by the hon. member for Sea Point this afternoon. But I shall leave it at that for the time being and come back to it later.

Sir, a great deal is being written and said today about discrimination. A discrimination psychosis prevails in South Africa, a psychosis which unfortunately also grips the minds of Whites other than those sitting in those Opposition benches. Today I want to break a lance for the White man—and please note, for the White man—in South Africa, or can I say, for the White man in Southern Africa, and when I say this I include this official Opposition party too. I do not believe I can include the Progressive Party as well.

Take off your red tie.

I want to break a lance for the White man and for what he has done for the Black man in this country. I want to look back in history, and it is well that we should page through our history sometimes. When the White man, whether English-or Afrikaans-speaking, Dutch or German, made contact with the Black man, he taught him the first and primary thing in life, and that was the word of God. To however limited an extent, he did give them this. I shall not express an opinion as to whether he acted correctly on every occasion. But I do say that he gave the Black man this primary thing, the word of God. Subsequently he gave them education, however little of it, because money and facilities were lacking. Nevertheless he gave it to them. In the third place, he taught them to work. “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread. ” I am therefore breaking a lance for the White man in Southern Africa. I repeat: “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread.” You cannot achieve everything just by way of violence and murder. Sir, the Black man has also learned from the White man that we can achieve many things around the conference table, many things which prevent bloodshed. That is why I say that this word “discrimination” is used so excessively. I stand here this afternoon with a clean and pure conscience, and that is why I make a plea for the White man in Southern Africa. I believe, too, that we have made certain mistakes along the way.

Many mistakes.

I hear an hon. member say “many mistakes”. Moses, too, made mistakes. He, too, was unable to enter the country of Canaan but the water is still gushing from the rock today. That is what will happen with the National Party, too. It has made mistakes, but he who does not make mistakes has never tried to do anything.

I want to say that in past decades this people of ours has put everything into the struggle to give the non-Whites everything they could. This people has not been able to meet all the needs of the Black people, but it has given them everything it could. We must realize that we did not have all the money in the world; we did not have all the power in the world. Nonetheless, this small White population in Southern Africa has done so well per capita that there is no country in the world which has spent more money on its lesser privileged people than the Whites of southern Africa. As I have already mentioned, the Whites, in the first instance, gave God’s word to the Black man, but apart from that, the Whites, of their own accord and with their own funds, built hundreds of small farm schools everywhere. Those farm schools were established by Afrikaans-speaking farmers, English-speaking farmers and also Germans and Dutch people that I know. This is how we developed and how this country grew. Fort Hare was established as long ago as 1917. At that time it was not yet a full-fledged university, but that institution existed as long ago as 1917. At that training college the Black man was able to enjoy the privilege of education to the same extent as the Whites. Today that college is an autonomous university. Who was responsible for that? Was it these oppressors who caused it to be established? Sir, it became established as a result of the will of the Whites in South Africa to give those lesser privileged people, too, the same opportunities which they gave their children and which they had enjoyed. Furthermore, other universities have been given to the Black people. For example there is the university in Zululand, which also became a full-fledged university in 1960. Then there is the University of the North, which is an outstanding university. Sir, I think I also have the right to address a few words to the Black leaders of southern Africa today. I say to them: You have a great deal to be thankful for.

You will probably get a great deal more in the future as well. A great deal of money is still going to be spent on you. It is an expensive policy, but it will be done. Sir, I want to say, as the Minister of Bantu Administration has always said: Let it cost what it may; I shall assist you to build up your homeland into a country of which you can be proud, because there were few who assisted the Whites when they had to develop this poor country. The other day I said to a Black man: The roads in the Republic of South Africa were built by Whites, with pick and shovel. The railway lines here were built by Whites.

Poor Whites.

Yes, by poor Whites. This nation did not sit back and do nothing. It used its intelligence and sent to the universities those who were able to go. Those people assisted in uplifting this poor nation to the position it occupies today as a modem nation in the Western civilization. This, too, Sir, I address to the leaders of the Bantu homelands. There are some of them who make irresponsible speeches, just as the hon. member for Sea Point does. Another university is to be established in the near future, and at that University the Black man, too, will have the privilege of qualifying as a doctor or whatever. I therefore want to say to those leaders: Use your intelligence and use your scientists and your doctors that are being trained in your fatherland, as I used mine. The time for adopting a mendicant attitude has passed. Roll up your sleeves; use your strength and intelligence and develop your homeland. It will be easier for you to develop your country than it was for the Whites to develop this country, Southern Africa, of which you, too are an inhabitant. I want to appeal to them: Use those people. To those educated people I also want to say this: Do not hanker after the bright lights of Johannesburg; you will not get them. You will sell your labour there, but you will not obtain the rights of citizenship. So help me God; as long as I live, Sir, and can do anything about it, they will not get that. They can rather build themselves their own city like Johannesburg, in whatever country it may be, where there can also be bright lights and beautiful tarred streets.

To the people and the newspaper who have so much to say about discrimination, I want to say this this afternoon: Was it discrimination when the White soldier stood at Ruacana and Calueque? For whom did he protect that water scheme and that project? Did he protect that water scheme for the benefit and the progress of the Whites, or did he risk his life for the lesser privileged people and the Black people of South West Africa? He risked his life for the Black man of South West Africa because he knew that it was his vital artery. If that vital artery was severed by the enemy, then that Black man would suffer. Is that discrimination? It is a very popular word. One newspaper after the other writes: “Away with discrimination.”

It is also being said by one opposition speaker after the other.

Yes, various speakers opposite are also saying it. To them I want to say this: Look at what you have done. I listened to the hon. member for Namaqualand, who is a pious person, and I, too, can put my hand on my heart and say that although I have made mistakes, I do not want to look down on the Black man, but want to give him what not even I had. I want to give him better facilities, but then I also want to tell him this: The time for adopting a mendicant attitude is past.

Sir, there is another appeal, too, which I want to make to the Government. I want to say this to the Government: Whatever it may cost, the homelands must be developed. If we can spend money on defence, then we must also spend money on that, because possibly I will not be able to buy in the future what I can buy with money today. I want to say this today, otherwise I must acknowledge that the Black population of the cities is growing today. I say to the men who talk and write so much that if we do not take care, there will really be discrimination against the Whites. As regards these cities of ours, the Black population of which is growing—and unfortunately the Blacks only hanker after the cities—we shall have to take drastic steps to channel those people back to their homes in their fatherland. We must only provide for the Black people we really need. This is not discrimination, because West Germans do not discriminate against the Turks when they do not give them the franchise and everything which belongs to the Germans.

Another matter I want to touch on is the fact that the Western Cape and the Eastern Cape are really the home of the White and the Coloured. I am a worried man when I think about this, but if it is a matter of the economy then I say that I would rather let the economy suffer harm than my identity. Just as I want to fight for my own identity, I fight for the identity of the Coloured. The time has come for the two Black Bantu towns in the Western Cape, too, to be resettled in their homeland. It will cost a great deal, and there are many people who will argue about this, but these are things which will have to be done. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Finance on his budget. I believe that it is a budget which was drawn up to the best of the ability of the hon. the Minister and his department. It is a difficult budget in these times we are living in, but it is a budget we can defend with pride, because there is something for everyone in it. The rich, like the hon. member for Hillbrow, can pay, and the poor, like me, can receive. I want to break a lance for the White man and I do not want to drag the parties into this. Mr. Speaker, I now want to continue but I am so afraid that I shall have to withdraw so many words that I appeal to you to let me withdraw them all at the end of my speech. The Progressive Reform Party are not only my political enemies. Are they not also the enemies of the Whites in this country? I cannot see that that party has any right to exist, because if I were to do what that party would like me to do, there would be no peace in this country. Chaos would prevail here in this country, which is known for its peace. I concede that uprisings and bus strikes do sometimes occur, but that is normal. That party has thrown in the sponge right at the outset. There are rich people in that party. Three-quarters of what the hon. member for Simonstown mentioned today, belongs to that party.

I now want to ask them what they are doing to counter discrimination. How many Black directors are there in the Anglo-American mining group, and how many of them occupy top positions? Their excuse is always merely that it is against the law and that the Government will not allow it, and every night they thank the good Lord that this is so. That is what they do. I want to tell the hon. member for Parktown that I do not know how he can feel at home in that party. After all, he is a born Free Stater. If I were he, I should never pass through the Free State on the way to the Cape. I should prefer to come through the Kalahari because I should be too ashamed. One finds it simply impossible to believe that the Free State could have produced a member for the Progressive Party. To crown it all, the hon. member for Sea Point, too, is a Free Stater. The Progressive Party has no right to exist and whether it be the NP or the UP, I want to say that wherever we can eliminate this party on the political platforms, we must do so because they pose a threat to this country. I mention this because it is they who are also secretly the mouthpiece for those Black people who speak against us today. I cannot take it amiss of the Black man because he is impressed by these people who are not well-disposed towards South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Stilfontein made a speech in his customary good-natured way, but I think he will agree with me that what he said today about the right of citizenship and all the opportunities he wanted to give the Black man, he would not have said with such relish 20 to 25 years ago. At that time, any occasion on which new prospects were envisaged for the Black man and the Coloured in South Africa, was seized on by hon. members on that side of the House and their predecessors as if it meant the end of the White man in South Africa. Today that hon. member made an appeal to the Government to develop the homelands. But even any form of development of the homelands with the aim of furthering their agriculture was held up at the time as an example of how much was being done for the Black man in South Africa. Today the hon. gentlemen on that side of the House have changed their tune. We on this side of the House welcome the fact that they have changed their tune to such an extent today. Over the years this side of the House has played the biggest role in preparing the way to sound the necessary warnings to the hon. members on that side of the House that we will have to do certain things in South Africa if we as Whites want to retain our civilization here in the southern part of Africa. The hon. member for Stilfontein is now asking the Government that the homelands be developed. Almost 20 years ago they were given the blueprint, the plan, on the basis of which those homelands had to be developed. The hon. member is amazed that the Black man is streaming to our White cities in his millions, but what else could they do? There was nothing else they could do. Today this is still part of the reality of the South African situation. Even that hope cherished by the hon. member for Stilfontein viz. that the two Black cities of the Western Cape, Nyanga and Langa, will be resettled, is in vain.

Now you are just talking nonsense.

He might just as well say that those areas will have to disappear and be transferred to the homelands. The hon. member is now barking up the wrong tree. This simply cannot happen. I accept the plea he made for the Coloureds and for the Whites of the Western Cape, but it is ridiculous to create the impression that it has always been possible to remove the Blacks from our White areas. It is simply impossible. The hon. member knows that his party long ago dropped the old magic date, the key date of 1978; according to that party the Blacks in the White urban areas were to begin returning to their own homelands by 1978. He knows that this can no longer happen. The hon. member would only have been able to convince us that that course was possible if he could say that large-scale development had taken place in the Black territories over the past 27 years. But this has not happened and that is why we still have these people in the White areas, where they will remain for ever. I believe that we as an Opposition can play an important role in South Africa if we can persuade the Government to accept these hard realities of the South African situation. If they accept these hard realities, then parallel autonomous development in South Africa, which they advocate, could at least have a practical basis and on that basis we could develop further and continue to debate on what the best solution for South Africa was. To come here, as the hon. member for Stilfontein did, and talk about the resettlement in the homelands of thousands upon thousands of Black people living in the White areas, in order to make South Africa a White man’s country, is absolute nonsense.

The hon. member said something else, too, which demands closer scrutiny,. He said that the word “discrimination” was used excessively in South Africa. Sir, to whom is he addressing those words—to us or to his own side? On whose behalf is the hon. member speaking? Surely it is now official Government policy that we must now move away from discrimination. We have no fault to find with that. Why, then, is the hon. member so dissatisfied about it? He and his kindred spirits ought to stand up and say that they welcome our moving away from discrimination and they ought to propose what further steps should be taken along those lines.

Say what you mean now.

It is very clear.

The hon. the Deputy Minister need not ask me what I mean by that. He could also have put that question to Mr. Pik Botha. What did he mean by those words? Sir, as I see it, the position is this: If you say that you are going to move away from discrimination, then, when the Government makes a faltering attempt to move away from discrimination by taking certain steps, you do not describe those steps as the thin edge of the wedge, as the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration did.

Give us examples.

He is another of those hon. members who do not like it when reference is made to doing away with discrimination. When the Government states that it is going to move away from discrimination then I interpret it to mean that it wants to give the Black man exactly what the White man has got; that he wants to give the Black man his own institutions; that he wants to give the Black man the privileges of the White man and that he wants to give to the Black man who is here in the White area and who is, for example, a citizen of the Transkei, the same privileges as the privileges it would be prepared to give a visitor like Hastings Banda when he visits South Africa. Sir, if that side wants to move away from discrimination, then one expects them to say to the Coloureds and the Indians: “We want to give you exactly the same as we want to give the Black man.” But, Sir, hon. members on that side of the House cannot say that; they know it is impossible to say it.

Up to now you have said nothing.

The hon. member says that I have said nothing yet. I want to remind him that the hon. member for Moorreesburg made a speech last year in which he said that we could not give the Coloureds exactly the same as we are giving the other population groups. The hon. member for Moorreesburg went further, too, and stated that the Coloureds were not a nation in the making. But what did the hon. the Minister of the Interior tell us? He said that the Coloureds were in fact a nation in the making. That is the National Party’s policy.

The Prime Minister said it.

I want to ask the hon. member for Moorreesburg whether he believes that the Coloureds are a nation in the making.

But you are saying what I said.

Was I correct when I quoted what the hon. member said?

Does he stand by that?

Is the hon. member for Moorreesburg prepared to say, with the hon. member for Johannesburg West, that the Coloureds and the other groups must be the partners of the White man in South Africa? And is not the hon. the Minister of the Interior saying again that those people must be good neighbours of the Whites in South Africa? I ask the hon. the Minister of the Interior: Does he believe that the Whites and the Coloureds can be partners in South Africa? Does he believe what the hon. member for Johannesburg West states, that we must make these people our partners?

Friends and allies, yes.

No, the hon. member for Johannesburg West did not refer to allies yesterday; he referred to partners, and the hon. member for Moorreesburg, too, referred to partners in this respect.

What does “partner” mean?

Sir, when one refers to partnership, then one surely expects that these people will co-operate on an equal footing in all spheres, that they will join in taking decisions and that they will join in planning for the progress of South Africa.

On an equal footing?

Sir, it is not my policy that is under suspicion now. Is the hon. the Minister of the Interior prepared to say that the Whites and the Coloureds must be partners in South Africa?

The NP does not believe in power sharing, but we co-operate with them in all spheres.

When a man says that he is someone’s partner, then they are already working together within the same group.

That is co-partnership.

Of course it is co-partnership. It amounts to a joint say. Two people share the same thing. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, we can only carry on a decent debate if hon. members on that side of the House are clear on this matter. [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon. the Minister of the Interior and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration whether they believe that …

Which Deputy Minister?

