Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, in the course of the Second Reading debate we indicated that we would support this legislation because of the very fact that it entailed certain improvements with regard to Coloureds and Indians in respect of Government institutions, as well as the extention of their rights in industrial areas. In his speech during the Second Reading debate, the hon. member for Newton Park made the remark that the PRP, because it supported this legislation, was in fact supporting the Government policy of separate development. I should like to use this Third Reading debate to reply to the allegations made by the hon. member for Newton Park. I want to make it very clear that in supplying this measure the PRP is not suggesting in any way whatsoever that it supports the NP’s policy of separate development.

The PRP is committed to the establishment of institutions and communities that are not founded on a racial basis. It is very important that this should be clearly understood. The PRP is irrevocably committed to the establishment of communities in South Africa that are not based on racism. Where the Government effects improvements, in line with its own policy, which are in the interests of the various population groups, the PRP will support them since they are in the interests of those population groups, as well as in the interests of South Africa.

I should like to read something for the information of the hon. member for Newton Park. It is something which will in this case be of interest. At the conference on plural societies held here in Cape Town, the conferences at which the hon. the Minister of National Education too expressed certain interesting thoughts, he said the following which is very interesting and which is in fact relevant to this debate …

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston has made his statement. He should confine himself to the Bill now.

Mr. Speaker, if you would allow me only one minute …

Order! If I allow the hon. member for Bryanston to deviate from the Bill, I shall have to allow other hon. members to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, may I just …

No!

Order! I think the hon. member has made his statement.

Mr. Speaker, I am on the point of concluding my speech. However, if I may, I should like to read just one quotation.

Order! I have given the hon. member for Bryanston the opportunity to make his statement. At the moment, however, the hon. member is dealing with a subject which is not connected with the debate. It has a very tenuous connection with the debate.

Very well, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] The Bill has two clauses. The first makes provision for enhancing the status of control bodies on the level of local government. Because this is in the interests of the groups concerned, we support the clause. The second clause deals with the removal of certain limitations imposed on Coloureds and Indians with regard to participation in the industrial areas of South Africa. We support that provision as well.

I should just like to emphasize once again that we feel the Government had the opportunity here of effecting improvements of a more far-reaching nature than these. For example, the Government had the opportunity of accepting the recommendations of the Erika Theron Commission as well as the pleas made by the Press and certain academics. In that way the Government could have afforded the Indians and the Coloureds the opportunity of obtaining a larger share, not only in the industrial areas of South Africa, but also in all business undertakings. In other words, the Government had the opportunity of amending the existing legislation in such a way that the Coloureds and the Indians would have been enabled to participate in the economic life of South Africa as a whole without any restrictions being imposed upon them with regard to the separation of areas.

Suffice it to say that I support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member once again for supporting the legislation. I do not begrudge him the few remarks he wanted to make. He had a bit of a quarrel with the hon. member for Newton Park …

The hon. member for Newton Park was right.

I shall never do the hon. member for Bryanston the honour to think that he would support the policy of separate development. He does not even understand the policy. He does not understand its underlying philosophy, its flexibility or the gradual change it is undergoing for the best in the interest of orderly development in South Africa. He does not understand the policy because he believes in a multiracial society. If one wants to take the policy of group areas to absurd lengths, not only Uganda, but also South Africa, Lesotho, America, France and England are all large group areas. In South Africa we only adjust it in a certain way because the various groups are living next to one another.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, since I did not have the figures to hand yesterday, I should now like to furnish certain information about which there was some doubt yesterday. I am referring to statistical data, particularly statistics about Bantu unemployment. I said yesterday that the labour bureaux and other machinery, which is available to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, make statistics available to us in this connection. The Department of Statistics is not involved in that aspect. Neither is the department involved in all types of statistics, although we do undertake a series of 4 000. According to the figures made available to me, there are 140 552 unemployed Bantu registered with the Bantu Affairs administration boards. That is the figure for February 1977. In March 1977 there was only 18 232 unemployed workers receiving benefits in terms of unemployment insurance. We all know that these figures are not at all reliable because there is a measure of arbitrariness in the registration of those people. The figures have not been obtained on a scientific basis either. We also have the standards of Prof. Van der Merwe of the University of Pretoria. He uses the population growth and the number of economically involved workers to calculate the unemployment figure. That is a very indirect method, but according to that method the unemployment figure is in the region of 1 million. When I was still involved with that aspect, the figure was about R700 000. Hon. members will understand that with an amount of money at its disposal the Department of Statistics felt that the time had, in fact, come to do something about it. The department can only do what it can anyway. We obtained the finance. In September of this year we shall begin with this survey.

In order to carry out this survey, one must visit Bantu households and ask the people themselves for information. In this way one must take the random samples so that one can carry out a much better survey of the extent of unemployment. We hope that problems will not crop up again. Last year we had great problems in contacting all the households. We therefore do have our problems. The survey, however, is something that can be done.

†I want to make a few remarks on the speech of the hon. member for Benoni. I told him yesterday that at a later stage I would react to what he said. I think his contribution of yesterday was a little bit naïve. I am not accustomed to it that the hon. member for Benoni goes on in such a political way when introducing a debate in this House. He was almost shooting all around him with a gun, but he was not really hitting anything. He listed a number of complaints and grievances. He sort of interspersed political matters with planning matters. We made a kind of pact that we would not introduce politics into planning. I think he has displayed a disappointing lack of knowledge about the department’s work. I advise the planning group of the Opposition to make use of my officials. They are always at their disposal, as they have been in previous years, to inform them a little about the work of the department. If those hon. members do that, they will in time be able to make a much better contribution.

*The hon. member asked that the Department of Planning be given more of a say. He actually objected on the grounds that we apparently do not have a comprehensive approach to planning. I want to tell him that I find it strange, firstly, that in a democratic system one should plan for people from the top downwards and, secondly, that there should be a super department that has control of other departments. That is simply not the way it works. That is something one cannot manage to do, and if one does want to, one continually finds oneself tramping on other people’s toes. Eventually one destroys the very objective one aims to achieve. There is one person who could possibly do it. I am referring to the Prime Minister, but he does not have the time to do so. We believe that co-operation with the public is of the utmost importance in this respect. I am at present having this philosophy inculcated in members of my department.

There was also a later remark to the effect that we are not dynamic enough in perfecting this policy. Dynamics is something one can view in two ways. The most important factor, however is that one gathers knowledge by making sure of what is really going on. That is the kind of dynamics that means that people are doing their work quietly but efficiently. That is the way it is done in this department. The hon. member could charge us with not being sufficiently publicity conscious, in the sense that in our method of advertising ourselves we are actually not as dynamic as we could be. That is not, and never has been, my philosophy. Quite the opposite. We work out our philosophy and our planning, and for the rest we simply see that the job gets done.

I now want to go on to deal with the question of co-operation. We do not want to compel the public to do anything. We believe that ideas germinate in society. We are there to give direction. Sometimes we are there to initiate, but not in such a way that it seems as if one is telling someone what has to be done. One simply initiates the action; one sets to work by psychological means. The hon. ex-Chief Whip, who is sitting here next to me, always works in this way. We must get the people to co-operate with us so that they begin to feel they also have a share in the project. That is why we have instituted the regional development associations. In the past year we introduced the first regional development advisory committee on which persons can be appointed to form a part of the State’s administrative machinery. Those members are taken from the ranks of the public. They are people who have served in the regional development associations which are, of course, independent associations. This is also the philosophy underlying the fact that we do not plan for the homelands. The homelands are, in point of fact, involved in our general planning set-up, and hon. members must not think that we do not have a plan for South Africa for the year 2000. If hon. members come along to my office, I shall be able to explain how it is set out and what we envisage for the years ahead. We had a year in which to work it out, and we could also rely on the experience of and the work done by my predecessors. We decided that the homelands should not form part of the general plan for the 38 regions, but that they should be regarded as independent entities. The four metropolitan areas were also regarded as independent entities. The 38 regions, which are largely rural areas, were also regarded as independent entities. Our approach must therefore be different for the various cases. That is why we co-operate with the homelands. We obtain their co-operation and we give them the guidance that we are supposed to give them. To simply impose one’s ideas on others from above does not constitute efficient planning. Because we want to plan efficiently, we are not over-hasty when it comes to that planning. These are matters that are continually developing. Even when we plan for a 20-year period, year after year we report here on the progress that has been made. We regard that as important, and I do not think the hon. member should be troubled about an absence of a philosophy in this respect. Our philosophy in connection with this planning is, in fact, implemented.

Since I expressed certain ideas yesterday about group areas, I want to give some indication of envisaged Government action in respect of a number of specific group areas. There are group areas which have been planned and which were proclaimed 10, 12 or 15 years ago. Planning concepts change over the years. Fifteen years ago there was perhaps the idea that in the prevailing politico-economic climate, lines could simply be drawn without all the aspects such as the socio-economic aspects, the social aspects, etc., having to be taken into account. Perhaps the idea existed that it was unnecessary to consult those for whom and with whom the planning was done. That is why there are now areas in respect of which certain changes can be made. There are also areas where the planning has reached too advanced a stage for us to introduce any changes without causing extensive disruption. I therefore want to eliminate a measure of the uncertainty that exists with regard to certain group areas. After lengthy consideration we have come to a decision about Sir Lowry’s Pass. Perhaps hon. members have seen the advertisement to the effect that we are possibly going to declare the Sir Lowry’s Pass area, about which there was disagreement, a Coloured group area. I am now referring to the additional area and not the area that has already been proclaimed. The idea is, in other words, that the whole Sir Lowry’s Pass town will become a Coloured area. This will prevent the tremendous disruption of other population groups in another area, i.e. Somerset West, as a result of the fact that the planning there has already reached so advanced a stage. We shall now be able to establish housing for these people very near to that area. I know that these people have certain objections to Macassar, but I do not think those objections also apply to Sir Lowry’s Pass. As far as Somerset West is concerned, the status quo will be maintained. Speaking of the status quo, one perhaps continually has in mind, of course, that the position can be changed.

I have decided, however, that the planning in regard to Somerset West, and a statement made as far back as ten years ago, should remain unchanged because of the development that has reached too advanced a stage. As far as Sir Lowry’s Pass is concerned, I was pliable enough to perceive that I had to make an adjustment. I am willing to make that adjustment to give the people the opportunity to develop properly and so that families can be incorporated there who feel they do not want to live in Somerset West. At the same time I have the assurance of my hon. friend and colleague, the hon. the Minister of Community Development, that no pressure will be applied to people who are living in Somerset West, and have good housing there, to get them to leave Somerset West. I obtained that assurance from him and I think that is as far as I can go in relation to this problem.

Now I come to the Woodstock-Salt River area. For years we have heard complaints about District Six. It is true, according to my information, that 60 000 Coloureds, 7 000 to 8 000 Indians and a number of Whites were living in District Six. Property ownership was quite a different story, however, because in terms of value the Whites owned four-fifths of the land and the Indians one-fifth, with the Coloureds owning virtually nothing. Let as suppose, for argument’s sake, that the Whites owned three-fifths of the land, with the Indians owning the rest and the Coloureds virtually nothing. The Coloureds were living there 1?ut they were exploited and it was a slum area in every sense of the word. Whatever the considerations were in 1966, a decision was taken and almost R30 million was spent on slum clearance. By now the people have been resettled. Whether hon. members agree with that or not, all but a few thousand of the people have been resettled by now. As far as District Six is concerned, the complaints are therefore merely a continuation of the unnecessary whining about a matter which has already, rightly or wrongly, reached too advanced a stage of development. All of us, at some time or other, have grievances about things that have happened, but we can adapt ourselves to a developing world and use our opportunities instead of worrying about the wrongs we think we have been done. The philosophy underlying such undertakings is not to have people suffer losses. The philosophy at the time envisages the clearing up of a slum area on the boundaries of Cape Town. So much, then, for the Woodstock/Salt River area.

I have already made a few remarks about the old District Six. It was decided to give the people near the city the opportunity to form an economically viable community and that is why Walmer, which is situated above District Six, was proclaimed a Coloured group area in 1975. As a result of remarks in the Erika Theron report, it was also decided to investigate Salt River and Woodstock with a view to linking up the people in Walmer and giving them a piece of land that can be used for the development of an economically viable community. Such a community would always, to a certain extent, be bound up with the economic life of the central part of the city, because it is within virtual walking distance of the city centre. That is why it was decided that a certain portion of Woodstock and a certain portion of Salt River would also be investigated.

The portion of Salt River, which actually lies in the middle, will be investigated with a view to the establishment of a controlled area, so that one has an area there where the people can have economic opportunities. There in the Salt River controlled area the Coloureds and the Indians—because the Indians have also gained a say for themselves in the years that have passed—can each obtain certain rights, and possibly they will even obtain occupational rights by way of permits in particular cases. That is what we are prepared to do and that is what we shall do. In my view that will give the Coloureds a viable area that will link up with other areas. They will not be isolated areas, although there are no extensive common boundaries. They will be linked up, and at this stage the inhabitants will chiefly be the people at whom the investigation is aimed.

Yesterday the Deputy Minister said something about Claudius and Ladium, the Indian areas in Pretoria. I cannot speak about all the areas, and that is not what I intend to do at this stage either. I just want to mention a few matters that are of an emotional nature. It has been decided that because of the new PWV road complex, Claudius actually links up geographically with the Laudium area. That also gives the Indians there more living space. For that reason that area will be investigated with a view to declaring it an Indian area. Nothing I have said here means that I have taken any final decisions. I cannot do so, because the Act prescribes how this should be done. The Group Areas Board must first get all interested parties involved and obtain their opinions. That is, however, what is envisaged by those who formulate policy.

Mention has been made of the fact that we do not have an overall picture, that we do not have five-year plans or ten-year plans, etc. That is not, however, information that one publishes every day of the week. I have told the hon. member, however, that we do have in mind how the South Africa of the future will look, how our people will live here and where they will be happiest, how they will link up with the economic sectors and how labour will be available, bearing in mind our resources and certain economic trends such as the power of attraction of our metropolitan areas which we shall have to counteract to a certain extent, because no one has yet told me he is opposed to the concept of decentralization. We are in favour of optimum development, and I think we take the same economic principles into consideration that hon. members opposite take into consideration. This is a science about which there can be a great deal of disagreement, but we agree on certain basic aspects. As far as I am concerned, planning is a comprehensive concept. I now just want to mention a few of the things we have already done.

