Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned last night I had just quoted the figures relating to the real growth in our economy over the last three years. If one takes the average for those three years, it amounts to 3,5% per annum, compared to the objective of the EDP of 6,4% per annum. This again serves to throw into sharp relief how far this Government has fallen short of its own target. It depicts a framework which should be shunned by all. It is certainly a set of circumstances which continues to hit hardest those who are least equipped to face it, i.e. the old, the poor, and of course, predominantly, the Blacks in South Africa. This is not in any way tolerable for any one of us, when we consider the implications. Even the hon. the Prime Minister has admitted that he will not sleep easily of nights in such circumstances.

To summarize, the tragedy which stares all South Africans in the face, the tragedy of which every one of us should be aware, is the equation which is simple to state, but stark in its consequences, i.e. that apartheid or separate development is no solution to Soweto, which in turn means that we are going to have an absence of foreign capital on the terms and on the scale requested. The absence of that foreign capital in turn leads inevitably to drastically lower, if any, growth, than we could under another Government reasonably hope to enjoy. That in turn means unemployment and a self-justifying vicious cycle. It is hardly a bright prospect for any South African to consider.

However, now we must turn to the future, because that is where the really critical thrust of this Government is now displayed. As we look at the economic future of South Africa, there are broadly two alternatives which we can follow as we peer into it. The first one is to head for a Götterdämmerung and the other is to make the political changes which are required to attract foreign capital on the necessary scale and on reasonable terms and conditions. Let us make no mistake, there is nothing wrong with South Africa in the sense of assets or the ability to create wealth. Therefore, it is important that both the size and the implications of that choice should be readily understood by each and every South African.

What everybody should bear in mind, in the first instance, are the figures relating to the gap between Government expenditure and Government revenue. If we take the figures in the budgets which this hon. Minister has introduced over the last three years, they are respectively R1 345 million, R1 544 million and it is now anticipated that the gap for this year will be R1 635 million. To look at another facet of the same picture, the current account deficit in 1975 was R1 832 million, and that for last year was R1 515 million.

Now, of course, it must be readily admitted that the cost of oil and defence has risen and has added some R1 500 million to the Government’s expenditure, but the cardinal figures that every South African should remember, are those figures of the gap, because they serve to underline the importance of foreign capital for our growth and development. Every South African should consider the consequences of what is likely to happen if we do not succeed in attracting foreign capital.

Let us assume that this hon. Minister and the Government succeed in bringing the current account into balance, or even into a small surplus. That will be no mean feat in itself, though I will come to the cost. Even if it achieves that, it will still in the absence of foreign capital inflows, have to finance the gap between its expenditures and revenues internally. Now, where is this hon. Minister and the Government going to go for honey? They have exhausted the reserves. They have come to the limit of their compensatory borrowings and their drawings on reserves, or at least very close to it. It is therefore really quite simple; in order to finance that gap, they are going to have to slaughter the private sector by the transfer of resources from that sector to themselves.

It must be borne in mind that that gap is widening, from R1 345 million to R1 635 million. The result will be, even assuming that the Government gets the current account into balance without any foreign capital, that they are going to have to put the private sector under the hammer, whether by increased taxation or by more and more compulsory investment in the public sector. If they do not do that, we are going to have inflation on the scale of the Weimar Republic. The likely consequences of what the Government’s options are, are reduced, if any, private investment, lower profits, little if any growth and more unemployment. Those are the inevitable consequences. In short, it means a much reduced standard of living together with an accelerating trend in the degree of control by the Government of the economy. If Dr. Wassenaar is not to be proved more right, and quicker than he ever thought he would be, and if an economic Götterdämmerung is to be avoided, then it is axiomatic that we need, as we always have, foreign capital. This has been indeed confirmed by the hon. the Minister himself in Parliament this session when he said that foreign capital amounted to only 10% to 11% in the period 1970 to 1974. The hon. the Minister is as aware as I am that these figures have now been updated. The figures show that the average percentage of foreign capital 1970 to 1976 was 15,7%. Let us assume that gross domestic investment increases in the next year or the year after to R9 000 million as compared to the figure of R8 296 million last year and that we have used up our potential for compensatory borrowing. If the reserve cupboard is already bare, then the fact is that we would need R1 350 million of true capital inflow merely to cover the gap between Government expenditure and Government revenue, without even bothering to rebuild the reserves. That gap has to be financed one way or the other and either way this is the crunch. Much larger foreign capital inflows will be needed in future before we can again have a satisfactory growth in our real gross domestic product. As I have said, all the Government appears to be doing is pinning its hopes on a rise in the price of gold and in the price and volume of our mineral exports and agricultural products. We also hope that that will happen, but it is not a very sure platform to build on in the future. As I have said, these factors lie beyond our control and, secondly, when it comes to mineral exports, they depend very much upon the growth in the primary industrial countries of the world and that has not yet occurred continuously.

Therefore the key remains foreign capital and the confidence of foreign investors. This has been explicitly recognized by the Minister and I want to quote twice from the budget speech. The hon. the Minister said (Hansard 30 March 1977, col. 4660)—

Secondly, he said (Hansard, 30 March 1977, col. 4660)—

He is referring to foreign capital.

The second quotation is undoubtedly true. The first may well have been true in the past and it may to an extent still be so, but it misses the main point that we have been playing in a new ball game since 16 June last year. The prerequisite to convince foreign investors to lend us money is no longer that we have an extraordinary economic potential nor the maintenance at vast cost of our financial reputation, though both of these will help; it is simply whether this Government will make the required changes to improve the quality of life in Soweto. Let us be clear. No rhetoric from this Government will serve any purpose. What is demanded now is action. Let us also be clear that the potential overseas lenders, who lie beyond the Government’s control, are not demanding one man one vote tomorrow. They are laying down certain conditions for those who live in Soweto. These are very simple requests, for example the right of ownership of their houses and freehold land, vastly improved education for their children, the abolition of anything other than equal pay for equal work, the elimination of petty apartheid—whatever the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education says—the abolition of restrictions on Black business and the right of Black trade unions to register and to negotiate. In effect, the overseas investor is saying that we should give to the people of Soweto a beacon of hope and an immediate better life. It is no coincidence that if this Government were to take such action the defence of our country would be immeasurably improved. We have always argued that we should be well equipped to defend ourselves and naturally you do not disarm yourself when the enemy stands on your border, but you can disarm your enemy in another very considerable way by uniting all those who live within your country.

In this respect the priorities of the Government are all wrong. It is here that our defence and our economic development come together, and indeed they cannot be seen apart. It is here that the Government for or in its own sectional interest has totally failed the country. To be sure, to increase the Vote of Community Development by R63,3 million, to increase the Vote for the Coloured people by R35,5 million, to increase the Vote of the Indian community by R12,4 million and to increase the Vote for Bantu education by R39,5 million sounds impressive. However, if one adds it all up, it is 1,7% of the expenditure provided for in this budget and less than one half of 1 % of the gross domestic product.

In conclusion, let us be clear about it: This budget is not going to sell overseas and is not going to attract the foreign capital we need. If we as a country are to go forward—as we should and could—we must solve the problems and the reasonable expectations of the people of Soweto. We cannot afford the cost of apartheid. If the Government does not reconsider its priorities, as laid bare by this budget, there will be no return of external confidence while confidence internally will wither. If the Government continues to refuse to acknowledge that it has such a choice, and if it continues to head for an economic Götterdämmerung, the budget will have been a watershed, because the spectre of unrest about which we warned last year, will continue unnecessarily to stalk the land. The decision is in the first instance political, and every South African—but particularly the Whites—should be aware of it, for it is the future of the White people which is at stake if the changes are not forthcoming. That is the judgment on the cost of apartheid.

The alternative is to improve the quality of life in Soweto, and thereby our defence and then the capital from overseas will be forthcoming, not only to bridge our present difficulties, but also to finance the exploitation of the potential wealth of our land. The final judgment on this budget is that the real cause for concern is, therefore, that the main thrust is towards the first and ignores the other choice.

Mr. Speaker, as I have come to the end of my political career, and as this will be the last time I shall have the privilege of addressing the House, I hope that the hon. member for Johannesburg North will forgive me if I do not comment on what he had to say. That does, however, not mean that he will be allowed to get away with everything he had to say.

Sir, I have rather mixed feelings today. It is a strange sensation, almost as if I have to make a maiden speech, or perhaps a maiden speech in reverse.

*It is not easy to take leave of this Parliament of which I had the privilege of becoming a member for the first time almost 20 years ago. At the same time I am grateful that I have been able to devote such a large part of my life to the service of South Africa in various capacities, by far the greatest portion of that service being as member of the Cabinet. I accepted the appointment as Minister of Foreign Affairs with hesitation, after I had initially asked to be excused. A few of my intimate friends were aware of this. Since that moment, however, our foreign relations have dominated my entire existence and have been the pivot on which my whole life turned. Fortunately it was not necessary for me to bear the heavy responsibilities alone. Consequently I wish to tender my sincere thanks and gratitude to all who supported me and I should like to place it on record.

In the first place it was my privilege to be able to work under the leadership of and together with two of the greatest statesmen South Africa has ever produced, i.e. the late Dr. Verwoerd and our present Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster. The encouragement and support, the co-operation, guidance and friendship which I received from them throughout, made it possible for me to accept the challenges and not to lose heart, but always to try to do my best. Incidently, it was mainly owing to them that I thoroughly enjoyed my work from beginning to end.

I should like to address a special word of thanks to our present Prime Minister, firstly because he made it possible for me to retire at this juncture, and secondly because it was a unique privilege and experience for me to have worked under him and with him so intimately and pleasantly as colleague and friend for such a long time. I wish him and Mrs. Vorster God’s richest blessing.

Mr. Speaker, I should like furthermore to express my sincere thanks to you and to your celebrated predecessors for all the courtesy, fairness and friendship that was shown to me. You are fortunate in that you can rely on a team of officials of the highest calibre. They, too, from the Secretary to Parliament down to the most junior members of his staff here in the House and outside, have treated me with the greatest courtesy and helpfulness over the years. To them all I say thank you very much.

In addition I am immeasurably indebted to all my Cabinet colleagues with whom I was privileged to pull together in one team for many years and whose friendship I highly appreciate. I shall miss their friendship and comradeship sorely, and nothing will ever be able to compensate for the loss. I am also sincerely indebted to the two Secretaries for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Gerhard Jooste and Mr. Brand Fourie, with whom I had the privilege of working together, and also to all the members of the Department of Foreign Affairs at head office and those in our missions abroad, and also of course to all my private secretaries and personal staff. I shall probably miss them most of all. Both the Secretaries for Foreign Affairs and their staff supported me loyally and provided me with the very best advice literally day and night, year in and year out. The longer I occupied this position and the more experience and knowledge I acquired, the greater became my appreciation for their proficiency and for their loyalty to South Africa.

On this occasion I should like to convey my sincere thanks to the voters whom I have been able to represent in the House of Assembly, particularly the voters of Beaufort West, for their loyalty, their friendship and their thoughtfulness. They went out of their way throughout to facilitate my task as Minister. I also want to express my cordial thanks to all my parliamentary colleagues in both Houses of Parliament, those with whom I have been privileged over the years to serve together in one caucus, under the same Whip, and also to hon. members of the Opposition, particularly to those with whom I have crossed swords across the floor of this House over the years. I shall miss all of them and in particular the members of the NP Foreign Affairs Group, who always supported me so loyally in the debates. Last but by no means least, I want to convey my thanks and appreciation to my wife and my son for all the sacrifices they have made as a result of my work.

†One of the most gratifying aspects of my work as Minister, and before that as South Africa’s representative in Great Britain, was the privilege of meeting and establishing friendly personal relations with such a large variety of interesting people, not only here in Parliament, but also outside of Parliament, in the diplomatic corps in South Africa as well as with foreign ministers and other dignitaries all over the world. I shall treasure the friendship which I have made with many of them for the rest of my life.

*Since the beginning of 1961, when I went to London as High Commissioner, until today, South Africa has gone through an extremely important, interesting and in certain respects a very troubled period. From the point of view of foreign affairs there have been high-water marks, but most certainly low-water marks as well. I am thinking for example of the very successful visits abroad by the hon. the Prime Minister, on which I had the privilege of accompanying him. There were three such historic visits to Europe, several visits to African States, as well as to Latin America and Israel. I also have very pleasant memories of dozens of talks which I held with leaders on all the continents, some of which had significant consequences for South Africa. But I do not want to elaborate on that today. As everyone realizes, my task, to say the least, was not always easy, and personally I endured many disappointments and set-backs, and sometimes insults too at the UNO, which have fortunately left me unscathed. However I do not want to elaborate on that now either.

†The news of my appointment as Foreign Minister reached London late one evening in November 1963. As Ambassador I was at a diplomatic reception which was attended by Sir Alec Douglas-Home, who had just been promoted from Foreign Secretary to Prime Minister. As I already knew him well, I walked up to him and told him what had happened. His first, spontaneous reaction was: “Oh, my God. How sorry I feel for you.” Sometime later during the next year I visited the United States and called upon the Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, who, as some hon. members may remember, was also a Rhodes Scholar. He congratulated me on my appointment and welcomed me to what he described as the Trade Union of Foreign Secretaries, but added the warning that the working hours were ghastly, something which I had already by then discovered myself. I am sure that my hon. successor has also already made this discovery in the short term that he has been in that position. Fortunately I also soon discovered that my work as Foreign Minister was extremely interesting and that there was literally never a dull moment, and that I thoroughly enjoyed.

*As Minister of Foreign Affairs it was, inter alia, my endeavour—and in this I had the full support of my department throughout—to keep South Africa’s sovereignty unimpaired; never to do anything which would be unworthy of our country and which would not compel the respect of decent people; to respect the norms recognized by the civilized world; never to cast suspicion on the honour and credibility of South Africa; to strengthen and extend existing ties of friendship; to make new contacts and forge new ties where possible, but never to try to buy friendship; to try to defeat the attempt to isolate South Africa, and to normalize South Africa’s relations with Africa so that South Africa may assume its rightful place in Africa and internationally and make its contribution to peace, international co-operation and development. Under the guidance of our present hon. Prime Minister my department and I made it our special task to prevent any escalation of violence in Southern Africa by trying to promote peaceful solutions to burning political issues. Many of the objectives which my department and I sought to achieve have not been accomplished, and major challenges still lie ahead. I want to mention a few examples. It is true that the deliberate attempt to isolate us on the diplomatic level has failed, for our diplomatic representation throughout the world has expanded considerably during the past 13 years. However, our relations with the vast majority of African States are not at all what they should be, they are by no means satisfactory. But I am convinced that new momentum will be generated in this sphere if and as progress is made with peaceful solutions in South West Africa and Rhodesia. I am pleased that one of my last official functions last month was to act as host and to chair a fruitful conference of Ministers and high-ranking officials of all the members of the customs union with our three BLS neighbouring states.

It may interest hon. members to be reminded that the South African Department of Foreign Affairs was formally established on 1 June 1927, i.e. almost 50 years ago. During this half-century the department and its Ministers from time to time created a fine tradition of which South Africa may be proud.

Unfortunately we are living in times in which many of the recognized international traditions and practices are being disregarded and trampled into the mire, times in which many of the old civilized norms are having to make way for new approaches which are being dictated by the communist bloc and the Third World with their preponderance of votes in General Assembly of the UNO. This has led to the World Organization degenerating into a farce and failing hopelessly in its lofty aim, viz. that of promoting peace. Instead it has become an instrument in the hands of the Third World which is being manipulated in a subtle way by the Russians to attain their own selfish objectives.

In spite of all this I nevertheless believe that as far as our foreign relations are concerned, it is in South Africa’s interests that we should draw on what is good and splendid in our past and should build on it in future. With that I do not wish to imply that our foreign policy should be stagnant. On the contrary. South Africa’s diplomacy should be dynamic. Adjustments should constantly be made. Where necessary the emphasis should be shifted and priorities changed. New initiatives should be taken in the light of altered circumstances, as was regularly done in the past and as I trust will also happen in future.

The essence of South Africa’s problem with the outside world is of a threefold nature. Primarily our foreign relations are being hampered by three factors: Firstly the relentless, virulent and the same time so unreasonable opposition of virtually the entire world to our internal relations policy as it has been dished up to the world for many years now by hostile news media; secondly the dispute of many years’ standing in regard to South West Africa which has marred our relations with the UNO and the outside world; and thirdly, the Rhodesian question which has an obstructive effect on inter-state relations in Southern Africa. In this regard it is unnecessary to remind hon. members that the situation in Southern Africa has recently become extremely dangerous as a result of the Russian-Cuban military and political intervention, with everything which that implies. Nothing would suit the Russians and Cubans better than an armed conflict leading to a collapse of the existing order in our subcontinent.

Recently there have been quite a number of developments which have drastically altered the situation in regard to all three factors, which affect South Africa’s position in the outside world. The result is that a new phase has begun and that we are on the threshold of what can be regarded as a new era, both as far as our internal and our foreign politics are concerned. I base my statement on facts which are known to all hon. members. In the case of our relations policy it is unnecessary to elaborate on the milestone which has been reached through the independence of Transkei, which will be followed by that of Bophuthatswana. Hon. members are also aware of the new dispensation for Bantu homelands, for the Bantu in urban areas and for the Coloureds, as appears, inter alia, from the latest White Paper in this regard. There is also the Cabinet Council, the enquiry into the application of the Westminster system in South Africa, the appointment of Coloureds and Indians to boards, etc. The purposeful attempts of the Government to eliminate unnecessary discrimination and to promote respect for human dignity are also general knowledge, and considerable progress has already been made in this regard. It may also be assumed that urgent attention will constantly be given to this matter in future.

I am convinced that it is possible in this way to persuade the Bantu peoples and the two other population groups in South Africa that it is worth their while and that it is in their interests to lend their full support to the Whites in order to deal with and avert any threats to the existing order in our country. To succeed in this object we Whites will have to continue on the course we have adopted with courage and determination without shrinking from the implications of the full unfolding of our policy. We shall also have to keep on making sacrifices and to preserve an unshakeable faith in our calling and in our future. We shall simply have to realize that before we succeed in solving our internal problems satisfactorily, South Africa’s position in the world will not become easier. Only by achieving success on the home front will we be able to persuade the Free World to admit that a peaceful solution to our complicated problem has been found on the basis of the self-determination of peoples, and by way of evolution instead of by revolution and violence. This, incidentally, is also the only way of preventing the situation in South Africa from developing into a fruitful breeding ground for communism. To accomplish this ideal will not be easy, for there are forces in the world, unfortunately in South Africa as well, that will try to move heaven and earth to prevent us from succeeding, either because it does not suit them, or because they cannot or will not realize that it is in their interests that we do succeed.

Apart from our domestic problems important developments have also taken place in respect of South West Africa and Rhodesia, developments which could have a drastic influence on South Africa’s position in the world. I am certain that all of us are very grateful for the good progress which has been made by the Turnhalle conference in regard to the constitutional development of South West Africa. If everything henceforth goes according to plan, a new task awaits the South African Government and the leaders in South West Africa, however, i.e. to work out and lay down in agreements the future relations between South Africa and an independent South West Africa. But this will not mean that the dispute with the international community will in that way be eliminated. Before than can happen, the West and the Free World will have to display greater realism, greater objectivity and decisiveness by admitting and accepting that what is happening in South West Africa is a unique example of the practical implementation of the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination as incorporated in the UNO charter. As far as South West Africa is concerned, a great responsibility therefore rests on the Free World as well.

I do not want to comment any further on Rhodesia, except to express the hope that the present attempts to find a peaceful solution will not miscarry again, as the previous attempts have done.

During the past 13 years I have tried to hold the fort in the sphere of foreign affairs. Whether I have succeeded and whether it was worth while, only time will tell. My decision to retire is based partially on personal grounds. After mature consideration and deliberation, however, I also arrived at the conclusion that it was in the national interests that someone else should continue my work and that the time had arrived for an old war horse like myself to get out of harness and make way for a new Minister of Foreign Affairs, someone with new strength, with a new style, with new initiatives and accents and with new contacts, someone who can continue the difficult task ahead. I am grateful that the hon. the Prime Minister has appointed a person with these capabilities, and also with many other excellent qualifications, as my successor. I have every confidence in him, as well as in the team to which I am certain he will lend his full support and in which he will assume his rightful position. I believe, too, that South Africa’s foreign relations are in the very best of hands. I wish Adv. Botha everything of the best in the important task which will in future rest on his broad shoulders. If he or other members of the Cabinet ever wish to avail himself of my services for special tasks, I shall obviously be available.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the privilege and the opportunity of taking leave of this House. May things go well with you, with this Parliament and with our country, South Africa, in the years which lie ahead.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. Dr. Muller rose, he apologized to the hon. member for Johannesburg North for not being able to react to his speech. I think I owe the hon. Dr. Muller a greater apology for now having to introduce a note of anti-climax and to break the atmosphere in the House by returning to the realities of the debate. Before doing so I want to tell him that I believe that the intense atmosphere which prevailed in the House while he was speaking was a sign of the appreciation felt by the whole House, by everyone who is present here, for what he said and also for what he has done for the Republic of South Africa over so many years.

†Mr. Speaker, before dealing with the hon. member for Johannesburg North, I would like to make reference to a few points which were mentioned by the hon. member for Constantia in his speech yesterday. He attributed the lack of confidence in South Africa in terms of foreign capital inflow, to two reasons. The first reason was economic and I discovered something strange in his speech. He was completely out of step with the economists and other speakers on that side of the House in that he completely ignored the importance of our balance of payments in his analysis of the economic reasons which he put forward as his argument. In fact, he placed inflation first of all and then mentioned three other small items of lesser importance. Right towards the end of his speech he made a casual reference to the importance of our balance of payments, but nothing more. I would like to remind him that he is completely out of step with the rest of South Africa and with thinking economists if he ignores the importance of the balance of payments as our No. 1 priority for putting our economic house in order. I would also like to remind him that he is completely out of step with his friends in Assocom, with whom he apparently associates himself very closely. He advanced the same arguments as Assocom about a vicious cycle, to which the hon. member for Johannesburg North also referred, and also used the same evaluation criteria in evaluating the budget. I would like to ask him— unfortunately he is not present at the moment—whether he really disagrees with the preference that this Government puts on the readjustment of our balance of payments as our No. 1 priority in economic affairs.

I would like especially to refer to the second reason which he advanced for the lack of confidence in South Africa, as he called it. He made a number of statements, the implications of which I am sure momentarily escaped the attention of the House. I would like to quote the following from his speech—

I believe this is a blatantly irresponsible implication to make in this House.

What happened to the ballet classes at Worcester? [Interjections.]

Be quiet, Haas Das! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, for any hon. member of this House to suggest, or even remotely suggest, that non-White people in this country now enjoy fewer opportunities and lesser freedom than they would have enjoyed under a communist régime, is totally irresponsible, particularly in a time such as the time we are living in now. Secondly, there is another point that should be considered. If the items which the hon. member mentioned and which he accused the Government of purposely denying people of colour in this country were under his control, and if he were in a position to offer any workable and realistic alternative, he would have had the right to pass some criticism on this side of the House, however, not the irresponsible sort of criticism which he levelled against members on the Government side. I believe the hon. member for Constantia owes this House an explanation on the implication of his reference to the rights which, according to him, people of colour would have enjoyed in this country under a communist régime. He also owes the House an explanation on the fact that he creates a false confidence in the political feasibility of the policies which his party has been propounding in South Africa until now.

This also goes particularly for the hon. member for Johannesburg North. The policies which his party offers as alternatives to the policies offered by the Government to South Africa have been proved to be hideously fraudulent. He and his party have not had the courage to reply to any of the accusations which I levelled against them, except in private conversation. We are waiting for them to tell us here in this House whom they are taking for a ride with the policies they have published so widely. The White voters or the Black voters? [Interjections.]

Why do they not fight the Westdene by-election?