Andries Treurnicht. I want to ask them whether they believe that as the standard of culture rises in South Africa, skin colour will play a diminishing role.

Oh, really, you are being simple-minded now!

What did the hon. the Deputy Minister say?

I say that you are now being simple-minded.

Do not tell me that. This is a simple question which the hon. the Deputy Minister ought to be able to answer. If it is such a simple question, the hon. the Deputy Minister ought to be able to answer it. Is that not so, Mr. Speaker? I have here before me a speech made by the hon. the Minister of Transport. In this speech, after explaining how the Government’s policy has developed over the years, particularly after the Second World War, the hon. the Minister of Transport states that we have now reached the third phase, the phase in which the gap in the standard of culture between the various population groups is narrowing. And as the difference between the levels of civilization is eliminated, according to the hon. the Minister of Transport, skin colour will play a role of diminishing importance. According to him this is the policy of the National Party and the party will not hesitate to carry on along that path.

That is not Connie’s policy.

I now want to know whether the hon. the Minister of Transport is correct when he states that skin colour will play a less important role to the extent that the gap between the standards of culture of the various population groups narrows. If the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. the Minister of the Interior agree that we should do away with discrimination, then they must also agree with the hon. the Minister of Transport. [Interjections.] That is how simple it is. I ask the hon. member for Carletonville whether he believes that skin colour will become less important as the standard of culture rises in South Africa.

That is still far from meaning integration.

Do you agree, Cas? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must not just make gestures now. He usually has a very big mouth and he is very fond of opening it.

He opened it, but closed it at once.

Those hon. members are so fond of saying that they have a solution to the problems of South Africa. They say that they are moving along a path …

Of confusion.

Precisely! It is a path of such confusion that it is difficult for anyone to understand in which direction those hon. members are moving. Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House should like to play a positive role in debates of this kind. We want a share, and if we can help the hon. members on that side of the House … [Interjections.] … we are prepared to help them.

You cannot help yourselves!

Order!

If they are doing things which are in the interests of South Africa and we are able to help them, then that would be in the best interests of the whole of South Africa.

Those hon. members need not listen to the Progressive Party. They listened to the hon. member for Sea Point today. The hon. member for Sea Point annoys me just as much as he does any hon. member on that side of the House. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Sea Point says irresponsible things. He does not care a hoot what he says and he will exploit anything so long as it is to the benefit of his party, and so long as he can gain publicity from it. [Interjections.] We on this side of the House could do that just as easily, but we are not prepared to because we know that South Africa is experiencing dangerous times. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, those hon. members opposite are making just as big a mistake. They must tell us clearly in which direction they are moving.

They want to move in both directions.

Only then shall we be able to talk to each other.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newton Park said at the beginning of his speech that he could not see how South Africa could become a White man’s country. This is of course how we know the United Party. They gave up long ago. They no longer have any faith in their own identity in South Africa. Typical of the statement which the hon. member for Newton Park made is the question which he is putting to us. He wants to know whether our policy is based upon skin colour. He referred to various hon. members on this side and asked them for an answer. He asked the hon. member for Carltonville to tell him whether, when the various race groups in South Africa …

What do you say?

… have developed to a high standard of living …

Give us an answer now.

I am in the process of explaining the matter. Will the hon. member please give me a chance? The hon. member for Newton Park asked what the position in regard to skin colour would be as soon as the various population groups in South Africa had developed to a high level of civilization.

Page is a real “Boerehater”!

Mr. Speaker, the National Party has never proceeded from the standpoint that skin colour was the main issue. What is at issue is identity. The issue is whether a man is a Zulu, whether he is a Xhosa, whether he is a Shangaan, whether he is a Coloured, or whether he is an Indian. That is the issue. It is the distinctive identity of every ethnic group in South Africa. It is not skin colour at all, and we have never said it was. [Interjections.] But the hon. member for Newton Park uses the skin colour story because this is the kind of thing which makes a political impression upon the enemies of South Africa. [Interjections.] The United Party gave up long ago. Once again they have clearly demonstrated this. It emerged clearly from the arguments of the hon. member for Newton Park, especially when he argued that South Africa could not become a White man’s country. This, then, is probably the reason why he is seeking a sharing of power. This is the kind of partnership he wants.

While we are discussing partnerships, I just want to say that there is nothing wrong with the various population groups in South Africa being partners in various spheres. In this way they may be partners in the sphere of commerce and of diplomacy. They may even be military partners. There is nothing wrong with that. It is also quite correct that the White Parliament and the Coloured Parliament are working together as partners in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, one of the arguments which is advanced in the budget debate every year is that excessive Government expenditure is the result of its ideology. This is an argument which is used by both the United Party and the Progressive Party. If we take economic growth in South Africa as yardstick and norm by which the success of separate development may be measured, we have to admit that the policy of separate development, as it has been adjusted and developed during the past few decades, has been a very great success in South Africa. During the past decades we have experienced very remarkable economic growth in South Africa. Two years ago our economic growth even exceeded the target of 5½%. We had a growth rate of approximately 7%. The growth was such that the transport industry in South Africa could not meet the demand for services. Our harbours almost came to a standstill due to the tremendous traffic. Separate development has proved in South Africa that it can create the economic climate in which our country can grow and we have had the benefits of this policy. In South Africa we have experienced greater industrial peace than any other country in the world.

Even at the present time, in spite of the fact that there is a recession in the Western world and that we have to import inflation in the form of capital goods, and commodities such as fuel, we are still able to maintain sound growth in South Africa and in addition we have an unemployment figure of only 0,6%, which in reality amounts to full employment. This figure of course applies to Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics. Now, hon. members opposite should not ask me: “What about the Bantu?” If there is a country at the southern point of Africa in which sufficient employment opportunities exist for the Black people—not only for the Black people in South Africa, but also for those from neighbouring states—it is most certainly the Republic of South Africa. Our mining industry recently launched an extensive recruiting campaign to see whether the labour shortage could not be made up through the utilization for the most part of Black workers within South Africa. This attempt was unsuccessful and the shortage had to be made up from neighbouring states. To bring about economic growth in a country, it is probably essential to have political stability in that country. This we most certainly had in South Africa during the past years. It is simply a fact that investors are extremely sensitive to political instability in a country. Investing is inclined to drop when political instability prevails, because economic problems and political instability deters investors, even if there is a change of Prime Minister, as is the case in Britain at the moment. The mere change of Prime Minister caused the pound sterling to drop to the lowest level ever. What we can in fact say of South Africa is that we have had economic growth as a result of political stability under a policy of separate development. However, if political stability is necessary for economic growth in a country, it would perhaps be a good thing to examine the political policies of those parties to see what climate they would create to cause economic growth to take place in a country like South Africa.

Let us in the first place consider the policy of the Progressive Party. This so-called rich man’s party is speculating with all kinds of political matters. In the first place that party is speculating with the franchise in South Africa. I have with me the policy document of the Progressive Party in which they say that they do not advocate “one man, one vote”. They say that system has not succeeded in Africa. They have a different recipe for South Africa. They set qualifications for various people to be able to vote in South Africa. They say—

Now hon. members should listen. They continue—

These people are speculating with the franchise, for in the meantime this R600 per year has been raised to R810 per year, while the R1 000 has since been raised to R1 350. In this budget debate those hon. members should tell us whether, under the present inflationary circumstances, they are going to raise these amounts further, or will they perhaps be lowering the amounts? What are they planning to do? These people are creating a kind of fluctuating political situation in respect of the possessions and education of the members of the various races in South Africa. This is the worst possible kind of blatant discrimination in a country like South Africa with its various population groups, for throughout the history of this country the standard of living of the various groups has not been the same. Therefore this is blatant discrimination. Apart from that they are creating levels of friction in South Africa. In other words they are creating a climate in which proper economic growth will never be possible as it is under the policy of this Government.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he is now quoting from the policy document of the present Progressive Reform Party? [Interjections.]

I am quoting from a photostated document entitled “Safeguards for Future: The Principles and Policies of the Progressive Party of South Africa.” [Interjections.] The hon. member should now tell us whether they have changed their policy, and if he is not prepared to do so in this debate, then is he deceiving the electorate and the people of South Africa, for since the amalgamation which led to the Progrefs, we have not yet heard anything to indicate that they have changed their policy.

I also want to submit that the Progressive Party is speculating with the social structure in South Africa. They say they do not support group areas, but at the same time that they recognize human rights. They say that if people would like to remain exclusively White, they may remain exclusively White. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Sea Point maintains that the Sea Point swimming baths should remain White. He opposes mixed swimming baths.

I never said that.

I quote from the policy document of the Progressive Party. There it is stated—

The hon. member should tell us how they intend organizing a school in Sea Point. Will they go to the residents of Sea Point and ask all of them whether they want their children in a “mixed school”, “Coloured school”, “Black school” or whatever the case may be? How are they going to make such a survey for if their plan has to be carried out in practice, they will have to make a survey to know what the parents prefer. If one were to do this one would have to rationalize school attendance. Then it may happen that a scholar who might want to attend a White school finds himself in the position of having to travel a long distance to attend the particular school which meets his requirements. Another aspect of this matter is that the moment one does something of this kind, one is immediately creating frustration and friction. In the first instance a Coloured will ask: “But why may my child not share a school bench with your child?” This immediately creates frustration and levels of friction.

In the case of residential areas their policy is as follows—

If this is not blatant apartheid, I do not know what discriminatory apartheid is. If the hon. member for Houghton had been here she would most probably have said—we know her policy—that Houghton should be an “open area”. But surely we know that the position is that Houghton is an area in which wealthy people live, people who enjoy an extremely high standard of living and who all have their own swimming baths which may consequently remain exclusively for Whites. In other words, these people are buying their apartheid in South Africa. If there is a party which is discriminating between the various ethnic groups in South Africa, then it is in fact the Progressive Party. The Progressive Party lacks one basic factor in its policy. That party believes that the different racial groups in South Africa would like to have a so-called “multi-racial society”. I would like to tell the hon. members of that party that if this is the basis on which they proceed, they do not know the aspirations of the people in Africa.

[Inaudible.]

They want to westernize the Black people in South Africa. The moment one does this, one is creating problems and dangers. For that reason I maintain that it would be impossible for economic growth to develop in South Africa if a party were to come into power which creates such a discriminating climate as that which the Progressive Party would create.

Mr. Speaker, I really want to address my remarks to the hon. member for Sea Point and his party this evening, but before doing so, there is just one aspect of the speech made by the hon. member for Newton Park that I should like to deal with. It has become customary in the course of this debate to refer to the good speech made by the hon. member for Johannesburg West as if what he said were something new and did not fit into the policy of the National Party, as if the parties on that side had the monopoly on advocating good human relations. Now the hon. member for Newton Park has gone one step further and has been guilty of misleading the House by putting words in the hon. member for Johannesburg West which he did not use at all. To be specific, he said that the hon. member for Johannesburg West had spoken of a “partnership” between peoples. I have before me the text of the speech made by the hon. member for Johannesburg West. I do not know whether the hon. member has examined it. Nowhere in the text will he find the word “partnership”. But he will find the word “alliance” in two places. Let me quote what the hon. member for Johannesburg West said—

An ally is quite different from a partner. We were the allies of England in the Second World War. Independent states can be allies.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he also alleges that the hon. member for Moorreesburg did not use the word “partner”?

Mr. Speaker, I am discussing references to the speech made by the hon. member for Johannesburg West. The hon. member for Johannesburg West spoke of allies, a completely different concept from “partners”, and a concept which is entirely in agreement with the policy of the National Party.

I want to come to the speech of the hon. member for Sea Point. My overall impression of the hon. member’s speech was that his attitude bordered on that of someone who was becoming panic-stricken, and whose fear was forcing him into a willingness to capitulate. That hon. member and his party are afraid to accept the responsibilities of government and are inclining towards panic measures in our present situation. What is he afraid of? Where is the confrontation which is giving him such a fright, the virtual emergencies within the country which he tells us must result almost in an emergency meeting, in a national convention, so that we may decide what we are going to do with South Africa? In South Africa dialogue is conducted by the lawfully elected Government, consultations take place, discussions take place—call them what you will, but they take place every day. Or does the Progref Party define discussions as meaning that we must agree with Buthelezi, or else no discussions have taken place? There is no reason for panic in South Africa. There is reason for logical, purposeful and effective implementation of the policy of separate development, but there is no reason for capitulation and panicky over-reaction such as that shown by the hon. member. Our circumstances are complicated; that we do not deny. But the idea that the solution lies in the PRP policy we reject out of hand. Their solutions are old solutions which have been applied in similar situations in other countries, which have been tried and which have failed. Our solution, on the other hand, is a new solution, a solution which is succeeding and which for some considerable time has been protecting us in South Africa from the very things which the Progref Party fears.

I want to say a few words, too, about the hon. member’s comparison or non-comparison of the National Party with communism. The hon. member indicated in reply to a question that he does see a certain resemblance between that which he is pleased to call apartheid—we call it separate development—and communism, in the sense that both are totalitarian. I do not think that in saying this I am putting words into his mouth.

Did I use the word “apartheid”, or did the hon. the Deputy Minister use it?

The hon. member used the word “totalitarianism” and said that in this sense he considered apartheid and communism to be the same.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and the hon. the Leader of the House, the Minister of Defence, did not only use the word “apartheid” but also described it as being the official policy of the Government.

If a leader of a party has to resort to such trifling matters in an attempt to score a point, I can hardly imagine how bankrupt that party must be! The hon. the Minister used the word “apartheid”—he used the hon. member’s jargon so that the hon. member would understand. That hon. member and his Press have given a certain connotation to this word in the world and they want to keep using that word because they do not mind the fact that the whole world is against South Africa. The hon. member said there was a similarity on the basis of totalitarianism. I do not know where the Colin Eglins of the communist countries are. They certainly do not sit in their parliaments. This country, Sir, is not a totalitarian state and I level the accusation at that hon. member and his party that such statements are directly in conflict with the interests of South Africa. For him to broadcast it from this Parliament, in his capacity as leader of a party which is represented here, and to say that his country has a totalitarian Government, is in conflict with the interests of South Africa. It borders on undermining the interests of our country. Sir, the hon. member must not talk about communism. What he and his party are doing is promoting the campaign conducted against South Africa by the communist countries. I am not saying they want to promote it, but I want to quote from an official information document of the Progressive Party. South Africa’s Prime Minister has said in this House and elsewhere that our presence in Angola was the result, amongst other things, of Russian and Cuban intervention. What does the Progressive Reform Party say in an official information document? They say—

They reverse the situation, and in doing so they lend force and credibility to false communist propaganda against South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the time has come for us to take a closer look at the Progressive Reform Party, this party which is struggling so hard to build a completely distorted image. They give themselves out to be the effective Opposition and their attempts enjoy the massive support of the majority of the English-language newspapers. But the reality is quite different. In 1974 they were able to gain the support of a mere 5,85% of the electorate, support which an analysis shows to be limited to a few well-to-do residential areas in Johannesburg and Cape Town and to a few English university campuses. In the predominantly English-speaking Natal they could not get any foothold, and in Pietermaritzburg—and this goes to prove some of the statements made this afternoon by the hon. member for Simonstown—where Mr. Gerdener stood and they did not get the support of the press, but Mr. Gerdener did, they got only 96 votes in 1974. In 1972 they said that they were going to test their support on a wider basis, so they put up a candidate in Johannesburg West and in Vereeniging. In Vereeniging they got 192 votes and in Johannesburg West they got 595, they who claim to be so effective. In Constantia, in Groote Schuur, in Green Point, in Newton Park and in East London North they got considerably less than 50% of the votes attracted by the United Party.