Guide-plans are actually a way in which one can, by means of orderly consultation and planning in the future, draw a picture of the arrangements that will be made there for people, bearing in mind the various sectors of the population and the purposes for which the land must be used, not only in areas where development has already taken place, but also in areas where there has perhaps not been any development yet, but where development is envisaged. We have completed six or seven guide-plans on the old basis.

Some hon. members have argued that the Department of Planning should have more teeth. In point of fact, however, the Department of Planning has only two Acts in terms of which it can impose its authority. One of these is the Group Areas Act, which only grants it partial authority, and the other is the Environment Planning Act. That gives us the right to first draw up a guide-plan by way of consultation with all the relevant parties and the agreement we generally obtain within a reasonable period of time. Subsequently we can give it statutory force. Then everyone has to go along with it. When it has been completed and proclaimed, everyone, including the departments of the Government, must co-operate along those lines.

The regional development concept is another aspect we can raise in the five-year, ten-year or longer plans. I do not, however, want to go into that again. I shall not go into metropolitan areas in greater detail either, because the Department of Planning is never the department involved in the planning of details. That is not its function. Its officials are not experts in that field.

The hon. member for Walmer mentioned the guide-plan for Port Elizabeth. I have already instructed my department to prepare the guide-plan with a view to our having it published. This will make it possible to have all interested parties involved because we do it on a voluntary basis. It is consequently being prepared for publication. This does not mean, however, that every one agrees about this. It simply means that we now have to set ourselves a certain course, because two or three years have already passed and I feel that one should go ahead with a matter.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister in what month it is his intention to publish the guide-plan? Will it be within the next two or three months?

That is difficult to say. It was three and a half months ago that I issued instructions for its preparation, but if the hon. member has seen how those plans are prepared, he will understand how much there is to do. Here we are dealing with something of a very technical nature, we are involved with the Government Printer, with the various people to whom we have to send this, etc. There are procedures that have to be finalized. The guide-plan, however, must be finalized this year. Those are my instructions. This means that I expect it during the second half of the year.

I take it that the hon. the Minister regards this as urgent?

Yes, I regard it as urgent. I regard it as more urgent than the hon. member perhaps realizes.

As far as the hon. member for King William’s Town is concerned, I must agree with the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke that he has to date attacked the actions of all the Ministers and their persons, with the exception of the Minister of Planning and the Environment. He barked back to a period in the past when the UP was still a party of stature and when the hon. member himself still performed deeds of some stature in the ranks of the UP. I have no objection to the hon. member doing his best for the people there, but in reality our work was over when we had finished the planning. That does not mean, however, that I agree with the hon. member’s accusations. It simply means that he must find out from the relevant departments what problems are being experienced in this particular regard.

I am very glad to see that the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke is present. I agree, of course, with what he said in connection with the involvement of our people from the lower rungs upwards. The fact that we are now involving them administratively and statutorily, is important. I want to tell the hon. member that there is the prospect of arranging a symposium this year. I do not know who invented this, but what a symposium actually amounts to is, I am tempted to say, a drunken party. If one listens to some of the things one occasionally hears at symposiums, one is reminded of a confusion of tongues, though I do not believe that alcohol is specifically the cause. In the positive sense of the word, however a symposium can promote the discussion of important matters. Here we have an important matter, and we feel that in this connection we must arrange a conference or discussions this year where we can discuss the National Physical Development Plan and the Economic Regional Development Plan. The central economic development plan is divided up into components on a regional level, and at that conference we shall therefore be able to discuss the economic possibilities of the respective regions, thereby joining together the macro-economic and micro-economic aspects. That has always been necessary. In that connection we are rapidly getting the four regional development advisory committees off the ground, and I also am engaged in establishing a further seven such committees. Members of Parliament and others will also be involved in the project so that all interested parties can exchange ideas. By about August we shall decide on a date. The intention is, in any case, that such a conference should be held no later than this year.

† I want to come back to the hon. member for Walmer. Although he professes to be in favour of decentralization, the things he said convinced me that he is actually for centralization.

No. You are totally wrong there.

He says one thing and the next moment he expresses an idea which shows him to be in favour of centralization.

No, not at all.

Yes, indeed. Let me just remark on what he said. What I am going to say now, although it has nothing to do with my opinion about centralization and decentralization. The hon. member said that about 2 000 factories were refused and 100 000 jobs were lost in the Port Elizabeth area.

No. In South Africa as a whole.

Well, how many in Port Elizabeth then?

19 new factories and three extensions.

How many jobs?

I could not tell you that off-hand.

Well, let us not argue about that. The hon. member says he welcomes decentralization. I want to tell him that it is impossible to say what happened to those 100 000 people, as I have said already to the hon. member for King William’s Town. They did not vanish into thin air; they did not get lost; they must have been taken up somewhere. However, in the light of the present economic depression one can expect many of these people to be unemployed. That is so. They were, however, not lost in the period the hon. member was talking about.

You do not know what happened there.

The hon. member commented on the Minister’s ability to judge in these matters. He said he had his doubts about the Minister’s ability to judge in these matters. I also have my doubts about my ability to be the sole judge when it comes to allowing new industries to be set up, procuring new industrial land, and so on. That is why various departments and officials are involved. I am quite sure we have all the expertise we need to decide for ourselves in accordance with the Governments plans for decentralization. I am satisfied that we have the necessary expertise to adjudicate in respect of these matters.

The point is: Who cares what happens to those people who are unemployed?

If the hon. member has a question to ask, she can put it.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister who cares for the people who are unemployed, since we all know that the unemployment insurance does not care.

The unemployment insurance people and the Government do care for these people. Eighteen thousand people have already been cared for. That is why I said yesterday that we allowed more than 400 000 in as against 100 000 who were not allowed to come into the centralized business districts. That is according to the philosophy of decentralization, to which hon. members opposite subscribe. Therefore we do care for these people. It is not just a question of turning them away. They can be taken up in the decentralized areas. We cannot take every single one of them, but very often we do know where they can go. We have these various corporations and the Decentralization Board which aids them in finding employment in the decentralized areas. Actually only one in five of these job-seekers is turned away.

*The hon. member spoke about the Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage area, and I want to come back to his submission about what was lost. Out of a total of 814 applications, 46 were refused. The 814 applications represent 894 Bantu. Only a small group were therefore refused. In truth, why is the hon. member complaining about such a minimal number in an area which is, in any case, a preferential labour area for Coloureds? It is a preferential labour area for Coloureds, because the Cape is a preferential labour area for Coloureds to the West of a certain line. That is still the case between the two lines, but the Bantu are given job opportunities there, until such time as the rate of unemployment amongst Coloureds exceeds the 2% mark as is the case at present. Thereafter the Coloureds are given preference. When the Coloureds are fully employed, the Bantu can obtain work again. Let me refer to an area stretching from Humansdorp to a point a little way to the east of Port Elizabeth. That is not solely a preferential labour area for Coloureds. The Bantu also have job opportunities there. The hon. member must not think I do not know what the Bantu and Coloured populations of Port Elizabeth are. I am informed from time to time. I know that at present the Bantu are overwhelmingly in the majority there. That is the position as far as those people are concerned. I just thought to give the hon. member a very detailed reply in that connection.

It seems to me I am being given more time this morning than I am entitled to, but I have already said enough.

You have not satisfied me yet.

I shall never satisfy that hon. member. In any case, if the hon. member wants to be a good member of Parliament, he ought never to be satisfied.

Abolish the Act as far as Port Elizabeth is concerned.

With reference to what the hon. member for Moorreesburg had to say, let me assure him that he can bury his fears as far as Klapmuts is concerned. We do not envisage the establishment of a Coloured city at Klapmuts, a city of so many thousands of people, a kind of new metropolis, or any such gigantic scheme. We do not have that in mind. Since the people are living at Klapmuts at present, we want to erect a small residential area there so that they can live there under decent conditions. That is what we have in mind, and if it is our intention to introduce a new and drastic element, it is something that will have to be thoroughly investigated. That would be a drastic deviation, and the 20 000 hectares the hon. member had in mind is absolutely out of the question. In that case we would have to make some of our very best agricultural land available, and I personally would not endorse that at all. The hon. member also spoke of the drawing up of a guide-plan for the area between the Atlantis area and the Saldanha area. The Atlantis/Saldanha area is largely an agricultural area with a few complexes here and there, for example Ysterfontein and Darling. For the rest it is an agricultural area. We regard it as a good buffer between the two large metropolitan areas, but we are, in fact, going to draw up a plan to indicate the various elements on the physical plan. We shall make that available at a later stage. We cannot, however, draw up a guide-plan for that. We do not think it is necessary or at all desirable at this stage.

I can give the hon. member for Humansdorp the assurance that I agree with the fine things he said, particularly regarding the conservation of the environment. That is, after all, the problem of the Department of Planning. Inner frustrations will always be the lot of this department. Have hon. members ever thought of the fact that on the one hand this department is involved with the pure sciences—the exact sciences, the physical sciences—and on the other hand with the science of economy? The science of economy is involved when planning has to be done for people, when planning is done in relation to where people must live, etc. It even has to do with the placing of industries. The science of economy has the closest possible ties with environmental science, and in due course enters the field of the aesthetic. All these aspects must be reconciled within the framework of one single department. The department tries its best, however, to maintain a balance. I am very glad that not one hon. member on the Government side adopted a fanatic or extremist attitude in his approach to the conservation of the environment, having preferred to state the case in a calm and even scientific manner, as the hon. member for Humansdorp did too.

Hon. members gave proof of their scientific approach by conceding that when the preservation of a specific area for people’s future is envisaged, planning must first be done and there must be the legal protection and the necessary funds for such an undertaking.

I want to point out to the hon. member that we could, possibly at a later stage, contemplate including Table Mountain under the provisions of section 4 of the Act. I have a great deal of confidence in the commission, however, and I do not want to anticipate its findings. I think we should rather wait. As far as the mountains of the Southern Peninsula are concerned, we should rather wait too.

As far as the rest are concerned, the hon. the Deputy Minister has furnished the necessary replies. Unfortunately he cannot be present here this morning. He asked me to make his apologies for him. I am glad, in any event, that he is not sitting right behind me now. I could then possibly have felt, every so often, that he could perhaps have put things better than I can!

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Yeoville has no reason to laugh about this. [Interjections.] Hon. members must realize that we in this big department really try to co-ordinate matters as far as possible. Hon. members must also bear in mind the fact that this is not a super department. At present the Council for the Environment includes 54 different bodies. All those bodies are involved with the environment and its conservation. Those organizations work on a co-ordinated basis and take care of advertising and the public acknowledgement of their activities. I agree that in future we shall be better able to do all these things. We must not, however, fall over our own feet. As far as these matters are concerned we must “hamba kahle”. We must move slowly, but not too slowly.

†I now come to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. As usual, the hon. member had quite a lot to say.

How about some answers now?

By the way, while the hon. member was speaking yesterday, I suddenly remembered that it was 1 June. When the hon. member spoke about foresight, I wondered whether he had the foresight to realize, at that specific moment, that the demise of the UP had been ordained for exactly four weeks after 1 June. [Interjections.] The hon. member made some good remarks on the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission. I have the greatest respect for what that commission and the people of Natal are doing, especially for what they were doing during the time referred to by the hon. member. I paid a visit to Natal and spent four or five days there during the Easter recess. I had a most enjoyable time with those people, both in work and in play. However, we did quite a good deal of work. We travelled all over Natal. I know that those people did some regional planning studies. However, those studies and schemes have eventuated in schemes such as Richards Bay and Newcastle. I want to remind the hon. member that these schemes were undertaken after the Department of Planning came into existence. As far as the Tugela-basin and other schemes are concerned, I want to say that a lot of work has been done and is still being done. There are a lot of dedicated people connected with it.

*This work was done at that time, however. The best work was done then. I am not saying, of course, that poor work is being done today. Good work is still being done, but now the Department of Planning is also in the picture. The best work was done in the days when we had Natal patriots, even those who wanted to march. Those were the days when the UP men were still UP men. The hon. member must be careful that he does not lose that era’s philosophy in relation to South Africa, though some of these patriots were regarded by certain individuals as having actually come from overseas.

The hon. member for Pietermartitzburg South also spoke about Harding, inter alia about Ixopo. I shall not react to what the hon. member said about Matatiele. I have requested information about that aspect because I understand they have already annexed a portion of the Cape. Is that part of the old British Imperialism?

The hon. member also spoke about Stranger and I want to give him a few facts that have cropped up recently and speak about some of the things I have done. I have signed a proclamation for the establishment of Coloured, Indian and White group areas in Harding. There are problems, however. Over the years there has never been any certainty about whether this area should fall inside or outside the homeland. Those problems have now been solved. As far as Ixopo is concerned, I am afraid that we still have to establish a business area there. I visited the area to see what that beautiful spot looks like, and now because I personally know what it looks like, we are going to try to expedite this scheme.

As far as Stanger is concerned, I have approved a Coloured group area there. I do not know whether the hon. member wants to know more than that.

†The hon. member must also remember that after these proclamations have been issued, the Department of Community Development is involved in their implementation. My hon. friend here has a lot of financial troubles, just as I have, but his are sometimes bigger because he has to implement whereas I can just plan. [Interjections.]

*The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South was worried about the agricultural area of the Indians. That is a matter that has been creating problems for two years now. One tackles the problem and would like to see something happen. Initially there was the investigation by Prof. Van Graan and others into possible agricultural areas. There were the Springfield Flats which the Durban municipality had to get back because the Railways needed it. These people had leased the area over the years. It is easy to say that the Government must get land for these people, but where does the Government get land? Natal is a very fine place, but in reality it consists of the Drakensberg Mountains and, for the rest, of hills and ravines, as the area stretches towards the sea. This causes a tremendous topographical problem. I nevertheless want to tell the hon. member that Cliffdale has been approved as a group area for Indians. The matter can therefore easily be put right as soon as the Indians become adapt at agriculture. As far as the Westmoreland area is concerned, the Department of Water Affairs has carried out an investigation in the Umhloti River and other things have been done. We have not yet abandoned this matter at all. We are constantly working on it. This creates an extremely difficult problem, because the question that remains is to what extent the State is compelled to give that land.

Mr. Chairman, since the hon. the Minister is now speaking about group areas, may I ask him whether the area at Ixopo has been declared a group area for Coloureds?

Did the hon. member not hear what I said? [Interjections.] Then I am sorry, because the hon. member must have been busy with other things. In my reply I said that Ixopo had been declared a group area.