I would also like to ask, returning to the reference to a communist régime, what people in business circles, like the hon. member for Constantia and the hon. member for Johannesburg North, are doing in this regard, in their daily contact with people of colour on their shop floors. What are they doing to make these people aware of the dangers of communism? Or do they abhor the policies of the NP to such an extent that they have only one thing in mind, viz. to destroy the Government at the expense of the entire order in South Africa? What are they doing? I believe that we can level an accusation against them in this regard, a very valid accusation. How many times have we not all discovered, in private conversation with industrialists and with people in business, that very often they have no idea whatsoever of the real meaning of certain of the laws of this country, but that they had been using these very laws for completely different purposes, hiding behind their interpretation of these laws and exploiting certain categories of people of colour, while blaming the Government for it? This does not only happen in the case of non-White workers. It even happens with regard to elderly people who rent flats and other accommodation, currently under rent control. I have discovered that people who lodged complaints at estate offices with regard to suddenly increased monthly rentals had been told—and that blatantly—that rents have been increased in terms of Government instructions. It is absolutely ridiculous. Nevertheless, we have to suffer this kind of criticism from that side of the House, without ever hearing a single sound of appreciation for what we do for the wellbeing of South Africa. [Interjections.] I would like to make reference to the hon. member for Johannesburg North’s interpretation of the increases in the budget. I would like to ask him whether he really considers it fair to say what he did. He called the increased impressive, but in a derogatory manner. There are impressive increases in very stringent budgetary conditions, particularly in the case of those Votes dealing with the problems which we have been having in the country. By belittling these increases and calling them “negligible” he has already told the people who will benefit from these sacrifices not to appreciate them because they are not enough. He is telling them that the Government should really have done more for them and that they, in fact, should demand more. I would like to ask the hon. member this question: If his criticism is that the increases are not enough, why did he not come forward and tell us how we should generate the revenue in order to meet the kind of obligations that he envisages we should meet if we want to handle the situation according to his wishes?

It is a weak argument.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should not call my argument weak. Next time he should quantify his claims. I would also like to ask the hon. member why, when he spoke about the immediate abolition of the wage gap he did not quantify the inflationary effect of an immediate abolition without a commensurate increase in productivity. Why has he never, while talking in this fashion, made reference to the obligation which industry carries to look after the training of their own Black workers and to avail themselves of the opportunities offered to them by this side of the House through tax concessions, etc? Quite apart from the inflationary effect of increasing wages without a commensurate increase in productivity, if this money has to be drawn from another source, why did the hon. member not tell us from where? Why did he not quantify it? Yesterday, just before the House adjourned, the hon. member called all the arguments which he had heard from this side of the House, referring to certain circumstances in the economic world, and also to the fact that times are abnormal, “absolute rubbish”. I would like to ask him whether he is completely oblivious of the fact that we, economically speaking, do not live alone in this world. [Interjections.] Can we completely isolate ourselves and achieve a rate of growth which is completely out of step with the rest of the world if we have an open economy such as we have? How can a man of business standing such as the hon. member for Johannesburg North make such a ridiculous statement in the House without telling us if we are wrong in our assessment of the degree of influence which we suffer from overseas economies? He should quantify that and prove us wrong in our assumption. Why merely say that it is “absolute rubbish”? I want to tell that hon. member that we on this side of the House are not any longer impressed by the kind of statements which he makes along those lines. We are also not impressed by the kind of statement that he made in the debate on the amendment of the Environment Planning Act when, waving his hands, he said—

We are not impressed, and regardless of any substance which some of his economic arguments may have, we do not listen to that kind of argument coming from a person with that attitude towards people in South Africa and the country. [Interjections.]

Lastly, I would like to tell the hon. member that any further statements from his side to the effect that all our economic ailments will disappear like mist before the sun if we should scrap our “apartheid policy”—as he calls it—are absolutely devoid of any credibility. We do not listen to that any more, because it does not take account of the everyday realities in South Africa. Perhaps, when the hon. member has lived in this country a little longer, he may be able to realize what kind of population mix we have here and what a vast spectrum of development we have, not only between the various population groups, but also within each of these population groups. Any political or economic policy that does not take account of these realities is wishful thinking. [Interjections.] It does not even deserve any reference. I should like to ask him a last question. He gave us five points against which to evaluate the budget, i.e. the balance of payments, lack of confidence, inflation, growth and unemployment. Then he said that we were placing the emphasis on the balance of payments while sacrificing the other four points. Why did the hon. member not tell us what kind of wonderful policy package he could offer to look after all these five criteria at the same time? Why did he not suggest a package? [Interjections.] I think that hon. member is trying to put up a roof over a building for which he has not even cast the foundations. The five points mentioned, are interdependent. He did not even explain to us the interdependence of these five criteria as he sees it. Next time when he levels criticism at us, we should like him to quantify it.

He would not go back to his fish and chips. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a completely different subject. I want to make a request to the hon. the Minister in connection with the classification of our banking institutions. I do not want to be specific, but I just want to make a few general remarks. We have become very familiar lately with the terms “large banks” and “small banks” and with the problems experienced by small banks in particular. My submission is that because we merely distinguish, under those circumstances, between the sizes of banks, instead of distinguishing between the nature of commercial and of general banks, we experience certain problems in our banking sector when—and I want to emphasize this—we make adjustments to the liquid asset requirements or to the prescribed investments, not for the sake of depositors, but for the purposes of monetary policy. No one can argue about liquid asset requirements or prescribed investments as far as the protection of the depositor is concerned. However, when the Government uses banking institutions for the implementation of its monetary policy, it is surely important to bear in mind that there are very important differences between commercial banks and general banks. Apart from the nature of the business handled by each, there is another very important matter. This is the cost of funds in these two banking sectors. I would not venture to mention a percentage, but a large percentage of the funds of commercial banks takes the form of surpluses on current accounts which lie in the coffers of the banks free of charge. Some people put it as high as 40%, but naturally it will fluctuate from one bank to another and even from one branch to another. However, the fact is that a part of the funds available to commercial banks is available to them free of interest, while a general bank, on the other hand, pays interest on every rand which it has in its coffers and with which it has to do business. If, as a result of a monetary measure, it has to pay into the treasury of the Government a large amount of its money, on which it is paying a high interest to the public, the interest it is losing on that investment and the interest it is able to obtain in a highly competitive market for what little money it has left can have the effect of placing it in an adverse position, in some cases even in a position of sustaining definite losses.

In difficult times there is great competition for funds and great competition for the kind of business that banks can do in such times. One finds that the commercial bank is in the position, because of its sometimes considerably lower interest structure, to pay marginally higher interest on, for example, long-term loans. Then the general bank has to compete with it. Secondly, as regards the investment of the funds obtained—i.e. the conducting of business transactions—the commercial bank is able, because of the fact that it has mostly obtained its funds on a cheaper structure, to enter the market at a lower interest rate, and in this way it is able to compete much more aggressively with the general banks.

There are precedents for a differentiation between commercial and general banks. The first precedent occurred some years ago, when general banks were allowed to pay a ½% more for deposits. At the moment there is another precedent, for after problems had been experienced in connection with a number of smaller general banks, the Reserve Bank decided to obtain R55 million from the commercial and then to make the money available for the assistance of the general banks by means of the National Financing Corporation. This is a precedent, therefore, according to which there is differentiation between the various banks. I urge the hon. the Minister to have the matter investigated and to see whether we are not unnecessarily prejudicing the profit position of our financial instruments—i.e., our banking institutions, which are, after all, also operated for gain— in allowing them to be used as policy instruments by the Government.

I also want to express a few thoughts relating to the prospects of a revival in the country’s economy. There are many predictions and speculations in this connection today, but few of them are truly scientific. I attended a seminar towards the end of last year at which I encountered encouraging steps in terms of which economists can discipline themselves in order to give their predictions—which can be read in all publications—a more scientific orientation, to give them continuity and to standardize them.

It is very instructive to have a brief look at four of the most important factors which can contribute to an economic revival in South Africa. The first aspect to which I wish to refer is exports. We are all aware of the position in regard to exports, i.e. the gradual and more prolonged revival which is taking place in the industrial countries. An interesting aspect is that the industrial countries are handling their economic revival in the way that a little boy handles a sweet: He just takes a lick every now and then to make sure that the sweet will last as long as possible and to see whether his mother will not perhaps buy him another one before he has finished the first. This is the impression we gain from what is happening in West Germany at the moment. They are being very careful not to exhaust the existing growth potential all at once and then to find themselves without growth. They prefer to prolong the growth and to see whether it will not gain momentum along the way. This inclines us to cautious optimism as regards the demand for our exports. We are all aware of the encouraging increase in the gold price, and in the present circumstances this can make a difference to the total earnings from our exports. It is very interesting that the gold price has already shown an increase of 50% on its lowest point and that there is absolutely no sign at the moment of that excessive optimism which was felt when the gold price rose fairly dramatically in the past. Therefore one may come to the conclusion that as far as our exports are concerned, they will serve as a fairly steady stimulus for economic revival.

A second aspect we may examine is private fixed investment. It is illuminating to find that investment has steadily declined since 1975. At the moment there is a tremendous surplus capacity in our manufacturing industry, commercial buildings are unoccupied and certain sectors of the construction industry are developing very slowly. Nor can one expect a great impetus in this connection, for in the classical case one has to wait for an overutilization of what if available before there will be any further investment.

A third aspect we may examine is a possible revival in real consumer expenditure. The rate of increase in real consumer expenditure is still at a high level after standing at 3% in 1975 and dropping to 2% in 1976. However, it is still higher than the rate of increase in the gross domestic product. We must be careful not to stimulate it excessively and too rapidly. The income of the consumer is under pressure for various reasons, which I shall not mention. He cannot work overtime, for example, and his real income is steadily declining. In other words, there is not much money available for consumer expenditure. Credit is very tight and a revival from that quarter is unlikely. As far as Government expenditure is concerned, all of us in this House are aware of the urgent appeals made inside and outside the House for the curtailment of Government expenditure, and this has in fact taken place in real terms. Therefore, a combination of these four factors that have been mentioned will be necessary to get our economy going again.

I want to conclude by telling hon. members what a man such as Dr. Hupkes, a well-known economist, has to say about our budget. He says that the hon. the Minister was very conservative in his estimation of his cash flow and that the cash flow could be much better, especially in the second half of the year, than the hon. the Minister has envisaged. However that may be, if it does appear that he has been conservative in his estimation, we shall be in a good position to apply moderate stimulation. However, if those figures are not exceeded by a wide enough margin, the hon. the Minister will still be in a good position to exercise strong control over it. As the proverb says, it is an ill wind that blows nobody any good. I believe that not only this budget, but the financial situation in which we find ourselves, although it has hurt us very much, has also taught us a great deal. The Government has learnt a lot and this is reflected in the budget. The businessman has learnt to plan and to take cognizance of the cyclical pattern of the economy. He has also learnt to utilize the export market and he has realized that he can keep his production going if he really applies his mind to marketing. The consumer has also learnt not to pledge his future through excessive credit; not to take it for granted that his salary will be increased every year, entering into obligations for the distant future on the basis of that false assumption. For this reason I believe that we have all learnt from this and that we find ourselves in a good position for future growth, because, as foreign bankers say, this is the best budget we have ever had, and South Africa is pulling itself together. When this happens, I believe that we shall all be ready to make our contribution.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a sad occasion to take leave of a colleague. It is my privilege this afternoon to respond, on behalf of the official Opposition, to the speech made by the hon. member for Beaufort West, the ex-Minister of Foreign Affairs, a little while ago. This was his swan song and I must say that, as such, it struck a chord in this House. We were taking leave this afternoon of the quiet man of South African politics, a man who was not only a gentle man, but who was a gentleman and is and remains a gentleman, a man who was a credit to his country and who was accepted in all the capitals of the world despite the policies which he has had to defend. I say that because many of the capitals do not agree with the policies which he has applied here. He has administered a most important portfolio in a period which saw many changes. He initiated many moves including that of the outward policy, the détente policy, and he has left his mark, not only here in the Republic of South Africa, but in the capitals of the world.

*Mr. Speaker, I am privileged this afternoon to wish him and his wife, on behalf of the official Opposition, a long, healthy and happy retirement. I am sure that he will forgive me if I do not react any further to what he has said.

†Now we get back to the business of this afternoon and what we are here for. The pleasantries are now over. I must start with the hon. member for Florida and I want to say to him that when he spoke about small banks he obviously spoke with feeling. When he spoke about the competition that there is for funds, he obviously also spoke with feeling, but there sits his greatest competitor for the funds of his bank. I must say in passing that he and other back-benchers on that side of the House must declare their interests when they talk about matters like this. When I speak of his greatest competitor, I am referring to the hon. the Minister of Finance, who is taking away money from the small banks, the other banks and all the financial institutions. I think the hon. member must remember that when he talks like this. I do not want to get involved in his private war with the hon. member for Johannesburg North, but there is one fact I must put right. The hon. member says that we must ask the people in commerce and industry to play their part in the training of Black labour. For the sake of the record I must put this point right. It is commerce and industry that has trained our Black labour because that Government has failed to do it. I am prepared to guarantee that 90% of the Black labour force in South Africa today is in-service-trained and not trained by that hon. Deputy Minister.

By the Government, I am not saying I trained them.

When he was Deputy Minister of Bantu Education it was his job, and I want to say he failed dismally in that job at the time. He cannot deny the fact that 90% of the Black labour today is in-service-trained, not trained in institutions. So where is the hon. member for Florida? He started by attacking my colleague, the hon. member for Constantia, about his comments concerning the opportunities for non-White people and the comparison he drew between South Africa under an NP Government and the situation under a communist government. He was also defending the communist system here this afternoon in exactly the say way as his colleague, the hon. member for Newcastle, made overtures to the communists yesterday. I am sorry to see that the hon. the Prime Minister has now left his bench, but I am glad to see that the hon. the Leader of the House and the hon. the Minister of Finance are here. I want to ask them whether they support the hon. member for Newcastle in what he said yesterday. Do they agree with his saying that the time has come to establish economic links with communist countries in the Eastern bloc, and do they agree with the reason he gave for it? The reason he gave for it was that South Africa must rid itself of its dependence on the West and the vulnerability that goes with that dependence. I ask hon. members, with tears in my eyes! He would rather give up the vulnerability of an association with the West and exchange that for South Africa’s vulnerability in an association with communist countries. He would rather seek a dependence on communist countries than seek out our friends in the West. Speakers on this side of the House, including the hon. member for Constantia, gave that side of the House the answer. The answer is to make it possible for our friends in the West to defend us, and the only way one can make that possible is by carrying out policies which will be acceptable to our friends in the West and which will be acceptable to the vast majority of people in South Africa too. That is what we need.

As a case in point, yesterday we had tabled in this House a White paper setting forth the Government’s viewpoints on the Erika The-ron report on the Coloured people. This was tabled yesterday. It is a most important document, a document which is going to affect the future of South Africa. It affects the lives of 3 million people. As I understand it, the Government has refused a request for a special debate on that matter. It is considered by that Government of so little importance that they are not prepared to give up three or four hours of their time to debate the matter, or is it that they are afraid to have the matter debated? Are they afraid to debate the matter? Thai; I think, is the real reason.

You have ample opportunity.

You have time till Friday to debate it.

We shall find time.

This afternoon I want to talk to the hon. the Minister of Finance because this is a budget debate and we are talking money here today. We are talking about money as it affects everyone.

Then you must start now.

I am going to begin. It is only a couple of years ago that we had a certain film doing the rounds in South Africa called The Sting. Those hon. members who saw the film will remember that the story involved a confidence trick. The victims were set up for the sting at the end which was the final robbery attempt. That is exactly what the hon. the Minister did here last month with his budget. He lulled everyone into a false sense of security. Everyone looked at this budget and said: “But, there is nothing in it!” However, when it is too late they are going to find that they have lost all. How many commentators have been taken in by the hon. the Minister’s budget? How many Nationalists on that side of the House have we not heard praising this budget in this debate?

What about the non-Nationalists?

What non-Nationalists have supported it in this House? Just tell me. No, the hon. the Minister must rather keep quiet and listen. He might learn something [Interjections.] He is forever putting his foot in his mouth. One newspaper headline states: “A Fair Budget”. By the time I am finished I am going to tell the hon. the Minister just how fair it is. Another headline states: “It is a lucky dip: A little man’s budget”. This is how people have been misled by the hon. the Minister. It is called a little man’s budget—how wrong can that commentator be! The hon. the Minister is like little Jack Homer who sat in the corner with his pudding. He put in his thumb and pulled out a plum and said: “What a good boy am I!” That is what he did. He said (Hansard, 30 March 1977, Col. 4666)—

That is correct.

I am very glad to hear it. I, and a lot of people in South Africa, are extremely glad that the hon. the Minister pruned that amount. But then the hon. the Minister also said (Hansard, 30 March 1977, col. 4681)—

Then he sticks his chest out, gives himself a pat on the back and says: “What a good boy am I!”. He does not tell us at whose expense he pruned that R200 million; he does not tell us that included in the R200 million he pruned there is an amount of R45 million which he has taken off the subsidies on foodstuffs. Oh no, Sir, that is kept completely quiet and that is the sting I am referring to. First he set us up and led us to believe that it was a benign budget with no increase in direct taxation and no problems for the little man, and only when we go into it afterwards, do we find the sting in the tail.

The big spider that frightens us away.

The whole thing is that the commentators who say that this is a fair budget and that it is the little man’s budget have not looked at the budget in the way in which they should have looked at it, viz. as part of an overall scheme. One has to look at the whole pattern. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, do not need to be reminded of our opposition two years ago to legislative measures introduced here to allow the hon. the Minister to alter the rates of taxation without coming to Parliament. He has used that as part of his scheme to get the sting; he has used it as a subterfuge to soften the budget. Sales and excise taxes were increased on 7 March—not during the budget. Therefore, when he says there is no increase in direct taxation, he is quite correct. Indirect taxation, however, is up by R137 million through increased sales and excise taxes.

Is that all?

My colleague asks: “Is that all?” Sir, I have not started yet. That is only part of it. Then the hon. the Minister comes with a 15% surcharge on all imports. Thereby he takes another R400 million in indirect taxation. Thus we find ourselves in the situation that indirect taxation accounts for a further R537 million. Yet someone says it is the little man’s budget! It is the little man who is going to have to pay that R537 million. The hon. the Minister, lie the Chinese, must have had the motto: “Softly, softly, catchee monkey.” Then he congratulates himself and his colleagues on the savings but he deliberately refrained …

You have got an odd sense of humour.

That is fine. The hon. the Minister laughs. I dope the small people outside, who are going to be hurt by all these actions, are also going to laugh. I hope they will know that the hon. the Minister laughs when we bring these matters to his attention.

As I say, R45 million has been taken off the subsidies on foodstuffs. R30 million has been taken off wheat and bread. I am glad to see that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is here. I am glad to see he is hanging his head in shame. I know that he wants to maintain the subsidies. I sincerely hope he is going to use what influence he has in the Cabinet to get that money back. R30 million is being taken off wheat and bread, over R14 million off maize and half a million rand off dairy products. The housewives of South Africa are going to have to pay R45 million more for basic products, basic commodities. That is what they will have to pay more, not for luxuries, not for non-essentials, but for day-to-day essentials. Particularly the non-White people, those people with the lowest incomes, are going to be hardest hit by this. This reduction in the subsidies means an increase of at least two cents per loaf of bread before the end of September this year. Sir, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is not reacting. I believe it is going to happen. It means an increase of 20% on the price of maize and maize products such as mealie meal. Who are the people who are consuming that today?—the lowest income groups. They are the ones who are being hit by this particular budget. Yet we are told that it is the little man’s budget. What has happened to the little man now? Now he is hit by another R45 million, by the sting. This can be construed as indirect taxation because every extra two cents the housewife pays for a loaf of bread goes into the coffers of the Government. That two cents is not going to be used to support the wheat farmer, the miller, the baker or even the poor old supermarket owner. They are getting nothing. That two cents is going to go straight into the coffers of the hon. the Minister of Finance. That is where it will go. When we add this R45 million, we find that the total indirect taxation that the small man has to carry amounts to R582 million. This is all taxation on essentials.

Is that the way to treat the little man? I want to say now that the UP will subsidize consumer prices of basic foodstuffs, especially at a time like this, when the hon. the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is saying to the workers of South Africa: “Do not ask for an increase in salaries.” The hon. the Minister of the Interior and the hon. the Minister of Transport have also not given Public Servants and Railway workers the 5% increase they had expected in January. At such a time the hon. the Minister of Finance, together with the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, increases the price of basic foodstuffs. They have not only not received an increase in pay, but they have to pay more for their day to day essentials. This burden has now been off-loaded onto the shoulders of the little man, as I have said. The increase in their cost of living is going to reach 20% this year, unless the Government does something to help these people. I am referring here to the lowest income group people and to the non-White people. I want to call on the hon. the Minister today to use his authority to demand from the hon. the Minister of Finance that these subsidies be restored and that he should still pay the amounts that he has paid in the past. I also want to say in all sincerity to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture that if he fails to persuade the hon. the Minister of Finance to restore the R30 million subsidy on bread, he is going to have to put the price up. I accept that. Producer costs have risen; he is going to have to do it. However, I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister not to increase the price of whole wheat bread or of brown bread. If he is going to tax the consumers of bread in this country, let him tax the consumers of white bread. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture has stated in the past that he cannot persuade the non-White people to eat wholewheat and brown bread. If the price is right, they will buy it. If the difference between the price of white and brown bread is great enough they will buy brown bread in preference to white bread. I appeal to the hon. the Minister, if he fails in his appeal to the hon. the Minister of Finance, to put up the price of white bread, but not that of brown or wholewheat bread.

These products are reaching the stage, as in the case of meat, where they are meeting consumer resistance. In the case of red meat, however, there was an alternative, namely poultry. With bread and maize products there is no alternative. There is nothing to which the people can turn and they are compelled to buy these products.

Let them eat cake!

It is no use saying: “Let them eat cake”. That is not going to help the little man at all. It is especially not going to help the little man when we look at the inflation story. What is the story of inflation? Recently, the hon. the Minister of Finance told us in this House—in fact he boasted—of the reduction in the rate of increase of inflation, and he said that if one compared the fourth quarter’s figures with those of the third quarter of 1976, on a seasonally adjusted rate, it worked out at something under 9%. He was very proud of that fact. However, what he did not tell us at that time was that the rate for the whole year was 11,1%. What he also forgot when he was boasting about having reduced the rate of inflation was that the wholesale index stood at 15% at that stage. The increase in wholesale prices was 15% and this had not yet worked through to the ultimate consumer. That has now started to work through. It became apparent, particularly in January, when it was found that the index figure went up by 1,6%, according to figures issued by the Department of Statistics on 22 March. At that rate it means an increase of nearly 20% in the consumer price index for the coming year. What is the Government doing about it?

Nothing.

They have done nothing, thank you. Exactly, they have done nothing. This rise of 1,6% was the highest monthly rise since July 1974. Notwithstanding all the attempts of the campaign against inflation and notwithstanding all the attempts which the Government has made—we do accept the fact that the Government has tried to do something to control inflation—it is the position that this was the highest rise in 2½ years. This was before the full effect of the increases in electricity tariffs had begun to be felt and before the increase in the price of steel had got through to the consumer. This was before the last increase in the price of petrol had got through to the consumer. These are all prices controlled by the Government, directly or indirectly. This means that the 1,6% was still a fictitious figure and should perhaps be even higher. I anticipate that it will be higher. In February and March it is going to be more than 1,6%. Then we think of what is going to happen in the light of developments since then. This was before the announcement of the increase in rail tariffs. What effect is that going to have? That is going to load the situation by another 1,2%. It was before the increases in the sales tax on 7 March, which I have already mentioned. It was before the 15% surcharge on imports which was announced in the budget. That 15% surcharge on imports is going to take, as I have said, R400 million in tax out of the pockets of the people of South Africa. By the time that reaches the ultimate consumer, he is going to have to pay R600 million because there will be a mark-up of 50% on that. The hon. the Minister knows it. There is no need for him to look at me like that. He knows that there will be a mark-up of 50% on that. It is deliberately inflationary, and it is inflationary to the tune of R600 million a year.

This is going to effect the cost of living by another 1,2% before the end of this year. I repeat that this is what the Government is doing to the little man, because these are all increases brought about by the Government, not by anybody else. If we now add the R200 million to the R582 million which I mentioned before, it means that the total effect of the Government’s measures on the little man since the beginning of this year will be R782 million. Yet, people can still turn around and suggest that this is a little man’s budget, a budget which is going to help the man in the street—a budget which will help the small man when R782 million is taken away. No wonder that experts are today anticipating that the increase in the cost of living this year will be 15%. I am of the opinion that it will be at least 15%, though it might even go through that barrier. All I can say, is: Poor little man. At the same time that little man is being urged by the Government not to seek increases in wages, and the civil servants and Railway employees are denied an increase in wages. What comfort is there for the little man?

I must admit that the hon. the Minister has thrown the little man a few crumbs. There are the pension increases, pitiful, however, by his own admission. Then there is the chance to win some defence bonds, a lottery. That is what the Government offers him to assuage him in a time when he is battling to make ends meet. What is the good of that lottery? Where is the little man going to find the money to invest in that lottery anyway? Who can save today on the wages they are getting? The hon. the Minister offers the little man no increase in direct taxation, but no decrease either. He offers him increased rebates for medical expenses, pension fund deductions, retirement annuity funds for those who can afford to invest more than R3 000 a year. That is not for the little man. That is for the wealthy men, those fat cats who are sitting on the other side of the House. They are the only ones who can afford to invest R3 000 in retirement annuity funds, not the little man. [Interjections.]