What I am trying to prove by saying this is that the Progressive Reform Party is supported only in certain places by a small number of the super-rich and the ultra-leftists. I shall tell you, Sir, why I have made this point. It is a party which is no factor in White politics, a party which will never be able to claim that it speaks on behalf of a sizeable part of the White population, a party which is worth nothing without the support of the Press. No wonder, Sir, that these people, the so-called virile and emergent Opposition, engages in very dangerous games. The dangerous game they are playing is that they are getting more and more involved in the non-White politics of South Africa. The latest development in this direction was the action of the hon. member for Sea Point in Johannesburg on 5 April, when he said, inter alia—

Then he went on to say—

One is speechless, Sir, in the face of the outrageous arrogance revealed by this. On whose behalf do they speak? On whose behalf do they want to speak at such a national conference? Whose policy will they expound at such a national congress, if it should ever take place? What right do they have, Sir, to call themselves the “White leaders” by implication, being a small minority party holding a political minority opinion in South Africa? Sir, the time has come for the Progressive Reform Party to ask itself where exactly its place in South African politics lies. I say it is a minority party representing a minority opinion. The only way of becoming anything else in South Africa is by gaining the support of the White electorate at the polls, and if they cannot succeed in doing that, and up to now they have not succeeded convincingly, they are playing with the safety of South Africa by seeking Black support and by trying to obtain bargaining power for themselves by way of non-White politics. They are playing with the safety of South Africa if they use Black politics for the purpose of asserting themselves. In saying this, I do not mean that they cannot engage in consultations. It is the right of anyone to speak to anyone else, but when someone exceeds his mandate, when a small party such as that one lays claim to powers which it has not yet won by democratic process, then such a party is headed for trouble, and what is more important, then it is causing trouble for South Africa.

Furthermore, Sir, the Progressive Reform Party is playing a dangerous game because they advocate a dangerous policy. The hon. member for Bethal referred to it. The policy they advocate they call the equitable sharing of power. Upon analysing it, we can come to only one conclusion, and I think they will agree with me, and that is that the implementation of their policy will have one rapid outcome, and that is (a) that the White man will find himself in a small minority in the federal parliament they want to create and (b) that the White man will find himself in an equally small minority in every other independent state which is a subdivision of the federal parliament or legislative assembly. If they want to dispute this I want to tell them that justice in Africa, to which they lay claim, and justice in the world mean only one thing, politically speaking, and that is one man, one vote, i.e. no differentiation between people whatsoever. And that is what we want to give every nation in South Africa in terms of seperate development, while that is what they want to do within one parliament, something which will necessarily result in a small White minority in all legislative assemblies in southern Africa.

But I need not even convince them of the fact that their policy is dangerous. They know it themselves, for if they had not believed it, they would not have built all kinds of precautions into their policy. They know even more, for they realize that when we find ourselves in such a minority position, it will be difficult for the White man to assert himself. I find proof for this statement in the fact that they advocate a Bill of rights which will be entrenched and which will be enforced by a powerful—so they say—independent Bench. So they want to build in a safety valve and to tell the White voter:“Look, even if our policy is dangerous, you need not be concerned, because we shall protect the White minority with a law.” How naive can you get? Such a law, such a Bill of rights, may serve a useful purpose under certain circumstances or it may be completely unnecessary. However, I am not concerned with the question of whether or not one should have a Bill of rights in a country, or whether it is a good or a bad thing, because I want to allege that such a law can only afford protection while there is a desire to observe it on the part of the community in general, and, what is even more important, on the part of the people in control, the people who wield the political power. When one looks at Africa and South America, one finds that the mere passing of a Bill of rights offers no guarantee against its violation or against the oppression of minorities.

Let us take Nigeria as an example. According to the Nigerian constitution of 1963, all citizens of Nigeria are equal, irrespective of whether they are members of “a particular community, tribe, place of origin, religion or political opinion”. In spite of this Bill of rights, there was a civil war in Nigeria in 1966. The Ibos were oppressed and Biafra was almost destroyed. Of what use was their constitutional entrenchment of human rights to them? A Bill of rights may work, but it may just as well not work. That is why the assurance that the PRP wants to offer the electorate when they tell the electorate that they will be protected by a Bill of rights is not worth a thing. It offers no guarantee.

I shall conclude with my third reason for saying that they are playing a dangerous game. I refer to their view of their own policy. In his great speech at their nuptials on 26 July 1975, the hon. the Leader of the PRP said and admitted himself that the policy of the PRP was nothing more than a proposal they wanted to submit to a national convention which would be representative of all races. They are the people who keep asking us: “Suppose the homelands do not want to accept independence, what will you do then?” By the way, this is a question which is becoming more and more academic because more and more homelands are saying that they do want it. To those who keep asking us those questions I want to put this question: “Suppose the proposed national convention that you want rejected your proposal in its crucial aspects, rejected your proposal relating to limited franchise according to education, rejected your proposal relating to a Bill of rights, rejected your proposal relating to the testing right of the courts, what then?” I want to know whether they would then dissolve the convention and maintain the status quo or whether they would accept the majority opinion of the convention and its decisions, whatever these may be.

That party has not yet digested the Transkei’s acceptance of independence and for that reason it is belittling it. They are belittling the intentions of Bophuthatswana and the Ciskei in this regard, because, so they say, “this is all happening just because the Black nations have no other choice; they are simply taking what they can get.” I ask them tonight: “Must we, too, go to the convention which you propose and which you advocate for South Africa, and if our proposals are not accepted there—the proposals being the policy of the PRP, of course—must we also take what we can get?” Surely this is absurd. An independent, free nation does not play with its future in this manner. Surely one does not hand over on a silver platter all the things for which one has fought over the centuries without knowing what one is going to get in exchange for them. Someone who advances this argument is either out of touch with reality or afflicted by uncontrollable suicidal tendencies. Politics is concerned with power and for that reason one can afford to grant power to others as well, and the National Party does this, and it even wants to ensure that their right to self-determination is developed and fully realized. That is why you are also looking for trouble, because politics is concerned with power, when you relinquish power in a way which makes it impossible for you ever to regain your right of self-determination. Their proposal of a national convention at which they want to table their policy by way of a proposal is essentially an admission of the White man’s willingness at that convention to renounce his right to self-determination and to go along with whatever majority decision may be taken by that convention, whatever its terms.

That party advocates a new patriotism. Through the mouth of the hon. member for Sea Point and of the hon. member for Pinelands that party advocates a new patriotism, a patriotism, they say, in which everyone will be united in their loyalty to the same country and to the same … what? What is the basis of patriotism? Is the basis of patriotism not things such as identity, nationalism, language, history, and a shared culture? We believe in a new patriotism, a patriotism to which every nation will be able to lay claim in South Africa, a patriotism which will be realistic and which will take cognizance of our inter-dependence, of the necessity for alliance, a patriotism on the part of every nation which will join the other nations of South Africa in saying that we shall safeguard ourselves against attacks from outside and will work for the growth of the whole territory for the benefit of all the people.

Mr. Speaker, I have little quarrel with the major portion of the speeches of the hon. members for Vereeniging and Bethal. Their attack on the phantom party to my left could just as well have been an attack by any hon. member on this side of the House. While I am on this point I should like to say that I noticed that when the hon. member for Bethal was speaking about the so-called policy of the PRP, the hon. member for Sea Point indicated that this was not their policy and that they now had another policy. However, what I should like to know from the hon. member for Sea Point now is what policy that party is using in Griqualand East and what policy it is using in Durban North? Is it the same policy or are there two different policies? I should also like to know further from the hon. member for Sea Point—because it has already been stated so many times by the hon. member for Houghton that the Communist Party will be able to operate in South Africa under their Government as long as it remains within the law—whether they will also allow that party to put up candidates at an election. I should like to know whether they would permit that.

Let them have it.

They do not want to reply to that. I shall therefore leave the hon. member at that.

I come now to the party which is important and I say that the reaction of both the hon. member for Vereeniging and the hon. member for Bethal to the speech of the hon. member for Newton Park was to my mind very strange. I can only assume that the hon. member for Johannesburg West was so concerned about partnership or alliance that he discussed this matter with the hon. member for Vereeniging and did not listen to the hon. member for Bethal. The hon. member for Bethal does in fact believe in a partnership because in the speech which he made just before the hon. member for Vereeniging rose to speak, he said that he was in favour of a trade and military partnership. Surely this is partnership, or is it an alliance? This confused word usage is confusing the people of South Africa. We want to know what alliance, partnership and separate development mean. We also want to know whether separate development is apartheid. The hon. member for Bethal said that separate development has shown that it can create the economic climate for growth and stability. Where then does this Government come in? I quote from the English Hansard of the hon. the Minister of Finance (col. 4236)—

Why was this so? The hon. member for Bethal knows that that 6% decline in a good season was caused by only one factor, namely, the proclamation of a large number of areas as released areas in South Africa because no positive farming operations are being conducted in those parts. This is separate development. Is there growth in the agricultural sector? Another important aspect is that this budget is being introduced at a critical stage in our history and it is therefore fitting—I believe necessary—that when the budget is discussed one should not only look at the financial balance sheet of the Republic but also at the political and ideological balance sheets of the Government. It is vitally important that we should do so as objectively as possible and look back at the past as well as ahead to the future. I believe that by this means we can make a positive effort to determine our objectives and to prescribe our directives in order to achieve those specific objectives. We have to isolate the mistakes of the past and we have to decide to eliminate them in the future. What then are the specific objectives which all of us in this Parliament are striving to achieve? I believe that the first objective is peaceful co-existence and economic prosperity for all in South Africa. Secondly, that we are all in favour of the defence of our country against any subversion or attack whether internally or from beyond our borders. Thirdly, that we believe in the retention of the inherent right of the White Afrikaner and his future generations to remain here at the southern point of Africa and to find his niche here; and in the fourth place, that we believe that this country, under our leaders and with the co-operation of all the peoples or races—call them what you will but there are different people living in this country—must become the workshop of Africa. These then are the four specific objectives and I do not believe that there is any hon. member in this House who would not agree with them because these are the objectives which are the ideals of every White South African.

What then are the mistakes of the past and what are the directives for the future? I shall try, Sir, to isolate those mistakes and to identify the directives. Firstly, we have the objective of peaceful co-existence and the economic welfare of all our people. Throughout the world communities are divided into two sections—those who have and those who have not, the administrative authority and the worker, the haves and the have-nots. In the distant past that division in South Africa was one of White on the one hand and Black on the other, and this Parliament and the executive authority placed laws on the Statute Book and made regulations to keep it that way, but it did not stay that way. There are thousands of Black and Brown people in South Africa today who certainly cannot be regarded as workers but as belonging to the haves class. Their numbers will continue to grow and they will have to be taken into consideration. They cannot in perpetuity be denied a full say in the governing process of the country in which they live. This part of our history is a relic of the days of European colonialism of which we formed part and in terms of which the whole of the Third World fell under the forced influence of the European powers. I shall return to that point when I discuss the third objective. Our directive is to move away from this tendency towards colonialism, to reconsider certain laws and, above all, in our own interests to move away from the unitary Westminister type of government to a system in which the rights of minorities can be protected and in which the Brown and Black man can also obtain some measure of authority in the governing process. I of course, believe, Mr. Speaker, that this directive can be found in the federal proposals of my party. The Nationalist believes that this can be achieved by means of separate development. Perhaps it can come about by means of a composite of the two policies in the direction of a political, economic and defence agreement similar to the Common Market of Europe and Nato. Who knows? The directive is there, the objective is there, and we, the legislators of South Africa have to accept the responsibility of achieving that objection.

Secondly, Sir, there is the question of the defence of our country against any subversion or attack from within or from beyond our borders. This objective is so interwoven with the other three that it is difficult to deal with it separately. Nevertheless, this must be done because in it lies the nucleus of our peaceful survival in South Africa. A great deal has been done over the past decade to improve the moral and weapon preparedness of our Defence Force and to bring us where we are today. In this gigantic task which has been undertaken over the past decade the Government and the Defence Force have had the full support of the Official Opposition. Sir, when we look now at the balance sheet of the Government and of the Nationalist Party, and at its record over the years, I should be neglecting my duty were I not to point out those years of wastage and the years of neglect, years in which we could have done a great deal more to improve the preparedness of our forces, years in which the uniform may perhaps have meant more than the weaponry. These years must be added to the debit side of the balance sheet of the Government and they must be prepared to accept this fact because although they are no longer the same people, it was the policy and the ideology of that party which wasted that valuable time and those valuable years. The first directive then under this heading is to build ahead as is being done now and never to return to the mistakes of the past. The second directive for the defence of our country is to ensure that we are economically strong and that the workers in our industries are happy and are motivated towards defending their country.

With this I want to return to the first objective which I mentioned. The Black man and the Brown man must feel they are part of South Africa, and they must be able to be proud of the fact. They must also be prepared to fight, to work and to die for this country. In this respect too the record of the Government shows a debit balance. There are however signs—we note this from speeches such as that of the hon. member for Johannesburg West and others—that they are moving away from the old direction. The sooner they move away from the old colonial attitude, the sooner they reject it, the better it will be for all in South Africa and the better it will be for the positive defence of our country.

In the third place we come to the inherent right of the White Afrikaner and of his future generations to live here in South Africa.

Why only the White Afrikaner?

The White Afrikaner also includes me. [Interjections.] Under this heading too I must make a debit entry in the balance sheet of the NP. This is something which has happened involuntarily from a historical point of view but it has still happened that the NP exploited the Afrikaner nature of Afrikaans-speaking people with the elimination of the British connection as the political objective. I do not blame them for that, the record of British actions against the Afrikaner is not a proud one. Even the record of the British in respect of their own descendants in other parts of Africa is not a proud one. The NP succeeded in breaking that British connection when South Africa became a republic in 1961. Everyone in South Africa cherished the hope at the time that we would follow a new direction and that we would obtain a better and more just political dispensation. This did not happen. Up to today the Afrikaans-speaking Nationalist regards himself as the only White Afrikaner in South Africa. Until such time as he realizes that he is not the only one and until such time as he is prepared to accept me as an English-speaking person unconditionally as an Afrikaner … [Interjections.] … with the right of joining the Rapportryers and the Broederbond if I want to, our survival will remain at issue. [Interjections.] Our slogan must be “Unity is strength”. We must trust each other mutually, irrespective of our political differences. This is of the utmost importance and in this lies our fate in Africa.