The hon. member for Bellville gave a fine, scientific explanation of the necessity for industrial control, etc. I want to tell him that industrial decentralization is not merely a question of control.

A note I have just received from the department indicates that I have been too progressive in my statement about Cliffdale. It has been approved, but has not yet been declared a group area. That does not matter, however. If it has been approved, I shall declare it in any case. I merely have yet to sign the document.

With regard to the question of industries, I do not think that we should introduce a restriction as the hon. member requested should be done in certain areas. Employment of Black people, in sectors other than industry, is not the task of the Department of Planning. I do not think we should do it at this stage, because industry is a chief developer that must make a contribution towards ensuring the success of decentralization. This has been accepted as such up to now. That is also stated in the White Paper which we have not changed yet.

I should like to tell the hon. member for Bloemfontein East that I do not want to comment on his speech. I just want to say that I took note of the fact that he has made a good study of the Scientific Advisory Council, the scientific planning, the scientific planners’ co-ordinating function with the Scientific Advisory Council and the various tasks they have set themselves, i.e. determining the priorities of research. I share the hon. member’s concern about the fact that there has been a scant increase, i.e. 7%, in the funds available for research in the past few years. Even the hon. the Prime Minister has said we ought to spend more. The money one spends on research, particularly if it is directed research, does not promote inflation. It is particularly productive in respect of industrial development. If one’s sales decrease, one must not stop advertising; one must actually extend one’s advertising campaign to a certain extent. The determination of priorities, the wide scientific field these people cover, the determination of manpower, the research information and the Bureau for Research Periodicals were all referred to by the hon. member. I want to thank him for that.

I just want to say a few words about energy because I promised the hon. member for Pretoria East I would do so. The fact is that the energy problem has not, by any means, gained the necessary respectful interest from the public that it deserves. We have a number of departments involved in the question of energy. There is the Department of Industries which, primarily and secondarily, deals with a large part of energy sources. They also deal with oil, to a certain extent with hydro-electric power and even with the price fixing of coal, etc. There is also the Department of Mines which deals with uranium and the mining aspects of coal. We are not quite certain what other departments deal with the other less conventional sources of energy such as solar energy, wind energy, tide energy, etc.

There are several reasons why the public ought to have an interest in all these matters. Energy and its conservation are input aspects in the production process. They are just like any other form of input, but they are an essential input aspect, and if it were not for that, we would not even have been able to see one another in this Council Chamber. We must therefore ensure that it is conserved. Particularly since the 1973 energy crisis, the American people have devoted themselves to this aspect. They do, of course, have the ability and the manpower to do this, as I shall now indicate. President Carter has set out his energy policy in seven points. I should like to touch on these points briefly. He wants to bring about an annual reduction of 2% in energy consumption. That is the idea of saving or conservation. There must also be a 10% reduction in fuel consumption. I think that we have more or less achieved that goal as the result of the good work of my colleague, the Minister of Economic Affairs. The next point is the reduction of oil imports to less than 6 million barrels per day. It is less than half the quantity they will have to import if they do not apply energy conservation. The next point embodies the establishment of a strategic reserve fuel supply of at least a billion barrels which will provide for their needs for ten months. Even a colussus like America feels itself threatened as a result of the fact that 42% of its liquid energy must be imported from elsewhere. That is why such ridiculous decisions are sometimes taken and why they bow to pressure from the Arab countries. A further point is the insulation of American homes, including all new buildings. 90% of the houses must be insulated in this way. A further point is an increase of more than two-thirds in the coal production to bring it up to more than 1 billion tons per year. Our production is about 77 000 000 tons at the present moment. Reference was also made to the use of solar energy in more than million American homes. The widely scattered control of energy there has now been focused in a Department of Energy. All the various sectors that had control of it, have now been placed under the control of one man. 20 000 people will man this new department. They will have a budget of R10,6 billion, which is about three-quarters of our total budget in South Africa. The head of that department is Mr. James Schlesinger who has proved himself to be a man of great competence. In other words, in America overlapping control has now been introduced.

As far as South Africa is concerned, this has also been brought home to people as a result of the energy crisis. As far as we are concerned, that energy crisis is actually only an oil crisis because 75% of our energy sources consist of fossil fuels such as coal, etc. We have not yet made any great strides with solar energy. There are nevertheless seven manufacturers of solar energy units. The reason why I am speaking about energy is because the Government has decided that the matter must have positive attention and that the various departments involved with energy should co-ordinate with one another. The Department of Planning is the co-ordinating department. It has an energy section that is well-staffed by experts. It is their task to handle the general aspects of unifying energy-saving and conservation and adapting this to future needs relating to the supply and demand of energy up to the year 2000 and further. An energy policy will have to be worked out by the Cabinet and by this committee after advice has been obtained from experts in this field. This will come to fruition even before the end of this year. If hon. members understood the three components of such a policy, they would not be so quick to ask us whether we have an energy policy. President Carter announced an energy policy, and particularly in relation to coal he immediately found himself in trouble with the environmentalists. Coal must be burned to provide energy, and this causes tremendous pollution. He must now reconcile these two aspects. That is why he has problems. We also have to reconcile these two aspects. Firstly we must determine exactly what our energy sources are. That is not an easy task, but a great deal of progress has been made along those lines. That is all I can tell hon. members, and I do not want to take up much more time. So much for supply.

Secondly one must determine the demand for energy. This has to do with saving, the way in which one conserves one’s energy, how much more or how much less coal one must export, what kind of coal one must export, etc. As far as the saving of electricity is concerned, one must formulate one’s policy in this connection.

After one has determined the supply and demand—those are two economic concepts—one determines an energy policy in which one unifies these two aspects and determines, for the distant future, what one’s country’s possibilities are on the basis of the fixed energy sources, the fossil fuels, the coal, etc. Attention can also be given to less conventional fossil fuels, for example sugar and even grass. The other day someone even mixed water with a little powder and had a motor-car run on that. One also gets that kind of thing.

One must also determine one’s position with regard to other forms of energy, for example solar energy. It is thought that the use of solar energy in America will constitute 2% of the total energy consumption by 1980. By technological development they envisage obtaining 25% of America’s energy consumption from solar energy by the year 2000. That is a recurrent form of energy that can never be depleted. Those are aspects we are investigating and for which extensive funds will be necessary for research.

I do not want to say much about the atomic energy aspect. The Atomic Energy Board is actually the body that deals with this. All this data is brought together and the departments concerned will relay this data to an energy policy advisory committee and subsequently to a Cabinet Committee. A policy will be formulated so that we can ensure our people’s future survival as far as energy is concerned.

There is, of course a great deal more that can be said about this. There is the question of how necessary it is for publicity to be given to what is being done. Those are aspects which are receiving attention at the moment and which will have the attention of the Cabinet Committee. We can even consider making next year an Energy Year. We shall see what we can do in this respect.

The Opec countries have, to a large extent, run into trouble. They increased the price of crude oil nine-fold. In the meantime, however, they created tremendous inflation. The prices of articles they have to buy from other countries have simply shown equally tremendous increases. The development projects they wanted to launch in 1975 to prepare themselves, as best they could, for the years ahead, are apparently 300% more expensive than they estimated. They must consequently hold back some of their development projects.

The fact that they initially increased the prices so rapidly has led to the prices, which they must pay, becoming so impossible for them to pay that this might have a damping effect on the price of oil. We cannot, however, rely on that.

I believe that other colleagues of mine, who are specifically involved with these sources, will also speak about this matter. I only spoke about it because I feel that these sources must be co-ordinated by a department which is objective about the matter and therefore in a better position to have a look at it. As requested by the Government, this is something to which we give attention daily, and by the end of the year we shall come forward with very specific proposals.

I think I have actually spoken for a much longer period than I was entitled to speak, but I obtained the necessary permission. I thank all the speakers who took part in the debate. I should like to thank my officials who assisted me in all respects. I conclude by saying that I have replied to most of the questions to the best of my ability.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry the hon. the Minister feels that the debate is over because I did try to speak before him. I should like to speak on the subject of statistics, and I want to deal with two aspects of statistics. Firstly I want to come back to the question of the statistics relating to unemployment amongst the Blacks in South Africa. I understand the hon. the Minister’s problem. The hon. the Minister’s problem is that he does not have the necessary statistics. He has given us some figures this morning which he himself has indicated are unreliable. My problem, however, is that what the hon. the Minister has said is going to be done about unemployment statistics will not, it appears, involve the actual collection of statistics. It appears that it will be an opinion survey. However, one cannot deal with a problem of this magnitude by way of an opinion survey. The difficulty is that there appears to be no machinery planned to actually collect accurate statistics in a truly scientific manner. If we are wrong about that, the hon. the Minister must please tell us precisely what is being done, because one cannot collect unemployment statistics for Blacks by taking a sample of the kind indicated, for example by visiting homes and dealing with some people who are legally there and others who are there illegally. The result will be no more than an opinion survey. I think the hon. the Minister should now tell us precisely what is going to be done, exactly what degree of accuracy will be achieved and how this will assist in dealing with the problem. Secondly I think the hon. the Minister gave a very important figure. He said there are 18 332 people receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Let us apply that to the estimate by Prof. Van der Merwe. There are said to be approximately one million unemployed. Here again we have a gap in the statistics because we do not know how many people are dependent upon each economically active person who is unemployed.

We do not have any information furnished about the size of Black families, as we do in regard to White, Coloured and Asiatic families. Let us assume, however, that on average there are four people who are dependent on each economically active person—and this is a very conservative estimate. This would mean that there are 4 million people who are dependent on the economically active people who are without jobs. If we bear in mind that there are 18 332 people receiving benefits from the State, on the average this would mean about R100 000 per week, probably less. This means that there are 4 million people depending upon R100 000 which is being paid out as unemployment insurance. That is utterly ridiculous! The estimates of researchers at the University of Cape Town indicate that there will be 2 million people unemployed by the end of this year. If one therefore thinks of unemployment insurance benefits totalling R100 000 having to be adequate for 4 million, 5 million or more people, one realizes that one is dealing with a situation in South Africa that is absolutely explosive. The tragedy is that we do not have the statistics and that some people do not want to know the statistics. One pretends that the problem will go away if one does not really know its magnitude. This is one of the major tragedies confronting South Africa. If the hon. the Minister thinks my statistics are wrong, if he thinks that four dependents for every economically active person in South Africa is not a conservative estimate, I should like to see what his figures are. If I am wrong in thinking that there is approximately R100 000 per week in unemployment benefits for 18 332 people, he must say so. The actual situation, however, is that unemployment benefits totalling approximately R100 000 per week are all that is available for at least 4 million people involved in the present unemployment situation in South Africa.

I also want to deal with the consumer price index. I make the submission here that the consumer price index, as presently drawn up, is not a true reflection of the acutal cost of living and that it is, in fact, misleading the public because the cost of living has, in reality, gone up far more. The hon. the Minister will correctly tell me that in fact there is going to be a new index, hopefully in the latter part of this year, and that it is going to be based on the year 1970 or perhaps on April 1970. What is more, it is going to be an index not only for one group, but for different income groups, viz. the lower, middle and higher income groups.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister a number of questions in relation to this because I think we need to know what this index is going to produce. Firstly, he said this index would not be on a racial basis, but have the consumption habits of the various groups been taken into account in order to determine this index? Secondly, what are the income levels which are in fact taken into account? The present one was based on an income level of R6 999. How he can take that kind of income level and apply it across the board is beyond me. It is utter nonsense, because the buying levels are quite ridiculous. If one looks at the loading of the index, one sees that in respect of food the loading was 24,75 and for rent and home-owners’ costs 17,63, when we know that the costs involved are in fact much higher. For public transport it was loaded by 1,15, for alcohol by 1,79, for fish by only 0,62, for grain products by 2,83, for fats and oils by 0,47 and for fruit by 1,74. It is quite obvious that this kind of loading is not related to the community or to the people who are hardest hit by the cost-of-living situation. I think the hon. the Minister owes us a statement of fact to show us whether the present deceptive basis, which in fact has hoodwinked the public into believing that the cost of living has gone up less than it has, is going to disappear from the second half of this year, and whether we are going to have a consumer price index in respect of a properly made-up basket with a proper loading applicable to income groups which are material in respect of particular individuals. If that is done, we can deal with the matter.

On the question of statistics, let me say, lastly, that there was a somewhat over-joyous reaction during an earlier debate from the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development concerning the fact that the NP has been in office for 29 years. I took some statistics out of the official publication, statistics which, I think the hon. the Minister will be very happy to hear, relate to that. One of the things that has happened during those 29 years is that the rand, which was worth a rand when the NP came into power, today has a purchasing power of 26 cents or, to be exact, 26,315789 cents. That is one of the achievements of the NP. Some of us also remember the cry of “Witbrood and skaapvleis” which was heard in 1948. Some of us are old enough to remember that. The truth is that, if one takes a particular cut of mutton, the price of that has increased eleven times since 1948 according to the hon. the Minister’s own statistics. Today it costs eleven times as much as it did 29 years ago to buy a chop, and that is as a result of the activities of the NP. When it comes to bread, bread costs four times as much as it did 29 years ago and that is without taking into account the increase that is going to come. That is what the NP has achieved. I am indebted to the hon. the Minister for the accurate statistics he keeps which enabled me to demonstrate what in fact the NP has done to South Africa.

Chop, chop!

Mr. Chairman, I must thank the hon. member for his very good remarks about the accurate statistics we do keep in certain sectors—I think that perhaps that applies to most sectors, but the hon. member has some complaints about certain of them. I am very sorry that I cannot reply to many of the technical statistical points he raised. It is impossible for me to do so. He spoke about a statement of fact and in that regard I shall find out as much as I can and let him have the information.

Will you answer me by letter?

Yes, I shall do that; I think that is only fair, because I was not prepared for this, although, actually, one should apply oneself a little to these things. I am not now making any excuses; I think the hon. member will realize that I cannot answer on all the technical detail off-hand. The claim that we do not want to know the figures of unemployment is not true. That is nonsense. I conceded at the start that these figures were not proper figures and that as far as we were concerned one could not attach too much importance to them and that it was our intention to apply other methods to find the right figures. The hon. member referred to an opinion survey. That is quite right, as it is the initial way in which one commences these surveys. It is an acknowledged method and is scientifically accepted—as far as one can be scientific with economic matters. It is a method which is scientifically accepted and which we are going to employ with regard to the 1980 census. However, that does not mean that we will stop there.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he has considered the registration of African unemployed in the same way we have done with the Coloureds, the Indians and the Whites?