We are grateful for small mercies, but the hon. the Minister, having given the little man these small kick-backs, now proceeds to kick him in the teeth again. [Interjections.] The little man has always depended on building societies to help him to get his own home. What has this hon. Minister done now? Every man wants to have his own home, his own God’s acre where he can walk around on his bare feet and feel his own mud coming up through his toes. [Interjections.] It has been difficult enough in the past to get that, and now the hon. the Minister makes it even harder. It has been difficult enough to obtain a building society bond. Now the hon. the Minister is going to take R120 million away from the building societies. And what percentage of the R160 million which is going to go into the defence bonds, will come from the building societies? This means there will be less money available for bonds. It is going to be even more difficult to get bond money.

Building societies have expected to get R500 million this year in savings, but I believe that, because of Government competition—and I hope the hon. member for Florida is listening—building societies will be lucky if they get R250 million invested with them this year. That is the position. However, I believe that the Government and the hon. the Minister of Finance have made it even worse. I hope he is listening particularly to this matter, when I refer to the poorest section of our community, those people who are building or buying houses at a value of under R20 000. Their interest rates were subsidized in the past. Less than two months ago the hon. the Minister took that subsidy away. The subsidy was withdrawn. He has not withdrawn the subsidy from the existing bonds; I grant him that, but no new subsidies were being granted with effect from March 1977 if the houses had not been completed by that date.

What does this mean to a young couple who have worked, who have scrimped and who have saved to get a deposit to build their dream house, where the wife has worked to collect that money, that deposit in order to enable them to build their dream house? They are going to find that they cannot do it any longer. They have budgeted to the last cent for building a house. I have an example of a house of R20 000, with a 80% bond, i.e. of R16 000. The building society interest is 10,5%, which is R140 per month. If it were subsidized, the 2,5% subsidy would reduce it to R113 per month. The effect is that a person who had budgeted to build a house and to pay R113,34 now finds that he has to pay R140 because the Government has withdrawn the subsidy. It is that R26 extra per month which is going to prevent people from building houses. The position of those who have already committed themselves is even worse. The hon. the Minister has not made provision for those whose houses are nearing completion.

Last week in Pietermaritzburg I had two couples who came to me. The house of one of the couples would be completed in two weeks’ time—it is probably completed now or certainly will be completed within the next week and be ready for occupation. However, in terms of the hon. the Minister’s amendment to the regulations they will not get any assistance whatsoever. It means that they will have to find another R26 per month. The wife stood there with tears in her eyes and said: “Mr. Webber, I cannot find that R26 per month. What am I do do? We have waited four years with a family so that we could first collect the deposit on this house and now we are even going to be prohibited from building the house. We have not got a family, but we want to start one, settle down and live.” But the hon. Minister is now taking that privilege away from them. Newspapers used to say that it is the little man’s budget, a budget to help the little man. I am afraid that it cannot be.

One last word on the question of lotteries. It is no good arguing about it. What the hon. the Minister has introduced is in fact a lottery. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not now grant the Natal Provincial Administration what they have asked for in past years. Resolutions have been passed in that provincial council to also allow them to have a lottery, a lottery for social services, child welfare, for helping the poorer people in Natal … [Interjections.] Will the hon. the Minister now allow the Natal Provincial Administration to do it?

Where must the money come from?

Where the money must come from? Where will the money for the defence bonds come from?

†The hon. member wants to know where the money is going to come from. Does that hon. member now concede the principle of bonds? Does that mean that the Government has now conceded the principle of lotteries?

No?

Now the hon. member shakes his head. He must make up his mind. What does he want? Does he want a lottery or does he not want it.? [Interjections.]

I think I have said enough now to let the hon. the Minister know that I do not believe that this is a benign budget at all. I believe that this budget is in fact being most harsh on the poorer section of our people. I have not even talked about the business man who requires money for expansion or for development and cannot get it because of the R1 600 million the hon. the Minister is taking away from the financial institutions. I have not started on them yet. I have just spoken about the little man in the country. For that reason I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Constantia.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. He tries to be an authority in so many fields that eventually, neither he nor anyone else knows what he really had in mind. I do not want to elaborate on this further, except to refer to the issue of the withdrawal of subsidies, something which the hon. member labels as disguised taxation of the poor man. As far as bread is concerned, I want to point out that white bread, which at present costs 20 cents, as against the price of 16 cents for brown bread, constitutes 70% of all bread consumed. It is supposed to be the poor people who buy in this way. The hon. member states that white bread should now be made even more expensive. What would happen then? The people would then buy the meal and sift it themselves. They would sift it and bake their own white bread. Circumstances are still such that things are in fact going relatively well, even as far as the lower income groups are concerned. All I want to tell the hon. member is that there are many experts who agree, as he himself quoted, that the budget is a balanced one, and under present-day difficult circumstances is a good budget, and I do not think that what the hon. member had to say detracts from this in any way. However, we in this country must all concede that we have problems, not only on the internal economic front but also on the world front, problems which have an effect on the economy. I want to say a few words about this, specifically with reference to what was alleged yesterday and today by the hon. member for Johannesburg North.

I think that we in this country have reached a stage at which all of us must realize the seriousness of the situation and ask ourselves whether we are really being loyal to this country and its population and whether, in our debates here, in what we say in public, and particularly in what we tell the outside world, we are putting South Africa first. This applies not only to the Whites of South Africa, but to the entire population of this country. I shall deal with this matter again. I want to say to the hon. member for Johannesburg North in particular that he made an irresponsible statement unworthy of a White person in this House. He referred here to unemployment. I want to quote what he said here yesterday. He said the following (Hansard, 12 April)—

I want to challenge that hon. member to bring to me these people’s figures, as he quoted them. I also have figures provided by Prof. Van der Merwe, and the Prime Minister’s Economic Adviser. The highest figure he gives is close to a million. That hon. member, therefore, is deliberately creating incorrect impressions and sowing panic in the country.

†If we have more of that arrogance and irresponsibility from that hon. member, my advice to him is to go back to where he comes from. [Interjections.] We do not need his type in this country.

*He states that we cannot afford apartheid—or aparthaait, as he pronounces it. I want to put it to him very clearly that we cannot afford him and his type. I shall now turn to another matter.

No, tackle him some more.

I do not think I can take up any more of the valuable time of this House in discussing such irresponsibility.

I should like to say something about the overall political situation in our country and the attitude of the political parties in these specific circumstances in which our country and its population find themselves. Before coming to this, I want to point out very briefly that there are people who profess to be experts and suggest instant solutions to us. There are the academics, the authorities in various spheres, the columnists and so on. I want to quote very briefly what one of these people wrote in an article. I have read a great deal in this connection, because one is on the lookout for solutions. Firstly, I want to read what a certain Prof. G. Marais had to say.

†He is Dean of the Faculty of Commerce and Administration at the University of South Africa. I do not know him, but he wrote an article on the urban Black man in which he says—

Then he deals with the position in America. Where he said that the picture in Africa was very gloomy, let us take a look at what he has to say about the USA. I read this bearing in mind that we get a lot of advice from the USA these days. He says here—

That is one of the experts the professor refers to—

That is again one of the writers this professor refers to—

That is the Black group—

I quote these figures given by American authorities as quoted by Prof. Marais because we are always hearing that it is due to the policy of the Government of this country that the Black man remains in his relatively less favourable position. There are Opposition parties that are continually telling the Black man and the Brown man that it is the fault of the so-called apartheid system that they are in a less favourable position. Nor do they only say this here in South Africa; they announce it throughout the world. I shall come back to them later. The hostility towards South Africa which we encounter throughout the world today arose here in this country due to a small group of people, people who have no loyalty towards the country. In order to illustrate this one could refer to a number of aspects. Just recently someone brought me a newspaper from California. A certain M. Stenton Evans wrote an article—“Discovering South Africa”. He states the following—

He goes on in this vein, but I cannot quote everything here. He states further—

He refers to the Carlton Centre and says the following—

This is the story that is told. But after all, this is not true, because the Blacks can go everywhere in shops. However, these are the stories that are told overseas and this is what causes the hostility towards Africa. He goes on to say—

Is that also true?

No, that is not quite true. However it is not so important. He also says—

Let us now consider the position in view of our difficult conditions. Each one of us, as a citizen of this country, has the duty to view the position in the most serious light under these difficult circumstances in order to determine how we are to solve the problems. The threats with which we are faced are economic, physical and spiritual. How are we to counter these threats? Firstly, we as White representatives in Parliament must be clear on what constitutes loyalty towards South Africa and what does not. We could come up with many ideas which we felt could possibly look like solutions.

However, let us consider the position after 29 years of NP Government. What is the alternative to our policy as regards the composition of our population? Can the fact that the Opposition is divided into four groups not be ascribed to the fact that they have been seeking an alternative for 29 years? Every time they get smaller and weaker. Is it not time now for them to decide that after 29 years they can only retrogress further, have greater discord in their own ranks and that they should now accept certain basic principles of the policy of separation of this Government? I think it is their duty to think along those lines. Their history shows that they are searching for something. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is not present and we do not know from day to day what is to become of him. Sooner or later he may sit with the members of the PRP. However, I want to give him some advice. He and others are courting the PRP, but if a wedding were to take place, he would find that he had a mother-in-law. However, I do not wish upon him the mother-in-law who is sitting at the front over there. She plays a major role in that party. [Interjections.]

However, let us come back to the basic arguments. What is the alternative? In their attack, when they expressed criticism, did those hon. members, the hon. members for Johannesburg North and Constantia, tell us what the alternative was? They talk about change. What change? In his message of farewell this afternoon the hon. member for Beaufort West mentioned everything we had done and I am not going to elaborate on that. The people of the other population groups have each been placed on a path on which we have tremendous development, as much as they are able to absorb. Now these people say that we must still bring about change. The statement has been made that we must get capital into the country. However, why has capital not flowed into Angola and Mozambique? Why have large-scale investments not been made by the outside world in Zambia, Tanzania and these places? They have mineral wealth. Why has there not been the large-scale investment from abroad which the hon. member for Johannesburg North made such a fuss about? Why are there no investments by those people in those countries? Investments in South Africa, and development here, occurred because there was a stable White Government which was capable of handling the situation here. The skills and initiative of Whites gave rise to the development which was to the benefit of all the population groups of this country. If they come up with an alternative which could endanger that stability of the Whites, far less capital would enter the country than is the case now.

[Inaudible.]

It is their duty to convey that confidence in the Whites; if they do so then we shall get capital as we did in the past. We must concede that this is important. It is true that we can get along without it, but a positive attitude on the part of the Opposition parties is what we in South Africa need in these times and not these negative stories about apartheid, separation and so-called shortcomings in our policy due to which we do not do justice to all the population groups. I challenge them to show me one country in Africa which has attracted money from abroad on a large scale, as they want to suggest here. There is not one of them that has grown at a rate comparable with South Africa and attracted capital from abroad. We can compare South Africa’s development in all fields with that of any other country in Africa.

Transkei.

I say a comparable country. Yes, do they want to use the Transkei? Why? That is one of the things I want to mention.

We want to make it a tax haven.

They want to use it for political gain. If there is a minor dispute between the Transkeian Government and this Government, they blow hot and cold about it. Then they have to let the whole world know about it. Why? In the interests of South Africa and the Transkei? No, in the interests of a bankrupt political party. That is all. There is no other motivation for their actions. I therefore want to make an appeal to those hon. members. In difficult times in South Africa—not only for Whites—let us in this Parliament at least achieve that degree of consensus that we should ask what is in the interests of South Africa. If they accept in terms of their policy that Black and Brown people have to be given a different political dispensation, then they must spell it out clearly so that the Whites in this country may know it. If the Whites no longer have confidence, the outside world is going to have still less confidence and that is the most important aspect. The most important approach as far as our politics is concerned is that all of us must preserve the confidence of the Whites in this country. The only one to have had a policy in the past, and which still has a policy by which to preserve the interest and confidence of the Whites in this country, is this Government. I am therefore of the opinion that it is time for everyone on that side to realize this. I think that the Independent United Party has come the closest to having a little loyalty. I do not ask that they should join us; we have enough people on this side. However, we want an Opposition with a policy based, for example, on a positive economic approach, the practical implementation of separateness, a policy as regards education, the exploitation of our mineral resources, etc. There are innumerable matters about which one could differ, but over a period of 29 years one thing has become very clear. Any party on that side that thinks it will come to power with a different ethnic policy or that it can establish a policy which the Whites will not accept will find that it is acting to the detriment of South Africa and all its people.

In these difficult circumstances, it is time for all those parties to look at their own affairs and do away with these pettinesses by means of which they seek to use the outside world against South Africa. They must come up with a positive approach in regard to future solutions. I say that the time is more than ripe for this petty politicking on the part of the Opposition, which gets them nowhere and which is of no advantage to South Africa, to come to an end. We in this country must reach agreement on the communist threat. Until recently the world did not want to know of this and we still heard from that side of the House that communism was a chimera. However, now that action is being taken against them in Zaire, a number of them are waking up to the threat. We hope that we shall also hear from that side statements attesting to loyalty on their part similar to the loyalty to South Africa of this side of the House. We in South Africa have not only the Whites to protect. We have to protect everyone against the infiltration of Marxism. Hon. members opposite owe it to the country to look at the internal policy and evaluate themselves in the light of the circumstances and in the light of the fact that their policy has been rejected for 29 years.

What about yourselves?

We are doing it continually. I did so again today. The other day we stated our policy at a by-election in Bellville.

Discussions are continually taking place in our caucus and at our congresses concerning our policy.

What about the newspapers? Why not in public?

Sir, I do not know whether the hon. member reads the newspapers, but if he did so he would probably not ask such stupid questions here. We are continually evaluating our position and our policy has stood the test of many elections. The most recent test was in Durbanville. How far has that hon. member got with their story, and that after 29 years? Now there is the test of Westdene. Are they going to put their case to the public there in order to test it? It is vital that the various political parties or supposed parties should re-evaluate their position in South Africa. I think they owe it to the White population and in fact to all the population groups in this country.

They are unable to point to a single country in Africa in which the approach is that groups should be combined or where a minority group has been justly treated. They are unable to refer to a single place in Africa or even in the world where this has been the case. The only way in which stability and co-operation can be obtained is to recognize ethnicity or to consider the possibility of assimilation where there are major differences among groups. This was considered here in South Africa and it became evident that it was simply impossible. I read out here what still happens in the USA after all these years. We must face realities. I think we are entitled to ask the hon. members opposite to re-evaluate their position once again because as I said, I do not believe that South Africa can afford these small groups. We want a strong Opposition and we can do very well without an Opposition which adopts the attitude of the hon. member for Johannesburg North and others.

Mr Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to associate myself wholeheartedly with the thoughts the hon. the Minister has expressed here. I think South Africa realizes that we cannot afford petty politicking in the difficult times we are living in and that it is vital, particularly in this House, that we take cognizance of the political realities of the day. As the hon. the Minister put it, we must reach consensus on one matter; namely, what is in the interests of South Africa. It is time we reached the point of political adulthood where we can say politically: “South Africa first.”

I should like to pass a few remarks on the budget in the same spirit as that in which the hon. the Minister referred to it in his speech. Before I do this, however, I should like to come back to a remark made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, who is not here at the moment. That hon. member complained that the Government did not want to make time for a discussion of the White Paper on the report of the Erika Theron Commission. There is more than enough time for a discussion of the White Paper. There is time during this debate, which lasts until Friday, and there will be time during the Prime Minister’s Vote which will be dealt with next. There will be time when the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations comes up and there will also be time during the Third Reading debate. Consequently, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South need not complain that there is no time to discuss the White Paper. What he should rather complain about is the fact that there are no more members on his side who can make a fruitful contribution to the debate because they have nothing to offer and because they see that the Government is going ahead in according the Brown people too a position of full status in South Africa.

During the budget debate last year, I made the remark that the seven years of plenty had gone for the present and that things would in fact become more difficult; that things would first get worse for us before they could improve. Since then—this is how the hon. the Minister of Finance put it in his speech—

We must realize that we have to strengthen ourselves economically as well as politically if we want to weather the storm. To make this possible, several positive steps, which I call plus points, have been made in the budget and I should like to return to these in the course of my speech.

The budget speech is not simply an exposition or explanation of the State’s revenue and expenditure. Actually, the budget speech can be viewed as an important communications document, as an explanation to the people by the Government of its view of our situation, or as a formulation by the Government of its priorities for the coming financial year. I think that as a communications document the budget speech must be read in conjunction with a very important speech which we also had this year, namely the New Year’s message of the hon. the Prime Minister. Although they are phrased differently, a concordant message resounds from both speeches. Consequently, this budget speech must be read against the background of the hon. the Prime Minister’s New Year message and must also be interpreted in the light of that speech.

The first prevailing impression of this budget and also the first plus point is, in my opinion, its honest, frank and realistic vein. There has probably seldom been a budget in our political and economic history which has given such a frank and penetrative exposition of our economic and political situation. The hon. the Minister of Finance, just like the hon. the Prime Minister in his New Year’s message, does not beat about the bush but bares the realities of the situation right down to the bone.

The picture which emerges from this is not a rosy one. It is no good our trying to deny or gloss over the less pleasant realities of our situation. It is not necessary to incite people to panic or hypertension but we should also guard against people living blissfully in a dream world in this country and clinging to visions of the future that are totally unattainable and false. That is why I am tremendously appreciative of the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Finance have given us honest and realistic information on the realities of our situation. There are people, however, who resent it when one tries to emphasize the seriousness of our problems. Then they look upon one as a pessimist or an alarmist who is making people afraid of the future and, by so doing, undermining the peoples’ will to survive. I reject that type of criticism. If we are not prepared, as the hon. the Minister who preceded me also said, to face our problems and to take account of the realities of our situation then, just like the five foolish virgins, we too shall find ourselves without oil before the really pleasant time arrives because we will not have made adequate provision for the long night watch which lies ahead.

A second characteristic of the budget is the way in which the relationship of foreign countries to South Africa is interpreted. The hon. the Minister said, and I quote him—

The truth is that the West regards Southern Africa as a risk zone. The political events in this part of the world during the past few years have induced Western forecasters to view them as portents of a storm with racial undertones, one they do not want to become involved in under any circumstances. Under no circumstances do they want to become involved, even it if becomes clear that this storm has its origin in the Kremlin and that it is being blown up by the gales of Russian imperialism. That is why we are left to our own resources. We stand alone. The hon. the Prime Minister made this clear in his New Year’s message as well. We must not depend on Western aid—neither military nor financial. Under these circumstances the hon. the Minister of Finance has revealed a very positive and realistic approach. In a spirit of independence he has made it clear that no matter how important foreign capital may be, we are not to depend on it for the time being.

In an exposition which one could almost call declaration of economic independence, the hon. the Minister is trying to reverse the tendency towards increasing dependence on foreign financial aid. The hon. the Minister had budgeted not to borrow any more money abroad this year. He has budgeted for loans of R149 million but at the same time he has budgeted for repayments of R180 million. This amounts to the full repayment of foreign loans totalling R31 million. Under the circumstances in which we are living today, I view this aspect of the budget as a particular plus point.

A third characteristic and plus point in the budget is the strict control over State expenditure exercised by the hon. the Minister. We are living at a time in which international attention is being focused on Southern Africa and on South Africa to an increasing extent. The world is placing South Africa under a microscope to an ever-increasing extent. Consequently, every important event in South Africa has continually to be judged on the strength of its international significance; on the strength of the international implications it could have. I should like more people to bear this in mind. That goes for this budget as well. The international financial community will give particular attention to this budget. I have no doubt whatsoever that they will be satisfied with it.

The International Monetary Fund and the big international banks expect South Africa to manage her economic and financial affairs very responsibly and conservatively. They expect the maximum of self-discipline from us and, measured against that norm, this budget earns full marks.

Government expenditure has almost trebled during the past six years. There has been an increase of 200%. In 1970 Government expenditure comprised 20,8% of the gross domestic expenditure. This increased and in 1976 already comprised 28,2% of the gross domestic expenditure. The increase in defence spending and expenditure on oil were naturally important contributory factors. The disciplining of Government expenditure reflected in the budget, is remarkable. Down the years there has been an increase in Government expenditure. In 1975-’76 the increase was 21%; in 1976-’77 it was 17,9% and in the present budget provision is made for an increase of 7,8%. If we take into account the present rate of inflation, this provision in reality represents a decrease in Government expenditure. The budget deserves high marks for this strict discipline.

However, the economic and financial confidence the budget is going to create abroad will not adequately compensate for the political tensions and uncertainties prevailing in Southern Africa. It is only being realistic to realize that until there is greater political consensus among all the peoples and population groups in South and Southern Africa, foreign investment capital will not flow into South Africa on a large scale. Consequently, the hard truth is simply that in the fierce struggle for survival we are involved in, we can no longer rely on unqualified foreign support. For the maintenance of our culture and the values on which it is founded, we are dependent today more than ever before on the mutual co-operation, trust and common loyalty of all South Africa’s people, irrespective of their colour.

A larger measure of political understanding, of political consensus, is needed, not only to restore foreign investment confidence in South Africa and to ensure a sound economy, but particularly to make possible the continued existence of a free Christian culture here. That, after all, is our highest priority—the maintenance of a free Christian culture in South Africa. The first aim of the struggle, therefore, is not the maintenance of the identity of one group or the maintenance of certain life styles and habits. In any event, nothing would come of this if the basis of it all, namely, a Christian culture in South Africa, were to be destroyed. Its destruction is exactly what our enemies have in mind. Can people not see, then that our enemies are already on our borders in their diplomatic and military guises? They are already in the areas that we still regard as peace zones today. It has been emphasized frequently that military activity will be able to contribute to the extent of only 20% at most towards our protection and survival. The remaining 80% depends on our foreign and domestic mobility. It depends upon our capacity, despite our differences, despite the differences of language, colour and culture, to find the necessary understanding, to form a united front against the enemy. It has to be a united front which will find its in unity and compatibility in the fact that there is one common goal, namely the maintenance of a Christian civilization in South Africa.

We are living in a period of our history in which, figuratively speaking, we are practically undertaking another Great Trek. This is a Great Trek to a new future, the Great Trek of our survival and continued existence. This trek demands that we consider our priorities anew. In other words, we shall have to have a rethink about what is so important to us that we want to take it with us at all costs and arrive with it at our destination. Or, phrased differently, we shall have to differentiate between what we want to retain at all costs and what we can, or even must, leave behind, no matter how much it hurts us to do so and no matter how hard it is to leave it. On this trek we cannot afford to take along with us unnecessary and excess baggage in the form of obsolete customs and prejudices. That is excess baggage that has nothing to do with our continued existence and survival. It would only slow us down and reduce our chances of survival.

This brings me to the fourth characteristic and plus point of the budget. If we cannot rely on foreign capital—as the hon. the Minister has indicated—other sources of finance will have to be exploited because the money must be found. The Minister is doing this by the better utilization of indirect and unconventional resources. During the past five or six years, the emphasis has increasingly shifted to direct taxation as a primary source of finance. In the 1969-’70 financial year, indirect taxation—i.e. tax such as customs, excise and sales duty—made up 46,5% of our internal revenue. In 1970-’71 it made up almost 51% of our internal revenue. Subsequently, an erosion took place in the ratio of indirect to direct taxation and the former dwindled to 26% of our internal revenue in 1975-’76. This tendency, this tremendously high pressure that is being placed on personal and company tax may result in the effort and enterprise that we need so badly in South Africa at this time, being discouraged. For that reason it must be considered an important plus point of the budget that the Minister has budgeted to find 30,3% of our internal revenue from indirect sources in this financial year.

This ratio will undoubtedly still increase considerably once the retail turnover tax comes into operation. As I have already said, this aspect is a special plus point of the budget. More people are contributing to the well-being of South Africa now on a wide front. The pressure of taxation on a small group of people, who are already contributing more than their share, is not being increased further. On the contrary, this responsibility is now being made more widespread and nearly everyone in South Africa is being placed in a position to help carry the burden. It is estimated that once this retail turnover tax is put into operation, a lower rate, even as low as 216% to 3%, will realize an amount of R350 million to R400 million per annum. The exploitation of these indirect and unconventional sources of revenue results—as I have indicated—in more people from all income groups and population groups now contributing to the safety and prosperity of everyone in South Africa.

This brings me back again to the necessity for everyone in this country to realize that we need each other and that we have to stand by one another if we wish to perpetuate a Christian culture here. It will not be possible for only a few people to carry this burden. The basis of the responsibility for this will have to be extended to include more people.