Secondly, we come to the objective that this country of ours, under our guidance and with the free co-operation of all the nations here, must become the workshop of Africa. We have the potential but notwithstanding the détente efforts on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister I have once again to make a debit entry in the political balance sheet of the Government. I refer again to the years of wastage, years in which this Government stared blindly at a domestic ideology which was in reality an obsolete relic of colonialism. For more than two decades the eyes of this Government were turned only inwards and it paid no attention to the world at large. It remained unconcerned regarding the power struggle taking place between the large powers. It ostensibly gave very little attention to the effect of decolonization in Africa. Détente could have started then and we might then have been engaged upon entente today. We could already have become the workshop and the breadbasket of Africa. We have the will to take the lead and to advise. More than any country in the world South Africa is in the position to utilize and expand Africa for the benefit of Africa. The directives are here and we must never again turn our eyes inward. We must never again follow a policy of isolation. We must build ahead and we must take our rightful place in africa and the world. The past is over and must be buried and our people, particularly our young people of all colours, must be imbued with a spirit of vocation and of confidence in the future, a spirit of honour which they will be able to bear like a shield in a dangerous world and which will motivate them to lead this country further along the road to the green grazing lands of peace and prosperity, that is my political balance sheet; those are my objectives and directives for the future of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, to me the hon. member for Albany is still one of the few right-thinking members of the United Party. It would therefore be unfair of me to embarrass him with criticism after the speech which he has just delivered. I am only surprised that the United Party can still tolerate in its ranks a man such as he, who has made such a positive and enlightening speech here—actually a statement of his own political credo. He really belongs on our side of the House.

Every phase of the development of a country is characterized by its own problems and challenges. In this way the National Party too is faced today with challenges and problems which it has to cope with. The multi-headed dragon of inflation is still present and threatens to force South Africa to its knees economically speaking. As a result of its inherent potential and its extremely competent leadership, however, I believe that South Africa will soon be on the road to prosperity again.

We are now faced with other challenges as well. We are faced outside our borders with a prejudiced and hostile world and with Russo-Cuban antagonism from Angola. Pressure is constantly being brought to bear upon us by UN and OAU circles in respect of our presence in South West Africa. There are terrorist and insurgent attacks across our borders and the safety of our country is threatened as never before. Therefore it is more essential now than ever before that the National Party should prove to South Africa, to Africa as a whole and to the world that its policy of separate development, with the preservation of identity, is a practicable and realistic policy. And how much success it is having in doing so! This policy is already crystallizing into the most logical and most successful attempt to emancipate the Black nations of southern Africa and lead them to sovereign status.

However, there is also another challenge which, like the security of our country, will have to be faced by more responsible bodies than the National Party Government alone. People like the hon. member for Albany in particular can carry into the ranks of his party the thought so that it can be dealt with and discussed more objectively. I am referring to the growing shadow of millions of Black people who are settled outside their own homelands and within our White homeland, and here I am thinking particularly of our urban areas. With the best will in the world and with the strictest application of the restrictions it is already applying the Government cannot make more than a dent in this problem. What is necessary is more understanding and co-operation on the part of the large employers in our industrial areas and even in the rural areas. All sectors will have to co-operate to combat this problem. This is especially applicable to the leaders and the different Governments in the homelands because they are intensely involved in this. How greatly we would have benefited from a more objective and realistic approach from the other side of the House in these times, especially fit could have caused this situation to be lilted from the political arena and to be considered and approached in an objective manner. I want to try and move beyond the sometimes one-sided approach to this situation, namely that the increasing presence of Bantu in our cities is only a threat and a disadvantage to the Whites. However, the knife cuts both ways. Firstly it creates and perpetuates an illogical and unnatural imbalance of population figures in the Black and White States. In any state in the world, there cannot and must not be more people of another nationality with another language and culture than its own within its borders, because in the long run this will result in extreme tension and clashes which cannot be avoided. This is already the situation in our White homeland and it will be aggravated in future unless the tide can be turned and a change can be brought about.

What is even worse, something like this would naturally be welcomed by the Progressive Party because it would fit in with their idea and policy of political integration and complete surrender of the Whites to the Blacks. Statistics prove that as far back as 1970, 8,003 million Bantu out of a total of 15 million, as against 3,8 million Whites, were settled in the demarcated White areas. What does this mean? It means that there are already more than 50% more Black people than White people settled in our homeland. The result of this by the year 2000 and later I leave to the imagination of the House. By that time there will be 33 million Bantu as against no more than 6,4 million Whites in South Africa, with a decidedly greater imbalance of numbers within the White areas if this cannot be drastically counteracted beforehand. This imbalance of numbers affects the Bantu homelands as well. During 1970 only 46,7% of the total Bantu population of South Africa were living within the borders of the homelands. This represents 6,997 million Bantu who lived within the homelands, as against 8,003 million or 53% who lived outside their borders. This also means that more than 50% of the population of the homelands are cut off from their socio-economic development process.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h15.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned, I was saying that except for Israel, I do not know of a single country where millions of its inhabitants are settled outside its borders. However, there is an important and essential difference, namely that the Israeli’s do not have a concentrated preponderance of numbers in any other country which may hold dangers for the indigenous population in a democratic set-up, the way our Bantu people have. But let us look at the position as far as numbers are concerned. Of the total number of 8,003 million Bantu in the White homeland in 1970, 45% or 3,6 million lived in the rural areas and 55% or 4 403 000 in the urban areas.

Without ignoring the steady increase in the number of Blacks in our rural areas, I want to point out in the third place that any form of permanence for the probably more than 5 million Bantu in the urban areas will form the nucleus of a third non-White faction, a third wheel within a wheel or a State within a State, synonymous to those of the Coloureds and Asians, for whom geographic, socio-economic and eventually perhaps political accommodation will have to be provided within our White homeland borders and domestic policy. The consequences of this I leave to the sober imagination of this House. The National Government has a very clearly formulated and declared policy for limiting the numbers upon which I cannot dwell now, but in my opinion it will not be able to carry out this policy successfully without the assistance and the unanimous co-operation of many more parties than the Government alone.

In the fourth place I come to more practical considerations. We all know why the Bantu is with us in the White homelands. He is urgently needed in the labour force of our growing industries, our mines and our agriculture, and he plays a key role in the maintenance of our economy. I do not want to detract from this role in my argument. The labour opportunities undoubtedly mean a great deal to the Bantu labourer as such, but the absence of millions on a family basis is an essential and serious disadvantage for the economic development of the young homelands and this cannot be argued away. In the first place it means the permanent loss of the cream of its young labourers, its young labour force which streams to the White areas to try and settle there. Secondly, it means the loss of the knowledge, the experience and the skill which more than half their population have already gained within the White areas, nothing of which is ploughed back into the economy of the Bantu homelands. Thirdly, they also lose the immense purchasing power and capital of all those families living in White cities who have already improved their circumstances with better wage structures, and who must be a great loss to the young homelands. I would like to quote a statement made by Mr. Van Onselen, the Secretary for Bantu Administration and Development, in a speech which he delivered in February in The Public Servant. It reads—

I think that coming from a man who knows from experience what he is talking about, this statement is a very sound one. The following figures will further support my argument. During the financial year 1974-’75, savings amounting to approximately R60 million were taken out of South Africa to five of our neighbouring states by approximately half a million foreign labourers, by way of deductions from salaries, etc. R29,869 million was taken to Maputo; R21,141 million to Malawi, R6,274 million to Lesotho; R2,575 million to Botswana; and R958 116 to Swaziland. It is important that migratory labourers alone made this contribution to their states. As against this, a mere R5 283 000 was taken to our own homelands by labourers. The amount taken to the Ciskei was R1 711 000; to the Transkei, R2 732 000; and to KwaZulu, R218 000. The other homelands in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State received much smaller amounts. I do not have the figures for commuters and other direct transfers of capital by Bantu to their homelands, but these amounts will probably be small. But what is the reason for this, Sir? The answer is obvious. The majority of Black labourers live in our White areas on a family basis, especially in the urban areas, where they spend their income,while the migratory labourer takes a considerable percentage of his income back to his homeland. In my opinion, the answer to the question is clear. In the first place the presence of foreign workers, especially on a family basis, must be drastically reduced and kept to an absolute minimum. To this end new plans, ways and means must continually be investigated and applied. Secondly, the migratory labour system, in my opinion, should be maintained and expanded, in spite of the opposition which we encounter from members of the Opposition and even from many other bodies, even religious bodies.

In my opinion it is the only alternative and it is in the interests of both Black and White. Thirdly, attention must be given to the zoning of areas attached to particular industrial centres from which only they may draw labour. I think, for example, that Durban and Richards Bay, both large industrial complexes, should draw labour from a limited area in KwaZulu, that Port Elizabeth and East London should draw labour from the Ciskei and a demarcated area of perhaps the Southern Transkei, and that Pretoria and parts of the Witwatersrand should draw it from Bophuthatswana and the homelands in the Northern and Eastern Transvaal. This could greatly relieve this position. As a result of the geographic position and distribution of the homelands over the larger part of South Africa, it should be possible to work out recruitment areas for specific industrial complexes and future growth points which would relieve the position regarding long distances and accommodation. In the fourth place, I think that it would be worth while to look at the well-known Eiselen scheme according to which Dr. Eiselen suggested that demarcation of specific labour areas for specific population groups should be considered. For example, he suggested that there should be an imaginary line drawn from the south-eastern coast of the Cape Province across Humansdorp to the Orange River and that no Bantu labourers should be drawn to areas to the west of that line. That area should then be reserved for Coloured people exclusively. I am inclined—more than inclined, because I definitely agree with him—to say that at least the Western Province and the Cape Peninsula should be reserved as an area for Coloured labour only.

In the fifth place I think of the speedy development of border industry growth points. This must receive constant attention in order to accelerate Black labour decentralization. Consideration must be given to the more rapid development of Bantu homeland industries and especially to the development of townships, to enable them to develop their own town economies on the one hand, and, on the other hand, to be able to accommodate, on a daily, weekly or monthly basis, those who want to sell their labour in the White homeland, so that they can return to their families.

In the sixth place it is very important that every family whose period of service in the White area has expired should immediately be returned to his homeland. This may not be the official policy of the NP, but my own opinion is that the family of the section 10 Bantu should also be sent back to the homeland immediately upon expiry of the period of service of the man or father of the house who sells his labour.

Finally, I believe that with a view to self-preservation and survival, the White man in South Africa will have to perform more of his work himself. The prophetic statement from “A report of the Mining Industries Commission, 1907-’08” is applicable here—

In the Rand Daily Mail of 25 May 1908 a certain Mr. W. Wyberg made the following very relevant statement and I quote this too from Mr. Van Onselen’s article—

If we depend on other people to do the work for us, no political manoeuvre that we can devise will prevent that people from ruling the country.

This is the truth and the crux of the matter. I want to conclude and resume my seat, but I just want to add that as far as I am concerned, I believe that the migratory labour system is the ideal system for both the White man and the Bantu and must be expanded. Millions of Bantu accept it too. I have an article— unfortunately I do not have time to read it—in which a Bantu newspaper reporter questioned many of the Bantu who had returned to Lesotho after having worked in White homelands in terms of the migratory labour system. One after another Bantu confirmed that they had been very happy and would return every time and bring their money back to their families and homeland.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to respond to the speech of the hon. member for Marico, because he approached our national affairs in a level-headed manner—an example I should like to follow. He began his speech by saying that an extremely serious condition was developing in South Africa. This is true; indeed, I should like to put it even stronger. There is no doubt that there is a growing awareness among our people today of the dangers which are mounting against us. There is concern about the Angola episode and the realization that it is likely to have after-effects. There is concern about the intrusion of the Russians and the Cubans and we are constantly aware of the threats of full-scale war. There is a feeling of pessimism in the business world and advance investments are being drastically curtailed. Fear exists that the winds of change could easily become a hurricane. There are large-scale sales of our shares abroad and the exchange value of the “securities rand”, which is supposed to be 115 cents per American dollar, is 80 cents today. Therefore we have a premium of approximate 30% against us, because in the eyes of the world South Africa is at the moment being classified as one of the high-risk countries of the world. Certain non-White leaders are beginning to say perturbing things. One may not like the things they say but it would be foolish to disregard the warnings flowing from it. What is more: It would be even more foolish to react to those statements in a way which could only aggravate the situation. The SABC is referring to people who are buying diamonds apparently to be able to leave the country more easily. This may be so, but it is nevertheless to be regretted that things like these are broadcast because it only helps to create a panic situation. One need not be melodramatic about the situation, because we have this from our own thinkers. After all, there is nothing wrong with the credentials of a person such as Willem de Klerk and he writes that we are standing on the threshold; there has to be agreement or a war will break out. Surely, all of us can sense this: An extremely difficult situation has arisen in South Africa. Our people have a burning desire for leadership and we, gathered here in the highest chamber, should ask ourselves how many of us know where we are going and where we have to go.

†Under these circumstances I believe that we should do what the military do. Whenever they face a situation of this kind, they have a system of looking at the problem. They make what they call an appreciation of the situation. They systematize their thinking and they start with a statement of their objective. They view all the factors which can influence the achievement of the objective. Only then can one see what the possible courses are that one can follow and once one has reviewed this, one can come with a plan. In view of the very difficult situations which we face—I am not talking party politics this evening and we should try to think through the problem in this way—we must ascertain what is our objective and what we are trying to achieve in South Africa. The hon. member for Albany has already been very helpful because he spelled some of these out. We can put it in different ways and we can say that our objective is the achievement of peaceful coexistence or we can say that we want to maintain civilized standards. We can also say that we want to protect minorities. However, I believe that what South Africans fundamentally want is to create a society in this country in which no group will be able to dominate any other group, in which individuals will be able to develop their economic and political aspirations to the full and in which our various communities can work together harmoniously. Quite obviously there are a number of factors that will influence the achievement of this particular objective and one of the most important will be foreign influences. Foreign and outside influences are going to play an increasingly important role in the affairs of this subcontinent and some of these influences will be helpful, but the vast majority of them are going to be hostile. In this regard I think that we must guard against two things.

We must guard firstly against overreaction and secondly against rationalization. Are we in South Africa not too eager always to talk about the decline of the Western democracy, to talk about the decadence of the West and their abject failure to stop communism? Obviously we want them to support us overtly, and when they do not do this, we get angry about it. We must, however, understand that each and every country in the Western world today is trying to fight communism in its own way and there is no guarantee whatsoever that the procedures which we are following will in the long term prove successful. What is certainly not going to help us, is continually to blame the West for our own misfortunes.