Does the hon. member mean compulsory registration?

Yes, in the urban areas.

I have not yet considered that. That brings in a number of other arguments and opinions which I do not think warrant discussion at the present moment. At the moment registration is optional. That is why we have these figures. As far as statistics are concerned, according to the Act I have the right to demand that the collection of statistics be done in a certain way and at the moment I apply the Act, I can demand a form of compulsory registration. We can do it in another way instead of creating the impression that we are now imposing this from above.

As far as figures are concerned, the hon. member made his calculations about the amount of money that approximately 4 million people receive. One can juggle with figures. I am not sure about these figures. Maybe we can argue about that when I answer him as far as the unemployment figures and the unemployment payment figures are concerned. As far as the consumer price index is concerned, the idea is to get proper and correct figures, although the hon. member disagrees. As has already been said, we intend introducing a new form of procedure as far as the consumer price index is concerned. He disagrees with some of the criteria, but as I have already stated, I shall let him know in due course what our opinion is as far as that is concerned. Let us therefore first present him with a statement of fact. Then the hon. member can disagree with that openly if he so desires.

*With regard to the question of the greatly reduced value of the rand, the hon. member gladdened my heart with his calculation that the rand was still worth 26,61589 cents today. I like it when someone is so exact in his calculations. I do not know what all the decimal points mean, but I am glad that the hon. member calculated it so accurately. I thought it was much less than that. When we consider the great increases there have been in the prices of so many things, one could …

Those are official statistics.

The hon. member must not try to tell me that the NP is to blame for this. What is relevant here is that it has depreciated so much over a period of 29 years. The hon. member can take any country in the world, and he will find very few countries which are in a better position than South Africa with regard to the depreciation of money. He should therefore not drag in the NP. The hon. member was under the impression that he had knocked me out in the end. That is why he spoke at the end of the debate. But that will not help him at all. The basis of his reasoning is false. He tried to bring politics into the matter. Lastly the hon. member tried to get at the hon. the Minister of Agriculture in his absence. The hon. member spoke about mutton. I must say that we probably know equally little about sheep. But I do know more about mutton. The chops we eat these days are definitely of a better quality than those of 1948. We have learned over the years to produce better mutton chops. We have also learned to use more discretion and better judgment. I, for one, am still prepared to pay the price charged for mutton chops these days. Of course, one need not eat mutton chops every day.

Now we come to the question of bread. In this case, I believe, we should be fair. In his absence I am now replying on behalf of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. Here in our country bread is still cheaper than in many countries of the Western World. Bread is a staple food, and I can give hon. members my assurance that it is the subject of much discussion, argument and consideration before the price is increased. Hon. members can be very sure of this. The fact that inflation has caused only a fourfold increase in the price of bread is something which really astonished me. Therefore I am glad that the hon. member gave me that information. In this case too, I believe, we can boast of an achievement and we can be proud of it.

Votes agreed to.

Vote No. 29 and S.W.A. Vote No. 18,— “Commerce”, and Vote No. 30 and S.W.A. Vote No. 19.—“Industries”:

Mr. Chairman, I ask for the privilege of the half-hour.

I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation for the work done by the departmental secretaries for commerce and industries and by their staffs. These men and their staffs are a dedicated team, wholly motivated to promote the interests of their departments and the welfare of South Africa. I believe we should record this fact. I would also like to speak in glowing terms of the work carried out by the S.A. Bureau of Standards and by the CSIR.

I think we in South Africa are fortunate to have two institutions of this nature contributing to the wealth of economic progress which is so necessary if our people are to retain their situation in the world economy.

I now want to indicate to the hon. the Minister that he is the holder of the hot seat covering a macrocosm of commerce and industry and that, in the wake of the budget debates, he has been left with the task of administrating the total economy of the country. His efforts, therefore, must be judged by results, results for which he must accept responsibility. I believe it is fair to say that we are facing a situation of crisis in our economy. The hon. the Minister has indicated this himself. The economy has indeed never before experienced as many problems as it is now experiencing. We have the fact that we are in a severe recession, without any sign of the recession bottoming out earlier than perhaps the end of this year. We are experiencing an unacceptably high rate of inflation, a rate of the order of 11% to 12%.

We have unacceptably high unemployment, something which has had its impact on our race relations. There is a distinct lack of business confidence. There are severe racial tensions, and there is a growing number of insolvencies. At a time when the American economy is booming and is experiencing a growth rate of 6,4%, we are experiencing the situation which I have just outlined. The German economy is also showing signs that it is moving into a phase of progress. Against this background I find it distressing that the hon. the Minister is not able to make available to the House the latest report of the hon. the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council. I know this falls under the department of the hon. the Prime Minister, but the hon. the Minister …

I am willing to discuss it.

Thank you. I would like to discuss it with the hon. the Minister, because the previous reports stipulate a growth rate of some 5% to 6% in order to take up our unemployment potential. At a time like this we are desperately lacking guidelines for commerce and industry on which to build for the next five years. To see this debate in its correct perspective we should realize that in the next 23 years the population of South Africa will at least double and bearing this fact of life in mind, if we want to survive and if we want reasonably full employment we need an average of about 1 500 jobs per day between now and the end of the century. Hon. members should realize then, that we are in a state of crisis. It is perhaps fortunate that we meet at this stage after the annual congresses of the various chambers of commerce. I would like to quote a passage to indicate the foundations for the perturbation which is being felt by commerce and industry and for their dissatisfaction with the situation. I want to quote certain comments made at the congress of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, which met on 14 May. Dr. Hannes Human of General Mining said—

That is a statement by a commercial group for which I have the greatest respect. The FCI also recently had their annual congress. In their report they take an extremely gloomy look at the economy. They urge the Government to introduce wide-ranging variations to their policies. The Chamber of Commerce found that they had to call for less State interference in the economy. They also make the startling accusation that the Government has been “tragically lacking and negative in vital issues in its reaction to the report of the Theron Commission”. They complain of—

He is not alone, because the Afrikaans Handelsinstituut takes the same attitude. They express the same concern when they say—

You must read the whole report. Immediately after that they asked State intervention.

We have debated this issue previously and the hon. the Minister will obviously have more to say.

However, the fact is that in facing our economic problems the hon. the Minister knows that he is a prisoner in his own camp. The basic solutions are political solutions and it is for the hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet to take those steps that will make possible the freeing of the economy so that it can work as a free enterprise system in its entirety in the interests of all our people.

I believe I should ask the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs to comment upon what commerce regards as the failure of the collective campaign against inflation, which terminated in March this year after some 15 months of existence. I concede that a genuine effort was made by the Government departments and all sectors of the economy in order to free ourselves from this cancer of inflation. More than R1 million was spent on the campaign, but in actual fact it must be conceded that it was a great disappointment.

Why do you say that? Will you elaborate on that?

Yes, I will certainly elaborate on that statement. When we started the campaign our rate of inflation was some 12,5%. When we finished the campaign it was still of the order of 11 %. The recession in the economy has contributed far more to the holding of inflation than the efforts of the campaign itself. There is no indication that the rate of inflation has yet or will yet recede.

I want to refer to State corporations. This is a hardy annual, but I believe this House is entitled at this time of the year each year to have the hon. the Minister report to us on the health or otherwise of the major State corporations which absorb such a considerable portion of our loan capital and all the available capital. I want to preclude my remarks by saying that a parliamentary team representative of all sides of the House was priviliged to be guests of Iscor and the IDC during the parliamentary recess. I want to say immediately that there are two faces to this coin. Iscor is a State corporation. It involves the use of tremendous portions of our available capital. We were, however, allowed to see the human aspect of the achievements of the IDC and Iscor. We were able to see the works at Richards Bay, the Newcastle steelworks and the Vanderbijlpark steelworks. We were privileged to actually be transported along the Sishen/Saldanha railway line. We saw the Iscor works at Saldanha which makes the export of our ores possible. We met the men and we saw the calibre of the management, the human material and their motivation. We are dealing with some 50 000 South Africans who are contributing in no small measure to the economic welfare of this country. They are doing so at a time when there is a restricted market mechanism. They cannot dictate the market price of their product. They are in a sense in a state of gloom, because I believe Iscor will show exceptional losses during this trading year due to the world recession in the price of steel. However, these men are nevertheless showing a dedication and motivation towards their work which I should like publicly to commend.

Having said that, I now want to turn to the financial responsibilities of the Government as far as Iscor is concerned. Any investigation of the accounts, even for the 1976 financial year, indicates that we are dealing with a giant corporation, which is of necessity largely funded by overseas and local borrowings. The size of the corporation can only be measured when one realizes that last year they produced some 5 000 million tons of steel and that their net sales of all products were in excess of R766 million. They did make a gross trading profit of over R100 million and a net loss for the year, after finance charges, of some R30 million. Their fixed period loans amounted to R1 868 million in round figures.

The extent to which Iscor, Sasol and Escom have been competing in the world markets for funds, which would otherwise potentially have been made available to private enterprise, has an impact on private enterprise potential. I believe the indications are that in future there must be the severest control over the borrowing facilities available to these corporations and that we must make more detailed market studies before we become committed to projects which may in the end turn out to be larger than those we can conceivably handle. I would appreciate it, therefore, if the hon. the Minister would say something to us on the subject of Sasol and on the financing of Sasol 2, an enormous project of strategic importance, a project which will relieve the pressure we experience on the international oil markets. However, we still have to live within our own economic potential. One cannot avoid this fact.

I also want to make reference to two Boards of Trade inquiries which the hon. the Minister initiated some time ago and which have come to fruition. I refer to the inquiry into the local manufacture of motor vehicles and components and to the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions. The hon. member for Constantia will deal with the latter inquiry in greater detail.

With regard to the motor industry I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to realize, as he did in the past, that the total motor industry is the catalyst for growth in this country. It is a measure of our economic prosperity and economic health. At the moment there is an extreme slump in the motor industry. Not only are profits not being recorded by most manufacturers and distributors, but there is also growing unemployment. There was unemployment to the extent of some 7 000 individuals in the motor manufacturing sector only during last month. At present there is an attitude that the motorist per se is there to be milked by the Government. It is the goose that lays the golden eggs, taxes can be found ad lib and the burden on the motorist is becoming excessive. The fact of being a motorist is becoming a dirty concept. In every facet of Government attitude towards the economy, we find that the motorist is being criticized either for using too much petrol or for the misuse of the country’s resources. I want to remind the hon. the Minister, however, that this Government brought about the motor industry in its present form by the decisions it took in the 1960’s. The motor industry was encouraged to grow and with it grew secondary and ancillary industries. If these are to go into recess, the burden on the whole country, for the taxation that will have to be found in other sectors, will become excessive. I say that we are not yet on the verge of the heights that will be climbed by the motor industry. So far only our European population are virtually car consumers, with the non-Europeans coming in on the fringes. The African still has to come in. In a country where it is inconceivable that our public transport resources will ever cope with the total moving of our urban and rural population to the extent that they are required to be moved and with the convenience they require, we must build up this industry as an asset and allow it free rein to be one of the leaders in the boom which we hope may eventually come to the fore.

In regard to the subject of the Commission of Inquiry into Monopolistic Conditions, there is a trend today to put the consumer where he should be, as sovereign. Every bit of legislation that we have in the House that is directed towards the consumer is directed at protecting his interests. This is valid, and one has to be serious about our attitude to monopolies. We cannot say that all State monopolies are good and that all other monopolies are bad. I shall leave it to the hon. member for Constantia to react to this situation in more detail.

I would like to deal briefly with a matter that is worrying the fishing industry. It also worries me because it involves a loss of foreign exchange. I refer to the hon. the Minister’s policy in which he predictates that fishmeal, as produced in South Africa, is first made available to local market sources for the feeding of cattle, poultry, etc., and that only the balance is then exported. The chairman of a large public group has the following to say—

The following remarks concern South Africa in particular—

He goes on to say—

The hon. the Minister’s department is responsible for our welfare and in a sense the public have judged the work of his department to have failed in the ultimate result and that prosperity is passing South Africa by. There is a distinct possibility that unless the Government can reorientate itself and allow the real and true free play of economic enterprise to apply to all our peoples in the economic field, all 25 million of them, we will find that, while the rest of the world has already experienced its boom, we not only missed the time-lag but that prosperity has indeed passed us by for all time.

Mr. Chairman, to start off with I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens in appreciation of the good work done by the officials of the two departments. I also want to associate myself with him in paying tribute to the good work done by the S.A. Bureau of Standards and the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. These are definitely institutions that have done South Africa much good. Thus far I agree with the hon. member. However, I do not agree with the hon. member’s introductory remarks that our economy is in a state of crisis. I think the word “crisis” is somewhat extreme. It is true that these are difficult economic circumstances, but I do not believe that they warrant being described as a crisis. Perhaps the official Opposition has become used to the word “crisis” these days, although not in the economic sense, but in the political sense.

Instead of all the criticism from the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, one would rather have heard about their economic policy and the alternatives they propose. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens is well versed on that subject and he pointed out the bottlenecks with great thoroughness. However, I never heard any positive declarations of policy from him, except in passing. I can understand why not too much attention was given to an alternative economic policy for the country. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens is a very good friend of mine and I hold him in high esteem. In fact, I recently considered naming him the shadow Minister of Economic Affairs. I am sorry that I cannot do it anymore because the party of which he is a member, is going to disband at the end of the month. That is obviously why he could not put an alternative policy to the country. Instead of that, he quoted at length from reports by the Handelsinstituut and Assocom to try and prove that the Government was supposedly wrong. I also want to read him a passage—one from the report of the S.A. Federated Chamber of Industries. It is the 59th annual report and was published in 1976. In his presidential address Mr. D. V. Benade said the following—

That is a very factual statement. He goes on—

Listening to the hon. member’s argument, one could have deduced that nothing was being done. But here is an unbiased witness’s description of what took place during the last decade and a half, in other words from 1960 to 1975. I can also quote from the same report what the executive director of the FCI, Prof. H. J. J. Reynders, who is an expert in this field, had to say. That is with regard to the hon. member’s accusation that the Government’s policy encroaches on private initiative to too great an extent. I quote—

I support that statement wholeheartedly. He goes on, however—

That is my reply to the hon. member. It comes from the industrialists. The private sector requested action by the State. I can mention an example. One example is the Estate Agents Bill discussed here last year, which is now law. There one has Government intervention by request of the industry itself. I can mention many similar cases. However, I leave the matter at that.