In this regard I should like to refer to a very interesting and significant letter which appear in Die Burger of 12 February. It was written by Mr. Franklik Sonn, one of the competent younger generation of Coloureds who is also president of the Kaaplandse Onderwysunie. In his letter Mr. Sonn points out that the Black man in Africa has come to realize that armed support is obtainable from only one source and that if he is prepared to accept support from that source, writes Mr. Sonn, he does not have any other choice. Then the problem will be solved. I quote—

In the same way the White man who wants to form a laager and simply shoot, has also already made his choice; he no longer has any other choice. The important aspect of Mr. Sonn’s letter, however, is that, as he puts it, there is a large middle group which is still on the horns of a dilemma as to choice. This is the group which I too mentioned when I spoke of the necessity of the basis of the responsibility for the maintenance of our Christian culture being extended. In this regard, Mr. Sonn writes the following—

We must realize that it is essential that the basis of the responsibility for the maintenance of a Christian culture in Southern Africa be extended. That is why we shall have to find a mutual understanding by way of which the framework of our community of interests can be broadened so that a Southern African patriotism which overrides colour can be established. We shall have to be flexible enough to exploit new and even unfamiliar avenues of relationships. We shall have to accept that the constitutional framework we have today can no longer effectively accommodate the demands of the times.

That is why the Government is looking penetratively at alternative constitutional possibilities. A Government structure will have to be worked out to give adequate and satisfactory living space to everyone who has no other fatherland than South Africa. That is exactly what the Government is doing at present, viz allocating political living space for everyone in South Africa in such a way that no group can be dominated or ruled by another. The Government is enlarging the framework of our community of interests when Brown and White soldiers place their lives in the balance on our borders; when sportsmen, irrespective of colour; can be chosen on merit to represent South Africa; and when discriminatory measures which impinge upon the dignity of civilized people and damage their honour are removed. There are people who do not think the Government is in earnest about this aspect of its policy regarding the moving away from discrimination. That is not correct. We know that a long journey lies ahead of us on this road, not eventually to throw open all the doors but because the expansion of the sphere of community interests—as I have attempted to indicate—strengthens immeasurably our claim and right to survival and an own identity. This is also the spirit of page 8 of the White Paper on the report of the Theron Commission, where reference is made to the making available of public facilities for communal use. I quote the White Paper in this regard—

[Interjections.] I shall return to the Opposition presently and what I have to say about them is by no means flattering. The identity of a people cannot be maintained by laws and statutory provisions alone. We have to learn that a person, like a nation, often has to be prepared to make great sacrifices in order to retain what is most precious. We may not fail to see the realities of our time and we may not ignore the storm clouds that are gathering. The next few months and year or more can be just as decisive a turning point in our history as the Great Trek or the Anglo-Boer War. This means that the critical decisions relating to our future will be made by the National Government.

The White parliamentary Opposition— there is, in any event, only a shadow of an Opposition left—has become totally irrelevant in these times and under these circumstances, and the sooner they realize this, the better. The people of South Africa have indicated with great conviction and decisiveness that the NP and the hon. the Prime Minister are to make the decisions on their future at this time, not the fragmented Opposition there on the opposite side of the House which cannot contribute anything to the solution of our problems. With a leader like our hon. Prime Minister and with a party like the NP in power, we can look past the lean years to the years of plenty and peace that are beckoning to us on the horizon.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Johannesburg West made a very serious speech. It is a pity, however, that he became somewhat heated towards the end and then came to light with a flood of words. I must really say that I could not make out what the hon. member wanted to bring home to us. He spoke of excess luggage that can no longer be carried. Could the hon. member not spell out what was worrying him? He said we have to be honest in politics; that we must speak frankly. If a member feels that something in a policy worries him, he must have the courage, as the six hon. members of this group had, to get up and spell out what is worrying him and to do the right thing.

However, I want to get to the speech of the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs and of Forestry. The hon. the Minister made a strong appeal for loyalty here. He said we would have to have a rethink, and I agree with him. Hon. members in this House and the South African nation will have to have a rethink. When he spoke of loyalty, he said only a small number of hon. members showed a little loyalty. I take the strongest exception to that. The hon. the Minister can peruse our speeches in Hansard throughout the years to establish whether we said anything about South Africa that was not loyal. Nobody else has appealed more for co-operation between English and Afrikaans-speaking people in this country than these six hon. members. We have done it throughout the years and are not ashamed of it. We were even prepared to sacrifice our positions for it.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he admits that their relations policy constitutes a threat to the survival of the White race in this country?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has really asked me a ridiculous question. He knows that is not so. We stand to lose more in this country than that hon. member if the survival of White civilization is prejudiced.

However, I want to return to the debate because there has been a great deal of exaggerating here. I have been listening to this debate now for two days. The hon. member for Johannesburg West says he gives the budget full marks because it has many positive aspects. The fact that taxes were not increased he called a positive aspect. He can therefore make a supposition regarding anything and say because this or that has not been done it is a positive aspect. The hon. member for Ermelo called it a brilliant budget, such a brilliant budget that the hon. member even wants to erect a monument to the hon. the Minister. So he wants to spend even more money! [Interjections.]

Order!

The most sympathetic thing I can say about the budget is that the hon. the Minister did not have many options in the circumstances in which we are living. It was, as we say in English “a budget of necessity”. That is the best we can say in the circumstances. The question however arises to our minds: what has brought us to this pass? We must bear in mind that we are living in a country of opportunities, a country with the greatest resources in the world, a country with the greatest opportunities in the world, a country with the human material to develop it. If we can succeed in training people so that White, Black and Brown in this country can be inspired to dedicate themselves to this country, we can build this country into the great country which is its destiny.

Are you a Prog?

If one pleads for co-operation between White, Brown and Black and the progress of South Africa, does it mean that one is a Prog?

Yes!

That is the misfortune of this country. We are still saddled with a lot of Hertzogites in this House, people who are not prepared to show themselves in their true colours. [Interjections.] We have to scrimp and save today to make the budget balance. Hon. members on the Government side tried to shrug off this matter by saying it was due to world circumstances, in other words the depression in the world. The Opposition said it was because of a lack of confidence on the part of the outside world that we cannot obtain foreign capital. Both the other Opposition parties said that. I believe they have identified the problem correctly. There is undoubtedly a lack of confidence.

On whose part?

On the part of the foreign investor. That is why he does not invest here. There is even a lack of confidence on the part of investors in South Africa, and that is why they also do not invest. That is also why money is flowing out of the country. [Interjections.] It is true. Now we come to another question, however. What caused this crisis of confidence? [Interjections.] Unfortunately I must differ here with the other Opposition members. The hon. member for Constantia and the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens said here that it was due to apartheid alone. The hon. member for Johannesburg North also said so today. He said: “Change your policy and everything in the garden will be rosy.”

That will help.

No, we in this party want to be realistic. I will not follow the example now of the hon. member for Johannesburg West. Let us say frankly that there are offensive laws in this country, laws that do not belong on the Statute Book, laws that have nothing to do with the maintenance of White civilization in South Africa.

Name them.

I will name them. I want firstly to refer to the legislation in regard to job reservation. Job reservation is only enforced on 2% of the people. [Interjections.] Why is there a law on the Statute Book that is not enforced and that only serves as a whip for the outside world and for the Black man to beat the White man with? The White man also does not want to be insulted by the fact that he has to have a law to protect him.

Mention another, Boet!

That hon. member tells me to mention another. When Mugabe says: “The White man will not retain an inch of land in Rhodesia” I shudder. Then I say: “What an uncivilized person!” And yet we find that the Coloureds in this country cannot buy agricultural land. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.] … Do not make me out to be a liberal. I am not that at all. We will however have to grant our Coloured population equal economic opportunities. What is wrong with that?

What does the White Paper have to say?

If the White Paper recommends it, I am very grateful. This should however have happened long ago. I am not here now to run down the Government. I am only saying what should be done. The Black man in Soweto should also have the right to acquire property. I do not believe that the land should be given to him. He must be allowed to buy it. I believe these people should also have the opportunity to share in the free enterprise system in South Africa. I also believe that the established Bantu should have an undisturbed family life. These are things that should be done, but this is not the whole story as far as the crisis of confidence is concerned. I think it was the hon. the Minister who said that the problem in Africa is …

Are you speaking of immorality, Boet?

Keep quiet! That hon. member is ignorant. What does the foreign investor want to see in South Africa? He is an out-and-out businessman. He is not concerned so much about racial matters. He is concerned about his profits. And more. He is concerned about the fact of whether his money will be safe in South Africa. Because of what happened in South Africa, because of Angola, because of the fact that Russia has now dug its claws into Africa and is encouraging terrorism, the foreign investor feels that South Africa is no longer a safe investment field.

Soweto as well!

Yes, that is right. It also concerns Soweto. The people behind the Soweto riots and who organized that riot, are also responsible for it. These are the problems we have to contend with. We will have to face them whatever we do.

Now I want to talk about Africa. I want to remind hon. members that during the happenings in Angola 22 Black countries supported South Africa, but since the Americans left Angola in the lurch the credibility of America has decreased so much that not a single Black country in Southern Africa still supports it. It was for that reason that the leader of Zambia invited Podgorny to his country. It was not because Zambia is communistically inclined. It was because it does not have confidence in the credibility of America. The Black nations are climbing on the bandwagon of communism because they know America will not assist them and to prevent themselves from being devoured.

Now I come to the hon. members who say it is because of apartheid. That is not the truth. They maintain that if only we were willing to make changes in our race policies we would solve our problems. What does the Western World want from us? What is more just than the Turnhalle conference in South West Africa? But the Western World will not accept it. What can be more reasonable than the independence of the Transkei? Is the West willing to accept that? Mr. Jimmy Carter said that he advocates majority rule in Southern Africa. That is what is being demanded of us, but is that all they are demanding? Mr. Smith accepted the whole Kissinger plan and that will result in majority rule within two years. Were they satisfied then? No, Sir, then they wanted more. Mr. Ivor Richard then said that the settlement had also to comply with the demands of the five front-line presidents. What are their demands? They demand that the government be taken over by Mugabe and Nkomo, and Mugabe is the man who says: “The White man will not retain an inch of land in Rhodesia.” Can we negotiate with this kind of person? Then we come to what Mr. Andrew Young has said, namely—

We also find that when the Byrd amendment was repealed and America could no longer import chrome from Rhodesia, Senator Byrd also moved that they should not buy chrome from Russia. The motion was however rejected. In these circumstances we must realize that we cannot rely on the Western World; we should rather rely only on ourselves; not on the Government, but on ourselves. I do not know how serious the hon. member was. He pleaded for a new approach, and I want to add to that that we in South Africa, every member in this House, will have to think of a new approach. We can no longer afford petty politics in South Africa and I do not know how long we in this House will still be able to attack each other regarding colour and make petty political debating points. I think the time has arrived for the adults to get together to reach consensus on colour and to see if we cannot keep the colour position out of politics in the interest of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for King William’s Town will pardon me if I do not continue in the same vein as he did. I do not see my way clear to travel around the world during the few minutes at my disposal. I should, however, like to dwell on a few aspects mentioned by the hon. member, and also the hon. member for Constantia and other hon. members who so easily slate the financial and economic position in South Africa as being the result only of the policy of the NP, on the statements they have made.

This is the third budget of this hon. Minister of Finance. From these three budgets I think we can see a definite policy in what the hon. the Minister wants to do with the finances of South Africa. I do not want to be accused of the fact that I am only echoing what the hon. the Minister has had to say. I want to say that it is not I who am so clever as to see that policy. There are in fact more clever people than I who can see the policy behind the budgets of the hon. the Minister. Let us dwell for a while on the argument that the political policy of the NP is responsible for the so-called weak economic position in which South Africa finds itself. It is right that the hon. members on the Opposition side should criticize the political policy of the Government. The hon. member for Constantia yesterday accused this side of the House implementing the policy of the UP. I do not think we should drag irrelevancies into the situation we are discussing today. The hon. member for Constantia did not have the material to speak for half an hour on a weak budget because it is not a weak budget.

The point I want to stress is if it is merely the political situation which causes us to experience this difficult economic and financial position, we must ask the hon. members: Is only South Africa, because of the fact that we have the policy of separate development, experiencing difficulties on financial and economic level? The hon. member for Pinelands agrees with me that this is not the case. I believe that it is not necessary for us to split hairs. This phenomenon, to which we can refer in a manner of speaking as the grasping of the financial and economic situation, is world-wide. It is found in all countries of the world. If this is true, therefore—and we agree that in South Africa it is not merely in consequence of the political policy of the NP—we arrive at the second possibility. That possibility boils down to the fact that we must give basic recognition to the problem besetting the world today, the problem of struggling to free itself from a recession on financial and economic level. Once we acknowledge this, once we concede that it is important to us—and I believe it is important, because it is also important to the world—we shall have the background against which we can judge the trilogy of budgets presented by the hon. the Minister of Finance. It is clear from the budget we are dealing with at the moment that the hon. the Minister and the Government have, after a long prelude, reached the stage where they can tell the world and our own people that this problem is not restricted only to South Africa but that it is a worldwide problem.

We can point accusing fingers at any person today. It is easy to do something like that. It is easier still in the economic world than in any other field. However, we must realize that if we accept that it is a worldwide phenomenon—as I have said before— we must ask ourselves what a budget has to look like against that background. Budgeting for a country is different to individual’s budgeting for his own private business undertaking. And then it does not matter whether the said individual is a salaried employee or businessman. When a budget for a country is drawn up it is done without prior knowledge of what is available and what can be spent. It is not an easy task to determine the last mentioned two factors. They are however also not the most important aspects to bear in mind when budgeting for a country. When budgeting for a country—because the budget is not merely an income and expenditure account— it is necessary to determine the needs of the country for which one must budget. When the needs have been determined, the person who is budgeting can investigate the matter to determine the resources at his disposal. Should his need be A, he must proceed to find the resources which will eventually bring him to A.

The Government has spent the past three years determining the relevant needs. What are those needs? We are faced with the naked truth firstly that our needs are such that we can no longer budget by relying on a given percentage of foreign capital which is expected to flow into the country. Any business venture, in whatever business situation, constantly experiences the element of loan capital, whether in the form of a director’s loan or in the form of some other loan. But as soon as such loan capital exceeds a certain percentage of capital, generally such businessman or business venture experiences problems. In my opinion therefore, we have a basis in this budget on which we find that South Africa is thrown on its own resources in its economic life. We may still feel the pinch in the short term because of the fact that we have to acknowledge and accept that fact. At the same time, however, we in South Africa will have to admit that the time has arrived to give up the luxury we are living in. We must get our priorities right as far as our needs are concerned, and this budget has laid the foundation for the fact that we must budget for fixed needs.

To my mind another very important aspect has been laid down in the budget. I do not want to deal with figures this afternoon but there is the guideline that we must actively attach great value to our exports and stimulate them as far as possible. I think there is only one permanent solution to a deficit in our balance of trade, namely that our exports must be increased by a large percentage. The budget contains a stimulus for exports and other hon. members of the House have already pointed this out.

The hon. member for King William’s Town spoke of the rich mineral resources in South Africa. We often say that we are a country rich in agricultural and mineral resources, and I think we have rich water resources as well. I think we must go and have a look at all these things and determine their size. We can only use the word “rich” in a relative sense, because one cannot destroy on short term things that have been built up over millions of years. So while we have the incentive in the budget to stimulate our exports, I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister and the Minister of Economic Affairs this afternoon not to allow South Africa to export its raw materials. I know that the Government is making progress in this direction, but we are speaking now of priorities and the determining of needs. We can expect permanent prosperity as far as exports are concerned only when we have reached this stage. It is our guarantee that we will not have problems every time because of major or minor crises in the world. Because we have this volume of exports, our balance of trade will not suffer time and time again. If we have goods to export and we are prepared to use the incentive which I see in the budget, it will strengthen us financially. I say that we must do these things, but at the same time I want to indicate that I do not mean to criticize. In fact, my plea is the opposite, namely, that the private financial forces in the country will also have to contribute their share towards refining basic minerals. We cannot expect the State alone to provide the infrastructure and then allow the benefits to be pocketed by a specific person at the expense of taxpayers generally.

I want to mention a third very positive aspect of the budget. Over the years we have really become tired of countering the criticism that the Government is the greatest offender because the Government overspends. I can say that there may perhaps have been occasions when we may have been excited because times seemed to be good. Every one of us does it in our private lives. That has happened. At the same time I want to say that, like everyone who is sitting here, I represent a constituency. If we want to curb Government spending consistently, we must, as responsible members of this Assembly and as responsible people in this financial and economic vice in which we find ourselves, realize at the same time that it is also expected of us—I also say this to my voters—not to demand that a police station, a train line or a station be erected at every place under the sun. We will have to realize that we will have to get our priorities right. We must allow this realization to filter through not only to our voters but also to other levels of government and those represented by us. Having said all this, this budget also contains another real incentive of cardinal importance to South Africa. Viewed against the background of what other hon. members have already explained in detail and which I do not want to repeat, I just want to say that this incentive is that we must return in all respects to the clarion call “South Africa first” and that we must especially do so by buying South African.

I really want to appeal to the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs to ensure that we do not only do lip service to the campaign “Buy South African”. We have experienced how difficult it was to get across to the public generally the idea of the combating of inflation. I do not think it will be inflationary to plead for a massive “Buy South African” campaign, because the rand one keeps in the country means more to South Africa than any rand which leaves South Africa. In a “Buy South African” campaign we will include all population groups, everyone who does not necessarily move in the great wave of the financial world and the economy, everyone who can spend something within the country for the prosperity of South Africa.

When we consider this budget—and I have gone to some lengths to look up the criticism in the Press of about 12 budgets—I think we can justly say to the hon. the Minister and the Government that not one budget has been better received by the general public in South Africa than this budget. I did not come across one, and hon. members can go and see whether they can find one. We are not flattering each other. The seriousness of this budget is self-evident. If we do not make that seriousness our own—I am not speaking now of the political seriousness as far as the security of South Africa is concerned but of the economic gravity which is self-evident in this budget—we shall be losing a golden opportunity to ride the crest of the wave of prosperity when it comes again, as it will come.

Mr. Speaker, it was most enjoyable to listen to the very stimulating speech made by the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke. I am going to deviate completely from the financial aspects and features of the budget.

I think it is absolutely necessary that the House and the voters outside should have a close look at and take note of the implications and absurdities of the new education policy of the PRP as formulated and accepted on the occasion of the latest federal congress of the party held in November 1976. Incidentally, after repeated written and oral requests I was not able to obtain details of the education policy of the PRP from the hon. member for Rondebosch. I received it this afternoon, just after the commencement of the sitting, and I am indebted to him for it. It does not surprise me that I was unable to obtain the details, because—if I were in his shoes—I would not readily make such an overwhelming piece of bluff available for general information. I read in The Natal Mercury of 22 November 1976 that the PRP congress resolved that—

That means that they will have the right in an open community to attend schools in the neighbourhood. That is why I call it a bluff. They talk of an open community which they envisage for South Africa, but where will these open communities first be established? They will be in the underprivileged areas. In other words, those hon. members are safe where they are living, because they will not have open communities or neighbourhood schools there. Apart from that, statutorily enforceable integrated schools for the Republic of South Africa, with its diversity of peoples and creeds, is presently the declared and accepted education policy of that party which regards itself as the alternative government in the country. I am sorry the hon. member is not in the House at the moment, but it is only right and fair to point out that the decision of the congress of the PRP was strenuously opposed by the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Sandton. I read in The Natal Mercury of 22 November—

I now challenge the hon. gentlemen either during the debate or during the discussion of the National Education Vote, to take a stand openly in the House, as they did at the congress, against the absurd and ill-considered resolution taken by their party. The House would like to listen to a “carefully argued speech” by the hon. member for Yeoville. If he does not accept the challenge, the hon. member for Yeoville, who said to the hon. member for Houghton after the vote was taken at the congress: “Some you lose and some you win; that is the way it goes”, will find “that he will be a loser all the way all the time”, because the small grain of credibility in regard to his love for South Africa and all its people which may still remain, will disappear and he will be branded as just another lackey of the hon. member for Houghton.

From a study of newspaper reports on proceedings when this resolution was taken, it is very clear that such a policy was not adopted to serve the highest interests of the training and education of all our people but was simply and solely an obvious attempt on the part of the hon. member for Houghton to further the political image of her party, particularly in the eyes of the Black people. Progress reports in regard to the Transvaal congress of the PRP at which the resolution was first tabled in October 1976, that she— the hon. member for Houghton—said that there would never be a better time than now for the PRP to set an example, especially in the light of the problems with the Black schools in Soweto.

I assert that it is an absurd, ill-considered and politically inspired resolution without regard to what is in the highest and best interests of all the peoples of the Republic of South Africa in the training and education spheres. No party which is really striving for that which is in the highest and best interests of the country and all its people would ever adopt such a radical resolution affecting the all-embracing, basic function of the State without a thorough and penetrating study of the considered opinion of educationists and without taking thorough cognizance of the results of this sort of policy in other countries where it has been applied. I say without fear of contradiction that this resolution was adopted in conflict with the findings of educationists and notwithstanding the negative results experienced in other countries.

What does Africa have to say since independence? In 1961 educationists from the independent Black states of Africa met in Addis Ababa to determine what they had inherited in the education field from the old colonial powers. These experts decided that the education systems they had inherited were not suitable for the Africa nations, simply because they did not satisfy their particular needs and circumstances. These experts—and this is very important and interesting— decided in 1961, eight years after our Education Act, to recommend a system of education which is almost identical to the Bantu Education system in the Republic of South Africa, as embodied in our Bantu Education Act of 1953. In 1962 a similar conference was held in Tananarive in Madagascar on the question of higher education. There too experts came to the conclusion that the departure point of education at university level should be that it must satisfy the particular needs of each nation. In the light of the foregoing I challenge the hon. members of the PRP to admit that in the formulation of their new education policy they did not heed the voice and judgment of educationists in Africa. Should I perhaps assume that the hon. members only have an ear for Africa and its leaders when it suits them in their attacks on all that is good and in the highest interests of South Africa and all its people?

Nearer home we can listen to the verdict of Prof. Kgware of the University of the North, an educationist of note, on school integration in South Africa. I quote from an interview which Otto Krause had with Prof. Kgware, as published in Rapport of 30 January 1977. Prof. Kgware was asked what he felt about integration in schools in South Africa. I quote his illuminating reply—

He continues—

Then he says the following—

Again I ask the hon. members of the PRP, the arch-apostles of so-called consultation with the Black leaders of South Africa, why they did not consult Prof. Kgware before they arrived at a decision on such an all-embracing function as the education and training of our children. Of course, forging bonds of culture with Mr. Buthelezi is more suitable in the political corral of those prophets of doom than forging bonds of culture with those authorities in whom the basis of culture of any people is vested, viz. the leaders of its education and training institutions. The educationists of Black Africa and Africa have expressed condemnatory verdicts on school integration. Let us look at evidence from a country—the United States of America— which for the past twenty years and more has undergone the experience of forced and statutorily enforced school integration. It is significant that the hon. member for Houghton, who is so keen on receiving honorary degrees, does not ask for good advice in that connection on such dignified occasions. I would like to quote from the Saturday Review, an American publication. This has the following to say—

1. (1) Integration has not significantly improved the quality of education accessible to Blacks;
2. (2) it has lowered the standard of education available to Whites;
3. (3) it has resulted in the exodus of White students to private schools inside the city or to comparatively affluent suburbs beyond the economic means of Blacks;
4. (4) it has not contributed to racial harmony but has produced deep fissures within American society.

Let us look now at the allegation that the standard of education is lowered by integration. It is not a question of speculation here. It is what actually took place. Say, for instance, there are three negro children or quite a few negro children in a class. We might even suppose that half the class consists of negro children. Let us suppose that at the end of the year three negro children and one White child fail. Immediately there is an uproar and it is said that the negro children are being discriminated against.

Then it is South Africa’s fault.

To escape that label of discrimination, the standard is lowered so that all the children can pass. That actually happens.

In Time of 29 November 1976 there was a report on the findings of a commission which had been appointed to determine whether integrated schools had succeeded. This was the Commission on Civil Rights under the chairmanship of one Arthur Flemming. That report reads, inter alia—

This therefore is an excellent positive testimony in favour of integrated schools. But it is interesting that one of the investigating officials of that commission, a certain Lindstrom, resigned because—

Time of September 1976 reported further as follows on the findings of the so-called Commission on Civil Rights—

Let me read one further quotation from US News and World Report of 4 October 1976—

All the evidence confirms that school integration is not successful and is not achieving what was envisaged. On the contrary, it is negative in all its results. According to all the evidence another result is that Whites are moving from integrated schools to private schools.