A second rationalization is put this way: We say we can never please the outside world because they want “one man, one vote”; “they want the White man to sell out in this country.” Again, this is not correct. Our object is not to try to please the whole of the outside world. Certainly, we shall not please the communists until we have a communist State here and we shall not please the Afro-Asians until we have “one man, one vote”. However, I think we must at least try to create a situation where some of the Western democracies are prepared to accept and, indeed, support what we do here. I do not think their demands are so outrageous, certainly not in authoritative quarters. They do not talk about the White man selling out in southern Africa. On the contrary; but the one thing they cannot understand is why we should seek to separate and to divide when the whole world is moving in the opposite direction and is trying to bring about a greater synthesis of its various, diverse communities. This is really rationalization in its worst form. What we say here is that we cannot please the outside world and that they will never be happy about what we are doing here and that, therefore, there is no incentive for us to change and we might as well remain as we are.

Have we any idea of the dangerous state of affairs that has developed in this part of the world? Our Chief of the Armed Services said a few weeks ago that South Africa in future will have to go it alone and that there is no assurance that we shall in future be able to count on assistance from outside. This is something that has probably never been said before by the head of the Armed Services in this country.

Gen. Smuts said it in 1946.

All right. I accept that Gen. Smuts said the same. Let me go a bit further. Let us never overlook the fact that there is no country in the world today which is going to rush in to unders trut what they regard as a White regime. We do not even do it in Rhodesia, so how can we expect anybody else to do it here? The crisp situation is—this is the lesson we must learn—that there will be no support from the outside world unless we can remove the last vestiges of discrimination. If this is the lesson for us to learn from the outside world, I would suggest there is also a lesson for the outside world to learn. There are powerful forces at work in South Africa trying to bring about change—economic, political and human forces. South Africans will not react adversely to criticism from the outside if it is helpful, informed and constructive. I think the lesson for the outside world to learn is that criticism which is ill-informed, misdirected, negative are merely condemnatory in turn evokes all the negative responses in our society, certainly among the leadership group, and will inhibit and retard change. In this sense, the Polaroid experiment has done far more to bring about change in South Africa than a hundred outpourings by Charlie Diggs.

In this sub-continent we have a position of very great prominence. We ought to be its powerhouse. Our GNP represents 70% of that of all the countries south of the equator. The value of our industrial output is half of that of all the member states of the OAU combined. We ought to be in a position of very great prominence. There is nothing wrong with détente other than that it came 25 years too late. Today the tragedy is that the initiative is rapidly slipping from our grasp. That is why a vacuum has been created on this subcontinent, a vacuum which the Russians and Cubans are trying to fill. By having this vacuum and having this intrusion of the Russians, a new element has been introduced in Southern Africa. There is now a completely new dimension. The timetable has become vastly accelerated with the result that what we have to do in this country, we have to do now.

I think that our primary objective under these conditions must be to seek peace on this sub-continent. We must seek peace not through of weakness, but through of strength.

A second important factor is the economic one. Whatever we do and plan in this country, we shall require money. Possibly because of all the problems we have, we have as compensation been given infinite economic resources. However, the economic situation today is a parlous one. We have a massive deficit on foreign trade. We have had to resort to a massive gold swop in order to balance the situation. We devalued our currency by 20%, but what makes South Africa unique is that, whereas in any other country a devaluation of this magnitude would be seen as a weakness, here it is hailed as an act of major financial statesmanship. Our growth rate is dropping. However, we do not look at the fundamental reasons for our dilemma. We continually try to look for something else we can blame. The latest culprits of course, are those terrible twins; the leads and the lags. These are the two things we blame. In a fundamental sense this is in fact South Africa’s problem. Perhaps it is far more fundamental than is realized.

I thought your party did not understand it.

No, but I do not think the hon. the Minister understands it either. The problem of South Africa is that there are far too many leads on this side of the House and far too many lags on that side of the House. If the position were to be reversed today, our problems would be solved overnight.

At the root of our problem is the question of colour discrimination. This is not new. We have always had social apartheid in this country, as one has it in many other parts of the world. However, what is different is that what was voluntary here, we have made mandatory; what was a question of personal choice, we turned into legal compulsion. Instead of building bridges between our communities, we have erected dividing walls. We have been very active here. In this very Parliament we have turned out more than 80 laws to do precisely that. In every single other sense we have tried to differentiate between people. Then we rationalize and say there is no discrimination in South Africa, but only differentiation. From the highest source in the land came that historic utterance that, if one woke up on the morrow and found that one’s skin was black, there would in fact be no difference; one would merely find oneself in a different milieu. Nobody believed in this Utopia and there were certainly no queues of Whites forming up in order voluntarily to change their White skins for skins that were not so White. With this kind of absurdity we have done immense harm to South Africa. We have sown the wind and in days to come we shall reap the whirlwind.

Today, of course, the concept has changed. We have become terribly “verlig”. We all talk of change and, in fact, those who say what we have said all these years, have now become the outcasts and we refer to them as people who are irredeemably “verkramp” Sir, if one deals with change, one must go about it in the right way. After Sharpeville we all talked about change too, but the moment the pressure diminished, we forgot all about it and reverted to the status quo.

Why do you not change?

You are the one who changed. For years the hon. Minister said what we say. It is nonsense for the hon. the Minister to talk of change. One would have expected a greater contribution from him. Sir, if one wants to change, one must also be prepared to make sacrifices in order to achieve it. We tell Ian Smith in Rhodesia that he must get together with the non-Whites around a table in order to establish a multi-racial situation, but we are not prepared to do it here. [Interjections.] We sponsor talks in South West Africa to get the people around a table so that they can map out a solution that will be acceptable to all of them, but we do not do it here. We talk about change and we tell the United Nations that we will change, but how do we go about it? We appoint a committee with not a single non-White on it. We put in charge, as chairman, a Cabinet Minister who is irrevocably committed to the separate development ideal. When we have done all that, we tell them to look at the problem within the parameters of separate development. If one does not want anything of consequence to happen, that is precisely the way to go about it.

There is so terribly much one must say but there is really not time. These are just some of the factors that have a bearing on the situation. What then are the courses open to us now? In military terms there are probably three. We can go left, we can go right or we can punch in the centre. If we go left, we must disregard race as a factor and we must make merit our yardstick. We must then work rapidly in the direction of an integrated society in which there will be full sharing of power and of wealth. This approach is attractive. It will be acceptable to the outside world and it will be acceptable to many of our own non-Whites, but the difficulty with this approach is that it ignores the basic group feelings which are very powerful in our society and it conflicts with our basic objective that we set because it makes numbers predominant and Africa has shown that when you do this, you merely exchange White domination for Black domination.

The second approach is that of the separationist. Here, obviously, emphasis must be on maintenance of group identity. You will try to justify this by accepting a measure of fragmentation. This is a small sacrifice to make because this approach aims at keeping the relative position and maintaining privileges. For the haves it is a wonderful solution, but your problems are great here because it will not be accepted by the outside world. In any case it runs counter to all the economic forces. The whole demand in the world today is in any event for greater synthesis and not for further differentiation.

There is then a third way and that is the middle way. Why can we not be different and yet work together? Why can we not retain identity and yet pull together in the same team? There is the choice; both integration and forced separation are out. South Africa has existed fairly peacefully for 300 years and the only times that we really ran into difficulty were when we tried to force South Africa to integrate or to separate. If we look at this, then the plan begins to emerge fairly clearly. There are obviously three areas we must look at separately. This is basically what we need, namely an emergency plan. There are no blueprints. We have never had them in South Africa and they will not work. Of these three areas, the first one is the social area. In order to extricate ourselves from the dilemma in which we find ourselves, we must do the following things: (1) We must grant to every person the right of personal choice; (2) the decisions concerning the provision or the use of amenities must be made as near to the point of actual contact as possible; (3) we must break down statutory walls which exist today between our population groups; (4) we must ensure that every man in South Africa will enjoy full civic rights, and (5) we must aim at making all our people feel that they belong in this country and not treat them as though they are intruders from some foreign estate.

In the field of economic affairs we must: (1) eliminate every procedure or device which impedes the optimum development of our economic resources; (2) see to it that every man is given the opportunity to develop his skills to the full and to be rewarded accordingly; (3) accept the fact that our labour force is indivisible, and (4) consciously work towards the re-establishment of a free enterprise system.

In the political field the immediate steps that we must take are also clear. (1) We must ensure maximum decentralization of decision making; (2) we must share decisions which affect all of us and we must share them in accordance with the contribution that is made towards their implementation; (3) we must extend to all our people the full benefit of the democratic system and everything that that entails, and (4) whilst the present situation can be defused by getting every group to do its own thing, we must create from the differences which exist in South Africa today, a totality bigger and stronger than the sum of its parts. In the unique situation in which we find ourselves, this means a federal system.

To implement what I have said here—and I can only give the bare framework—we will create a completely different attitude to the national problem. In this way we will stave off internal disharmony and we shall be able to begin working towards earning the loyalty and harnessing the immense capacity of 25 million South Africans towards the defence of their fatherland. If we could do this it would put us in a completely impregnable situation and we could thereafter give our national genius full reign to play our rightful role in this subcontinent. We have the means to do this. We could muster the resources and the willpower to do so, but we must start today because tomorrow it might well be too late.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made the statement here that South Africa will have to go it alone. Now I do not know which party he supported in 1947 or whether he was a member of the United Party. At that time the late Gen. Smuts, after he had returned from the UNO, said in this House that South Africa would have to prepare itself to stand alone in the world in future, because its friends had turned their backs on it. I do not know whether that hon. member was a United Party member at the time, because I know he was a co-founder of the Suid-Afrikaanse Bond together with Dr. Retief in Johannesburg in 1958. He was a Bondsman then, and not a member of the United Party.

In the first place, since we have been listening to this Opposition, I think it is necessary to ask whether they, who should form the alternative government in this country, have the right to claim that they are the official Opposition in South Africa. This is the first question they should ask themselves. I do not think they have that right any longer. Looking back over the history of the United Party—and I think it is necessary that we should do this at some stage—and if we consider what the United Party looked like then, as opposed to what it looks like today, we would have to go back to the year 1943. At the time 89 members of the United Party sat on this side of the House. There were 43 members opposite.

What about the budget?

I am coming to the budget, because the budget is at issue here, and there on the other side are the people who might have to rule the country in the future.

Then the year 1948 arrived, and they were given the biggest thrashing a political party has ever been given. Then we on this side of the House had 79 seats and they had 65 seats. At the time the United Party used the same slogan as they used in this House tonight. They said at the time that the Nationalists were crawling around on the ground at night like bed-bugs and had been peeping through the keyholes. This is what they did, and they also said that the economy of South Africa was on its knees. They are the people who said that it was merely a fluke that the National Party had come to power. They are the people who said that the banks in South Africa would close down. Does it look as if the banks have closed down, 28 years later? The 1953 election came and they were given a bigger thrashing. The 1958 election came when we extended the franchise to the White boys and girls who then carried arms on our borders—and they opposed it at the time. They were then given an even bigger thrashing. Then came the 1961 and 1966 elections, and each time the Nationalist Party returned stronger than before. I put the question: Why? Because the electorate rejected them, and they are rejecting them more and more every day. In 1966 the “prophet Jacobs” came along. This is the man who had to make the predictions, and he made them, too. Hon. members will recall that in 1969—and I have the Sunday Times here— that hon. member said that the 1966 outcome had been merely a “fluke” and that although the English-speaking people had voted for the National Party, this phenomenon would be short-lived. During the 1970 election they performed slightly better, because we had the courage of our convictions, when there were people in our ranks who did not want to follow the path of the National Party, to say to those people: “There is the door.”

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition who is sitting over there, however, does not have the courage of his convictions necessary to throw that bunch of “Progs”, like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and others, out of his party. At the time the United Party thought: “This is our opportunity in South Africa,”and they had some success. What did prophet Jacobs then say? At the time prophet Jacobs said: “The Prime Minister will now resign due to health reasons.” He went on to say: “We will have a stop-gap Prime Minister.” This “stop-gap Prime Minister” would supposedly rule for a year or more “and then he will go to the country”. After that the electorate would supposedly settle the hash of that “stop-gap Prime Minister”. At the time he was vice-chairman of the United Party. This was before the 1974 election. The hon. member then packed his bag and went to London. There, in the Strand Palace Hotel, he tried to sell the federal plan of the United Party to them. The hon. member had expected 70 to 80 people there and there were a few “mini girls” who were to hand out the pamphlets. When the hon. member wanted to sell the federal plan there, only 16 representatives of South African newspapers were present. That “stop-gap Prime Minister” then fought an election and what happened? We smashed that party in the 1974 election. They were then left with 37 and four halves, and where are those four halves now? They are sitting there with the Progrefs. There are still about eight to ten halves in their midst. Now that is the United Party, the people who say they are the official Opposition. Then the new leader, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, arrived, and now we are going to look at Alberton and Middelburg. In 1948 the United Party won Alberton. Middelburg is an old traditional United Party seat and what is their position now? The number of votes in their favour has dropped. A seat which they gained in 1948 now gets a meagre 952 votes and they lose their deposit. The total number of votes in their favour in Middelburg has dropped from 3 700 to approximately 1 600. All this has taken place under the leadership of the shining star in the United Party, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Do the hon. members opposite have the right to regard themselves as the official Opposition? Do hon. members know why the electorate has rejected them? Every time state security or the safety of South Africa has been at issue, they have been the stumbling block in this country. It was pathetic to watch the official Opposition when we discussed the Parliamentary Commission for Internal Security Bill the other day, because all the poor Whip had to do, was to jump up like a Jack in the box and say, “divide” because he wanted to divide before the Progs every time. We cannot continue with people like this.

Let us come back to the budget. The hon. member for Constantia made certain statements, and said, inter alia that South Africa was in an economic mess. He said that this was due to job reservation, influx control, low productivity, border industry development etc. Let us analyse those accusations. They, among others, say that productivity is low in South Africa. Do hon. members know how they measure productivity? They always want to compare productivity in South Africa to that in the old established countries of Europe. In Europe there are developed countries which are hundreds of years old. We are a developing country. One cannot use the same yardstick. Let us start in the Northwest and consider the development at Saldhana. There is the development of the railway line to Sishen, and Iscor at Vanderbijlpark, Ellisras, Thabazimbi, Pretoria, Newcastle etc. We also call to mind the waterworks at the P. K. le Roux Dam, the Railway line to Richards Bay which is being built and the Richards Bay scheme. For how many thousands of people do projects like these which are not productive, provide work? We are a developing country and for that reason hon. members on that side of the House cannot compare us to those long established European countries. However, when it comes to productivity—the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made the statement in the no-confidence debate—it is said that we cannot be productive, because 60% of the people in the industry and the building industry are Black people. What is skilled labour? It is correct; 60% are Black people. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said they had never had the opportunity to attend trade schools. But now I want to ask the hon. member with all due deference, what he regards as being skilled. Is only an artisan skilled? No, one cannot say that. What about all those thousands of labourers in the industries, people who have worked thousands of shifts on those jobs? They are efficient people and one may not say that because they have not attended a trade school, they are not productive. In the Industrial Council and in terms of agreements, certain jobs are stipulated for, and a Bantu cannot do a specific job if he has not worked a certain number of shifts. To say, therefore, that those people are unproductive because they are Black and have not been to trade school, is surely nonsense.