I now want to turn to another matter. Here I am directing my words mainly at the official Opposition, but actually I want to concentrate on the PRP as well. Their party is surely the best example of the good consequences of capitalism, because they do not have a shortage of money. However, have they ever considered what the economic consequences would be of Marxist, communist, imperialistic colonialism in South Africa? Have they ever considered it? They are the people who want majority rule, and if they do not want it, they are still not unsympathetic towards Black majority rule in South Africa. I want to go further and say that they are not unsympathetic towards Marxist Black majority rule in South Africa.

That is rubbish, and you know it.

I say that they are not unsympathetic towards it.

Then you are expressing an untruth.

That is what I infer and that is also what the nation infers.

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member entitled to say that it is rubbish and he knows it?

The hon. member may continue.

Mr. Chairman, is it parliamentary to allege that hon. members of this House are sympathetic to communism and Marxism?

That is a question of argument. The hon. member may continue.

Then you are sympathetic to Nazism.

Order!

One should consider what the economic consequences would be of Marxist colonialism in Southern Africa, and I want to mention one example. In Angola the per capita national income was $280 per year in 1970. That is according to the statistical yearbook of the UNO. I now want to ask the Opposition, in particular the PRP a question: What do they think the per capita income of an Angolan citizen is today? They cannot tell me. What is the position in Mozambique? In 1970 the amount concerned was $228, but what is it today? Those are the consequences of the policy to which those hon. members are not opposed. What became of people’s possessions in Angola? What became of their houses and cars? What became of the infrastructure in Angola and in Mozambique? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we should congratulate the hon. member for Germiston District on his fine speech and his sober statement. I think he offered a very good explanation which the hon. members on the other side should ponder. Their policy would give rise to exactly these results, but they do not want to admit it. If they want to come to a true realization of their basic argument, they have to admit that ultimately that is what the results would be.

Mr.Chairman, unfortunately I have very little time at my disposal and I now have to change the subject. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens put one matter very clearly. He said: “Efforts must be judged by results.” Earlier this year the hon. member for Constantia criticized the Government with regard to the budget—

The criticism levelled at our Government, our Ministers and departments, is, in the first place, that the State concerns itself too much with the areas in which private initiative should really take over, and secondly, that in fact the State, the Ministers and the departments are neglecting to boost economic activities sufficiently to cause a revival. That is the criticism levelled at us. We again heard it just now. To counter those claims, I briefly want to highlight certain activities in our economic structure. In this way I want to prove the contrary of what hon. members contend. I should like to give a brief review of the task and the handling of the activities at Secunda, i.e. Sasol 2. Before coming to that, I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister, his department and the management, directorate and head of Secunda’s activities in this House on the work done there.

Much is said about productivity, but if one analyses the word, one has a problem. I have a passage here from the Encyclopaedia Britannica in which the subject “productivity” is dealt with. It consists of four pages. If we want to sum this up briefly, we can replace the word “productivity” with another word: “productive power”. One tests the results of one’s activities or performance against the concept of “productive power”. Taking that into consideration, I want to congratulate the management of that industry sincerely this morning on their achievements.

To start off with, let me ask what the main purpose was of Sasol 2. I quote from the chairman’s address which appears on page 3 of Sasol’s annual report for 1976—

In 1970 the oil price was $1,25 per barrel; in 1974 it was $11,50 per barrel and at the moment it is in the region of $12,70 per barrel. I again quote—

The last sentence I quoted, is very important. I repeat—

It continues—

I think this will be a major achievement. How are we going to test whether this industry, which is still coming into being, satisfies all the desired aspects of productivity? Then we have to go back to the four cardinal aspects of any industry and we have to ask whether there is entrepreneurial productivity. What is the result of the initiative put into it, the ability and skill of our people? We have to ask what the capital or investment productivity of that industry is. What are the results? In this respect we can mention that there are three sources for the financing of Secunda; firstly, withdrawals from the strategic Oil Fund; secondly, amounts voted by Parliament and thirdly, the provision of funds from self-generated capital. The third aspect is the productivity of the work of the people concerned with the project, the manhours invested and the result. How have they been realized? In the fourth place: How are the resources, the basis of that concern, converted and remodelled at this early stage?

I want to point out that from 5 December 1974, when the Cabinet announced that Sasol 2 was going to be built, up to the present, approximately 2½ years have gone by. That means a period of 2½ years for that undertaking to be able to get off the ground. The initial estimate for the project was R1 900 million, and at an escalation rate of 8%, the ultimate amount will be in the vicinity of R2 458 million. From its own funds Sasol generates R71½ million for the establishment of its town development. To measure that against what I stated just now, i.e. what the results of those various sections are, I should just like to give a brief summary. With regard to progress at the factory, the progress is excellent and approximately 35% of the engineering designs and approximately 2½% of the construction has already been completed. It is estimated that the industry will be able to start full factory processing by 1980. Then it will be in full operation. With regard to the mine, the work is completely on schedule, and at this stage 54% of it has already been completed. Those are the mining activities after 2½ years. As far back as June last year, after 1½ years, 7 000 ton coal had already been extracted at the Bosjesspruit mine for gasification tests at Sasol.

Let us consider the town development. At the beginning of May 1977, 444 permanent dwelling-houses had already been completed, of which 407 were occupied at that stage.

Let us consider the spending of capital, in respect of which there was reasonable criticism to the effect that Sasol 2 only awarded its capital to foreign firms. It is Sasol’s declared policy in all cases where it can be justified technically and economically, and where it is practical, to give preference to South African engineers, contractors and industries for the design, the supply of material and equipment, the provision of services and construction work. As a result of the extent and complexity of the project, Sasol had to look for assistance to manage the project effectively. A worldwide investigation indicated that there were only three potential firms disposing of the necessary proven managerial expertise, experience and labour to manage such a giant project. Finally Sasol decided to appoint Fluor of Los Angeles as manager and contractor. They provide services to Sasol and any dealings or negotiations by Fluor with consultants, sub-contractors and suppliers is done under supervision of Sasol and any benefits accruing from this, go to Sasol. Of the total amount, approximately R1 053 million, that is 43%, will be spent abroad, and R1 405 million, that is 57% locally. The entire sum of R71,5 million which will be spent on town development, will be spent locally. Of the 222 contracts awarded, 15 went to foreign contractors, while 207 were awarded to South African contractors. The number and nature of the firms concerned, are as follows:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Standerton has, I think, quite correctly pointed out some of the financial problems of Sasol 2 and the financing of the project. I for one am pleased to agree with the hon. member that the extent to which local expertise is being used is very welcome to all of us, particularly in these times of balance of payments problems. I think that from all sides of the House there will be approval to the greatest extent of the use of local expertise, local material and local work in respect of this project.

In regard to the hon. member for Germiston District, I find it a great tragedy really. I think the hon. member is a tragedy. He spoke as chairman of the economic affairs group of the NR What did he do? He played a little game with the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, a game he played very unsuccessfully. He then proceeded to make a whole joke of what this debate is really about. With due respect for the hon. member for Germiston District, to seek to equate any change of Government in South Africa, any kind of different philosophy, with Marxism and with communism and with other phrases which makes him happy, is completely out of place in an economic affairs debate as he too is out of place. With great respect, I believe that this kind of politicking is entirely unrelated to the real issues which face South Africa.

I want to tell the hon. member what some of the real issues are. The real issues facing South Africa in the economic field are, firstly, that the economic dangers in South Africa are probably far greater than any military dangers this country faces. Ambassador Young of the United States has seen it and wants to use it against us, and has encouraged people to do so, because he sees what the danger is that we face. However, instead of dealing with that danger, the hon. member for Germiston District played petty politics. That is what the tragedy is.

South Africa has to equip itself economically in order to deal with the dangers threatening her. Let us deal with some of these dangers. One of the tragedies facing us is that the economic development programme indicates that we should have a growth factor of 6,5%. If we look at the figures we see that from 1970 to 1976 that target was never reached, except for one single year. There was an alternative target of 6,1%. That was also not reached. That target was rejected because it would have meant substantial unemployment.

What has happened? The fact is that we are not growing at the rate at which we have to grow in order to meet our problems. In fact, we have created massive unemployment in South Africa because South Africa has not grown at the rate at which it should have grown. What is the consequence of all this? The consequence of all of this is that we now have a situation in which, instead of people seeing the fulfilment of their aspirations towards a higher standard of living, they have to see how their standards of living have gone down.

I want to refer to a well-known passage from the book The Politics of Mass Society, a book hon. members know about. It concerns the fact that once one raises the aspirations of the people and they start enjoying the good things of life, they actually want more. The difficulty that one has is that at the very time when one has raised the hopes of people, we are landed in an economic situation where hopes have been dashed. If we look only at the White community over the last two years, and the hon. the Minister take disposable income and compare it with the increase in living costs, the truth is that the lower middle class Whites in South Africa are 10% worse off than two years ago. The question that has to be asked is: How are we going to deal with this problem? If we look at a paper which was delivered by the senior Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank, Dr. De Kock, we notice that he also pointed out the dangers which exist as a result of our difficulty in getting all the foreign capital that we need. He said—

This was the situation in the past. Dr. De Kock went on to say—

If this is correct—and the hon. the Minister cannot ignore it—we have to plan for a new kind of South Africa, planning in terms of which we can create the employment opportunities for people without being able to meet these demands which we cannot meet because of the lack of inflow of adequate quantities of foreign capital. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what his approach is to living standards for the community. Is it now part of Government policy that the living standards of the White community should be lowered? Because that is what has happened in the last 24 months. How is the hon. the Minister going to deal with the situation of the aspirations of Black and White people for better living standards at a time when we are faced with this kind of economic situation? The hon. the Minister has said that, because he is a champion of capitalism, he is against price and wage freezes.

No. I am against the general policy …

Correct. The hon. the Minister is against the general policy. That is what I am saying. What has in fact happened? What has happened is that we have not had a price freeze. We have had an endeavour to try to control inflation and even though the hon. the Minister may not have had as good a result from the anti-inflation campaign as he, I and other people hoped, I respect him for having tried. I shall never attack a man for trying something, even if it does not work. However, the tragedy of what has happened is that the working man in South Africa has been asked to restrain from what, in fact, his aspirations are at the same time when prices have gone up. This is the tragedy in regard to the economy of South Africa. We cannot ignore this; we cannot pretend that it is not happening. The reality of the situation is that we are faced with a completely new ball game. We have to create jobs and have to keep our people employed, while we cannot get all the foreign capital that we want and while our economy is in a state where we must for some considerable time anticipate a very low degree of growth.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister what he has done to see to it that more jobs are created, particularly in the export-orientated industry. What has the hon. the Minister done to see that incentives are given for labour-intensive industries to meet the situation? I have said repeatedly that we give incentives for the buying of equipment for manufacturing purposes, but we give no incentive for extra labour which is employed in South Africa at a time when we should be doing this. If the hon. the Minister wants to show that he is going in the right direction in respect to this matter, he should get up and say in this House that he will encourage labour-intensive industries, will see that the necessary incentives are given and will do everything in his power to see that export-orientated industries are further encouraged in a proper manner, because the present scheme does not work properly. The hon. the Minister should state that all these things will be done, because the truth in South Africa today is that we need a situation where we create jobs for people. By doing this we can keep people off the street. If they have jobs we can stop them from rioting. The tragedy of South Africa is that we are facing the most difficult period politically at a time when we are not economically strong. We should economically be much stronger. If we cannot be economically strong, we cannot meet the political challenges South Africa has to meet in the years which lie ahead.

Mr. Chairman, the Official Opposition and the PRP are always talking about the aspirations of the Black man and the fact that there is so much unemployment amongst the Black people. It is, however, the actions of the PRP themselves which have resulted in there being so much unemployment amongst the Black people at the moment. The Black man is always being told that the wage gap between the Black man and the White man must be narrowed. I do not have any fault to find with this, and I agree with it entirely. This must, however, be done very judiciously because when one narrows the wage gap too rapidly and uneconomically, one creates unemployment. This is precisely what is happening due to the actions of that party. Apparently it had never struck them that they are very largely responsible for the situation of extensive unemployment amongst the Black people which has arisen.

It is simply a fact of economics that one cannot increase wages without there being concomitant productivity, because then one creates inflation. When wages are increased to an uneconomic level, this encourages entrepreneurs to have recourse to more mechanization. Consequently more unemployment is created in this way.

We believe that unemployment amongst the Black people is due to three factors, and these are the higher birth rate, wages which increase out of all proportion to productivity and the irresponsible staying away from work as happened during the riots last year. This has caused the entrepreneur to introduce more mechanization, and this in turn has led him to discover that he can manage with fewer people. Consequently he has discharged some of his workers, thereby creating greater unemployment. The employer pays higher wages to fewer people, but more people are unemployed.

I do not want to allege for a moment that the wage gap should not be narrowed. It must, however, be done very judiciously. Does one rather want high wages for a small group of workers, with the concomitant unemployment, or does one want a moderate increase in wages and more employment? I want to point out that at the present stage of our economic development we should incline towards labour intensive rather than capital intensive production. At the same time we shall be helping to improve our balance of payments, because then the import of expensive capital goods will not be necessary. After all, we all know that the biggest reason for our balance of payments problems is not the import of consumer goods, but of capital goods.

The Black people stayed away from their jobs on a haphazard basis, a factor which naturally contributed a great deal towards the high unemployment we now have.

The sector in which the wages of Black workers have increased most spectacularly is the mining industry. According to a study by Prof. Nel of Unisa, the wages of Black workers in the mining industry increased by no less than 275,4% between 1970 and 1975. The increase in the gold price of more than 400% at that time, made us all act in a somewhat unbalanced fashion. The exceptionally large wage increases in the mining industry filtered through to other sectors. For Johannesburg as a whole the wage increase, in the period 1970 to 1975, was 112%. The increase in the rate of inflation for the same period was 56,2%. This means that there was an increase, in real terms, of 31,4% in the incomes of Black workers during that period. During the same period the Coloured workers in Cape Town had an increase in income, in real terms, of only 23%; considerably less therefore than the wage increase for Black workers in Johannesburg. This can be attributed to the fact that the effect of the rapid wage increase in the mining industry did not filter through so strongly here in Cape Town. On the other hand, the wages of the Whites, in terms of cash, increased by only 58,4% in Johannesburg as against the 112,4% increase in Black wages.