The PRP has accepted integration as its education policy with all its negative consequences. I challenge the mother of this evil policy, the hon. member for Houghton, to give the undertaking that she will supplement her statutorily enforceable integration with the additional statutorily enforceable condition that there will be no further private schools or that expansion to private schools will not take place. That undertaking will prove that she is in earnest in not allowing Whites to purchase their own separate schools. If she is prepared to give that undertaking, her credibility might possibly be accepted. In that case it might even be accepted that she is in earnest.

In the light of all the evidence mentioned, I assert that school integration is untenable for us in the Republic of South Africa, firstly because a system of integrated education makes the basic function of the State subservient to political bartering and expediency. Secondly, it is unacceptable because such a system would not serve the highest interest of all the people because it takes no account of the indigenous needs of each nation in our multinational set-up. In other words, it does not serve the interests of the Whites, the Blacks, the Indians or the Coloureds. Thirdly, it is rejected because without question it will disturb the peace, calm and stability and concomitant discipline which is a necessary prerequisite of a healthy education system. Fourthly, it is untenable as this system contains a new element of discrimination which will have destructive consequences because when White schools are forced by law to enrol Black pupils, the White pupils and parents have no choice. In the last place it is untenable because it is not based on sound principles according to the findings and experience of educationists.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing on behalf of those of us who sit in these benches a very sincere word of good wishes to the hon. member for Beaufort West, the ex-Minister of Foreign Affairs, who earlier this afternoon made his final speech in this House, after almost 20 years of service, both to this House and to this country. It is hardly necessary for me to emphasize the quite outstanding qualities which this hon. ex-Minister had and still does have. All I would like to say is that we would identify ourselves with those who have expressed their appreciation for the service that he has rendered, and to wish him, his wife and family a very pleasant and healthy retirement, knowing that his interest in foreign affairs and in the destiny of this country will continue unabated.

I want to refer briefly to the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke who spoke earlier and who made, I think, some very constructive suggestions. One of the things that he said was that the problems facing the economy of this land are not to be seen in isolation, but that they are world problems. I agree with him on that. However, I do want to point out to him and to this House than unlike most countries, South Africa has had the enormous benefit of an increase in the price of its main commodity, namely gold, over the last two years, which has brought in untold benefits and yet we face one of the darkest hours in our economic situation. For example, when one thinks of the Arab countries and the increase in the price of oil, one does not find a desperate situation there.

Then I also want to refer briefly to the hon. member for Kimberley North and to say that I wish I had more time to respond to his speech on the educational policy of the PRP. The only reason why I do not want to reply in full detail now is that I want to address myself specifically to the budget rather than to a debate on education per se I simply want to say to him that when he suggests that it is wrong to move towards equal opportunity in education, which is as we see it, I find it… [Interjections.] Yes, that is exactly what we are saying. Furthermore, when he suggests that it is the rich who can buy their private schools, I want to ask him why it is—and perhaps the hon. the Minister of National Education will be the first to tell me—that in the forefront of those who wish to open their schools to people of all races, are the private schools. Can the hon. member answer that question?

It is a token; nobody can afford it.

It is not a token at all; it is a token that the hon. member is resisting. So why does he resist it them? The answer, of course, is that hon. members opposite do not like them taking that move and do not like us moving in this direction. Those hon. members opposite who are quick to reject the kind of policies which we have been advocating over the years should be very careful, because a great deal of the policies which we have been suggesting over the years are now part of the policy of the Government. If we are consistent, and if that hon. member firmly supports the declaration of the Government that it is going to move away from race discrimination on the grounds of race and colour, then I suggest that his own Government in due time will also move in this direction towards an open society. For instance, why has the Government changed its mind regarding hotels, restaurants and sport?

It has nothing to do with education.

Of course, it has everything to do with education. We are talking about the whole of life and that party tries to put things in compartments by saying: “This is reserved for Whites only but we are going to open the door a little bit.” The door is opening whether they like it or not. The whole history of that party is that it has to adjust, but because it has all kinds of people looking over their shoulders, they have to be very, very careful indeed that they disguise it. It is like having a lottery and saying that it is not a lottery, or like having integration and saying it is not integration. It is merely a playing with words.

I want to come to the hon. the Minister of Finance. I want to address him on a very serious problem which I think is germane to his budget, namely the problem of trying to meet the situation of the balance of payments and the problem of high inflation and yet, at the same time, to try to battle with the very real problem of rising unemployment, because a depressed budget and a depressed economy must inevitably bring in its wake even increased unemployment, something which we cannot afford.

Mr. Speaker, the problem is enormous. If one looks, for example, at the building industry, one sees that Mr. Johan Grotius, director of the Building Industries Federation, said after an interview with some Cabinet Ministers—

A countrywide survey of the building industry showed that the industry’s labour force had shrunk by a quarter in the year up to February 1977. I noticed in the newspaper the other day that the Pietermaritzburg Chamber of Industries reckons that its members are now employing 90% fewer workers than just one year ago and that registered unemployment among Africans has doubled. Another statistic which gives cause for alarm, is that more than 140 printing workers in Cape Town alone have been laid off work in what the general secretary of the South African Typographical Union described as “the worst slump the industry has experienced in a generation. ’ ’

In the textile industry, which claims to be working at no more than 50% of capacity, it is estimated that 4 500 workers are unemployed and that 5 500 are on short time. About 12 000 African workers were laid off in the civil engineering industry last year. That represented 10% of the total work force in that particular industry. The motorcar industry laid off 6 000 workers last year.

The snowballing unemployment in South Africa is dramatically reflected in the unemployment figures released in the middle of March this year, covering six major work categories, viz. mining, construction, manufacturing, electricity, the Railways and the Post Office. According to the Department of Statistics—and I have no reason to query their figures—between October and December last year, the total employment of the six categories decreased by nearly 69 000. Of that number 62 631 were Africans. It is very difficult to try to measure just how extensive the problem of unemployment is in South Africa.

The Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut has warned that Black unemployment could increase by the end of 1977 to a staggering two million. I know that the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, were he here, would be very annoyed and cross that one should even quote this, but perhaps he should take it up with the people who have given these forecasts.

It has been variously estimated that African unemployment is now well over the one million mark, increasing at a pace of 12 000 to 15 000 every month. The terrifying spectacle of mass Black unemployment in a time of rising prices and of increasing political consciousness is a very real threat, a threat to which I will return a little later in my speech.

According to Prof. P. J. van der Merwe, labour economist to the University of Pretoria, Black urban unemployment rose at a rate of about 4 000 a month early last year, to 10 000 a month by mid-year, and 14 000 a month at the end of last year. Unemployment amongst Whites, Coloureds and Indians rocketed by an alarming 95% from November 1975 to November 1976 and this accounted for only 19 000 of the unemployed variously estimated between 1 and 2 million. One of the Government’s own advisers, Lieb Loots, researcher in the office of the Prime Minister’s Economic Adviser, has estimated that by the end of 1977, Black unemployment could reach the 1,7 million mark which means that out of a total work force of about 10 million, there would be about a 20% unemployment rate—higher than nearly every other country in the Western world.

With regard to the problems in arriving at accurate figures, it has already been said many times from this side that we do not have a measurement in order to assess the unemployment figures amongst African workers. We have now been told by the hon. the Minister of Labour that, together with the hon. the Minister of Statistics and his own department, there is going to be a far better way of assessing the figure. This is long overdue. The problem of comparison of various previous periods is highly complicated by the inaccuracy of the latest census data. Mr. Loots, to whom I have already referred, has pointed out that one cannot accept the 1970 population census figures for unemployment. The reason is that in the instructions to census enumerators the following rather strange definitions were included: A man who described himself as unemployed and living in a rural area, had to be classified as employed in agriculture; a man who indicated the occupation and industry of his last job, but was unemployed, had to be classified as employed in that industry; all the females from 16 years old in rural areas and unemployed had to be classified as farm workers, unless the wife of the household head; and, lastly, a woman who gave her occupation as domestic servant and yet was unemployed, had to be classified as employed as a domestic servant.

Despite all these difficulties, at a recent conference on unemployment at the University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg, a narrowing of the range of possible estimates was achieved. Prof. P. J. van der Merwe of Pretoria University reckons that total unemployment reached 1,3 million in 1976 with more than 1 million being Africans. I do not think that by any stretch of imagination, can Prof. Van der Merwe be described as a member of the PRP. He is merely a man who is an academic looking at a particular problem and I hope the hon. the Minister of Finance will accept my own arguments as an attempt to highlight and underline a problem that faces all of us in South Africa and which he himself in his own particular situation must give serious attention to.

At the same conference Lieb Loots pointed out that with no reliable empirical data available, researchers must resort to statistical extrapolation. Depending on the assumptions made and thus the figures used, he maintains that unemployment estimates for 1976 can vary from a “low” figure of 1 million—i.e. 10,2% of the work force—to a “high” figure of 1,85 million—a rate of no less than 18,6%.

The rate of the increase in unemployment is said to have risen from 1 000 per month at the beginning of 1976, to 14 000 per month at the end of 1976, and 15 000 per month for January and February of this year with no signs whatsoever of a change in this upward spiralling graph. It is very difficult to try and explain how it is possible for one group of independent objective researchers to reach a figure which differs no greatly from official figures as they are given by various departments. Only last month the hon. the Minister of Labour could say—

It is a very, very far cry from the statistics that I have already mentioned.

The results of unemployment cannot simply be measured in terms of a graph. They must also be seen in very real personal terms. There are thousands and thousands of families who do not know where their next meal is coming from because they are unemployed. There are hundreds and thousands of adult men and women who have no work at all. There are hundreds and thousands of young school-leavers who start their working lives insecure and without employment. There are hundreds of families in the impoverished and over-crowded rural areas of South Africa who are being left stranded by the loss of income from migrants to the urban areas.

The extent of the joblessness means that there is a vast and growing body of people who are becoming detached and cut off from the money economy upon which we all depend in order to survive. Here I want to sound a warning not only to the Government and members of this House, but to the whole of South Africa. There is an increasing mass of people who have nothing to do all day and who are alienated, angry and hungry. What better ingredients do we have for mob hysteria and mass action? What better fuel do we have for racial tensions when the vast majority of the unemployed and hungry are Black, and the employers and thus the men who do the firing and who have the food to spare, happen to be White?

On the front page of the Labour Mirror, newspaper of Tucsa, there appeared the dramatic headline “Unemployment creates desperate men who seek desperate measures to survive.” That is exactly the truth of the matter.

The price of massive Black unemployment is a price South Africa cannot afford to pay. A budget which concentrates understandably—only on attempting to rectify the balance of payments and to offset inflation, thereby depressing the economy with resulting unemployment, is a danger to the very fabric of our society. I want to suggest that the public enemy number one is not inflation and is not even the whole question of the balance of payments, important as it is, but the whole question of unemployment which threatens every one of us. None of us is secure from massive Black unemployment. What kind of response do we get to this particular situation? Only a few months ago the hon. the Prime Minister said in a radio interview that unemployment was serious in the United States and Britain, but that the lack of unemployment in South Africa was an indication of South Africa’s economic strength. This head in the sand attitude is not only indefensible, but also very dangerous.

The hon. the Minister of Finance said in November last year that the Government was carefully studying the jobless rate and that remedial action would be taken if necessary. He admitted that although the number of unemployed Asians, Coloureds and Whites had risen, he felt this was still low. He said that although accurate measures of Black unemployment were not available, the best estimates which he had, lent no support to the alarmist figures quoted in certain publications.

I think that things have become a little clearer since November. The situation has deteriorated very rapidly and we cannot afford to adopt a complacent attitude any longer. I believe that what we have reached now in terms of unemployment in South Africa, is of crisis proportions. However, it is very difficult indeed to get the Government to recognize the crisis. One recalls that only last year, when there was massive unrest and violence all over the country and when hundreds of people were killed, the hon. the Prime Minister’s verdict was: “There is no crisis.” One wonders how many more hundreds and thousands and perhaps millions of people have to be unemployed before the Government will recognize that we are faced with a crisis.

It is perhaps easy to analyse a problem, but it is not so easy to suggest the answers. I want to suggest a few things which the hon. the Minister might consider doing. None of them are particularly original, but I believe it may well be at least helpful. I believe that the hon. the Minister of Finance together with his colleagues in the Cabinet must act now and that they must do so in the following ways: In the first place there must be a selective—and I underline the word selective—stimulation of the economy. Yesterday the hon. member for Newcastle said that once we had dealt with the balance of payments problems and once we had looked at the whole question of inflation and lowered that to a single figure, then the Government had an obligation to work towards the stimulating of the economy. I say that the Government has that obligation right now, against the background of vast numbers of people who are unemployed. In the second place there should be the implementation of emergency measures, which are at the disposal of the State in terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act, to introduce schemes to keep people employed and to create employment opportunities. We have some of that machinery at our disposal and I believe we have to put it into use right now. In the third place we have to consider not only the creation of jobs, important and vital as that may be, but we also have to bear in mind the hundreds and thousands of all races who are unemployed right now. Therefore the third measure needed is the introduction of an emergency food-rationing programme for those who are in need. In order to make this possible I urge the hon. the Minister of Finance to appoint an Employment Opportunities Commission, representative of industry, of commerce, of academics, of trade unions, of people in Government and people in the Opposition, because I suggest unemployment is public enemy No. 1 and cannot be countered with half-hearted measures. We must act and we must act now.

Mr. Speaker, the House listened attentively to the hon. member for Pinelands, but while he was speaking, he reminded me of the gods of Greek mythology who, in high and mighty fashion, tried to pass judgments and make analyses of the communities from Mount Olympus, far removed from the people. The hon. member for Pinelands does not have to try and convince the House of the fact that unemployment also occurs in South Africa, that it occurs in other parts of the world and that graphs can be used to represent it. The hon. member would have interested me and the House much more if he had tried to put his finger on the cause of unemployment and from that basis had tried to determine the remedies and solutions. In the difficult conditions prevailing in the world, the NP with all the power and vigour at its disposal, is trying to provide work for every man and woman in South Africa who wants to work. If the hon. member is concerned about people who want to work but cannot, I share his concern.

If one wants to investigate the problems of South Africa, one has to do so in depth. As I have said, the hon. member for Pinelands, as he has often done before during his speeches, reminded me once again today of one of the gods of Olympus. I quote the following from The Star of 25 November 1976—

[Interjections.] At the end of the report we read the following—

Looking at the members of the PRP, we in South Africa must carry out an even more penetrating analysis of the way of thinking, the origin and the ideals of these people. Due to the nature of this debate it is very difficult to isolate a single facet and to get to the roots of it. Since it was that hon. member who spoke—I had actually prepared myself to follow another member—I want to point out that the hon. member received his peace prize while he was one of the principal members of the University Christian Movement. If this is correct, I maintain that the University Christian Movement is one of the main causes of the rise of the Black Power Movement in South Africa. It gave rise to an organization like Saso. That hon. member is like a god of Olympus in this House, aloof and elevated above us mortals. In the far south of America he receives peace awards, but in South Africa itself he uses his background, his training and all the talents he may have in order to promote organizations which aim at seeking a solution to questions in South Africa itself, not in a peaceful manner, but in a violent one. The hon. member is only touching on the periphery of the problem of unemployment. We must take a very careful look at that hon. member and at the specific position which he has adopted in South Africa. As an ex-minister, like myself, he must search his own heart, as we like to do, and then see whether the leprosy which clings to the hands of the Whites is found only amongst members of the NP and the Afrikaner or whether there are not perhaps signs of leprosy on the hands of that hon. member as well.

I want to go further and ask the hon. member who that group of hon. members are who are sitting around him. Let us make a brief analysis. We can begin with the hon. member on his right hand, the hon. member for Bryanston. A few years ago that hon. member was still saying that he would fight to the last for “The maintenance of White political control over an undivided Africa.” This is what the hon. member said and today they are … The hon. member for Bryanston shakes his head. I can hear it. I want to tell the hon. member for Pinelands that he is a member of the same caucus as a man who said in Pretoria a few years ago that he was in favour of undivided White control over the whole of South Africa. However, I want to go further because there are other members sitting there too. I want to make two quotations and state very categorically here that the members of the PRP are not trusted by the Afrikaners of this country, nor by the English-speaking people. They are not trusted by the Black people either. I want to quote two things which the hon. member for Houghton said. The title of the report concerned is: “Helen Suzman not worried by Young.” She may be worried by the old, but not by the young! It says the following—

That is correct.

She tried to brush this aside—she is trying to do it again now—but Mr. Andrew Young did not say this about Van der Merwe who is a part of this so-called system in which people have supposedly been ploughing others under for three centuries, people of the same extraction as the hon. member. However, that hon. member wants to create the impression in Southern Africa that she, the hon. member for Houghton, Helen Suzman, is the person who has Black people throughout the length and breadth of the world not at her feet, but at her side. However, now we have an important person like Mr. Andrew Young and he says, through President Carter, that of all South Africans—myself included—she is the only one that he cannot get along with. [Interjections.] It is important for the people of Southern Africa to know that a party like the PRP, which professes to have the support of people of colour, in point of fact does not have that support. This is reflected in the fact that a man at that level says that he does not have confidence in her. This is very important.

But he trusts you.

Order!

It is very important that these things should be said once again. However, this is not all.

Let us take the attack on Mr. Harry Schwarz. I quote what was said in Umtata—

The report goes on to say—

As a White person, I do not like people of the standing of the Matanzima Brothers having to say things like this. I do not like this myself, but the point which I want to make is that these hon. members want to give the impression to people abroad that they are the people who have a solution to the ethnic questions of South Africa. However, I want to allege that this is not the case.

Now I come to the hon. member for Rondebosch. I have a great deal more to say about him. There was the Durbanville election in the Cape. That election has been dealt with. Then Prof. Dr. Van Zyl Slabbert, who is not an unimportant person, from a certain point of view, comes along and says the following—

This is important and I want to say it here tonight. Unfortunately the hon. member for Rondebosch is not present. The students in my constituency told me that when he was in my constituency recently, he said in reply to a question about his view of Black domination in South Africa, that he would rather see Black domination in South Africa than White domination. This was his reply. I do not say that he said it. Van hoorseggen liegt men veel. However, a student who attended that meeting, said so. I want to say that we in this House will have to make that a debating point in the years to come because we must get that answer from the PRP. After they were badly defeated in an election, the hon. member said that they would have to go to the White voters as well as the Black people of South Africa and put their policy more clearly. The hon. member for Florida has already raised this particular point on several occasions and I want to do so again tonight. I want to point out two mistakes which the professor made. The one is that he is comparing what cannot be compared. The NP has never stood for White domination over the whole of South Africa. This is just what we are trying to get away from. Otherwise, why do we have a policy of separate development? Why do we have a policy of parallel development?

You could have fooled the whole world.

The fact is that over the last decade or two we find that we have been experiencing an ongoing historical process which is unfolding in South Africa. The NP came to power in 1948 in accordance with the rules and regulations laid down by the imperialistic party. We came into power in accordance with that. What amongst other things was our heritage? It was the control by White people of people of colour, and one of the first things which we did, was to try and escape from this. In our effort to escape, so as not to rule over other nations, we created the policy of separate development. I concede that it is not the easiest thing to do. In the world in which we are living it was not the easiest thing to do because imperialism—I shall never let them get away from this—drew lines and distinctions in South Africa, or failed to draw them, and that is the egg we have to unscramble in South Africa. That is why we are in the process of escaping from the whole question of ruling over other nations. In this process we are being attacked on all sides, not only from outside but also from inside by people like those very hon. members of the PRP.

I want to say that the PRP did not come to the House only recently. We were somewhat mistaken to have thought that it was just Helen Suzman who had a seat in the House on her own for a number of years. Let us go back to the Molteno report which appeared at the beginning of the sixties. Thirteen people served on that committee. Dr. Steytler, the leader at that time, said that the best lawyers he could get hold of, served on that committee. If one reads through the report, one finds that four or five of the members published a minority report. What does this mean? After they had spent so much time on it, they are still essentially not convinced of what their policy should be.

But all of them were not even members of the party.

That does not matter. They got some of the best people to draw up the Molteno report in the early sixties, i.e. 16 or 17 years ago. What happened then? In 1976 they came up with the other bright idea which they discovered in South Africa, namely—I quote from The Argus of 17 June 1976—

In other words, after the Molteno report there was already another committee to work out a policy for that party. Then they disbanded this committee and formed a new committee, and now I present the shining light who is conspicuous by his absence tonight—

At the stage it was two years ago—

Now those hon. members have a permanent committee under the chairmanship of Dr. van Zyl Slabbert.

They have Kowie Marais too. [Interjections.]

The report goes on to say—

Dr. Van Zyl Slabbert went on to say—

In the meantime another star appeared on the horizon—strangely enough, they are now taking people from the Afrikaner community—namely the former judge. Now they have a fourteen point plan which they want to present in order to try and find a solution for South Africa’s problems on a broader basis. Since the PRP concentrates particularly on working among the young people of South Africa, I now want to say that in spite of all their commissions, in spite of all their wisdom and in spite of everything they have achieved, these people have not yet found an answer to the problems of Southern Africa. I take a great deal of care in reading what those hon. members come up with. For instance, there is a programme of principles which they drew up and which consisted of seven points; not 14 points. The third point of the PRP’s constitution reads as follows—

I am leaving the hon. member for Bryanston out of this, because ten years ago he promised one thing to the voters of my constituency, and look where he is sitting now! The PRP promised that it would protect the various religious groups, the various language groups and the groups with certain cultural heritages. The only question I want to ask—I have already asked it of the hon. leader of the PRP—is: Where in your system do you protect my interests, my interests as a South African? The hon. member for Parktown is sitting behind the hon. member for Sea Point. What was his standpoint about the Day of the Covenant, the Day of the Covenant which does not have the same importance and sentimental value for everyone in South Africa as it has for me. What does he want to do with it? Does he want to get rid of it? He wants to get rid of the one special day which is important for my ethnic group.

He is a “hans-kakie”.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “hans-kakie”.

I withdraw it.

When one analyses the NP’s victory in 1948, there are many factors which were responsible for the NP coming into power. There were also many consequences of that victory and one of those consequences was the disappearance of the typical old Afrikaner liberal, the disappearance of a man like the late Mr. Jan Hofmeyr. The whole of Afrikaner liberalism went into diaspora and since 1945 there have been repeated attempts amongst the Afrikaners to revive the ideology of liberalism as it is known. There was the Hermanus group, there were the various former judges, there was the Press world, there was the Cottesloe group. However, I want to predict that as the hon. Suzman clique becomes more and more unacceptable …

Name them.

Must I name the Suzman clique?

Yes.

Mr. Colin Eglin, the hon. member for Sea Point, is one and Mr. Japie Basson, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, is one. [Interjections.] I have a special file on the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. What we are going to see in future is that Afrikaners and people with Afrikaans names will be used much more in order to champion the cause of the Suzmans and the Eglins who are incapable of convincing Black, White or Brown in South Africa. I have a very interesting book here. I want to conclude by referring to it. I see that the hon. Whip is already looking at me. The title of the book is Change in Contemporary South Africa. It is apparent from the foreword what the book is actually about. I quote—

Well, it is a very interesting book. The very first chapter is written by the hon. member for Rondebosch, Prof. Dr. F. van Zyl Slabbert. The title of the chapter which he contributed is: Afrikaner Nationalism, White politics and political change in South Africa. Time does not allow me to analyse this, but I feel that I must state here in the House that the hon. member for Rondebosch, in my opinion, is creating the impression in the outside world that he is an authority on everything. In the few pages which he wrote for this book, he is saddled with the frustration of having unfortunately being born in the milieu of the Afrikaner culture. He has lost his love for it, his longing for it and his interest in it and he is now seeking an identity for himself. He is seeking an identity for himself, and later on in this chapter he defines what he calls the so-called verligte Afrikaner. He says that the verligte Afrikaner theologian, for instance, cannot reconcile his own Afrikaans theological views with the world’s idea of Christianity. He says that the verligte Afrikaner economist cannot reconcile the aspirations which his nation expects of him with the economic requirements of the world. This is the dilemma of the hon. member for Rondebosch. On the one hand I am rather sorry for him.

No, do not feel sorry for him!

I am sorry for him because a man who … [Interjections.] … is involved in such a struggle that he cannot identify himself, must be the most frustrated man possible. The hon. member is still young. I am young too. If we are spared, we shall discuss this for many a long year. Of course he will be outside the House, and I will still be in it. [Interjections.]