I never said that.

Yes, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did say it; I have his speech here.

They also damn the so-called “job reservation” and the hon. member referred to that, too. The hon. member for Maitland said that article 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act should be deleted. Other hon. members have also said this. I should like to know whether the hon. member for Albany also wants this deleted.

He is answering in the affirmative.

Oh, he is also answering in the affirmative. I am very glad.

In other words, our friends opposite are the people who say we should free ourselves from the chains which bind us to job reservation. Cathy Taylor was a member of that party …

Was.

Yes, but she was honest and went where she had to. I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, Edenvale and others ought to follow her if they themselves are honest. She was the one who objected because they used the same subways. A few years ago, when former Minister Ben Schoeman announced here that a Black man had been appointed to inspect the railway line along the South Coast, the hon. member for South Coast—he was leader of the party in Natal at the time—stood up and asked how a Black man could be allowed to do anything of this kind. Now these are the people who are saying that we should do away with job reservation. There the other bunch are sitting, among others the Priest of Pinelands, who objects when Black people walk through Pinelands to Langa. Where is their sincerity? Those hon. members of the United Party are saying that we should abolish job reservation. The hon. member for Albany is objecting to a Black worker being trained for telephone service at Peddie. [Interjections.] I have his Hansard here and I shall give hon. members the column number. The hon. member said that the people wanted an effective service when they had to phone the Police, for instance. Hon. members agree with me. Now I am telling you that if one were to abolish job reservation, this would be open to everyone.

No.

Surely the Black man must then be good enough to provide that efficient service.

Apply that according to merit.

Oh, the hon. member wants to apply job reservation according to merit. That is a new one. The hon. member went on to say that the people in Peddie would not sleep securely if there was not a White man on duty at that exchange. These are the people who are saying that we should abolish job reservation. If one were to abolish it, every job would be open to every man, irrespective of the colour of his skin. The hon. member for Albany went on to say that he could not understand how the hon. the Minister could do something like this, i.e. wanting to train a Black man in a small place. But if one may not train him in a small town, then one is surely holding him back and he is being reserved. It is due to this ambiguity that the Opposition has a meagre 37 seats. They are now criticizing, but they do not have the courage of their convictions. When they come to the platteland, they make a great fuss and ask the people whether they have seen what the Nats are doing, viz. flooding the platteland with Black people. If they are not honest, they should expect to be hammered by the electorate, as they have been over the years.

I want to deal with another matter. The hon. members opposite are the people who complained about influx control. They said that our economy was being tied down by influx control. Sir, what did Johannesburg look like in the years 1945 and 1946? The then United Party City Council threw up their hands and said: “We have reached the end of our tether.” The Black people establish squatter towns and erected their tin shanties in Sophiatown.

Hymie Miller was there at the time.

Yes, that was when the hon. member for Jeppe was still mayor. Sir, who cleaned up those cities? They threw up hands. In 1948 the National Party acted because the United Party city council of Johannesburg was too inefficient to perform its task. A resettlement council was appointed under the chairmanship of the late Mr. Heckroodt, and they moved the people. Can hon. members remember when we moved those people from Sophiatown? At that time Michael Scott, a kindred spirit of the hon. member for Pinelands, ran around there dressed in black. Where was the United Party when we had to move them? They were too spineless to perform the task. I want to say that today influx control is in the interests of the Black man, too, because if we were to abolish influx control and allow every Black man to enter, we would find that our cities would be flooded with Black people. We should find as a result that in collective bargaining, the labour market would have been congested and the people will be under-cutting each other to such an extent that they would not be able to earn a living wage.

Sir, I want to deal with another point. Hon. members opposite said that there were insufficient educational facilities for the non-Whites. This government is the government which has created facilities and means and which introduced the incentives for the employers to train their own people. But what happened? More than 800 applications were sent to employers and industrialists. How many of them replied? Only 500. This government is the government which created in-service training centres. Ten have been established, of which four are already in operation.

I ask you, Sir: Is this an honest political party? When it comes to unemployment, they broadcast it. They say there is no longer work for the people in South Africa. The hon. member for Constantia is correct: The figure as regards registered unemployed is 0,4%. But, Sir, 2% is normal.

What about the Black people?

I am glad the hon. member asked that question, because I was waiting for it. It is true that the Blacks are not registered, and the hon. member for Constantia states that when a post is advertised in Johannesburg, there are 500 Black applicants for that post. However, I want to put this question: If there is unemployment in South Africa, how do they explain the fact that we are employing more than half a million Black people from our neighbouring states in our mines?

Surely you know why.

The hon. member is saying that we know why. Sir, there is an old saying which goes: “Charity begins at home. ” If there is in fact unemployment, it will be necessary for us to see to our people first, but this is not necessary.

Sir, I want to conclude. As a result of that ambiguity they display, those hon. members will remain an opposition party as they are now. In Transvaal they have a bare seven members, three of which are Progs, and I want to say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that the sooner he dismisses the whole lot and makes up a new team, the sooner he will have better results. [Interjections.]

Sir, there is one appeal I want to make to the hon. the Minister. We know that with the co-operation of our White trade unions, we transfer certain posts previously held by Whites to non-Whites from time to time without disturbing peace and order. My appeal is that in the case of White workers who are placed in different and higher posts and who therefore have to be retrained, the hon. the Minister’s committee should investigate the possibility of granting industrialists, too, the necessary facilities and rebates in respect of income tax, so that industrialists will not suffer losses as a result of this.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasant privilege for me to congratulate the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark on the constructive contribution that he has made. I was looking forward to the hon. member for Hillbrow, the prophet, telling us when he and his Transvaal leader will walk over to the PRP, but as he has not done so, I shall hazard that prediction later this evening. However, I can tell you now that it will be before the next election. Sir, I want to confine myself briefly to the budget. I want right at the outset to say that I think this budget is really a fine budget. It is really a first class budget. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Finance that the public at large have received this budget with open arms because they know that the nucleus of the budget, the hub about which the whole budget turns, is the defence of South Africa. [Interjections.] The Opposition can laugh if they want to. If they do not want to make a contribution towards the defence of South Africa, we are willing to do so. We can defend South Africa without them. The other day they opposed the bill in connection with internal security. We will safeguard the country from within without their assistance. As I have said, the crux of this budget is the defence of this country. We are not only willing to sing “ons sal offer wat jy vra”, but we will also make those sacrifices. I want to say this to the hon. the Minister of Finance this evening. If the hon. the Minister needs more for defence, he only has to say so because then the people of South Africa will give him still more for defence. Sir, this budget is a thorn. It is a thorn in the flesh of the PRP, and before the debate on this measure is over, we are going to hammer in that thorn right to the bone. Sir, this is the third budget we are dealing with this year. The first one dealt with Railway matters, the second one with the Post Office and we are now dealing with the main budget. I want to refer briefly to what the hon. members for Maitland and King William’s Town had to say on a previous occasion. I note that the hon. member for King William’s Town is not here at the moment. He has probably gone to shoot Cubans. Those hon. members made a very great fuss because the Railways had a deficit and because tariffs had to be increased as a result. Any reasonable person would surely understand that when there is a deficit in the case of the Railways, the Railways whose job it is to render a service to various bodies will have to increase its tariffs and that those bodies will have to pay more. The hon. members for Maitland and King William’s Town pointed out that the staff of the Railways had been increased by 36 000 and the hon. member for King William’s Town said that he could fight three wars with those people. While the hon. member was speaking in that vein I thought that it was a field-marshal or a combat general sitting in the ranks of the Opposition. However, I made inquiries and discovered that he was not even a corporal. His rank was lower than that of a corporal. In the same speech the hon. member said—

He made a speech here the other evening but he did not come to that defenceless and neglected section of the population. Somebody asked by way of an interjection who that neglected section of the population was. The hon. member’s reply was—

Mr. Speaker, after this I rose to ask the hon. member a question. What was his reply to me? It was—

He is not here this evening. He has apparently gone to hunt Cubans. Any reasonable man will, however, agree with me that it is not necessary for me to fight him for ten minutes. I only need five minutes, after which he will be on his back, boots and all. [Interjections.] He spoke about the farmer of South Africa, the forgotten, the neglected section of the population. I wonder if the hon. member does not know how well things are going with the farmer in South Africa today. He is insulting the farmers of South Africa. The farmers of South Africa do not come to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture with their hats in their hands. When a disaster takes place over which the farmers have no control, they receive the necessary assistance, but otherwise the farmer of South Africa is prosperous. Has the hon. member not seen the modem homes in which the farmers in South Africa live? He must please not come along and give the impression in this House that the farmers of South Africa are a miserable, impoverished group of beggars who stand with their hats in their hands from morning to night. He is insulting the farmers. The hon. member would do well to listen. He might even get to know something because at the moment he knows absolutely nothing. [Interjections.] Has he not seen the farmers riding around in their large Mercedes cars? I presume he knows what a Mercedes is. He spoke about them the other day. [Interjections.] Just let him imagine that he is standing next to the road an he sees a car coming towards him, flashing a green light in his direction. He must not then make the mistake of thinking that it is a farmer who is indicating that there is a speed trap ahead. It is only a farmer who wants to show him: “I am driving a Mercedes; what are you driving?” [Interjections.] That is how they greet one another on the roads. When they pass one another they say “Ta-ta!” to each other and greet each other. [Interjections.]

There are the wool farmers of the country. Just look at the prices they receive for their wool. There are the wheat farmers of Caledon. I can give him the assurance that things are going well with the citrus farmers. There are also the mohair farmers. Mohair is today as expensive as diamonds. And then the hon. member comes to light with the insult that the farmers are the unjustly treated and the neglected group among our people. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, this brings me to something else that I want to say, and that is that this Government is a thorn in the flesh of the PRP. I just want to point out that they are not in favour of the Republic of South Africa having a strong Defence Force. On not one single occasion have they made an appeal here for a sound Defence Force in South Africa. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, do you know that they do not actually want South Africa to have a Defence Force? They want us in South Africa simply to throw ourselves to the wolves. [Interjections.] And as soon as the wolves have grasped South Africa, they will come along with their palm branches and cover the country with them in going to meet those wolves. That is what they are going to do. [Interjections.] If those hon. members are really in favour of a strong Defence Force, they could already have intimated thus. The other day they had the opportunity to vote in favour of a bill in regard to internal security. What did they do then? They fought every single clause of that bill and they demanded a division on every possible occasion. [Interjections.] I want to make the statement here this evening that the time has come for us to revise the Standing Rules and Orders of this House because this PRP calls for divisions on every possible occasion. They are wasting the money of the State in that way. [Interjections.]

Order!

Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that this PRP and the HNP are tuned into the same wavelength? The one leans completely to the right and the other one leans completely to the left. The hon. the Prime Minister said in this House the other day that the PRP is only a freak and that he does not take any notice of it. I want to say that the PRP is a dangerous freak, a freak whose existence is not justified. I believe that the time has come for an investigation to be made into the comings and goings of the PRP. [Interjections.] The hon. leader of the PRP stood up here this afternoon and said that we must strive for good national relationships. I wonder whether he can tell us of one single occasion on which he has told the non-Whites what the Whites in South Africa are doing for them in the sphere of education. I am sure that he has not done this on one singe occasion. Has he ever told them what the White taxpayer is doing for them in regard to hospital facilities and health services, and what the contribution of the White man is in regard to welfare services, to housing, to providing employment and to the prevention of crime? On not one single occasion has an hon. member of the PRP said anything like this.

How do you know?

He knows!

I said that the PRP said these things outside this House. Just go and look at the slum areas. It is there where they wander around in the evening with their long dresses and their back-to-front collars. [Interjections.] Just go and see how they carry on. Just go and listen to the inflammatory speeches that are made there. Can one promote good national relationships in South Africa in such a way? Just have a look at the sort of questions that are asked in this hon. House by the hon. Leader of the PRP and by the hon. member for Houghton. They are only about the police. They never express one single word of encouragement to the police. It is after all the police who prevent crime and who see to our safety. However, not one single word of acknowledgement is ever directed to them by the hon. members of the PRP. Have they ever uttered one word of encouragement in respect of the sons of our nation who have to defend our borders, who are involved there in the struggle against terrorism? Not a single word! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make the statement here that a courtship is being carried on here. There is a political flirtation that is being carried on here between the PRP and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and his entourage, who form the majority of the UP. [Interjections.] In these times of heavy rains and overwhelming floods one thinks involuntarily of the days when Noah built the ark. He allowed two of every sort of animal to enter the ark. On the day the flood subsided, Noah opened up the ark and allowed the animals to come out and a large number of cats came out of the ark. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, Noah then asked: “Where do all you cats come from?” Then the cats said to Noah: “You thought that we were fighting. We were not fighting, we were making love.” [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that this fighting, this conflict between the UP and the PRP … [Interjections.] One day you open the door to this House, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Houghton will walk out of here with a whole lot of little Progs after them. [Interjections.] My time has almost expired. [Interjections.]

Order!

The Department of Community Development is doing everything in its power today to provide people with accommodation but unfortunately we have the squatter camps which make their appearance all over the Cape landscape. There is more than one reason for this evil, for example, the enormous and uncontrolled increase in the number of non-Whites, the influx from the rural areas and the numbers of non-Whites who are work-shy. Fortunately, the hon. the Minister of Community Development has introduced revised legislation to control squatters. His department has begun very successfully to clear the squatter camps. In the past 18 months 2 700 hovels have been cleared but there are still 21 000 hovels that have to be cleared. These squatter camps are the greatest evil there is. However, what is the attitude of people like the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Rondebosch? When I think of the hon. member for Rondebosch I always think of what Langenhoven said, namely: “Geleerdheid in die kop van ’n dwaas is so gevaarlik soos ’n skeermes in die hand van ’n aap.” While we are trying to clear the squatter camps, what does the hon. member for Houghton have to say? I quote—

How can she say such a thing? After all, we want to get away from those squatter conditions. Those squatter hovels have to be cleared. Those squatter conditions are the cause of theft. It is those people who commit all the crimes. Just look at the number of murders that take place on the west coast. Yesterday another two women were assaulted. People are assaulted day after day. It is the people who are work-shy who loll about in those squatter camps. [Interjections.] Yes, those squatter camps must be cleared but while we are trying to resettle those people, it is said that we are oppressing them. I should like to make the following quotation in regard to what the hon. member for Rondebosch said, namely—

That is a confounded untruth! Those people’s lawful homes are not summarily knocked down. However, there is legislation to prevent illegal squatting. It is said that those 21 000 squatters must be provided with accommodation, but how can one provide them with health services? Those people steal from morning till night and the police cannot even trace those rascals. [Interjections.] The fact that we are now engaged in clearing the hovel conditions and resettling those people is taking the wind out of the sails of the PRP. They want those conditions to persist. They want those murders to continue; they want a crime wave from the rural areas to the cities. They are creating a breeding ground for communism. Instead of helping us to control those squatter conditions, they are encouraging those conditions and making propaganda against the good name of South Africa. It makes no difference whether we have to introduce legislation. I am sure of one thing and that is that we must have this PRP removed by hook or by crook. [Interjections.] I regard the PRP as a danger to the State. We were able to ban the Communist Party and combat communism, but what is the policy of these people? They creep around in a hole. [Interjections.] If they ever take off their masks one day one will be surprised to know what their policy is. Our eyes are not that closed that we do not know what is going on. We know what they propound.