This is all very well, but once again the question that arises is whether the productivity gap is being narrowed nearly as rapidly as the wage gap. Let us be honest with one another. In-service training is a requirement for high productivity, but in-service training must be based on higher levels of academic training. That is why we are grateful to the Government for having made provision in the budget for more to be spent on schooling for Black people.

In conclusion I want to refer to what the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens said in connection with the motor industry. I want to console that hon. member with the fact that things are not really as bad as he has tried to make out. If a small business undertaking in my town, Paarl, has sold no less than 14 new Mercedes cars during the past month, things cannot really be all that bad. The hon. member also referred to the fact that the Black consumer has yet to enter this market. I quote from this same investigation by Prof. Nel—

I also want to agree with something the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens raised in connection with the question of the price of fish meal on the local market. At the moment the price of fish meal on the local market is R240 per ton—the hon. member said it was R225 per ton, but it is now R240 per ton, whilst the export price of fish meal is exactly double, i.e. R480 per ton. What effect does this have? We are subsidizing the producer of white meat—i.e. broilers and pigs—the producer who makes a good deal of use of fish meal, to the detriment of the red meat producer. In the same report to which I referred, it is pointed out that in 1975 alone the consumption of broilers in the Black residential areas of Johannesburg increased by 375% in the case of families and by more than 1 000% in the case of single people. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, my time is limited and I am very sure the hon. the Minister will deal amply with what the hon. member for Yeoville has said. Allow me only two remarks in this regard. First of all, I would like to ask the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens why did he not, when he referred to the growth rate in America, also tell us where that growth came from. Did it come from public spending or spending in the private sector? It makes a very big difference, in terms of comparison with South Africa, whether that spending came from private or public sources. It if should come from public sources, would he recommend that kind of policy in South Africa at this moment? As far as the hon. member for Yeoville is concerned, I want to tell him bluntly that we on this side deplore the fact that he made such derogatory remarks in regard to the person of the hon. member for Germiston District while the hon. member for Germiston District merely attached sympathy towards a policy. Surely the hon. member for Yeoville is well aware of the fact that communism is basically an economic system, and that is why this hon. member had all the right in the world to talk about it here. Surely he did not deserve the kind of derogatory remarks which that hon. member directed at him.

*This side of the House is just as concerned about people’s standard of living as that side of the House believes itself to be. In fact, I think it would be true to say that never in the economic history of the world has more wealth been generated in the world than today. In spite of that, the differences between the haves and the have-nots have never been as conspicuous as they are today. This is not so much because the position of the have-nots has deteriorated; it is rather to be attributed to the increase in the wealth which the haves are able to accumulate. Furthermore, our communication media and other factors enable us to form a very clear picture of the fate of underprivileged people. Since we are all concerned about this and since the workers are also trying, by means of political bargaining and collective bargaining, to obtain for themselves a bigger slice of the economic cake, every Sate, every Government in the world, whether or not it supports the free enterprise system, must pay careful attention to the needs and the distress of under-privileged people, those people who are at the bottom of the scale in the economic system. This leads to a situation of tension in a country such as South Africa, a country which is a staunch supporter of the system of free enterprise, as debated by us earlier this year. The situation of tension, especially in the times of economic difficulty we are experiencing at the moment, is mainly between the entrepreneur on the one hand and the State on the other hand. The State is forced to take cognizance, as I have said, of the needs and the distress of the people in its society. On the other hand, the entrepreneur is afraid that the attempts which the State may make to achieve a more equitable distribution of wealth may cause an excessive part of his income to be appropriated for this purpose. I think it would be true to say that in this particular situation, extremely high demands are being made on management, especially on top management. It is accepted all over the world today that management is being confronted with situations for which there are no precedents, situations in respect of which no previous experience has been accumulated which could help management to face up to them.

Because management is responsible for the survival of enterprises, I believe it is essential that we take a closer look at these difficult situations which management is being confronted with. What one says of management in private enterprise is equally applicable to management in the State machinery, because there are so many State departments which ought to be administered strictly on business principles as soon as possible. When we look at the survival of an enterprise, we look in the first place at the task of management in terms of an enterprise as a profit-making concern. Secondly—this is an extremely important aspect—we look at the survival of an enterprise within the capitalist system. One thing is certain, and that is that if the public loses confidence in the enterprise as the embodiment and the public arm of the capitalist system, then that system will not survive. It is the task of top management to prevent this. In other countries, especially in the USA, this problem has taken a very interesting turn. Top management has faced up to this challenge and people speak of the “good corporate citizen”. In that country, top management regards the enterprise as an integral part of society, which must therefore be administered with definite social obligations. I do not wish to refer to the profit problems of the manager. I should prefer to concentrate on the problems of the business enterprise as a social institution.

In other capitalist countries, the key role played by the manager in his enterprise must be played by him to an increasing extent in society as well. The result of this is that large enterprises not only donate money to specific public projects, but also make their top management people available to society, so that they may transmit their expertise in looking after community affairs.

We also find that the manager has to administer his enterprise in an atmosphere of consensus today. There must be consensus about frequently conflicting objectives. On the one hand there are the shareholders and on the other hand there are the employees, the State and other pressure groups such as people who are concerned about the environment. Furthermore, the manager himself has to maintain a very high ethical standard today. As a typical example of a case where this was not done, I may mention the Lockheed scandal.

The very adaptability and flexibility of the capitalist system, which enables it to adapt itself to the demands of the times without losing sight of its basic objective, also enables it to survive. In South Africa, too, the capitalist system holds the greatest advantages for us, so we must take a very careful look at the part to be played by management in South Africa.

I think we are entitled to make an appeal to managers of business enterprises from this hon. House today to help us develop the basic motivation of capitalism in our workers every day as a matter of the greatest urgency. I say this because they find themselves in the intimate employer/employee relationship. They find themselves in the contact situation where personal influence can make itself felt. No Government or party can ever ensure that every individual labourer will become a capitalist, and that is why it is the duty of management to perform this task in order to preserve the capitalist system. The basic capitalist motivation of self-sufficiency to the highest possible level can only be activated by one person in another, and preferably in the work situation, where employer and employee meet.

The way to do this is, firstly, to pay someone a fair wage, and when one has paid him a fair wage, one must ascertain what his special skills are and help him to develop them to the full, so that he will be able to earn the highest possible income. When he is earning the highest possible income, he must be helped to spend that income in the best possible way. In our schools and universities and on the shop-floor, people all help one another to earn more, but who helps them to spend that money in the right way? The way we spend our money still leaves much to be desired.

Let us examine what we mean when we speak of maximum self-sufficiency. A person who does not have a pension scheme at work becomes a burden on the State, and then the expenditure on pensions is an additional factor in the consumer expenditure of the State. Every enterprise ought to see to it that each of its employees is as self-sufficient as possible as far as medical schemes are concerned. Group life insurance schemes also encourage saving and self-sufficiency. And what could be more capitalist-orientated than to own one’s own house and to maintain it in a Western-orientated capitalist way? However, how many of our employers help their employees to acquire a house and, when they have acquired it, to maintain it in the right way?

These are all challenges which one could discuss at much greater length. On the one hand, they create a bigger problem as far as the profitability of the employer is concerned, for he is still operating primarily for gain, but in addition he has a social responsibility in our modern situation which he cannot escape. This confronts him with a challenge in respect of profitability and management, but in respect of human relations as well. The challenge is to instil this subtle capitalist motivation into each of his employees. This will eventually alleviate the burden of the State. It will also alleviate the pressure on the State to provide further facilities. There can be only one solution. The State and the private sector must work together. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say at the outset that I appreciated the speech made by the hon. member for Florida. I agree there is a need today for a sense of social responsibility to the community on the part of management.

I also believe that the same applies, and very much so, in the case of the State; it also has a role to play in this connection. I am going to refer to this again in what I have to say about the sugar industry.

Before I do that, I would first like to pay tribute to the S. A. Cane Growers’ Association. I am sure the hon. the Minister knows that they will be celebrating their golden jubilee on 9 August this year.

Not only do I know about it, but I shall be there!

I am very pleased to hear that.

He is as sweet as sugar!

I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree that during the past 50 years the cane growers have made a considerable contribution to the South African economy. Last year, the year 1976-’77, saw the cane growers produce a total of just over 19 million tons of cane which produced a record sugar crop of over 2 million tons for the first time. The total proceeds from this crop brought in R371 million to the industry and to South Africa. The exports alone earned R187 million in foreign exchange. Unfortunately, it was not as high as the previous year because the world price had dropped. In the previous year the industry earned for South Africa R206 million in foreign exchange. This is indeed a success story and I think we should all take cognizance of it.

However, having said this, I regret to say that today there are dark clouds on the horizon of the sugar industry. The hon. the Minister is well aware that last week the International Sugar Conference, which had been held in Geneva for the previous six weeks, collapsed. The negotiations collapsed and as a result there was no international sugar agreement which the South African producers were hoping for since it would have created stability not only in the international market, but also in the free market price of sugar. The chairman of the Sugar Association, Mr. Anton Lloyd, who has just returned to South Africa, was quoted in the Press as predicting that “the world sugar price is almost bound to drop in the next few weeks”.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us during his reply what his plans are for the sugar industry in the near future. I sincerely hope he is going to tell us that this time he is going to take heed of what the leaders of the sugar industry have to say in this connection. I say this because I believe—and I am sure that anybody connected with the sugar industry will agree with me—that this Government has made two major mistakes during the past five years.

Only two?

It has made two mistakes in respect of the sugar industry by not heeding the advice given by the leaders of the sugar industry. The first mistake it made concerns the price stabilization fund. I should like to explain at the outset that this fund was set up as a result of the findings of a governmental commission of enquiry. It was established and designed to cater for export fluctuations; not only fluctuations in export sales, but also fluctuations in export prices. This fund was not designed to subsidize the local price of sugar. The first mistake this Government made was in 1972 when the high export prices raised the price stabilization fund to some R43,5 million. I believe the hon. the Minister’s predecessor was trying to curry favour with the voters during that period of tremendous inflation when he saw fit to rob this fund by reducing the domestic price of sugar by R9,78 per ton. Fortunately, the world price reached totally unrealistic heights which pushed the price stabilization fund up to nearly R94 million, but once again the hon. the Minister’s predecessor robbed the fund by reducing the domestic price of sugar by a whopping 20% or R24 per ton at a time when South Africa was experiencing a period of tremendous inflation. Having done this, what happened the very next year, since 1975? The very next year the world price plunged down to about 20% of the level where it stood previously. Inflation continued, and as a result the price stabilization fund progressively dropped and at the conclusion of this season will stand at about R18 million, only because the Sugar Association had been prudent enough to sell forward at higher export prices. Had they not done this for this current season, the price stabilization fund would have been bust and the sugar industry would have been in a serious state of economic recession.

This drop in the price stabilization fund has occurred in spite of the fact that the hon. the Minister, since last year’s debate when I warned him about what was going to happen, increased the price of domestic sugar last year by a whopping R78 per ton in two price increases. I just want to warn the House that during the current year the cost of production of sugar is going to be R215,35 per ton. The domestic price is estimated to be R185,12 per ton. The subsidy which the sugar growers will be giving the South African consumer is therefore going to be of the order of R34,6 million. Over the past five years the sugar industry has subsidized the South African consumer to the tune of R256,6 million by selling their sugar on the local market at below cost.

Having said that, I believe that last year the hon. the Minister made the second mistake as far as the sugar industry is concerned. Because his predecessor had robbed the stabilization fund in order to curry favour with the consumer and the voter, the hon. the Minister could not implement the recommendations of an independent Board of Trade inquiry which was set up to investigate the sugar industry. This board of inquiry recommended that the sugar industry should have a realistic return on the capital invested in both farm and mill. In addition to this, despite the anti-inflation campaign having been terminated, the hon. the Minister is still only allowing the sugar industry to recover some 80% of the increased costs from the one year to the next. Therefore the policy of the Government is bleeding the sugar industry at this very moment, and has been doing so for the last two or three years, of greatly needed funds, funds which are required for investment in preparation for the next growth period. This is going to come, because the world market will improve. There is going to be a demand for sugar in the not too distant future in the world market. The history of commodity prices has proved this. But when this upswing comes, where is the South African sugar industry going to be placed relative to the rest of the international sugar industry? We are going to be lagging way behind countries such as Australia, thanks to this hon. Minister and the Government. In order to illustrate the way we are going under this hon. Minister and the policies of the Government I wish to quote a leading stockbroker who says—

This is the point I want to make, at a time when we are suffering from unemployment, at a time when we are needing foreign exchange, at a time when we should be gearing ourselves up for increased production and increased export sales, the sugar industry right now is finding itself hamstrung.

What are the export prices?

I am not interested in the export prices. I am interested in the basic economic principle that you cannot continue to sell an article at below cost. Why does not the hon. the Minister just admit that we are moving in a socialistic direction? Why does he not rather do what the hon. member for Florida says and really show this country that he believes in the free enterprise system? [Time expired.]

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, in his speech this morning the hon. member for Yeoville dwelt briefly on what he referred to as the failure of the Government’s anti-inflation programme. The short-term provisions of the anti-inflation programme came to an end at the end of March this year. This only means that the price and wage determinations in the programme ended then. There are many critics who allege that this programme has failed. There are critics who allege that the anti-inflation programme did not succeed because, as they put it, the economic growth rate has decreased and the rate of inflation increased from 1974 to the present.

It amazes me that some of the critics have not yet decided to organize a symposium on the question of why the anti-inflation campaign failed. The hon. the Minister of Planning correctly remarked this morning that our small nation is fond of organizing symposiums. They could perhaps investigate the matter by way of a symposium. By the way, they also say that the anti-inflation programme was a waste of money. According to them the only drop was that in the rate of inflation. They also allege that prices continue to increase.

I should like to pay tribute to the hon. the Minister and to those who were involved in the campaign. Then, however, I want to put the question: What would have happened if there had been no anti-inflation programme or manifesto? The struggle against inflation was largely a question of self-discipline. I think that the fundamental idea of the anti-inflation programme was to teach people to discipline themselves in regard to the provision of their own comforts and their own requirements. Therefore I feel myself at liberty to say—and this has been proved recently in the negotiations of the hon. the Minister of Labour with certain trade unions—that they limited their wage demands, that they were moderate in the action they took and that they said that they were sympathetic to the problems of the Government.