I want to conclude with the following statement. There are so-called Afrikaner intellectuals, so-called Afrikaner thinkers, who base their thinking on false premises, who reason from false points of departure, and want to dare to make projections—not only retrospectively in history, but also ahead, to the future—but their projections are false. This reminds me of Hans Christian Andersen’s story, the story of the two rascals who went to the king and told him that they would make him a beautiful suit of clothing. However, they added that people who were stupid and who did not do their work properly, would not be able to see that suit. That poor king did not see the suit either. His officials did not see the suit. In this way that king appeared in public—naked. The king appeared naked until a small boy said to him: “Your majesty, you are naked.” The Afrikaner nation and the NP are perhaps a small boy in the eyes of a Jimmy Carter and of many other people, but I am convinced that the NP has the ability—because it is honest—to tell the PRP and the liberal world: You are naked.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to me to be a member of this House tonight and to listen to a speech such as the one made by the hon. member for Rissik. Listening to the hon. member has convinced me once again of the political depth which lies hidden on this side of the House. Truly, this is a potential and a quality which the hon. members on that side of the House cannot boast of. It was a speech which stripped the members of the PRP of all their pretences and showed them up very clearly for what they were. I want to ask those hon. members who have now been stripped of their pretences whether this is the reason why they are nowhere to be seen in the by-election in Westdene. Is this the reason why we have not seen them there? [Interjections.] No wonder that the electorate rejected that party completely during the latest by-election and municipal elections. Consequently I can understand why they do not have the courage to put up a fight in Westdene. [Interjections.]

While I have the opportunity of taking part in the debate, I want to allege that the economic situation in South Africa cannot be separated in any way from the causes which gave rise to it. Therefore it is quite clear to any reasonable person that our economic problem is not as simple as it was made out to be by the hon. member for Constantia earlier in the debate. He said that the reason for our economic problems was to be found in—

The hon. member sees the solution in the simple statement that—

The hon. member believes that the solution to our country’s problem can only be found in the solution to our economic problems. In this the hon. member sees the solution to all our problems in the country. However, our problems are not so simple. The root cause of all the problems of our country lies in the total assault being made on this country by communism. This is very carefully borne in mind and almost every action of the Government is consciously aimed at fighting communism. Communism is making a total assault on all the people of the Republic; White, Brown and Black. This assault is not only concerned with better human rights for the inhabitants of the Republic, better housing, or one man, one vote, but with the destruction of Western civilization and of the Christian way of life. In fact, the present budget must be seen in the light of the fact that the communists have decided that the only way to bring the Republic to its knees is to use economic methods. Therefore it is not only an economic problem, but also a communist threat we have to counter. To illustrate this, one only has to ask why production costs have increased phenomenally since 1973. The reason for this is that time and again the Arab bloc, the oil-producing countries, have introduced phenomenal increases in the price of crude oil. Who organized the Arab bloc to do this? Certainly not the Western world. The production costs in our primary and secondary industries have increased phenomenally, and this has been accompanied by the phenomenal increase in food prices.

Another aspect I want to illustrate is the communist assault which is the cause of our economic problems. The assault is the cause of the increased expenditure in respect of defence which was announced in the budget. The defence expenditure showed an increase of 21,3% over the expenditure for 1976-’77. The Cabinet acted very responsibly in approving the increase. They have a responsibility towards all population groups of our country.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, I said a short while ago that the problems of our country could not be blamed on economic factors alone and were not to be found only in “fundamental changes”, as the hon. member for Constantia put it, but that our problems arise from the total assault made by communism and our country and on all its people. I tried to indicate how this assault was echoed in the economic sphere by the increase in the oil prices and the increase in production costs which this entails. I also tried to show that the increase in our defence budget was largely due to the total assault of communism. This increase of 21,3% is a considerable one, but it was very responsibly approved by the Cabinet because the Government performs its task in this country with great responsibility. It is a decision which was taken by a Cabinet which acts with that responsibility towards White, Brown and Black in this country.

We on this side of the House have a responsibility towards all the voters of our country. This responsibility does not only lie in “fundamental changes”, but it is a responsibility which has been entrusted to us on this side of the House by the electorate during seven elections over the past 29 years. It is a mandate which is given to us in terms of a specific policy and a specific pattern. That policy we have to implement, otherwise we would be betraying all those voters who have voted us into power. It is that mandate which has recently been confirmed according to a specific pattern in indisputable election results. These were the results of the byelection in Durbanville for the provincial seat and the municipal elections on the Rand. It is a responsibility with which the NP has repeatedly been entrusted. It has not been entrusted to us as a result of “fundamental changes”, but it has arisen from the mandate to bring about orderly, multi-national development according to a pattern. I make bold to say that as a result of “fundamental changes” in the ranks of the Opposition, their membership has gone down from 47 in 1970 to 31 at the moment. In addition, two off-shoots have come into being which cut a pathetic figure.

After 29 years of successful government, the present budget has been introduced and greeted with acclaim by industrialists and economists from all sections of the population. It is a model budget for which the hon. the Minister of Finance and the members of his departmental staff deserve only the greatest thanks.

Let us examine a few items in this budget. I want to refer to the establishment of Sasol 2, the transportation of iron ore, the building of a nuclear power station and irrigation, items which involve an amount of approximately R4 000 million. Nevertheless, when we analyse the budget, we see that it serves the interests of the people of our country, and then we find that next to defence, which enjoys the highest priority, the item of “housing” receives most attention in the budget. An increased expenditure of 39% is being budgeted for in respect of housing. For the provision of housing, an amount of R153 million is being voted, compared with R57,8 million which was voted for it three years ago. The fact that provision is being made for housing testifies to a far-sighted policy on the side of the Government. It has been proved over and over again that the best housing which the population of the Republic of South African can get is housing in terms of the policy of separate development. Good housing is the best defence against internal terrorism. The budget provides for good housing under difficult circumstances.

I should like to discuss another item, i.e. the care of the aged. In my opinion, the appropriation for the care of the aged is a very important item in the budget. At the end of 1976 there were 272 subsidized old-age homes, 81 private registered old-age homes and four old-age homes under the management of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. In these institutions, 14 400 elderly and infirm persons were accommodated at the end of 1976. Accommodation for the aged is supported by direct and indirect State subsidies. It is true that an investment in the education of young people is an investment for the future, but an investment in the care of the aged and the infirm is the most tangible token of gratitude to the people who have served South Africa loyally over the years. This is the reason for the increase of R7 a month in social pensions and the considerable increase in the contributions for the care of the infirm. It is striking, following on the increase in social pensions, that not a single hon. member on that side of the House has made the remark that there is another election coming up. In all the years I have been sitting in this House, every increase in social pensions has given rise to the sinister idea that there is an election coming up. Since 1970, social pensions have been increased by 105,7%, as against an increase of 73,6% in the cost of living. This is a difference of 32,1%. In this way the Government is thanking the aged among our people. The aged have not been ungrateful to the Government, because the aged have always voted for the National Party. [Interjections.] I heard the hon. member on the other side of the House.

One final item I should like to single out is the care devoted to the spiritual well-being of the men in our Defence Force. The fact is that it is the responsibility of the Government to fight communism, and an important aspect of this is the spiritual preparation of members of the Permanent Force, the Citizen Force and the Commandos. The assault of communism is a total assault. It is not only a physical assault, but also a spiritual assault aimed at undermining and destroying, if need be, the spirit and the morale of our people. The increase in the defence budget is not only concerned with cold steel; it is not only concerned with destroying people out of hatred. It is also concerned with man’s highest good, his spiritual salvation, and that is why his spiritual needs are ministered to by chaplains in our Defence Force.

Do you agree with the executive church council of the Dutch Reformed Church?

Haas Das, you had better be quiet, please. At the moment there are 92 different religious denominations represented in the S.A. Defence Force. They are served by 460 ministers. This service is not only provided on the home front, but also to the men in the operational area, where the chaplain serves side by side with members of the Defence Force, often at the risk of his life. That service is rendered by preaching the Gospel, by pastoral services, Bible distribution and the showing of religious films. In this way a valuable service is rendered by these men. In this connection I also want to mention the important service rendered in this connection by the Defence Force choir and concert group. The responsible conduct of my Government is reflected in the positive actions of the hon. the Minister of Defence, as well as of the Chief of the Defence Force, in their enthusiasm and generous endeavours in the interests of the men in the Defence Force. We parents whose children are bearing the brunt of the battle on the border are very grateful for the attitude adopted by the hon. the Minister and the Chief of the Defence Force towards the spiritual needs of the men on our borders.

For this very reason it is such a great pity that there are certain churches which see the service rendered by the chaplain in a political light. These churches regard that chaplain in uniform as a supporter and advocate of the national régime. This is a sick view of the situation, because the spiritual work of the chaplain rises far above the political level. This is a pathetic attitude which is adopted by some churches. It is a petty attitude which is displayed by the politically-minded clergy. This budget is proof of responsible government, it serves the national interest and it promotes the fight against communism. This budget deserves only our most sincere gratitude.

Mr. Speaker, I shall not try to follow the hon. member who has just sat down in his discussion of a wide variety of unrelated matters. I just want to react to his last argument by agreeing wholeheartedly with the tribute he paid to the Defence Force for the moral preparedness and the support which it gives to our young men. This is an important part of our duty to our young people and I believe that it is received in the same spirit. However, all I have to do is to send a copy of the speech made by the hon. member for Somerset East to the member of the Provincial Council in his constituency. Then his MPC will deal with him at the next nomination. Consequently I need not react to his speech any further. The hon. member spoke of elections.

†I heard a bell tinkling while he was speaking—to warn him, I think, that he should sit down, but it reminded me of an experiment by a famous psychologist named Pavlov who conditioned a dog to react to a signal, and the signal was a bell—like the bell that rang during that hon. member’s speech. The trouble with him and his party is that they believe that Pavlov’s bell will work for ever. They have a two-toned bell attuned to one thing only. If it is rung on one side one gets the appeal of the tribe and if one rings it on the other side one gets “Swart gevaar”. This bell has worked for them for 30 years. They do not think anything else matters. The bell will go on working for ever and ever. Why worry? Look at Durbanville, look at Randburg! Why should they worry? All they have to do is ring Pavlov’s bell and the voters will come drooling at the mouth. Thus one has members like that slobbering after votes with no regard for what that means to the future of South Africa. They are not interested in what happens to South Africa. They are only interested in ringing that bell so that they get the slobbering Pavlov reaction. When one rings the bell it means food and therefore people will vote. That hon. member was a perfect example in his obsession tonight with elections and votes, totally ignoring the real issues facing South Africa. However, I am not going to deal with that any further.

But you have upset him.

I should, however, like to express a word of appreciation in connection with the budget. Here I am referring to the defence premium bonds. I think that is something we should all welcome. I want to commit this side of the House to total and unequivocal support of the defence premium bonds which have been introduced, and I want to say that we shall support them throughout. It is, of course, not a new idea. I have here the Hansard of 1971. On 2 March of that year a private member’s motion was moved from this side of the House, and I had the privilege of seconding that motion. The motion called for—

That was the motion, and in the first sentence in the first paragraph the mover of the motion said the following—

That hon. member is now the hon. the Minister of Community Development. [Interjections.] He spoke, however, on behalf of the official Opposition, so I am sorry that the present hon. member for Yeoville, who apparently got the credit for this idea, was a mere six years too late. [Interjections.] What is important, however, is the fact that in his reply the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs said the following, and I quote from Hansard, col. 1982—

The same hon. Minister went on to say (col. 1983)—

Now we know what the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs thinks of the hon. the Minister of Finance. It obviously excludes him as an economist of stature, because he went on to talk about standpoints of principle, saying (col. 1988)—

However, that did not put the mover of the motion off because in 1973 the present Minister of Community Development moved another motion calling for the introduction of a system of premium bonds whereby—

The same hon. Minister of Economic Affairs called it totally irresponsible, but this did not put off the hon. member who is now his colleague, because his present colleague concluded with the following (Hansard, 16 March 1973, col 2920)—

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

No, Sir. I continue—

So, Mr. Speaker, we-shall-overcome has overcome. We give our full support to this system which we proposed first of all through Mr. Moore, who was the member for Kensington at the time, some 12 to 14 years ago and then again in 1971 and in 1973.

The hon. member for Ermelo used a little jingle in replying to the hon. member for Constantia. I thought that perhaps we should have a little reply to that. Perhaps this is a suitable reply—

Now I wish to turn to the budget, or rather the events which have led up to it. It reminds me of one of those old-fashioned melodramas: In Scene I the heroine, Miss South Africa, is seen drowning up to the armpits in the economic morass of South Africa. The hero, Sir Fancy Forelock, comes charging up on his white charger; he opens his secret bag and he says: “Hi, sweet young maiden. I have come to save you.” She says: “Ha-ha! Thanks for the compliment, but I have been living with the Nationalist Government for 30 years … [Interjections.] Then she had another disappointment. She discovered that it was only the hon. the Minister of Finance and that he could not swim. In any case it was not a new thing for him; he had been watching people drowning for months—banks, estate empires, Glen Anils, Voysey Bonds …

Do not worry, you will float! [Interjections.]

He even watched one of his predecessors in another position drown, without any sign of sorrow or concern, because he saw this economic morass as something like the quicksands. It was almost as dangerous as fighting an election. And that is something which he has never had to do. He would never risk anything like that! So, Sir, he opened up his bag, but instead of producing an economic lifeline—there was not even a patched up old inner tube that he could throw in—he pulled out bricks. The first brick which he pulled out, about one month ago, was R144 million heavy in sales and excise duties. He hopes everybody has forgotten about that. Then he stood aside and another hero galloped up, the hon. the Minister of Transport, and he threw a R344 million heavy brick at South Africa, wallowing in the economic morass. As South Africa caught the two bricks in either hand and sank deeper and deeper into the morass the hon. the Minister of Finance rode off and came back on Wednesday, 30 March. Then he opened up his whole box of tricks. What did we find? I have not got time to deal with it, but we found a R45 million brick in reduced food subsidies which he chuckled at the poorest members of society. We found a R400 million brick in a 15% import duty which he hurled at South Africa, drowning in the economic morass that the Government caused. We find that although the rate has not been increased the hon. the Minister is taking R413 million more in personal individual tax this year than he took last year. The rate is the same but he is expecting that much more in personal tax.

Because incomes are higher.

Because incomes are higher? Or children have got older. Or normal increments have come about. So he is taking in cold cash another R413 million in personal individual tax. He is taking another R68 million in the form of a loan levy, another brick that he chucked at South Africa, drowning in the economic morass. He threw another brick, R5,5 million in estate duty, and than a R4,5 million brick in water revenues. Then he found another brick, R120 million heavy, which he threw at the potential home-owners of South Africa by withdrawing this from the bonds. He hijacked this from the bonds which would otherwise have been available to people to build houses. Then he threw another brick of R520 million at the financial institutions so that either bonuses go down or insurance tariffs go up, or pensions are affected. Then he took another R120 million from the banks, which means that overdrafts will be unobtainable. This was the lifeline that he threw to South Africa, not to mention increases in electricity tariffs, increases in the price of coal, steel, and petrol and the daily escalating cost of living. All the Minister does, is shout “Duck!” and throw bricks at the people of South Africa, and then leave them drowning in the economic morass of his Government.

The extent to which South Africa is punch-drunk is shown by the fact that this budget has been hailed in some quarters as being a saviour budget because he did not happen to hit everyone on the head; he is only going to drown about half the people.

The Government says it had no options. Of course, it had options. Every farmer knows, as the hon. the Minister of Agriculture also knows, that if one has a swamp one drains it. One digs drains so that one gets clean water running through. One feeds clean water into it in order to cleanse it of impurities. However, the hon. the Minister of Finance cannot do that because his Government and his Cabinet refuse to dig the drains that will clear the impurities out of South Africa’s economic system. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister knows it. I think he would like to dig some drains in order to drain the muck out of our economic future, but he is not allowed to do so. Accordingly the hon. the Minister of Finance must leave people to drown because the Government is not prepared to dig the drains which will clear out those impurities which are poisoning the economic life of South Africa. The trouble is that the Government knows the answer but it cannot tackle it or it does not want to tackle it. [Interjections.] The reason why the Government cannot tackle it, is because it is afraid that a little of the white top-soil might be washed out when it drains out the impurities. The Government dares not face that because, like Pavlov’s dog, when the bell is rung, they have to make the electorate slobber. The fact is that the Government is gambling on miracles and they are running out of miracles like 200-dollar gold prices. The stream of capital has not dried up. It has only been diverted from South Africa, leaving us in growing isolation, in a swamp which is starting to stink because it is too stagnant and because the Government refuses to drain it of the policy impurities which prevent the flow of new fresh water to enter our economic system. [Interjections.] At the same time the security fences of Angola and Mozambique have disappeared and we have to build and pay for our own security fences. So, as we enter an era of reducing options, we find the Government unable to face the challenges.

I want to say in all kindness to those sincere people who believe that “my Government will do what has to be done”, that the answer is not in asking 14 or 50 questions, or in giving 100 answers; it is not in writing books or in making prophecies; it is especially not in wishful thinking. The answer is here in this Parliament because this is the seat of power. The seat of power rests in government, not in board rooms where one complains, and not in Opposition where one shouts louder or makes more noise. [Interjections.] Let us not have any illusions about that. The seat of power does not rest in newspaper editorials. That, perhaps, least of all. The seat of power is here in this Parliament. It rests with that hon. Prime Minister, with his Government and with his Cabinet. It was because the UP realized that there was only one hope for South Africa that we launched our much ridiculed and laughed at initiative. [Interjections.] Hon. members are welcome to ridicule it. That is a mocking, hollow ridicule. What is needed in South Africa, however, is the smashing of the political log-jam, the re-creation of a political centre in South African politics. Somebody had to do it. If, in the process of trying to break up a political log-jam, one has to suffer casualties, then one must face it. [Interjections.] If one does not suffer casualties one will achieve nothing because the alternative is just a combined Opposition under a new name, or a purified United Party under a new name—both equally purposeless and futile exercises. Neither would have justified the step the UP has taken of placing itself and its future on the altar of South Africa’s needs; the desperate need of South Africa which we believe makes it worth the sacrifice. We talked to the PRP. They were tested and found wanting … [Interjections.] … too light for the challenge of a real new dispensation, because they were wedded to their own doctrinaire philosophy. They saw only an opportunity to strengthen their own position on the fringe of the political mainstream in English-speaking Suburbia of South Africa.

Gerdener is your secret weapon!

There was another group, to which that hon. interjector belongs, a small group of victims of Progophobia which made them balk at anything new and made them clutch at the known like drowning men. [Interjections.] I understand. It is cold and lonely in political no man’s land. It takes nerve and it takes faith in your objectives. It takes faith in a new deal for South Africa to get out of your trenches and out of your foxhole and move out and face the flak and the shots which come from both sides. But the UP, even though there may be odd members in our ranks somewhere who may feel safer … [Interjections.] We may have members who will feel safer in Suburbia, in the artificial moonlight of the Press. If so, so be it; let them get there. You cannot go over the top unless you have faith in what you are doing. That is what the UP has done. We have gone out of the trenches of tradition to fight for a new South Africa and to bring together responsible opinion across party lines and traditions. [Interjections.] We want to bring them together in a new political centre, in a new deal for South Africa.

The deceased has just arrived! [Interjections.]

If I could hear the hon. the Prime Minister’s incoherent interjection, I would respond to it, but I am afraid that I neither heard it nor can I understand it. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister obviously knew what I was about to say and wanted to divert me. What I was intending to say was that on the Government benches there are many who know in their hearts and who believe that the time for change and action in South Africa is now. There are many who wistfully and wishfully hope that their Government will make the changes which are necessary. I am not giving names, but I exclude the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior automatically … [Interjections.] … as I exclude the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Education and the Minister of Bantu Administration. However, there are those on the Government benches who I believe, in their heart of hearts, want to see the sort of changes South Africa needs. They pray every night in their hearts that the Prime Minister will make those changes, but they know that the hon. the Prime Minister has had his chance and that when he had his chance he failed to take it. I want to say that the Pik Bothas of the NP are going to break their hearts on the rock of Pavlov’s bell. They are going to break their hearts on the bell that rings for a slobbering vote and they are going to wish in vain for the strength and the courage which South Africa needs if we are to face a future in which we want to die and in which we want our children and grandchildren to live; if we are to face it with hope of a realistic chance of all the races and all the peoples of our country living peacefully together in South Africa.

Come what may, this is the time of destiny for South Africa. Whatever happens to us as the United Party, one thing cannot be said of us. It cannot be said of the UP that either its leaders, or the vast mass of its followers who have stood behind them, have failed to face the challenge and have failed to seek a new deal for South Africa, a deal calling for leadership and courage when South Africa needs it most. No one can say of the UP that we crawled back into our trenches and tried to hold on to yesterday. We have gone out into no-man’s land and are being shot at from every side. We are doing it because we believe that there is a new road for South Africa. We believe there is a political centre which must be filled by us, by members on that side and by the rank and file of the PRP. I do not believe their leadership speaks for all or even for most of their members when they reject a new deal. Come what may, let people say what they may, let the media refuse to put this across, but this will be a movement which, I believe, is what South Africa needs. If I and all my colleagues must be destroyed in the process, we will have done what is our duty to South Africa and Pavlov’s bell shall ring in vain for votes when votes no longer control the political destiny of the White man in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point made me think of a recitation I learnt at school. The grass-warbler sat in the tree and started boasting: “Olifant, gaan weg hier van die boom; as ek hier afklim, trap ek jou ribbes fyn.” The elephant merely raised his trunk high into the air and the grass-warbler fell into his mouth. What importance must we attach to the criticism of the Opposition on this budget? Against what assessment can their criticism be measured? Surely there is nothing left of the Opposition? Only the carcass is sitting there. The Leader of the Opposition himself skinned the UP, because the eyes and the brains of the UP are sitting there right opposite me. Now he is left with the carcass. These are the people who now want to dictate to us how we must govern South Africa and what the budget must look like. The hon. member for Sea Point is a front-bencher. What does one expect from an Opposition party? Surely one expects constructive criticism. Does he want us to cut down on defence and does he want the pruning knife to be used on welfare services, community development and justice? He must tell us where this budget must be pruned. Surely he should come forward with constructive criticism. That is the reason for the downfall of the UP. Throughout the many years during which they have formed the Opposition, their criticism has never been constructive. The hon. Leader of the Opposition reminds me of an incident which took place in my constituency. One of my voters telephoned me and asked me to please come and see him urgently at his home. I did my duty as his member of Parliament and visited him. He and his wife welcomed me and as I entered, I realized immediately that they had a big problem. Then the man said: “Mr. Potgieter, I want you to find me another house.” I said to him: “But my good friend, this house is a better house than the one that you want on the outskirts of Port Elizabeth. ’ ’ Then he said: “Yes, Mr. Potgieter, that is true, but this place is haunted. Do you see that room? Someone died in there. When you stopped outside, he was in this room again, and he came and sat down next to my wife. We just cannot take it any longer.” I immediately realized that these people needed psychological treatment. [Interjections.] I am very serious, this is not fabrication. I did my duty and found these people a house from the Department of Community Development, on the outskirts of Port Elizabeth.

Two weeks later the man sent word to me: “Mr. Potgieter, the ghost has moved in, too.” [Interjections.] I want to tell the Leader of the Opposition that if there is a snake in the House, one does not bum the house down. Neither is it necessary to move to a new house, because the ghosts will move in with you. The Jonah ghost, Japie has already announced that he is going to move into the new house, and the ghost Nick the Whale has said that he is also going to move in, because these two are as close as “koeksusters”. [Interjections.] The ghosts have already moved into the new house of the Leader of the Opposition. He will go through more hell there than with his present party. What I find shocking is that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has appointed Mr. Gerdener as chief of the trustees to form a new party for him. [Interjections.] Surely he knows that Mr. Gerdener was the founder of the still-born Democratic Party. He received thousands of rands as well as farms for his case, and where is the Democratic Party tonight? They do not even have two members in a constituency to nominate a candidate [Interjections.] Mr. Gerdener has now been appointed chief of the trustees, but the hon. member of the Opposition surely realizes that that man is right at all times and at all places except in his head. [Interjections.] I know certain people who belong to the trust and I know that they are coming down with political lockjaw. There are people who still believe in the old colonialistic idea of a crown colony. They have not yet contributed anything to the political development and progress of the country. Those are the people who serve on the trust.

In all sincerity, I want to say tonight that the political party that Mr. Gerdener has to form, is no political party. It is a political squatters’ camp. [Interjections.] All the political deserters, political terrorists, politically frustrated people, political camp-followers and political sinecure seakers will take refuge in the new party. I am sorry for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, because he will go through hell as he has never done in his life before. [Interjections.] It will be the greatest squatters’ paradise and sanctuary for weaklings that has ever existed in South Africa. It will not be a party with principles. Hon. members need not think about the 14 principles. It reminds me of the 14 lunatics who escaped from a lunatic asylum. One drowned, however, and then there were 13. So they carried on until not one was left.

How did you escape?