Tell us.

The hon. leader of the PRP is going to hold a convention, but whom does he represent? To whom does he think is he going to sell his policy at that convention? [Interjections.]

The Department of Community Development is tackling a very real problem, namely, to provide our people with housing. Then the hon. member for Von Brandis has the effrontery to say that the Department of Community Development is buying up a great deal of land. This is, however, precisely why we have to congratulate the Department of Community Development because it indicates that the department is a department of planning. If one does not have land, how can one tackle large projects for the Whites and non-Whites?

Pottie, you have already said that.

Mr. Speaker, my time has expired. Thank you. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, when one is running a circus there is one thing one must never allow. One must never allow the clowns to take over the circus

Your party is a circus.

After the last two speeches we have heard, it would appear that the clowns have taken over the Nationalist Party. There is one thing, however, that is worse than allowing the clowns to take over the circus, and that is attempting to follow the clowns in a debate such as this. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth North, if anything, outdid his colleague, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member refer to other hon. members as “clowns”?

Yes, they are clowns, I repeat it. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark makes my point.

Order! A point of order has been taken. I shall consider the point of order and give my ruling at a later stage. The hon. member may proceed.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth North started by saying he was going to deal with this budget. He began by saying: “Dit is ’n lekker begroting en die mense daarbuite verwelkom hierdie begroting met ope arms.” Let me ask, with tears in my eyes, where are the people who welcomed this budget with open arms? It seems to me that those people on the other side, the fat cats of the Government, are the only ones to have done so. Certainly no members of the general public have welcomed this budget. Does that hon. member know what the effect of this budget is on the average householder? It is an increase in the cost of living of R42 a month. That is what it is going to cost the average family outside of this House. I am not talking about that hon. member who is getting a fat salary. He himself referred to the fact that we have repeatedly pointed out from this side of the House that he made one speech in three years. That is the speech he made tonight, but he spoke on the wrong budget. He was not allowed to speak on the Railway budget so he made his Railway budget speech now. Without reflecting at all on you, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the hon. member has anticipated that he would not be allowed to speak on a Bill which is about to be debated in this House and therefore he made his speech this evening on that particular Bill in an attempt to have a go at the Progs, and I do not deny him that right at all. In an attempt to have a go at the Progs he actually anticipated what is going to be debated in this House in two or three weeks’ time. And then on top of it all he showed his true colours here at the end, the true colours of verkramptheid of the Nationalist Party, when he started talking about the squatters. He went entirely against what his colleague, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, said. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark criticized the United Party Government of the old days and said it was the fault of the United Party Government that this Government had to clear up the squatter problem in Johannesburg. The hon. member should know that that is a totally incorrect statement. He should know full well that it was the United Party controlled city council of Johannesburg which cleaned up the squatter problem. But the subsequent problem which arose as the result of the industrialization of South Africa and the tremendous influx of Black people to the industrial areas was a problem which this Government had to solve, an industrial development which was started by the United Party Government. And, Sir, when we talk about industrial development, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark claims that we were totally against all forms of control. He spoke about job reservation and he challenged us to show where job reservation was doing harm.

The hon. member for Walmer only yesterday in this House quoted statistics, how this Government in terms of the Physical Planning Act had refused 1 765 applications for new factories, applications which would have made another 92 000 employment opportunities available for Black people in this country, apart from the Whites, the Indians and the Coloureds who would also have been employed in those businesses. Then the hon. member still has the cheek to talk, to stand up here and talk about job reservation. He knows our position. He knows that we stand for the “rate for the job” and that we believe that the most efficient person should occupy a post at a very real rate. Sir, just in passing, I want to say I hope the hon. the Minister of Agriculture will not leave the Chamber, because I would like to talk to him a little later. [Interjections.] Sir, I will not waste my time any more on these two clowns who are trying to take over the mantle of the Prime Minister, who has been dubbed “the clown prince of Parliament.” I think the Chief Whip should warn him.

Order! I have consulted the rulings of previous Speakers and they have ruled that the use of the word “clown” used in that sense is unparliamentary. So in upholding the decisions of previous Speakers, I must ask the hon. member to withdraw the word.

I abide by your ruling, Sir, and withdraw it. Now I want to speak to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. Many farmers on that side of the House have participated in the debate so far and every one of them has defended the budget. Only one, the hon. member for Caledon, mentioned that there were problems in agriculture, but he did it in such a way that he did not really voice any criticism of the budget or any criticism of the Government’s policy. None of the farmers on that side, and I am thinking particularly of the hon. member for Bethal, who is the chairman of their agricultural group, made any mention of the effect of this budget on the agricultural sector, a community in this country who are already facing tremendous problems, which have been brought about by the unusual and the extreme season we have had, not only in localized areas, but as a whole, generally over the whole Republic. The exception are those areas of the Republic which have had a normal season. I think the hon. the Minister of Agriculture will agree with me.

As the result of that, we would have expected that some assistance would have been given to farmers by this budget. I know that the agricultural sector, or certain sections of it, have benefited from and will continue to benefit from the effects of the devaluation which took place. But it has ben been estimated—not by me, but by the hon. Minister’s department—that these unseasonable climatic conditions we have had, will result in a reduction of R100 million in the value of exports which South Africa could have anticipated, and that is on the inflated figure calculated after devaluation. There is no doubt that the devaluation would have assisted our agricultural sector in its exports. But there is yet another aspect, and that is that many farmers have lost their total production, that there is a loss of production all round and that many of them are going to have little, if any, income during the coming year. What help could they have expected? I believe that they could have expected to see increased amounts voted for assistance to the farming sector. However, if we look at the estimates of expenditure, what do we find? If we look at programme 2—Vote 24: Treasury—on page 24-8, we find that for the year 1975-’76 an amount of R13 million was voted for the Land and Agricultural Bank to provide for bulk storage facilities. I must concede, by the way, that the hon. the Minister of Finance has been generous and has granted an increase of nearly 50% and as a result the amount has been increased to R19 million for the current financial year. I must emphasize the fact that this amount is provided for bulk storage facilities. The amount provided is used for loans to farmers and farmers’ organizations for the storage of crops, and I think the first question which we should ask the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is that he should tell us what crops are going to be stored. I sincerely hope that he will have the crops to be stored in the facilities for which provision is being made. On the same page of the estimates we find that last year an amount of R13,3 million was budgeted for as loans to farmers, but what is the position this year? Nothing is being provided—not a cent is budgeted for the Land Bank to be used as loans to farmers this year. There is a note in the estimates that last year’s provision was a non-recurrent amount. I grant the hon. the Minister of Finance that, because we do not expect to see the same amount recurring year after year, but we would have expected something to be budgeted for the Land Bank this year to be used as loans to farmers. It appears from the budget that there is however no provision at all for money to be lent to farmers by the Land Bank.

There is another Vote under which the farmers could have expected assistance from the Government. I refer to Vote 19— Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. On page 19—1 of the estimates we find that under subhead K—Assistance to Farmers—an amount of R15,8 million was budgeted for 1975-’76. With inflation and all these other conditions, one would have expected that for the current year there would have been an increase. However, there is no increase; in fact, there is a decrease of R1,5 million, and as a result only R14,3 million is being voted this year. This is why I ask: What can the farmers expect from this Government? There is no direct assistance at all being granted to them where.

If we look at subhead G—Dairy Products—under Vote 18 (Agricultural Economics and Marketing) we find that compared to last year the amount voted for the stabilization of the price of butter is down by nearly 12%; it is down by R1 million. It is quite obvious that the Government has decided that the dairy industry is not worth saving. They are not interested in the feeding of the people of this country and they are quite prepared to see the dairy industry going to the wall.

I must admit that under subhead H—Wheat—we find that there is an increase of R20 million in the amount voted for “nett expenses in connection with the stabilization of the price of bread”, but bread is a political commodity. It is a commodity with a political price. I sincerely hope that the increase of R20 million means that the Government intends increasing the price to the producer and giving the wheat farmer a fair price for his wheat without increasing the consumer price at all. This is the challenge which I issue to the two hon. Ministers this evening: The hon. the Minister of Agriculture will shortly announce an increase in the price of wheat without announcing an increase in the price of bread and will in fact follow the advice which we on this side of the House have given him so often, and that is to increase the amount of subsidy to help particularly the lower income group people in this country, who are the eaters of bread. They should not be required to pay more for their bread, but at the same time the farmers should be given a just return for their investment and their labour.

If we look at subhead K—Maize—we find that there is an increase from R47,3 million to R56,7 million in the amount being voted for the stabilization of the price of maize. We welcome this increase.

Again, and here I repeat what I have said in regard to wheat and bread, I hope that this means a fair price to the farmer without an increase to the consumer. I do not believe that it is necessary that the consumer should pay more for maize products. I believe that at the present moment, with inflation running as it does and with the prevailing circumstances in the country, the time has come …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he will agree to our increasing the subsidy on bread by a further R200 million, because that is what we shall have to do if we are to give the farmer a better price while at the same time keeping the consumer price down?

The hon. the Minister wants to know whether I shall support him in increasing the subsidy by a further R200 million, but he gives no supporting facts. He will have an opportunity to speak during this debate and if he puts up a case that, in order to maintain the price of bread at its present level while at the same time giving the farmer a fair price for his wheat, the subsidy should be increased by a further R200 million, then we on this side of the House will support him. [Interjections.] He must make out a case. If the farmers are not going to receive a fair price, the hon. the Minister will have to import wheat at a higher price, because soon it will not be economic for the farmer to produce wheat. In exactly the same way as we face a shortage of milk in this country, we will also face a shortage of wheat. It is no longer economic for the milk farmer to produce milk. I have warned the hon. the Minister about this before. At the moment we in Natal are fetching milk from the Orange Free State border and from inside the Cape Province for Durban. This became necessary as a result of the actions of the Government. [Interjections.]

Let me go further. I have said earlier that the average wage earner in the city has to find another R42 per month in order to cope with the effects of this budget, but what is the position in regard to his purchasing of petrol alone? The average city dweller is spending R30 per month on petrol. I am referring to those who live in the suburbs and have to drive to work in the city every day. The result of this budget is that an amount of R4 per month will have to be added to his petrol bill; in other words, from R30 he goes to R34. However the farmer’s fuel bill is not R30 per month; it is R300 per month and in some cases it is even R3 000 per month. This means an increase not of R4 per month, but of R40 or even of R400 per month. On the basis of a R42 per month increase to the average family in the urban areas, I believe that the farmer’s cost of production has gone up by a minimum of R150 per month as a result of this budget alone, directly as a result of this budget. However, we have hon. members like the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North coming here and spreading his arms wide, saying “Die volk daarbuite verwelkom hierdie begroting met ope arms”. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, with tears in my eyes! I do not believe that anybody outside a Nationalist sycophant has accepted this budget.

There is yet another aspect. The farmer is going to find increases in costs in all spheres of his production. He is already labouring under the iniquitous Railway budget which we had only a month ago, the budget to which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth referred a little earlier. Here the farmer is getting a second blow below the belt, this time from the hon. the Minister of Finance. However, with pride the hon. the Minister announced in his budget speech further concessions to industrialists with regard to the depreciation of their machinery. He is allowing them additional depreciation rates in what he referred to as “inflation bookkeeping” or “inflation accounting”. He mentioned that the whole matter was referred to a standing committee of inquiry into inflation bookkeeping. The present position with an industrialist is that he can write off over the years—if I am wrong, the hon. the Minister must please put me right— up to 140% of his capital outlay in machinery.

No, it is 130%.

Thank you. He can do that at a rate which, in the first year, approaches 80%.

It depends on the depreciation rate, but it is roughly 70% to 75%.

Thank you. Sir, I appreciate the hon. the Minister putting me right. A farmer is only allowed the normal depreciation rate of a maximum of 20%, and that 20% is only allowed in respect of certain machinery. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture will bear me out when I say that farming has today in many sectors become a highly mechanized enterprise. Just to mention one item, two years ago a combine reaper cost R27 000. Today that same combine reaper costs R50 000. Some farmers today have outlays in excess of R200 000 in machinery. In all earnestness I want to ask the hon. the Minister to look into this matter and to refer it to his standing committee. I would ask that the agricultural sector be given a square deal, and not what they have received from this Government. I do not believe that the agricultural sector deserves what it has received from this Government in this budget.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is one of the members who deals with agricultural matters every now and then. I think the hon. member definitely did not do the farmers any favour tonight by speaking the way he did. He was trying to play cheap politics by delivering that plea on behalf of the farmers of South Africa. He accused this side of the House of not pleading for the farmers of South Africa. To me it is clear that the hon. member is one of the people who is mostly in town and hardly on the farm. He has lost contact and he does not know what is going on. However, the hon. member did say one good thing, although the hon. member for Von Brandis denies it. The hon. member said that devaluation in regard to export products did mean something to the farmers.

Certain sectors of the farmers.

Yes, he said that devaluation meant a great deal to those farmers who produce export products. That is so, but the hon. member for Von Brandis said, “There is very little in devaluation for the farmers and for everybody.” Mr. Speaker, the hon. member also made a statement in connection with the Land Bank which is not correct. If the hon. member will look at page 24 of the budget, he will see that R19 million will be voted for the Land Bank this year. The hon. member made the statement that the Land Bank was to be given nothing this year. The hon. member also said that R19 million would be made available for mass facilities this year. Evidently the hon. member is not aware of the fact that the hon. the Minister had announced a five-year plan in terms of which R19 million per year is to go towards mass facilities in this country. Sir, the National Party has been developing this country ever since 1948 when it came into power. It is developing this country’s infra-structure. Also as regards mass facilities; this Government is erecting large structures to benefit all our people. For instance, I think of the storage and handling of grain. This benefits not only the farmers, but also the consumers of this country. At the moment we have a large quantity of wheat which is being carried over from the previous season. It is time for the maize crop to come in. We experience problems each year since we are only able to receive approximately 60% to 65% of the total maize crop at this stage. So there is the problem of crops overlapping, and consequently this amount represents very essential money which must be spent in the interests of agriculture in South Africa.

He says we are going to have silos which will be empty.