I think that the anti-inflation programme worked miracles as far as the economic discipline of our people is concerned. In my view it is essential for the rate of inflation to decrease. There are people and bodies predicting that the rate of inflation will decrease. I have here a report which was drawn up by an economist from one of our largest commercial banks. In this report he alleges that the rate of inflation will decrease to 9% in 1978, amongst other things because of the strict monetary and fiscal measures of the Government. This man states—and I agree with him—that the strict monetary and fiscal measures of the Government, and the attempts on the part of the people to discipline themselves, have made extensive contributions towards decreasing our rate of inflation and to the improvement in our balance of payments position. Amongst other things, this economist states that it is important to continue with the present strict monetary and fiscal measures of the Government if we want to keep a further check on the rate of inflation. Secondly, this economist alleges—and he alleges that it is good and this did happen and will happen again in the future—that there will be fewer drastic increases in administered prices. Thirdly, of course, foreign suppliers of our capital requirements will also have to keep a check on their price increases.

The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and his departments, and this includes the Government, of which he forms a part, did a great deal to try to strengthen the economy of our country under difficult circumstances. One of the things we can be very proud of today, and which even those who are not our friends—politically speaking—can be very proud of, is the Government’s achievement in erecting the two harbours of Richards Bay and Saldanha Bay under difficult conditions. Those two harbours mean a great deal for our export industry today. On 19 May this year The Argus wrote the following under the headline “Record Export Boom Begins for South Africa”—

It is an achievement on the part of the Government to have accomplished, in difficult circumstances, something which South Africa will be proud of and will pick the rich fruits of in the years ahead.

I should like to deal with another matter. Perhaps it is not all that important to some people, but I nevertheless do think that it is important. I think that the hon. the Minister should talk to the Minister of National Education, who in turn must discuss the matter with the administrators of the provinces, because I am of the opinion that the time has come for us to teach pupils a little more about economics and the laws of economy at school. All of us went to school and studied history—a subject which I attach great value to. We learnt dozens of dates and facts such as the terms which ended the seventh or eighth Xhosa war, and we had to detail them from A to Z. Pupils do involved arithmetical calculations at school and spend hours on dissecting a frog. These are all things we never use again as adults. Nowhere in the school syllabuses, however, do I find provision being made for a subject in which the pupils can learn something about economics and the laws of economics. [Interjections.] If hon. member would be a little less enthusiastic about my speech—something I nevertheless do appreciate—I would like to quote what a big businessman said recently, something I fully agree with—

It is important to remember that advertising is very specialized today. For us the art of selling has become an expert industry in recent years. The school-leaver is faced with the experts in the advertising sphere and experts in the art of selling, and before that young boy or girl knows what has happened, he or she has bought a car or one, two or three expensive suits. Often these are unnecessary items. That is why I want to make these representations to ask the hon. the Minister to talk to his colleague, the hon. the Minister of National Education, who in turn will talk to the school authorities so that more time can be devoted to this aspect in the syllabuses. It is important that our children know more about the value of the free economy and economic discipline. Our young people should know more about productivity, economic patriotism, patterns of spending and the logic of saving. These are all things which our children are absolutely ignorant about when they matriculate or even when they complete their university studies.

I want to conclude by mentioning a point which also bothers me. I do not think it is the fault of the hon. the Minister or anyone else. The hon. the Minister is very outspoken when it comes to “economic patriotism”. If I look at South Africa’s import and export figures, however, I see that in 1975, a year of recession, there were quite a number of unnecessary items which were imported, unnecessary because we produce them ourselves. Items of the value of R400 million were imported during that year of recession. I refer to items such as brooms, spades, rulers, washing pegs, wine and shoes. Those are items which can be produced in South Africa and are already produced here, and the quality is just as good if not better than that of items which are imported. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am rising at this stage, not to react to the arguments of hon. members, but to make certain general remarks. However, in the course of his speech the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens made one statement to which I should like to react at this point. He said that I, as the Minister of Economic Affairs, was responsible for the running of the economy. He said that in this particular regard I was a captive of my party’s political policy. By saying that he made an implicit statement to which I now want to react. I refer to the divisibility or otherwise of the economy and politics. [Interjections.] The hon. member says “yes”. I am pleased he says “yes”, because that affords me the opportunity to put a question to him. In view of the fact that his party is at present seeking a political policy for South Africa, how is he going to find the connection between the economy and the political policy he intends to propound?

Our policy has always been aimed at a strong and sound economy.

I want to make the statement that our country’s military and physical preparedness depends on the country’s economic strength. I should like to make a second statement in this connection: Our economic strength or lack of it determines the political options we have in South Africa to resolve the country’s relations questions. On the other hand, it is equally true that the political dispensation in South Africa, and even the international political dispensation, have a direct effect on the course of the economy.

That is why we must realize that when we attempt to determine and evaluate the course of the country’s economy we cannot do so if we ignore the political events in the outside world or the political events in our own country. We shall have to realize, too, that when we try to find answers to the economic problems of our country, the answers are not to be found in economic causes only, but can also be found in an international scene of political ideologies which have a decided effect on our circumstances in South Africa and in Southern Africa.

I think that if we did so we should understand the interrelatedness between our preparedness and our resources in all areas of life. We should not doubt that when we attempt to find the solutions and the means whereby to solve our economic problems, we shall have to concern ourselves with a very wide range of activities. It has been said, and it is no new idea, that the struggle and the threats to our country are a total and all-embracing struggle, one which does not manifest itself solely in the military or terrorist threats to our borders or in the international political councils of the world, but which also manifests itself in what is quite probably the most vulnerable side of our life, namely our economic life. Perhaps it would be irresponsible to suggest that there is a simplistic explanation of our economic circumstances. I would say that it would be petty to imply that South Africa’s internal political policy is the cause of the condemnation of our country in the councils of the world. In recent weeks we have achieved consensus among all political parties in our country for the first time, and what was the issue? It was that it was impossible for us in South Africa to accept a political system which could satisfy the Western world. Having said that, I say that it is still true that there was a stage when hon. members on that side of the House levelled at this Government the accusation that the policy of the NP was the cause of the condemnation of this country in the outside world.

Of course.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout says “of course”. The hon. member is the chief spokesman on foreign affairs and I now want to ask of him: Does he agree with the demands which the USA sets the Republic of South Africa? The hon. member must not shake his head …

We are still going to discuss that.

The hon. member states that it is true, and that is why I now put the question to him. The people he fraternises with are people who say that they cannot get away from the fact that violence is an answer to our problems. Those are the people that that hon. member fraternises with.

Talk about economic affairs.

I am doing that. If that infant over there does not have a dummy to keep him occupied, he should bear in mind that the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, their chief spokesman on economic affairs, said that my party’s political policy was the cause of our economic problems.

It is a fact, after all; why don’t you admit it?

I wonder whether the hon. member should not go over to the PRP. Then he could be overseas, because in any event he is far removed from us. I should like to speak to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens if possible, because he broached the subject. I am replying to him in that regard. I wonder whether the hon. member will agree with me that the course of the economy in our own country is due to external factors. I wonder whether the hon. member would not be prepared to agree with me that when we analyse the causes of our economic circumstances, we encounter factors over which we have no control. In the first place I should like to ask the hon. member whether it is not a fact that the events in Angola did have an effect on the evalutation by overseas countries of the stability of Southern Africa in general and also of South Africa? I want to ask the hon. member whether South Africa was responsible for the events in Angola. Did the Western world and the leaders of the Western world play a part in settling the problems in Angola in favour of the Western world? Is South Africa responsible for the fact that a Marxist minority is in power in Mozambique? Is South Africa responsible for the fact that a solution of the political question in Rhodesia is a subject of discussion in the international councils of the world? Does the hon. member agree with me that although South Africa is not responsible for what happens on its borders, what has happened has had an effect on the course of the economy of the country? I want to ask him whether it is not true that the flow of capital to our country has in fact been influenced by those events?

What about your economic policy?

I am coming to that; the hon. member must give me a chance. I shall come to that. I am dealing with one charge levelled by hon. members opposite. It is their simplistic conclusion that the economic problems we are saddled with are due to the actions, or failure to act, of this Government. I should so like to ask whether, in spite of our differences as regards the way in which the relations issues of our country should be solved, we will not at least be prepared, when discussing the economy of our country— which, we all agree, forms the basis of our total capacity to defend ourselves and our total capacity to put our political options into effect and implement our policy—to recognize, for the sake of the lives and continued existence of all of us, that there are factors and influences which affect the conditions in our country, influences that do not originate on our own soil. I say in all humility that that is not an unreasonable request. If I am to evaluate and appraise the speeches of hon. members opposite, then in all fairness, what is the sum total of what the hon. members are trying to say? What is the sum total of their criticism? It is that one need only change the political course of South Africa for all blessings to descend upon one. What are the facts? Let us just see if this is true. Is the policy of the official Opposition acceptable to the outside world? Is it acceptable to the Black people in South Africa? The reply is “no”, and when I say that I am not passing judgment. I am not reproaching the hon. members for this. Is the policy of the PRP acceptable? The answer is “no”. The fact is that there is no party in this House whose political policy is acceptable to the powers that want to control Africa. They are not acceptable to the outside world. They are not even acceptable to the Western world. It is on record that the leader of the PRP and his party—and hon. members know who their friends are—are not in favour of the demands made by the leaders of the West. If we agree with each other—and I want to appeal to hon. members if we agree on this—then can we not find common ground in the area for which I am responsible? Can we not find common ground and say that we should like to strengthen our country economically so that, irrespective of the political policy that applies, we shall at least be able to improve the quality of life in South Africa for all its people? It is true that our country is threatened and it is true that this threat manifests itself in every sphere of our society. But it is also true that we in South Africa cannot bow to the demands of the West or to those of the communists. We all agree on that. Can we in this country not, then, be mature enough to reach agreement in this sphere for the sake of our common aims, even though we differ as to our means of achieving them? Looking at the summary by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens of the problems of our economy I agree with him on the circumstances but I want to ask him what solution he puts forward for these questions. He will have another opportunity to speak and I want to ask him, in all fairness, to tell us what solution he has to offer.

Secondly, I want to ask whether the course of economic events in the countries with which we have traditional links have not also had an effect on our present circumstances? I am not implying for a moment that all our difficulties and all our problems are of foreign origin. All I ask is that matters be seen in perspective.

The hon. member for Constantia asked me whether the internal unrest did not have an effect on our economy. Yes it did.

Due to your domestic policy!

I am coming to that. This same domestic policy has made of South Africa a country which, for 25 years, has been characterized by stability in every sphere. The hon. member knows it. He cannot deny that until about three years ago, South Africa was praised for its economic growth and stability. South Africa was praised for its political stability. The hon. member knows, too, that over the past three years there have been changes in the economic structure which have not been due to any domestic action on our part or to any neglect on South Africa’s part. For example, was South Africa responsible for the energy crisis in the world? Was South Africa responsible for the resultant inability among the countries of Western Europe to accumulate capital? Did South Africa increase its expenditure on security matters in order to ensure domestic peace or to defend our borders? Was South Africa responsible for the 50% drop in the gold price? When we give an opinion on our country, can we not at least be prepared, for the sake of our common aims, to refrain from constantly running down and condemning our country? I want to provide the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens with an answer. The question he put can be asked and even the accusation which was made, can be answered. Do we, in the present circumstances, have an overall strategy with which to find the answers to our conditions? I concede at once that there are many people who question the Government’s policy measures in the present circumstances; that there are many people who are asking whether it is not time for steps to be taken which could result in a revival of economic activities and growth in our country.

There are people who go so far—I can understand this—as to accuse us of having no planned overall strategy or guidelines—this came up again in the debate—which could serve as a guide to the private sector in taking its own business decisions for the future. I do not intend to evade this criticism. There are people—hon. members have done so in the course of the debate and they are fully entitled to do so—who have even called into question the policy priorities which the Government endorses and emphasizes for the recovery of the country’s economic growth rate. There are people, writing in economic and financial journals, who are often motivated by economic and political considerations, who question the course we have adopted. It is a fact that we have been experiencing recessionary conditions to which the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens referred for almost three years. I think that the causes of these recessionary conditions and the merit of the measures we are taking in the circumstances to combat the recessionary conditions and place our country and its economy on the road to growth and development once more, have been stated repeatedly here and elsewhere. I do not wish to weary hon. members by discussing them now at any length. I think it is time for all of us to ask whether the economic recession we are faced with has not made it essential for all sectors of the community, including the Government, myself and my department, to be clear in regard to our respective responsibilities in our striving to further the country’s economic stability. I want to stress this. I truly believe that all the inhabitants of our country have a common interest in the realization of this one great aim. I believe not only that it is in our interests, but also that all of us have a responsibility to endeavour to attain this goal. I believe we ought to be unanimous as to this overall goal.

I think it may be useful to attempt to define the responsibility of all sections involved in our economic life. I want to say at once to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, the hon. member for Yeoville and all other hon. members that I believe it would be wrong if I were not prepared to subject the Government and also my own responsibility in this connection to scrutiny. We are not guiltless. But it ought to be clear to all of us that all groups in our society have a responsibility and if one or all should neglect to carry out this responsibility, the end result of our joint efforts, which, I think, is something we also have in common, would have to be written off. In summary, I want to refer in this connection to the fact that we know that the country’s present economic circumstances are partly, if not largely, due to external factors.

I just want to stress that these factors, which exercise an influence from outside on the course of the economy, are not only economic factors. Political circumstances, too, have this effect. I want to stress this today, because I want hon. members to have no doubt on this score, and I think it is important for me to say today that it is vital that everyone who lives in this country—whether White, Brown, Asian or Black—should realize that in the final analysis, a strong economy is the best defence we have with which to defend our country. We may differ on how the conflicting aspirations of the various peoples and population groups in the country are to be regulated. We may differ on the best method of resolving this conflict situation, but we cannot evade our responsibility to do so, and in fulfilling that responsibility we must learn the lessons of Africa. We must understand and realize that it is not possible in South Africa to carry out what I consider to be the task of politics, namely to eliminate the potential for conflict and prevent potential conflict, if we are not prepared also to learn the lessons of the continent to which we belong.

Our domestic political policies and our race relations are the basis of South Africa’s stability. However, I want to stress that there are limits to our country’s ability to accommodate the disruptive effect of foreign demands made on our country. I am not prepared, and the Government is not prepared, to be dictated to by outside demands as to the solutions to our problems, but rather by the requirements of right and justice to the domestic population. There are limits to South Africa’s ability to counter the disruptive effect of the political demands made from outside, and there are limits, too, to South Africa’s ability to counter the disruptive effect of the economic events abroad. Subject to these two conditions I believe, in fact I am convinced, that it is possible for our community as a whole to reach agreement on the kind of action to which all sections and all sectors—public and private—of our population ought to commit themselves at this stage in a joint effort to put South Africa back on the road to economic prosperity and recovery. That is what I want to advocate today. It is possible.