It will be the biggest Babel of confusion that we have ever heard of; even bigger than the one that is described in the Bible. When the new political squatters’ camp has been established, surely a leader must be elected. Who is going to be the leader? Surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not want to tell me that he wants to become the leader of that hotch-potch of political deserters. He has skinned his own party until not even a skin was left. He has sold it at an auction. He has skinned his own party, and who will have to be the leader now? I thought about Mr. Gerdener. Then I told myself: “Whither, Lord? To Thee alone”. When all the people were gathered in the political squatters’ camp, I thought that there should really be a leader. The name of the late Gen. Smuts came to my mind, as well as the name of the late Gen. Hertzog. I wondered whether there would not after all be an old shoe that belonged to the late Gen. Smuts or an old pair of trousers that belonged to the late Gen. Hertzog. I came to the conclusion that there was no old shoe or old pair of trousers that belonged to those two ex-leaders of the UP. Then I came to the conclusion that there is only one solution. They should collect all the names of that group of squatters and feed them to a computer.

That is a lottery!

In that manner the leader will be designated. However, I realized that there were only two possible candidates who qualify for the offices of leader and deputy leader. The leader will be the leader because he is strong, a man of stature and experience, viz. the hon. member for Umlazi. Then I tried thinking of a name for the party. The hon. member for Durban Point cannot tell me what the name will be, because those Natal people are still running with the hare and hunting with the hounds.

Potgietersrus!

Now we come to the name of the party and I thought that it would be easiest to call it the BMP party, the bogey-man party.

What I find interesting is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that they must meet at that squatters’ camp. Everybody must come, everyone we have in South Africa. What does he want to save South Africa from? We must save South Africa from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He is the danger to South Africa.

It is people like you who waste the time of the House.

A man like me would not lead a party as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has led it. He inherited the party intact from Gen. Smuts. However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has skinned the party and tonight he is sitting in the ashes. After all, we know the Leader of the Opposition. Every time he comes with a big banner. In 1958, when the Government passed the Group Areas Act, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition came forward with a thorn-tree and a bunch of grapes and said: “Together we grow”. Then he wanted people of all colours and creeds to live together. When we wanted a Republic in South Africa, we held a referendum. To this day I still have some of the United Party’s banners which were displayed at the polls. I shall treasure them for my descendants. They read: “Save South Africa; vote “No” for a Republic”. That is true. The next banner he produced was at the next election. Then they frightened the people by saying that we were now going to vote for the last time in South Africa. He said that the people should vote against the Nationalist Party. Then the election motto of the UP was: “Vote for the right to vote again”. Is that not true? And then, in the last election, just before they fell into this decadence, they said: “You want it? We have it?” And there they have it now! [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has also stated now that that political squatters’ camp, that big political squatters’ paradise, will be established in June. I now want to make a serious appeal to the hon. Leader of what I shall simply call, for convenience sake, the “group of six”. They were faithful to the UP for many years, and because there must surely still be a measure of sentiment between them and that party, they must please, when they are going to hold the funeral in June, do me a favour and have the following words inscribed on the grave: “Zij zijn recht geboren en zij stierven”. [Interjections.] They must not use a stone. They must merely take an old drum, because we want the thing to rot. There must not be any sign of the UP in the near future. We believe this country is a democratic country. We also believe in a democratic Opposition party. If that group of six wants to be the Opposition, they should at least be consistent. They should not run with the hare and hunt with the hounds like their hon. Leader, because then they too, will also find themselves in the briar-patch.

Former Leader.

We believe in a democratic country, but I want to issue a very serious warning in this House against one thing. I want to warn against the spreaders of Marxism here in South Africa. We must be careful. There are organizations which are spreaders of the Marxist ideology in South Africa. They appear here in our community with the pious faces of political parties. They garb themselves in sheeps’ clothing. However, those organizations and their henchmen are prowling around at night like leopards in our non-White townships to incite the Black against the Whites. They are the people behind these riots we experienced recently. I have watched the PRP closely and tonight I also want to issue a serious warning against them. The PRP concentrates on the undermining of character, spiritual demoralization and moral corruption, the systematical cultivation of anti-national views and the incitement of class hatred and class warfare in South Africa. [Interjections.] If we look closely at the tactics of the PRP, it becomes clear that here we are not dealing with a political party in the democratic sense. It is an anti-national, anti-Christian, revolutionary conspiracy and monster that sets out to bring about the national downfall of the English and Afrikaans-speaking people in South Africa. They are seeking and working for revolution in South Africa. The momentum of the revolution must come from the Blacks and the Whites must be the enemy.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to say that the PRP is working towards a revolution in this country?

Yes. [Interjections.]

Order! I am not prepared to allow the hon. member to say that. The Leaders of the PRP are sitting in the House and this is a reflection on them. The hon. member must withdraw the words.

Sir, then I shall leave them alone, and I withdraw those words. But the members outside are prowling around at night like cheetahs …

Order! The hon. member may express himself in strong terms, but he should moderate his language.

It should be clear to everyone today that we are dealing with a Trojan horse that is stuffed to bursting with deadly, devilish intentions. Hon. members know that this is true. As I have said, the PRP is like a lot of cheetahs who are hunting at night in the non-White townships. I am convinced that if there were grounds on which the Communist Party was banned in the Republic, there are so many more reasons why we should do away with the monstrosity sitting opposite us.

Hear, hear!

Order! I cannot allow hon. members to describe each other as monsters across the floor of this House. Neither will the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North allow that to be said of his party. The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

Sit down!

Never mind, we shall meet again. Mr. Speaker, I want to concentrate briefly on another aspect. I want to concentrate on another aspect of the budget. I am in any case glad that I have the opportunity tonight to say in the House that we in South Africa are now tired of subversive organizations; it does not matter who they are. We have great respect for the hon. the Minister of Justice and we believe that the time has come that he should act against the people who are turning South Africa into a blood-bath.

Like the HNP!

Mr. Speaker, my time is almost up. There is one more point for which I am asking a few minutes of patience. I want to congratulate the hon. Minister of Finance on the budget. However, there is one matter which I find very serious and that is that more than R80 million is being appropriated for the Prisons Department. This country, South Africa, cannot afford to pay an amount of more than R80 million for murderers, scoundrels, rapists and similar thugs. There is a tidal wave of crime and that should now be nipped in the bud. The International Red Cross wants to come and visit our prisons. The hon. member for Houghton, too, visits our prisons from time to time, but has she and her party ever insisted that the prisons in Zambia and Uganda or in any other African State should be visited? Now they are as silent as the grave! My argument is that it is costing the State more than R80 million to keep those rogues, rapists, murderes, thieves, bag-snatchers and others imprisoned. We must have additional policemen, as well as magistrates and many administrative staff. Why can we not take these criminals by the throat and sentence them to death? The other day in Port Elizabeth a man arrived home from his job and found that his wife and child had been murdered. That is an everyday occurrence. He comes home to find that his house has been broken into and that his wife has been murdered. This is not an exceptional case. The hon. member for Walmer can confirm that this happens every week. Must we be satisfied with that? Mr. Speaker, do you know what the hon. member for Houghton says then? She says we should caress those people and tell them: “You must not do that again.” She tells them: “Lovey, don’t do that again”, and then she even gives them a damned hug and kiss. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but my time is up.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member for Durban Point is not present. He made a speech here this evening in his usual emotional manner, and all he said was that he heard bells ringing; bells which, according to him, we were ringing. It does not surprise me that he is so bell-conscious at this stage. When one starts hearing the church bells of a funeral, one cannot help but be bell-conscious. Consequently, I cannot blame him.

This evening, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North spoke of the new party that is to be founded. I do not want to discuss the economy this evening but I do want to associate myself with the congratulations, particularly those of hon. members on this side of the House, extended to the hon. the Minister of Finance on a very good budget under very difficult circumstances; a budget which quite definitely must have entailed a great deal of effort. I want to congratulate him on this and associate myself with the congratulations extended by this side of the House as well as with those extended by hon. members on that side of the House who were objective enough to do so.

The hon. member for Durban Point referred jokingly—and that was all he could do—to the 30 years they have been occupying the Opposition benches, or rather to the Government’s rule, which already extends over a period of 30 years. I do not want to discuss the economy this evening but a factor which is going to disappear from South African politics before long. For that reason, I feel that for one last time, one should devote attention to this particular factor, one which at one time was a power base in South African politics. Now I should like to conduct an antemortem inquest in view of the funeral that is to be held; the one to which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North referred.

For more than 29 years now, with monotonous regularity, the Opposition has been condemning budgets and criticizing them, in most cases negatively. They move motions of no-confidence and accuse the Government of being unable to govern South Africa in the service of all its people. Now I just want us to take a brief, objective look so as to see whether there was any substance to these accusations of the Opposition in years gone by. I think it may be said that the White electorate of South Africa is one of the best developed and best informed, particularly in the negative sense, in the Western World. I just want to read out a brief question of what a well-known British editor said about the Opposition Press in South Africa. It was published on 9 March 1977, under the heading “Editor praises Government patience with Press. ’ ’ The report reads as follows—

Just as an aside, how could we wish for a better argument for the Government’s intention of a while ago, to establish a Press Act? I want to say again that in the negative sense, the electorate of South Africa is probably the best informed in the Western World. If there had been any substance to the accusations made by the joint Opposition down the years, then those accusations must undoubtedly have had an effect on the electorate of South Africa by this time. The National Party Government is a wonderful Government. I want to acknowledge that. They could not bluff the people of South Africa for 29 solid years, however, not if there was no substance to what they were doing and if there was, in fact substance to the accusations made by the UP and the Other Opposition Parties.

Let us take a brief, objective look at the rest of the Western World. In America, a predominantly democratic country, a Republican President is elected every now and again. Britain, a country that is overwhelmingly sympathetic towards Labour, is on the eve—for the umpteenth time—of electing a Conservative Government. The same phenomenon manifests itself in France. This holds good for West Germany and Sweden as well. Throughout the Western World, as large as it is, Governments alternate from time to time and in certain cases the situation is so bad that one can hardly still speak of a stable Government. On the other hand—and now I am relating what is common knowledge; I shall presently deal with the converse as well—South Africa has now been administered by the same Government, uninterruptedly, for the past 29 years. When its present term expires, the Government will have been in power for 31 years and anyone who is inclined to gamble and who is of sound mind, would be prepared to wager all his possessions that the NP will govern once again in the next term. What is the reason for this? There is a considerable number of reasons but I shall come back to these. Now, however, I should, just like to give a concise summary. It is because the NP has created a realistic and clear policy; one with which it has not attempted to turn illusions into realities; a realistic policy that affords all people the opportunities they would like to have. It affords the White man who is in the minority, security and the chance of survival. On the other hand, it affords the Black man and people of colour the opportunities to develop to full human dignity and to realize their political aspirations in all respects.

I have pointed out that in every democratic country an Opposition Party remains a constant threat to the Government of the country in question. I have also indicated what the Government has accomplished in South Africa during the past 29 years. Now I should like to show this House the other side of the coin, however. It is also historically true that South Africa is the only country in the democratic world in which a once powerful Opposition Party, a party which, in its day, represented one of the strongest Governments in the Western world, and which, at the beginning of its term of opposition, was a very strong opposition factor, has declined consistently over a period of 29 years up to this day when it has virtually arrived at its dying hour.

A party which will yet become the Government of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to being excitable, the hon. member for Durban Point evidently is an incurable optimist as well. During the past 29 years the UP has been the only Opposition Party in the Western World that has been on the decline continually. To what may this be attributed? It may be attributed to a variety of factors. To begin with, however, I want to mention only a few of them. In the first place, the UP may attribute its decline to the fact that it has been unable to offer all the people of South Africa an ideal that is acceptable to them. I shall illustrate presently why this has not been possible for the UP. The UP may also attribute its decline to its not having been realistic in its approach to the period after 1948, the period in which the Western World became more sharply divided than ever before between leftist and rightist and between liberal and conservative. The UP’s problem at that stage was that it was already accommodating elements that were totally incompatible with the policies it was advocating.

I now come to a very interesting facet in the process of the fragmentation of the UP. Firstly, the Bailey Bekker group broke away to the right. This apparently resulted in the UP moving so far over to the right in order to keep the remaining rightist elements in its ranks that the next group, the Suzman or Prog group, broke away to the left. This was followed by a movement to the left in the UP, one which resulted in the next break-away to the right. Now I am referring to the present hon. the Minister of Community Development and of Indian Affairs. Completely true to this tradition, the next group broke away to the left. This was the Schwarz group, a group which eventually ended up in the PRP. Once again true to the tradition and true to the established order, the next group broke away to the right. This was the Streicher group.

We see, therefore, that the UP has moved from left to right with monotonous regularity. It is difficult to make any kind of sensible prediction about the UP’s next split. However, they say there is no smoke without fire, and newspaper reports as recent as 6 April 1977 say—

Another report says—

And further—

When the next split does come, then true to the tradition and the order, it will again be to the left. I cannot predict with accuracy what will happen if there is another split after that, but I refer once again to a newspaper of 5 February 1977. It reads—

In other words, true to the tradition, that split will once again be to the right. Here we have the reason for the UP’s degeneration down the years and for their inability to formulate a policy to the good of South Africa and all its people. The reason is that they always have to move to the left or to the right to accommodate those people in their ranks. Down the years their policy-making has been pure political expediency in an attempt to keep their people together and to keep incompatible factions together. In such a case no political party can ever formulate a policy capable of doing justice to its people and its country. Surely it is very clear that the UP has been nothing but a victim of conflicting standpoints and policies.

Another problem was that as a result of the problems within the UP, the leaders could not activate their people. On the contrary, they became frustrated as a result of the continual arguments in their own ranks. A lack of strong leadership on the part of the chief leader is another factor that contributed to this. One newspaper report said—

An Opposition party leader who says there is an opportunity for innovation and then says he is going to disband his party in order to effect the innovation, the recreation; for which they first have to have a body before they can create a living person; is a party leader who is helping the meagre remnants of his party to stumble on towards its final resting place, where only oblivion awaits it. Surely there is no doubt about this? Every living being that falls ill always experiences a final illness that kills it. The illness that is finally going to kill the UP, is the Kowie Marais principle and particularly points 2, 3, 4 and 5 thereof. No White man who attaches real value to sovereignty and the maintenance of identity would touch these principles of policy with a barge-pole.

I said a lack of strong leadership was one of the I.P.’s problems. It is said that there has to be a strong leader in a totalitarian state. This is not very true, however, because in a State like that an average man can keep himself in power by misusing the police force. In a democracy, however, and particularly one like South Africa with its complex nature and problems, there has to be a strong leader who, with his persuasive powers, can lead his people along the road to development. I want to state this evening that down the years, it has been one of the blessings of the NP to have had leaders like this and we are blessed with an excellent example of one at present. Now the Leader of the Opposition has evidently decided to move to the left for good. This is the only conclusion I can make if he accepts the Kowie Marais principles.

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

Unfortunately, there is too little time left. I just want to tell him and the so-called leader of the Democratic Party that they could not amalgamate with the PRP on a broader basis—whatever that implies—and that they have even less chance of succeeding in outbidding these people in leftist politics because leftism and liberalism are the PRP’s heritage and, in the eyes of the White electorate of South Africa, their original sin as well. There is no hope of outbidding them in leftist politics.

Why are you so worried about us when you yourselves are making such a mess of everything?

We have no cause to worry about ourselves. Sir, my time has almost expired and I still want to deal briefly with this other party, the PRP, which really represents a bad dream for every conservative person in South Africa. For many years, this party’s only representative was the champion of everything leftist and liberal. She was reinforced in 1974, not because a political volte-face had occurred in South Africa—there is no doubt about that—but because some members of the UP had become sick and tired of the leadership crises within their own party, crises which continued over the years and which eventually frustrated them and drove them apart. However, as tends to happen in a marriage after a whirlwind romance, the bride does not find the honeymoon as exciting as she thought it would be, and in this case it was the electorate that experienced the disillusionment, particularly after this bridegroom began to show his true colours and attitude at his congresses by accepting forced integration at certain levels in South African society. So little remains of this marriage that they cannot even venture to nominate a candidate in Westdene, where an election is in the offing.

You know you are talking nonsense.

I am no longer talking about the hon. member for Durban Point. He does not seem to have been following what I have been saying all along.

I feel there is one warning I want to sound this evening as regards these people with their leftist liberal tendencies, tendencies which, in future, can only result in confrontation for Whites and people of colour. This is a warning to the Brown man and the Asian in South Africa who have recently allowed themselves to be influenced by these people; people who are moving ever closer to Black power. In the eyes of the world, no Brown or Asian peoples exist in South Africa. The world is obsessed with the Black colour of Africa, in South Africa as well. The world sees South Africa’s eventual dispensation as one of “one man, one vote” in which the Black majority vote will be dominant and the Brown man and the Asian will definitely succumb and disappear along with the White man. Africa has taught us this.

In conclusion, I want to tell the UP, which is now moving so far left, that as long as they keep on doing this, this anomaly in South African politics will persist and this Government will undoubtedly continue to govern for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I am interested to hear that the “Natal Stand” is now going to move towards the right. I am only sorry that I cannot react to that, for I do not know anything about the “Natal Stand”.

There are many things which you do not know about.

Yes, there are many things which I do not know about, but I believe that the hon. member for Langlaagte and the hon. member who has just spoken know even less about the “Natal Stand” than I do.

I should rather talk about the budget and what the people of Natal and elsewhere think of it.

†The hon. the Minister concluded his budget speech by giving us quotations from sayings of that very famous statesman, Sir Winston Churchill. I suppose he did that to justify the steps he announced in the budget. However, I should like to remind the hon. the Minister of a saying attributed to just as famous a statesman, Abraham Lincoln. I know the hon. the Minister knows what is coming. Lincoln said: “You can fool some of the people all of the time, you can fool all the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”

How long can I fool you?

I do not think the hon. the Minister of Finance fooled me, but he makes the mistake of believing that the entire South African public is gullible and can be fooled. I do not believe that the public is that gullible, but they are punch-drunk after 28 years of misrule, mismanagement and the 28 bad budgets they have had in succession

And you cannot do anything about it.

There is nothing I can do about it, but I should like to pay the hon. the Minister a tribute. I think he is a master strategist and psychologist, if we look at the way in which he handled the budget. He did a very difficult job very well. He prepared the public beautifully for the budget a month before the time by announcing his new sales and excise taxes. After that came the announcement of the new railway rates, the new petrol prices, the cuts in the housing subsidies and the promise of worse to come. By that time the public was already really groggy, quite punch-drunk, and were expecting the coup de grace, the knock-out, and when it did not come in the budget, they were so relieved that they congratulated the hon. the Minister on his budget. This was the reaction of the Press the day after the budget was announced. I was puzzled—perhaps I am a bit long in the tooth—but I was not as easily taken in and I could not understand how so many people were apparently taken in by the budget. It seems to me that there is a general feeling amongst the people that as long as they are not affected, they do not care. The attitude seems to be: “Jack, I am all right. I could not worry about you”. Everybody seems to think that the budget punishes only the financial houses, the big businesses. I decided to find out how the people, the voters, really felt about the budget. I spent the ten days after the budget was announced talking to people, canvassing their opinions and trying to find out what their reactions were to the budget.

Hon. Ministers seem to be living in ivory towers, and I am told they live there at a very nominal rental. They seem to be completely out of touch with the ordinary voter. I think this is the case with most members of Parliament, on all sides. Do we really know the problems people have? Do we really know what people are most worried about? Apparently there is no feeling for that at all among hon. members on that side of the House since I have heard no expressions of sympathy from them. As a matter of fact, all that has come from that side of the House has been condemnations, because if a person grouses or complains, he is condemned as being unpatriotic. This is of course completely untrue. Government supporters seem to believe that if no direct taxes are imposed on people by a budget, it must be a good budget. They seem to be satisfied as long as people are not being taxed more than before. I wonder what the normal person thinks, the person who is living under stresses and strains today and gets no relief at all from the budget.

I have spoken to all sorts of people and tonight I should like to put the point of view of the man in the street. Who is the man in the street? Let us determine that first. We have heard an hon. member speak about the little man. The man in the street is Jan Burger, or whatever one likes to call him, and constitutes the majority of the people of South Africa. He is the worker, the voter, the taxpayer and, in the long run, he is the man who has to defend South Africa and perhaps lay down his life for his country. These people are the voters, the “stemvee”—pall them what you like. They are the people who put us here and they are the people who can remove us from here. They are ordinary people, and do not run to the Press; they are not forever writing letters to the Press; they do not make political or public speeches; they do not even ask questions at political or at public meetings and one has to goad them on to do it. They merely carry on with their job, which as they see it, is to raise and to educate a family, the future citizens of South Africa. In their little way they support the things that concern them most. They support welfare organizations; they work for churches; they try to maintain law and order; they try to raise their children in a moral way; they support their schools, and they try to live according to their budget and even to save a little for a rainy day. These are the people I am talking about.

They are people who cannot afford two motor cars, who cannot afford servants, who cannot afford to go on overseas holidays. Many of them cannot even afford to go on a holiday each year. They do not go dining out at expensive restaurants. They do not play golf, they do not back the horses, they do not play the stock exchange, they have no connections in high places that can get them the perks and that can get their children soft jobs or bursaries. They do not have wholesale connections and they have to pay the full price for everything they buy. They do not have profitable side-lines to augment their salaries. They have lots of worries, and their main worries apparently are about health, medical bills, the chemist account, how to keep the house in order and to maintain the house in a proper state of repair and to keep the family car going with the terrific expenses one has in that regard today. They worry about their inability to save and do not seem to be able to come out. They try to keep up a standard of living commensurate with the job that they hold and the area in which they live. They have little time for politics and mistakenly they say they leave this to their betters. We are the betters and we are the people who are really not interested in these people because very few of us ever speak to them. How many times do we speak to them? When an election is due we go around to speak to them. We actually do all the speaking and we do very little listening and accordingly we do not know what their problems are. We do not ask them and we do not listen to them. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister is aware of the problems which are today facing the ordinary man in the street in South Africa. I have spoken over the last 10 days to all classes and groups of people, Afrikaans speaking and English-speaking, Nationalist supporters and supporters of other parties as well. I have spoken, I regret to say, mainly to members of the White group and I only have their reaction. The first thing one notices about a White person is his reluctance to talk to a member of Parliament. I have found this and I am certain if other hon. members are honest they will admit the same thing. There seems to be a feeling among the general public today that members of Parliament are not really concerned about their problems. They seem to think of us as a big, happy club where we do a lot of talking to amuse ourselves and that if we land in any trouble, we just vote ourselves a salary increase or an extra allowance. They do not have a very high opinion of us. They also seem to think that it does not help to complain as they are just wasting their time. There are others who think that it is disloyal to complain. They have a sort of misbegotten sense of loyalty to the people they have elected and they think that it is disloyal to criticize those people. Others have the same idea as the hon. member who spoke on the other side, namely that it is unpatriotic to complain, and as hon. members know, the word “unpatriotic” has strange overtones in South Africa today. Some of them do not want to speak because of a sense of pride. They feel that if they complain it reflects on their ability to provide for their family. Others are bewildered by the apparent wealth around them while there is so much poverty and unemployment. They themselves are struggling so and yet there seems to be so much money around. There are others who resent the actions of the Government. They feel that the Government is doing nothing to help them and they are very resentful of having voted for this Government. They say this is the thanks they get. The greater majority seems to be caught up in a quagmire from which there is no escape. Some of them say they wish to goodness they can get out of the country while others see no future but only disaster ahead of us. They want to know why no help is forthcoming from the hon. the Minister and from the Government.

None of us really believe that the hon. the Minister of Finance is supposed to be Father Christmas. He has a job to do and he has to raise money to keep the State functioning and he must do this as best he can. We do feel, however, that he can show some sympathy and some concern for the taxpayer. People say that although the Government claims that inflation has been halted, and even claims that there has been a negative growth in inflation, they cannot understand this because things just keep on getting dearer all the time. They point out to one that some articles have gone up 10% to 20% overnight, particularly goods sold by chemists, motor spares, transport costs and electricity accounts. How does it happen that if there is no inflation, the prices of these things keep increasing? There is a negative growth, the Government says, but certainly not in respect of prices. People want to know why there is not a reduction in prices. Nothing has been reduced in recent times. Everything just seems to go up. Why is there also no assistance? Young families ask why they cannot be helped to save a deposit to buy their homes. There is no help forthcoming. The hon. the Minister has now even cut the subsidy on helping people to save. People cannot afford to have children once they get married. The wife has to work and then they have tax problems because the taxes are higher. This leads to more trouble. If they do have children then the wife has to stop working and then they are also in trouble. They cannot make ends meet. I am told that shoes for a little toddler cost R12 per pair today. When kids go to school the first school blazer costs R30. Surely there is no justification for this because there can surely not be more than R1’s worth of leather in that pair of shoes that costs R12. People complain about medical expenses and chemist accounts. Even if one belongs to a medical aid fund, every time there is an illness in the family, one has to pay extra. How must people keep their homes in good condition with the tremendous cost of present-day service industries! People are afraid to call in the plumber or the electrician. How does one keep a motorcar serviced? When one takes a motor-car to the garage, one is virtually bankrupted by the cost of repairs. Repair costs are going up all the time. Rates and taxes on homes are also going up. Every year the taxes seem to double and redouble. The cost of services such as electricity keep going up. People simply cannot understand this. Less than a year ago their light account was R7 per month, but now it is R20 per month when they are using the same amount of electricity or even less. Now they make a point of switching off the lights. They switch off the hot water cylinder and only use it when they need a bath. Once a globe has fused, they replace it with a globe of smaller wattage, but that does them no good. They still find themselves paying more. They cannot understand this. Why has the cost of transport gone up so much.