Yes. I have said, the hon. member definitely did not do agriculture any favour tonight. There was a time when the Opposition killed agriculture in South Africa with what they said. There was a time when they helped talk our young people into leaving the farms. They did not see any prospects in the agricultural industry. During the past two years, however, the Opposition was not quite as bad as this, and I am very sorry that the hon. member tried once more this evening to carry on with the old policy of the United Party of wanting to kill agriculture with what they say. The hon. member said that if the price of wheat was to be increased, the price of bread should not be increased, as well, and that the difference which would become larger because of this, was to be subsidized by the Government. I wonder whether the hon. member has made a small calculation in this regard. When we look at the budget, we find that amounts of R70 million and R90 million appear in the budget in respect of maize and wheat respectively. Therefore an amount of R160 million is set aside for these two industries alone. Do you know by how much this amount would have to increase if the Government were to accept this policy of the United Party? It would have to increase to R250 million or R300 million. Sir, can one be so unrealistic?

Then he says he is not a “clown”.

Yes, then he speaks of other people being “clowns”. I honestly think that the hon. member did not think what he was saying. He did not consider his case fully. Sir, I want to tell you tonight that this Government is participating in the anti-inflation campaign. It is doing its share. In this budget we must do certain things and not fail to do other things with the capital we have at our disposal this year. We must satisfy the requirements of good, responsible government, and because the farmers are the friends of this Government, the farmers know that the Government will lend them assistance and will give them the best under the circumstances. In the case of Agricultural Credit the amount mentioned by the hon. member, viz. R14,3 million, was placed on the budget. This is a large amount. We shall look after our farmers as we have been looking after them over the years. Our farmers know that the National Party is their friend and the farmers have confidence in the National Party Government.

There are a few basic and important facts, however, we must look at when we come to this budget. The first one I want to mention this evening, is that South Africa finds itself in an ever shrinking world and that it cannot isolate itself from the events around it. The second point I want to mention, is that the extent and the intensity of the overseas depression which has been rampant since the beginning of 1973 should not be underestimated. The effect of that depression on South Africa should not be under-estimated either. Then I want to say that the negative effect of the drop in the gold price and the increased expenditure in respect of crude oil is phenomenal. In the fourth place I want to say that the effect of the high rate of inflation in overseas countries, especially during the past three years, on our own economy, and the high cost of imported goods in general, as well as the effect of these things on our balance of payments, are things of which we have to take cognizance.

Another very important matter, which has already been mentioned in this debate, is that the events in the international and political spheres in southern Africa, unmistakenly demands of us that we, in spite of brave attempts in the past, strengthen our military preparedness energetically and with a will, especially since we realize that South Africa will have to help itself to a larger extent and more effectively than ever before, and also since we realize that this is a country, the inhabitants of which have the courage and the will to maintain themselves and to work out a future of which everyone, Black, White and Brown, will be proud. We are concerned with people who are prepared not only to die for the attainment of this ideal, but rather to live for it. By living in such a Way that a contribution is made, and by making sacrifices when these are required, they act positively and meaningfully in the interests of that in which we all believe. If we want sound economic growth and stability as well as military preparedness in this country, we will have to realize that these require political viability, political preparedness and political stability. Therefore we are fortunate in South Africa in having a Government in power which has proved its stability, preparedness and viability in the political and economic spheres. We are politically viable, we are politically stable and we are politically prepared. In these dangerous times in which we are living today, the greatest single problem of the world is precisely the lack of strong governments which could take the proper measures in these times for solving the economic problems of the world. As against that, we have a Government in South Africa which has the courage of its convictions. The hon. member for Hillbrow said just now that he yearned for leadership. I am sorry that he is not here. In South Africa we have the leadership of a Prime Minister who has the courage and the conviction to do things in South Africa, and we have people here who are prepared to accept the leadership of our Prime Minister.

But he does not solve any problems.

The hon. member for Durban Central says that we are not solving any problems. If he does not understand these things, he must not argue with me about them. We could solve his problems for him, if only he would listen and hear. The hon. member always has an interjection to make and that way he learns nothing. We in South Africa believe that with sacrifices and loyalty things can be attained.

In listening to the arguments which came from the other side, one perceived that they were concerned with material things, with rands and cents. I am sorry to have to say this, but it is true. These people have lost touch with the voters of South Africa. We are privileged in this country in having people who are prepared to accept this budget which is a hard one and which makes great demands on us. It is a budget which will require our people to tighten their belts from day to day and perhaps over a reasonably long period. And they will do so, because they believe in a National Party Government, and in the financial measures and financial discipline which our Government has created with this budget. If we are to achieve in the long term the things which the Opposition wants, a flourishing economy and a higher standard of living, it is necessary for us at times to take measures of a disciplinary nature. It may not be pleasant and it may not be easy. However, it is the responsibility of this Government, after the monetary measures it has recently taken in restricting bank credit and introducing a ceiling, to proceed by means of fiscal measures to confirm what has already been done. This discipline is necessary. The Opposition must accept it as such. They have the privilege of sitting over there on the other side and of being able to criticize. Both the opposition parties are basking in the sunshine of South Africa, this lovely sunshine under a safe National Party Government, and tonight, when they are refreshed, they will criticize and cast suspicion on the actions of this Government. They can afford to show this degree of irresponsibility, because they know that there is a National Party Government which will protect them from themselves. I am sorry that one has to address these words to an opposition party during a budget debate.

However, now I want to come to another matter. I want to come to the budget itself. To my mind this budget contains a few positive measures of which we must take note. Five of our departments switched over to the new integrated budget system this year and the other departments will follow in the years to come. I think that this is a step forward. This method makes possible a better understanding of the budget and the figures which it contains. The allocation of funds, not only to each department, but to each item, to each objective, is something to which I want to draw attention tonight. This will not only enable us to get our priorities right in the future; it will also enable us to see what we have achieved with the money, how those priorities have been dealt with one after another and what value we get for the money which has been spent in this way. I think it will enable us all, and if we have a responsible Opposition in this country whose members want to look at the budget properly, it will increasingly enable them as well, to look at the amounts which the Government spends on the budget for each department and also for each item within that department, thus arriving at a better understanding of the things which they often have doubts about. I do not blame them for often erring, because it must be very difficult to sit in the Opposition seats for 28 years. I do not think that any of the hon. members on the other side has ever served in a cabinet. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, how much frustration must build up over a period of 28 years in Opposition benches when you have to live on criticism and nothing but criticism day in, day out? I think that is too much for any normal Christian person. That is why we get the reaction which we get from the side of the Opposition.

We on this side of the House say to the hon. the Minister: Thank you very much; thank you very much for the financial discipline which is shown in this budget, for a continuous policy which is being followed, knowing full well that it is the best medicine for South Africa and its people and that it will give us the best results in the long term. It would have been very popular to make a lot of concessions, but it would also have been highly irresponsible. We on this side of the House want to say that we accept the leadership of our Minister, of our Cabinet, and that in spite of this hard budget, this discipline which is being enforced, we are prepared to reconcile our people to it, knowing that where the security of South Africa, where defence is our largest single item in this budget as far as increases are concerned, it will be for the good of all our people—White, Black and Brown. Because of that we have confidence in the future, because we know that we have a Government in South Africa which has the courage, the will and the guts—as the hon. member put it a short while ago—to do things when they must be done, that it will not take action when it is too late, but that it will look to the future in time and do things which are in the interests of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, after the joviality of the evening, I want to speak at this late stage, earnestly to our friends sitting here near me, i.e. the members of the Progref Party. I am sorry the hon. the leader of the party and the hon. member for Yeoville are not here.

They are one and the same person.

I wanted to speak to them in particular.

They are deciding on the policy for next week.

The hon. member for Yeoville is now posing as a great patriot in this debate with the obvious aim at improving the image of his party. We do not want to doubt the hon. member’s patriotism, but I want to ask him, however, whether he agrees with what his leader, the hon. member for Sea Point, and with what his fellow-party member, the hon. member for Rondebosch, did in Germany. During one of their many roamings abroad recently, the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Rondebosch attended an international conference in West Germany. A leading personality who also attended that conference, Professor Werner Pfeifenberger, professor at the University of Münster, had the following to say according to a report in the Volksblad of 20 September 1975—

Eglin was never there. [Interjections.]

Was the hon. member for Rondebosch there? The hon. member for Rondebosch was there and this professor tells us that they spoke of great dissatisfaction and of possible revolution in South Africa within four years. This professor went on to say—

What do we have here? Here we have a Bantu leader from South Africa who stepped into the breach for South Africa abroad, and we have a member of the Progressive Party who speaks of revolution in South Africa.

That is not true. Why do you not accept the hon. member’s word?

The hon. member for Rondebosch said that he was there. [Interjections.] I regret that this hon. member denies it, but this is the impression of a professor at the University of Münster in West Germany, after he listened to the hon. member for Rondebosch. [Interjections.] Then he comes to this conclusion, and I quote what the professor had to say—

This is, to say the least, shockingly disloyal towards South Africa, if what this honourable professor says, is true.

You have just been told it is not true. [Interjections.]

I do now want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville— unfortunately he is not here, but it can be conveyed to him—the great patriot of that party, whether he approves of these things which members of his party said abroad. It surprises me that that Bantu leader was more loyal to South Africa. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Progrefs to tell us what they tell people when they travel abroad. He must tell us what they say to Black leaders of Africa when they travel there, because they often pay visits there. They must also tell us what they tell the leaders of the non-Whites in this country, when they convene with them behind locked doors. All the indications are that the Progrefs are playing a role abroad and behind closed doors here in South Africa, which cannot be exposed to daylight. The hon. the leader of the Progrefs must get up here and tell us what happens behind those locked doors during their discussions with non-Whites. In the past ugly things have hatched at those conferences which took place in the dark. When these people speak of revolution abroad, these things have to be related to one another. What do these hon. members know of revolution? They must tell us what they know about it. We all know what great sacrifices our hon. the Prime Minister has made to forge closer bonds of friendship with our neighbours in Southern Africa. He distinguished himself to such an extent that he enjoyed the appreciation of the whole world. We all know what great success he achieved with it. Also we all know how South Africa benefits through it. Now the hon. leader of the Progressive Reform Party comes along and tells the world “Détente was in ruins”—there is nothing left of détente. I can hardly imagine a more unpatriotic statement than that. The hon. member is now echoeing the enemies of South Africa and I can imagine how the Kremlin will smile about this statement that nothing is left of the détente of South Africa. When the hon. the Prime Minister recently thought it necessary to warn against this party’s intrigue in the dark, the national chairman of that party, Mr. Ray Swart, reacted in a very defiant manner and said the following—

This is the defiant attitude of the national chairman of the Progressive Reformist Party. Tonight I want to tell the non-White leaders and the non-Whites of South Africa that they must beware of these people who are so keen to talk to them in the dark. The non-Whites must bear in mind that sound relationships can not only come from one side. If poor relationships become the cause of revolution, it will affect the non-Whites just as it will affect the Whites in South Africa. Confrontation and revolution will have disastrous results in South Africa for White, Brown and Black. The impression must not be created among the non-Whites that the results of revolution will only be disastrous for the Whites, because they will be just as disastrous for the non-Whites. Those who think that revolution will be disastrous for Whites only, are making a grave mistake. The non-Whites must be careful that they are not led by the nose by certain Whites along this dangerous road. The Progrefs know that they will as soon come to power in this country with their policy as one can reach out and touch the moon. In fact, it seems as if these people had taken the place of previous White groups, which had disappeared, these people whose intention it was to ride to victory on the backs of the Black man, the Coloureds and the Indians. We all know how these Whites which disappeared, bedevilled groups race relations in South Africa to breaking point. The non-Whites in South Africa must be warned against these people.

The hon. member for Yeoville appealed for economic confidence. He said that the Government must see to that. This all sounds very well, especially coming from that party. However, what the hon. member did not say is that his colleagues can make a major contribution to stimulate that confidence which he is seeking. The largest contribution they can make is to keep their mouths shut and not to make statements which shock confidence. I shall furnish proof of this now. Confidence and stability are important ingredients in an economy, but the hon. member for Yeoville himself is not exactly a good example of stability, because each time he has participated in a Budget debate, he has spoken as a member of a different party. First he spoke as a member of the United Party, then as a Reformist, and now he speaks as a member of the Progressive Reform Party. I wonder what he will be when he speaks in this House next year. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville must first get his own house in order before he poses as an ardent patriot here. In a previous debate the hon. member for Johannesburg North— unfortunately he is not here tonight either— made predictions in his deep, dark voice like an oracle and a prophet of doom. He made predictions which would even have given the witch of Endor cold shivers. [Interjections.] He even said: “I am sorry to sound like a Jeremiah.” He bellowed this out. The hon. member made a sombre speech, a speech stripped of all patriotism. He spoke like someone who had no hope and no heart for South Africa, a condoler at the economic grave of South Africa. In the process that hon. member clean forgot that the companies in which he has interests, became fat and flourished on the prosperity created by this National Party Government in this country. [Interjections.] Let us look at what the hon. member said here. He said: “South Africa has become one of the banana republics of South America. It has fallen into such financial ill-repute that we shall nigh have yet another devaluation.”

Three debates behind again!

Mr. Speaker, a “banana republic” …

Yes, but that was three debates ago!

Quite correct. This is what the hon. member said here this year. Does the hon. member for Johannesburg North not realize that people see him as the mouthpiece of the great money magnate, Mr. Harry Oppenheimer? Language such as the language he used, is shockingly unpatriotic. It is nothing less than a dagger in the back of South Africa. One seldom, if ever, hears a word from one of those hon. members in the interests of the Whites of South Africa. Mr. Speaker, they are only concerned about the non-Whites and act as if the White man did not exist at all. All we hear from them is how the White man has failed to do his duty towards the non-Whites. All they argue about is what the White man still has to do and what he has not yet done for other races. However, we very seldom hear from them what the White man has indeed done for other races in this country. Why do we never hear from them that the White man also has rights in this country? [Interjections.] Will the hon. member please get up if he wants to say something?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in terms of Standing Order No. 123, is the hon. member permitted to read his speech? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. the leader of the Progressive Reform Party to tell the voters how his party sees the future of the Whites in this country. This is something they have never told us. In their speeches and their pleas throughout the country the White man is ignored as if he did not exist at all. We always hear how the non-Whites are wronged in this country. However, one sometimes wonders why they plead on behalf of the non-Whites to such an extent. Are they really so concerned about the lot of the non-Whites, or do they just want to ride on the backs of the Brown and Black people in the country in an attempt to get somewhere one day?

Under Progressive rule all doors in South Africa will be thrown open for the non-Whites. That is very clear to us. However, the non-White will not be allowed into the exclusive rich man’s club or rich man’s area. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, there one buys one’s apartheid. The non-Whites will be excluded there because they do not have enough money and because they will not be allowed there on merit either. This will be the position of the non-White in this country when those hon. friends come into power. The non-Whites will find that under Progressive Reform rule in South Africa, they will be cheated out of those things which are now offered to them upon a plate. We can only hope that the non-Whites in South Africa who still listen to the Progressive Party …

Order! I want to warn the hon. member to moderate his language. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling. I just want to tell the non-Whites that they must be wide awake because in the future they will be out-smarted by these people. This is something for which they must prepare themselves. Therefore when they have conferences with the Progressive Reform Party and its people, they must be aware of the fact that their interests are not such a concern as they are made out to be.