Have you any more complaints?

Yes. This is a legitimate complaint. People who have to use their own motor cars, because they have no public transport, have to pay so much for petrol. Why must they pay as much for petrol as the person who uses his car purely for pleasure? This is cock-eyed. Wherever one goes one gets grouses from the public service. We heard from the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how postal workers had voluntarily offered their services for overtime work without any increases. Let me tell hon. members that they are not happy about the state of affairs—certainly not those public servants I spoke to. They did make that offer, but they did not think that they would have to go on doing that extra work for ever. They thought it was only a passing phase. Now, however, they find themselves landed with it. Their pay does not go up, but all other costs go up. They say they are being caught for suckers. Those who went on pension before 1973 are the forgotten men. They ask one: “What has happened?” Why has the Government forgotten them? Year after year the various Ministers say that they will be looked after but nothing gets done. Social pensioners are afraid to complain because they virtually exist on charity and they are made to feel that way. They are very grateful to the hon. the Minister for the small increase he has given them although they do feel sad that they have to wait until October for it. They are nevertheless grateful. In this regard I should like to say something off my own bat. I congratulate the hon. the Minister and the Cabinet on the step they took in issuing the defence premium bonds and on the lottery aspect that is involved. Let us face it, this is legalizing lotteries in South Africa. However, as a good Christian—I hope—I have no compunction about endorsing this. I have nothing against it.

And you are prepared to call it a lottery.

I am prepared to face the facts and to call it a lottery because it is for a good purpose, and if it is for a good purpose, there can be nothing wrong with it. I am now appealing to this hon. Minister because I detected a note of sympathy in his voice, though it was perhaps the only note of sympathy I detected. When he spoke about the lot of the pensioners, he did say that he was sorry that he could not give them more.

Crocodile tears!

For the last year or more a lot of ladies have been tramping the streets of South Africa with petitions, which they got people to sign, asking the hon. the Prime Minister to institute a State lottery of which the proceeds would go to augment the pensions paid by the Department of Pensions. I am pleased to say that I shall be submitting or tabling this petition in the near future with over 20 000 signatures.

20 000!

I may say that we could have got many, many more.

Where will they get the money from?

What money? This is a request for money. I should like the hon. the Minister and his Cabinet to support this petition when it comes before the Prime Minister. The proceeds of such a lottery can be used to augment the pensions of social pensioners. By the same token, they should support the efforts of the provincial council of Natal with their own lottery.

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the hon. the Minister is about to do me the honour of visiting my constituency. He is going to address a meeting in Port Shepstone. Unfortunately I do not think I can be there but, unlike other members, I do not fear the hon. the Minister going there. In fact, I welcome it.

Will both of his supporters be at the meeting?

I think I can guarantee that the hon. Minister’s meeting will be well supported, because he is going to be subjected to a blast of complaints. I can tell the hon. the Minister some of the things he is going to be asked. He had better prepare himself to answer the questions that will be asked. He is going to be asked what the Government is doing to relieve the load on local authorities in Natal. They are suffering under a crippling load with the result that they cannot pay their way any more. Rates and taxes have now risen to a maximum and things have come to a standstill.

Write it down!

They are going to ask the Minister what the Government is doing to stimulate the tourist industry, which has just about come to a standstill—I am talking of internal tourism now. What is the Government doing to create job opportunities on the South Coast and in southern Natal for the many unemployed Coloured and Bantu people? There is crying poverty and unemployment in that area and I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to do something about it. They are also going to ask the hon. the Minister what he is going to do about the backlog in Coloured and Black housing in that area. The most pertinent question they are going to ask the hon. the Minister is what he is going to do about the claims of the Prime Minister of the Transkei in respect of the area of Port Shepstone. Although we may tend to laugh at this, it has had a crippling effect on the economy of the south coast of Natal and everybody—not only my supporters, but even my most bitter political opponents—is worried today. As a matter of fact, the man who fought me in the last election came to see me at Parliament last week to ask what the Government intends doing about that. I in turn had to ask him what the Government intends doing. Sir, the hon. the Minister can shake his head, but the people will not accept that because confidence has completely disappeared from the people who invest in the south coast of Natal. It is up to this hon. Minister and the Government to restore that confidence. If the hon. the Minister does not give these reassurances in regard to the South Coast and is not sympathetic, it can only do me good and I shall be very grateful to him.

How did you get on at your last report-back meeting?

I had to listen to all those complaints. I said to them: “Wait till the Minister comes. He is the leader of the National Party in Natal and I am certain he will solve these problems.” Perhaps the hon. the Minister, after his visit to Port Shepstone, may decide to contest my seat. [Interjections.]

As what are you going to stand, Dutchie?

As UP. I would like to mention some of the many causes of unhappiness amongst the men in the street. The greatest cause of unhappiness appears to me to be the apparent affluence of some in the midst of unemployment. They wonder how some people can come down to the south coast of Natal, even under present circumstances, for a long weekend in a large luxury motorcar, stay at the most expensive hotel, spend money like water and go back again when they themselves are unable to make ends meet. Where does all this money come from? They want to know how people can afford to run two or three luxury motorcars, sometimes even a third car which happens to be a Jaguar. The first and second motorcars are expensive Mercedes Benzes. They want to know how it is that the expensive restaurants are filled all the time. How is it that the money spent on horse racing increases with practically every race meeting? Where does all the money come from? How do people afford caravans, power boats, deep-sea yachts and even aeroplanes? They want to know why the hon. the Minister does not increase taxation on these luxuries, particularly tobacco and alcohol, items are costing the State millions and millions of rand per year in health services and millions and millions of rand of manhours. Why does the Government not do something about taxing these luxuries? There are many things which appear to be wrong and which need correction, but apparently the hon. the Minister does not see them. For example, there is the abuse of company motorcars. Today practically everybody is using a company motorcar and company petrol. They drive all over the country on a company expense account. Why are they getting away with this? People are asking why the hon. the Minister does not rationalize our fuel supplies. Why cannot people be issued with a basic fuel issue at a standard price and then, if they want extra fuel, buy it at a higher price? In this way extra taxation can be derived. [Interjections.]

That is a personal point of view.

It is my personal view, but it is not only my personal view. It is also the view of many people in the street, I am sorry to say. They complain about profiteering and as an example point to the price of margarine and to the companies which are involved in the manufacturing of margarine and the extraction of vegetable oil which are making greater and greater profits. The price of margarine was only increased to compete with the price of butter. They also want to know why the pharmaceutical industry and chemical industries are blooming and charging such high prices for their products. They want to know why the sponsoring of sport events and sport clubs is still allowed at exorbitant costs? Why are people allowed to advertise exorbitantly? Are they doing this because it comes off their expense account, or is it a tax-free perk? If it is so, why does the hon. the Minister not do something about it? Why does the hon. the Minister not do something about the overseas trips and the seminars which are held at the most expensive pleasure resorts with all expenses paid? They want to know why they must supply the money for the establishment of Escom and Sasol for generations to come? Why must this generation have to pay for it? Why cannot the Government borrow the money on the open market? Why must the taxpayer pay for it? Why were the food subsidies removed and why must they now have to pay the extra? They want to know why pensioners are today being re-employed when there is unemployment. It is found, particularly in the Public Service, that pensioners who receive a high pension are re-employed virtually in their old positions and at a very high salary, while there are lots of other people looking for work and even young people who have recently left school cannot be absorbed into those very same Government departments. They want to know what the Government is doing about the political problems of South Africa. This is what everyone is asking. They want to know what the hon. the Prime Minister is doing. Why does he not say something? Why does this hon. Minister not use his influence? There is a general feeling of helplessness prevailing in South Africa, and if this hon. Minister and the Government do not know of it, it is about time they found out. I would like to remind them of the state of affairs in South Africa in 1948. It was said that the Government of the time was out of touch with the feelings of the people of South Africa. We know what happened to that Government, and I am warning this Government that there is trouble ahead for them. However, I see a ray of light for us, and when I say “us”, I do not mean “us” as a party. I am speaking about the people of South Africa, and the people of South Africa will wake up and realize that the Government is completely out of touch. I want to conclude by warning the hon. the Minister in the same vein in which I started, namely that you cannot fool all the people all the time.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to react to the speech of the hon. member for South Coast. I do not think that the plea which he made here for his party will mean much, because they are going to cease to exist in any event. However, I can assure him that I believe that his voters will definitely appreciate it very much. Many of the matters which he raised affects John Citizen. I believe that hon. members on this side of the House will agree with me when I say that the hon. member for South Coast succeeded in pointing out a few things which will be appreciated by the voters, his own voters in particular. [Interjections.]

I should like to make use of the opportunity to emphasize the alarming fact that South Africa, our fatherland, is at the focal point of one of the worst conflicts between White and Black in the history of South Africa today. I want to allege that this situation has developed within a very short period to such an extent that it has involved us in the fiercest struggle for survival which any White nation has ever experienced, a struggle which is possibly equalled only by the struggle for existence which the Israelis are waging against the Arabs in the Middle East. I want to link this threat to the rise of a Black Africa power which makes the destruction of the last White structures of authority in Southern Africa its unequivocal aim. I want to emphasize that we here in South Africa must not underestimate the singleness of purpose and the degree of effectiveness with which they are trying to carry out this campaign. I want to state that, if the numbers and ability of the allies of a fighting party are a deciding factor or an indication of its ability to succeed, black power is most probably by far the best equipped to do so. The world is definitely on their side.

Yet there is no need for us to try to stop this attack in a panic-stricken way. The Whites in South Africa definitely have the potential, the human material, the raw material, the knowledge, the equipment, the will and faith to carry out this struggle successfully and to emerge as the victors in the end. However, the time is overripe for serious, deep thoughts on and a study of the causes of this situation in which we find ourselves today. One must know one’s enemy. One must understand one’s enemy in order to oppose him successfully, to be able to challenge and defeat him. It is a total, a global attack which is being launched on South Africa. Its causes, extent and effectiveness are interpreted by various people in various ways. However, I want to submit tonight that we are the focal point because we find ourselves in a particular phase in the historical development of Africa. This is the phase which followed immediately upon the awakening of the Black Africa giant, which slept peacefully for many centuries. The dilemma of this Black giant was that while it was still rubbing the sleep from its eyes, it realized at the same time that it found itself in a Third World atmosphere and that while it had lain slumbering for many centuries the First and Second World had developed and quickly passed it by, and that it therefore had a backlog to cath up with. The tragedy is that it did not want to admit that this backlog was due to a lack of internal, spontaneous initiative that had lasted for centuries, but summarily ascribed it to the presence of the Whites in Southern Africa. The political characteristic of the awakening of the Black man in Africa was the cry “uhuru”, which means “freedom”. They wanted to do away with the authority of the First World, the world of the Whites, who had established themselves in Africa and were responsible for the light, knowledge, science and technology which eventually led to the Black giant awakening. It is regrettable that the Black people negated and ignored this truth entirely. Everywhere the Whites were accused of being colonialists, people who exploited and suppressed the Black man. These cries were encouraged by the upper layer of the Black peoples in particular, a few people who had advanced in the educational sphere and had ousted the traditional leaders of the Blacks in Africa. In this way the process of political emancipation took place within a charged atmosphere of frustration, misunderstanding, antipathy and hate, which rapidly developed into open and other bloody confrontation with the Whites in Africa.

The history of the bloody emancipation process in the Belgian Congo with the Whites as victims, in Kenya with its Mau-Mau and in Angola, is only some of the evidence for this. No one begrudged the Blacks and the Black nations of Africa the obtaining of their freedom and full sovereign states. After all, they have every right to these things. Indeed, in most cases, it was offered to them on a plate by the White colonial powers. Here and there the dowry, in the form of financial aid, was not scorned either. On the other hand, South Africa’s effective emancipation policy as regards the Black peoples within its borders, as it crystallized in the independence of Transkei on 26 October 1976, has been scorned and rejected.

The question arises how South Africa became so involved that it is now at the focal point and has to deal with such a total threat from Africa. The answers and reasons for this are probably legion. I just want to point out and emphasize a few of them. They can be symbolized and illustrated by a vision with which Black Africa awoke from its centuries-old sleep. In this hazy vision there was just one central thought which ran incessantly through its mind. This was “Africa for the African; away with the Whites”. This had to take place as quickly as possible. That is why the emancipated States came together in an African unity organization as quickly as possible with the chief purpose of acting as an inspiration, mouthpiece, lever and agent for the so-called freedom of all Black people, specifically those of South West Africa, Rhodesia and South Africa. Liaison was sought with organizations such as the ANC, the PAC, Swapo and others. Accommodation and active support was granted to underground terrorist groups with the purpose of ousting the White Governments in a revolutionary way. Challenging attacks and outrageous proposals were made by the OAU and at the UNO. Eager use was also made of the generous financial and military aid from the communist countries against South Africa.

This now brings me to our present threatened position. Firstly there has not actually been any failure yet in the fulfilment of the Africa for the African dream. So far they have succeeded in their purpose in every comer of Africa. The first real obstacle which they ran up against, was the White Afrikaner who lives in a co-equal African state. This is us, the Whites of South Africa, who do not intend to be chased from this, our own African state, a state which is co-equal in that regard to any other Africa State in so far as it forms part of the continent of Africa. But make no mistake: The Black Power forces have also achieved considerable successes in their attempts to subject us to their vision-of-power aspirations. If one considers their successes, one sees that, with a few exceptions, they have convinced the entire Western World of their right to subject us to Black majority rule. Today, they can obtain weapons in abundance from sources and places from which we cannot obtain them. They receive moral and financial support as well as armaments to be used against the Whites of Rhodesia and South Africa without having to bother about paying for them.

At the UNO their demands for boycotts and immediate surrender enjoy practically the full support of all the White member countries of the organization. The majority rule formula of the OAU and the UNO is that 95% of Blacks and 5% of Whites must be represented in such a government. They have achieved many successes of which they may boast. They have even succeeded in influencing the mother countries of the two largest sections of the White population in South Africa, namely the Afrikaans and English-speaking people, into sometimes declaiming harshly against us. As we know, they have already adopted such a hostile attitude against us that they are even supporting terrorist organizations to oppose us in South Africa. I am talking about Holland as the mother country of the Afrikaans-speaking people and I am referring to Great Britain’s actions against its kith and kin in Rhodesia. The Black states have succeeded in directly involving the communist world against the Whites of Southern Africa in the most subtle way. In this connection I do not have to refer to examples. The leaders of the Third World have succeeded in changing world opinion against us. The fact that they have succeeded in organizing world opinion against us in spite of the best attempts of our diplomatic representatives in the UNO and elsewhere, is an extremely important factor, perhaps the most important factor, in our struggle for survival against the Black colossus of Africa which we must take into account, and which counts in their favour against us.

We accept that South Africa is a focal point, as I said at the beginning. Black Africa has already found support amongst its natural allies in colour within our borders. This is an important fact which we must also take into account and against which we will have to ponder measures. The cry of “Black Africanism” has even met with support amongst the Negroes of America, but it would not have affected us to such an extent were it not for the fact that the idea also met with support amongst the Coloureds of South Africa, people who have always held reasonably aloof from the development of the ideologies and aspirations of Black Power in Africa.

There is sufficient evidence of a favourable reaction amongst the upcoming Black intelligentsia, amongst the schoolgoing, advanced and studying youth with regard to this pan-African action against the Whites. This feeling was not so strong previously, but it is growing stronger all the time. Militant personalities have successfully been used in order to bring about mass resistance, riots and revolt. We became acquainted with this over the past few months. We would do well to listen to the rumblings of the dangerous deep waters among some of our well-known Black leaders within the borders of South Africa. We should also listen to the reaction to the youth riots in our heavily populated Black urban areas. The ideal and demand is one thing only, namely Black majority rule. One reads it on every page of every newspaper, one hears it on the radio; it is being discussed and debated at OAU meetings, in the UNO and elsewhere. I want to quote an eloquent example from what Mr. Sam Motsueyane, chairman of the National African Federated Chamber of Commerce, had to say. He said the following—

He went on to say—

It is significant that he did not refer to citizenship in his own country and among his own people, but to citizenship within White South Africa, because after all he is convinced that the numerical superiority of the Blacks within a democratic set-up, as is the case in South Africa, will satisfy the Black man’s desire for supremacy, although it may perhaps be over a longer period. I want to refer to another final important contribution towards the fulfilment of the vision of Black Africa. In this connection I am thinking of the disastrous phenomenon that many Whites within South Africa are collaborating with them and playing along with them, some even directly. We have already imposed restrictions on some of them and have others in our prisons. We have some of them in the ranks of our students who have made common cause with these people to overthrow orderly government. Others were involved more indirectly, but their approach is characteristic of the growing conviction amongst some White intelligentsia and newspaper reporters that we should give the urban Blacks full citizenship and accept them permanently within White areas. However, the end result will be the same. The most dangerous argument is the one which proclaims equality and propagates social, economic and political integration. And this is also done by the two Opposition parties on the opposite side of the House.

By whom?

No, I am not talking about you. They are an encouraging auxiliary factor for Black Africa leaders in their powerful attempt to fulfil their vision of “Africa for the African”. In their attack, Black Power leaders are aware that if their victory does not lie in bloody struggle, it will be achieved by means of political integration, as these people propose. In this case the time factor is less important. In the pattern of thought of the Black man and the pattern of thought of the Occidental and the pattern of conquest of the communist, time is not a factor. The end result is the same in the long run. May this picture of the origins, extent, power and the implications of the attack which I have tried to sketch, bring us as Whites closer together and spur us to the highest physical and spiritual opposition and responsible action.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the debate which has been taking place these last two days. I find it strange that this budget should be criticized today by a party which spent only R335 million on the development of South Africa during their last year in office. In the present budget, on the other hand, this Government is spending nearly R9 000 million on the development of South Africa. There is no party or Government which has contributed so much to the development of South Africa as the present National Party Government.

Or the taxpayers of today!

The UP was in such a sorry state during its last year in office that they did not even keep track of imports and exports at that stage. Our country was in such a state that they cannot be accounted for to this day.

Therefore we can understand why such a fuss is being made today. Never in the history of South Africa has such a combined onslaught been made on the National Party Government as in the past few years, an onslaught which springs from the enmity felt for us by the outside world. They are prompted by the Opposition parties, the enemies in South Africa. This is a combined onslaught which is being made on the NP with the same methods and the same weapons and the same arguments. Never before has a party or a government been pillored as this Government has recently been pillored by these Opposition parties in this House. Never before has a Government which renders the services to South Africa that are rendered by this Government been put in the dock to such an extent by the UP and the other Opposition parties. We can say honestly and with feeling that the Government does not deserve what the Opposition parties are doing to it. We can understand these attacks coming from a party whose hate of the NP, the Afrikaner and the National Party Government of South Africa is greater than its love for this country. [Interjections.] This hate is rooted not in the failure of a party or of a Government, but rather in the successes which the National Party Government has achieved. [Interjections.]

Order!

I am talking about the successes of the policy of the NP in South Africa during the past 28 years—in fact, such a measure of success that many people in the world today see South Africa as the beacon of the Western powers in the world. [Interjections.] That is why the National Party Government has been able, under the leadership of our hon. Prime Minister, to alert the free world to the dangers of communism. Today we have two world groups facing each other, namely the socialist/Marxist world and the free world. The socialists want to carry out the equalizing process in the world, and the Opposition, especially the PRP, wants to help in bringing this about. A diabolical battle is being waged in South Africa against the Whites in this country, the people who spread civilization, and the Opposition supports the diabolical idea of an equalizing process. [Interjections.] We know that Satan is engaged in equalizing process today in respect of God’s design which is reflected in multinationalism, diversity and boundaries which are laid down between countries, peoples and languages. This is aimed at destroying God’s design so that Satan can win. As a believer I must say tonight that this attack is being made on Christendom, the Church and the people of South Africa, but it will not succeed because we know that the methods which are used for the attack of Satan on this nation will be foiled because God’s design and His decision will be executed. It is striking that the Afrikaner is blamed for everything which happens in South Africa. The Afrikaner has had a difficult history in South Africa. We were a poor people, but we entered the struggle because we knew that there was nobody else to help us and that we had to help ourselves. When the Afrikaner nation was poor, we did not have these people with us. When we started the Reddingsdaadbond to obtain a share in the economy of South Africa, they did not only place obstacles in our way, but they also waged a battle against us. Throughout the history written by the people of South Africa the Afrikaner retained four things, although he suffered many hardships. He kept his faith and his word towards other people and towards his own people and he paid all debts of honour. We kept our honour and, God be thanked, we also kept our pride. [Interjections.] There are, however, not only enemies who are trying to break down the National Party Government and South Africa from outside. The Opposition is trying to do that from inside as well. That is why the Black Hand was also called in. There are people of the UP who stand outside today because they wanted to employ that method in South Africa to harm the Government. [Interjections.] Now, however, the UP wants to come and save South Africa. But what do they want to save? When we wanted a Republic they fought it in deadly earnest.

Now they want to claim this sixteen-year-old youth for themselves and to pamper him, while at that stage they begrudged him the right to be born.

Ask your children what they think of you.

Now they want to claim him for themselves and to use the opportunity to kill and to suffocate what we gained slowly and with difficulty, this South African youth because they were unable to do so while he lay in his mother’s womb.

Get out of the House!

It is people like you who make me despair for South Africa.

There is an anvil in Amsterdam in the Netherlands, and on that anvil is written the history of a thousand years ago, the history of the commercial struggle between the capitalist world and the Netherlands. On the anvil is written: The harder you strike, the more tired you become. Because the enemy did not have any scruples in that struggle, bales of chaff were transported to overcome the people of Amsterdam. They set fire to the bales of chaff and rolled them along to force the people to capitulate. I also see an anvil in South Africa on which is written: The longer you strike, the harder you strike, the more tired you become. In South Africa the bales of chaff are also being rolled along in the present time with the help of the Opposition parties in South Africa. We say frankly and boldly to the world and to the enemies inside the country: Strike as hard as you like, strike as long as you like, the longer you strike and the harder you strike, the more tired you will become.

We are told that a woman in Spain was asked: “What do you pray for, and what do you pray for most earnestly?” She answered: “I pray that General Franco may never die.” We in South Africa will not pray that our Prime Minister may never die. But we will pray that if it is God’s will, he may be spared for us to lead South Africa and our people in these difficult times for many years to come.

History teaches us that Satan called together his minions because he could not break Christendom. He asked them why it was that the more he tortured Christendom, the more he caused it pain and grief, the more steadfast its faith in the almighty hand of God became. Then one got up and said: “I understand why this is so. Our approach to the battle is wrong. We should give Christendom blessings and prosperity so that it will let go of the hand of the Almighty.” Our people have experienced many blessed years of prosperity, but the Opposition is not able to notice this. If we do not take note of this, the prosperity can cause the downfall of South Africa. There is a fight going on in South Africa, and during this fight we shall have to look back along the road we have travelled and be thankful for the prosperity which we have enjoyed. A person who cannot look back cannot look up; and a person who cannot look up cannot look forward. Therefore we are grateful when we look back along the road of the history of South Africa. Therefore we can look up with courage and faith, and look forward with confidence. That is why the NP is able to look forward, which the Opposition parties in South Africa are unable to do. In our childhood we used to sing the hymn: “Lead kindly light; lead Thou me on.” I want to state tonight that this nation will keep on singing this hymn. We shall sing it in the most difficult and darkest circumstances because we recognize the value of faith. We know that we must bow humbly before the Almighty God, who rules the destiny of this nation which dedicates itself to doing its duty and to believing that there is an Almighty who will lead us through the dark days. That is why we sing this hymn, not because we are cleverer than other nations or because we know more than other nations. We do not sing the hymn because we see further than the other nations. We sing this hymn because we are dependent for every step that we take in South Africa into the unknown future. That is why we have reason to look back and to be thankful, reason to look up and to have faith, and that is why we face the unknown future with courage.