I should like to conclude this part of my speech by referring, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, to the responsibilities of the State in this connection. I do not intend to maintain or imply that the State does not have a role to play. I believe it does have a role. I believe that it is the responsibility of the Government to counteract our present circumstances with the aid of its monetary and fiscal measures and also with the aid of other measures, and to endeavour to achieve aims conducive to the resumption of our economic growth, if necessary with the aid of, and at a later stage through the implementation of, a general policy of stimulation of the growth rate. However, hon. members know that in order to take this particular step, certain things are necessary. In the second place, I believe that the Government will have to decide how long it will be possible to maintain the present restrictive policies without deepening the economic recession to such an extent that the process of recovery may subsequently be more difficult and lengthy than may be in the interests of the country. I want to stress that the present restrictive measures necessarily place a damper on the initiative of private entrepreneurial groups.

I should like to take a critical look at this. This immediately brings us to the question of the length of time for which the present restrictive measures should be imposed. In the third place—and I do not wish to evade this—in the implementation of its economic and socio-political policies, the Government—and this is perhaps the most important factor—must strive to create the most favourable possible conditions for the resumption of fixed investment in the production capacity of the variojjs branches of our country’s industry.

Do you reckon this Government can ever do that?

In all fairness, Mr. Chairman, I should like to answer the hon. member for Durban Point in a single sentence. He and his party colleagues have had the benefit of the planning and insight of the NP Government—economical and otherwise—for the past 29 years. [Interjections.]

And the bitter fruits today!

Mr. Chairman, I should not like to enter into debate with the hon. member. However, I want to ask the hon. member to show me one comparable country in the world whose achievements over the past three years, in the face of threats as of those faced by South Africa and with the recession in its economy, have been equal to those of South Africa. I ask the hon. member to show me one such country. However, the problem is that the point of departure of the hon. member for Durban Point is a petty one, in the sense that instead of joining us—despite our differences—in discussing the inherent strength of our country and condemning the powers that seek to destroy us, the hon. member’s political aspirations are greater than his love for his country.

Name me one country with South Africa’s potential that has made less of it than we have. [Interjections.]

I am honestly trying, in all fairness, to be as impartial as possible. The realization of the aims to which I referred, require of the Government that it maintain internal peace and order. This is a responsibility it cannot evade, viz. the responsibility, in spite of the hon. member over there on the other side, to maintain peaceful relations among the various population groups of our country. It is also our responsibility to develop this in order to ensure contented co-existence for all the people in this multinational country. I am not now theorising about the Government’s responsibility. Show me a country which has undergone more institutional change than South Africa has over the past decade. However, because the changes in South Africa have been the consequence of evolutionary development and not the result of revolution, they have not been dramatic enough to be remarked.

The fact remains that the NP has placed South Africa on the road to evolutionary development and has given effect to the rights of nations and people in a manner unequalled elsewhere in the world. However, South Africa does not get recognition for this. On the contrary. I want to ask the hon. member for Parktown and the hon. member for Yeoville to what extent their small group is responsible for the creation of expectations among the people of South Africa that cannot be fulfilled.

The hon. member for Yeoville asked what I was going to do in connection with the economic expectations of the Black people. I, in turn, want to ask him: What about the Frankenstein of unfulfilled expectations which the PRP has created and is still creating among the people of South Africa? [Interjections.] I shall come back to this matter.

Furthermore, I think that we shall have to make an unremitting and all-out effort. I want to explain to the hon. member the strategy which I think we should adopt. Apart from the efforts being made on the domestic front, we shall also have to make an unremitting and all-out effort to improve South Africa’s relations with other countries. We shall have to make a constructive contribution to the preservation of economic and political stability, not only in South Africa but in Southern Africa as well.

Let us dwell on this for a moment and test the validity of the statement. With how many countries in Africa does South Africa have trade relations? The answer is 48. South Africa has trade relations with 162 countries of the world. That is the greatest guarantee and insurance premium we have to ensure that our country does not become isolated. I honestly believe in what I see as our responsibility. The Government has committed itself to meet its responsibility in the fields to which I have referred and I believe that it is carrying it out. As far as the aims and policies of the State are concerned, I believe that we are justified in saying that within the specific responsibility of the Government we have an economic strategy which we are making a considered effort to carry out.

What is the responsibility of the private entrepreneurial groups in the country? I have not heard it said by a single hon. member on that side of the House that these groups have any responsibility. If I failed to hear correctly, hon. members must tell me what their responsibilities in fact are. The private sector must withstand the temptation to take its business decisions in the circumstances we have at present and to allow themselves to be influenced to an exaggerated extent by the unfavourable course of our country’s economy. I need not stress—because it is true—that there is a tendency among businessmen to over-react to the fluctuations in the country’s economic conditions and prospects. I think the entrepreneur will have to realize that he must exercise the greatest self-control in regard to price increases. If there is one thing that the anti-inflation programme—to which the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens referred in such disparaging terms—has taught us, it is, firstly, our collective responsibility to deal with our problems and, secondly, a more stringent discipline than before in regard to programmes of expenditure in the business world, among labour groups and on the part of the State itself. It is appropriate that we should give recognition to the efforts made in this regard, efforts which, for the most part, have been made by the private sector.

I think that our businessmen in the private sector have a third responsibility, and that is that they should allow their decision-taking to be determined by an attitude of “We will have to sweat it out.” It is of cardinal importance that under present circumstances they should adopt a realistic approach with regard to their own managerial abilities and production. A feeling of “We will have to sweat it out” is dangerous because it contributes nothing and instead makes people tend to sit back and allow the inevitable sweating-out process which they feel is taking place, to take its course, without displaying the initiative which in my opinion is essential for the improvement of our business activities in general. Our industrialists have to contend with unutilized production capacity. They must make it their aim to use this capacity and display a greater degree of initiative and to produce so as to prepare themselves for both the local market and the export market and subsequently, if necessary, to make new investments, because one has to make new investments after a slack period.

The hon. member referred to Assocom and the criticism they advanced. However, there is little difference between us if I were to say that one of the conditions for an economic upswing and growth is a favourable balance of payments and a favourable reserve situation. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens is nodding in agreement. The hon. member for Worcester pointed out in passing that our imports of consumer goods run to R400 million per annum. My question to the hon. member is: Who is importing all this? Is it not the members of Assocom, among others? On Sunday evenings we embrace the moralists from America or wherever it may be, but on Mondays we import and we do not think about the employment opportunities of which we are depriving our Black people and other people by channelling the limited existing demand to foreign goods. The hon. member would do us a favour if he could succeed in talking about this matter with Assocom.

I cannot compel people not to import without damaging South Africa’s trade relations. However, the people who do import will do well to show a new patriotism towards our country and the people for whose interests they say they are the apologists.

I concede that our rate of inflation is too high, but I feel that our entrepreneurs should effect cost savings and in this connection I believe that our entrepreneurial groups could still make a very significant contribution to our overall strategy.

As far as our workers’ groups are concerned, I should like to refer to the vast majority of the income-earning consumer groups in the country. They can make a major contribution, not only by working harder, but also by working productively and efficiently.The hon. member for Florida is correct in this connection because it is largely the function of management to be able to ensure that they do so. They can do so by way of self-control in regard to prices and wages. Over the past 18 months to two years we have learnt from experience of the realistic approach of the leaders of workers’ groups in our country, who say that they are prepared to carry short-term burdens for the sake of the long-term prosperity of our country. Some of our businessmen display the same self-control in regard to prices and price increases. However, there are also some of them who do not do so. I want to repeat that if we are to retain the system and if we want to make South Africa a prosperous country, this discipline will have to form part of our everyday life.

The final point I want to make in this specific connection is that I believe that it will have to be one of the cardinal aspects of our overall economic objectives to impose obligations on all the sectors, in other words the authorities, the entrepreneurs, the workers and the consumers, to adapt our consumption requirements to a far greater extent so as to be more orientated towards the goods and services made or provided in South Africa. This also includes the professional services rendered in our country. Under present circumstances it is essential that we use the best method—that is the best method—to help alleviate the disturbing problem of unemployment.

If we were to speak about an overall strategy, economically speaking, a strategy in difficult circumstances, then as I see it, the essential elements of the strategy—they are not necessarily exhaustive or final—will have to be determined by the following factors: Firstly, the maintenance of peace and order and the furtherance of friendly relations with countries that are disposed to be reasonable, but not with countries that prescribe a formula for the abdication of the Whites in South Africa. This is a price which South Africa may not and cannot pay for the sake of the Black, Brown and Indian population groups of our country. The second factor is the remedying of the situation so that we can have an economic upswing. The third factor is the expansion of production, the combating of inflation and more effective management in our country. A further factor is that of maintaining self-control in regard to wages and also salaries and price increases. Furthermore, consideration must be given to the more extensive utilization of the goods and services of our country with a consequent improvement in our balance of payments on the current account and also the alleviation of our unemployment problem. The final factor is the necessity for capital to be found to replace foreign capital by bringing about greater savings in South Africa itself.

I have attempted to begin by giving an indication of what I feel our policy and strategy for the future ought to be. Let me say at once that it is not the sole prerogative of this side of the House nor of the public sector to do so. I think the stage has been reached where South Africa will have to understand that a counter-strategy is essential in the light of the worldwide struggle. Then we shall understand that our economic strength and prosperity is a precondition for preparedness in every other sphere.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister made what was virtually a speech of reconciliation here. I think he was being very honest and sincere, and I appreciated it. The hon. the Minister was virtually confessing. He said one should not be blind to one’s faults, and he was prepared to say that the Government, too, had made mistakes. I appreciate his saying this, because the Government has made a great many mistakes.

Oh, no. It is not that bad, Boet!

Just do not say that it has not made any mistakes. If the hon. member says that, I shall condemn him, too, and then the picture in this House will be different! The hon. the Minister said many true things. He said we should realize that the state of our economy was dependent on what was happening abroad and was also dependent on politics in South Africa. I want to acknowledge that he is perfectly right in this regard. One of our biggest problems today is the confidence crisis in South Africa. One may say that this confidence crisis was created, in the first instance, by the domestic policy of the Government. It may have played a role in this regard. Let me say quite frankly, however, that the unreasonable demands which are being made by the outside world today, have very definitely contributed to this confidence crisis. Unreasonable demands were made by Mr. Mondale in particular when he spoke of “full political participation”, “one man, one vote” and “every vote with an equal rating”. This creates fear in the minds of foreign investors and in the minds of many of South Africa’s own people and makes them doubt whether we shall be able to maintain our position in South Africa. This is one of the major contributory factors. But let us now come to the investors. We must not be sentimental about a businessman. A businessman is a cold person because he first looks to his profits and then looks to see whether his investments are safe.

I do not want to hurt people here in this House today, but the people who speak so readily of “one man, one vote” and who create the impression of allegedly being the champions of “one man, one vote”, are as responsible for creating a lack of confidence in this country as are the people here whose policy is not quite right. I do not want to engage in any mud-slinging today, but many wrong things have been done over the years. I do not want to castigate anyone today, because to do so will not be in keeping with the spirit in which the hon. the Minister spoke. The Minister was prepared to confess and to say that the Government, too, had made mistakes. It is in this spirit that I am going to accept what he said. I have here in my possession a long speech I intended to make in order to take the Government to task, but considering the spirit in which the hon. the Minister spoke, I am going to deal with him very gently as he was being very sincere in my opinion. If we can proceed in that spirit, be sincere with one another and act in the interests of South Africa, it will be to the advantage of everyone. This side of the House often had the answers. The hon. the Minister also made a speech on relations here and I could devote hours to replying to him if I wanted to.

Our party has often asked whether we cannot do something to remove colour from politics so as to deal with it in a committee similar to the system being followed in America. We have called for an end to be made to members in this House, White against White, constantly outbidding one another for the non-Whites. These things have been said by this side of the House. That is the spirit in which the hon. the Minister spoke and that is the spirit in which I shall accept it.

I want to raise a few things about my constituency today. Firstly, I want to talk about the Berlin complex. I want to talk to the hon. the Minister in his capacity as the hon. the Minister providing the incentives for decentralization. For years we have been told how this complex is going to be developed. Election after election we have been told how industrial development is going to take place there. Yet we find today that Berlin has never actually got off the ground. I think the hon. the Minister will concede that I am right in this regard. What is the problem there? Firstly, one finds that the chief asset of the Eastern Province is East London harbour.

You are talking to the Minister of Economic Affairs and not to the Minister of Transport.

That hon. member does not know what he is talking about, because at the moment we are dealing with the decentralization of industries. Now we find that the Government has decided to turn Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and Durban into container harbours. Is it possible for one to imagine the effect this is going to have on East London? Secondly we find that in terms of the freight agreement, the shipping tariff from Europe to Cape Town and Port Elizabeth is the same. As far as Durban and East London are concerned, the tariff is the same too, but a much higher tariff than the one for Port Elizabeth and Cape Town. That is why one will find that Port Elizabeth will always have an advantage over East London and that Durban, too, will have an advantage over East London as the tariff is the same and Durban is much closer to the Rand, which is the economic artery of South Africa. This being the case, exporters will naturally forward their products to Durban instead of to East London.

And that is right too.

That is why East London is receiving Cinderella treatment. We know, however, that the hon. the Minister introduced railway rebates, but to what avail is that? See what has become of the planning. One gives railway rebates on the one hand, but on the other hand prejudices the harbour. Those railway rebates cannot make up those differences, and the result is that one has an overcrowded harbour at Durban while one has a harbour in the Eastern Province which can handle 90% of all container ships in South Africa, but is being totally neglected by the hon. the Minister.

But you yourself have the answer to that.

So much as regards East London. But what is the other problem? Let us examine the way in which East London is being discriminated against as far as electricity is concerned. The Kwh cost in East London is R8,36 per unit. In Port Elizabeth it is R4,18, virtually half that of East London. The cost to the Western Cape is R5,32, and to the Eastern Transvaal R3,24.

What is the cost in Durban?

I do not have Durban’s cost. I do not have the figures for the whole country. The hon. the Minister must not laugh about that. There are many members here. The members from Natal can go into that. Shall we ever be able to develop that area when the cost if R8,36 per unit as against R3,24 to the Eastern Transvaal and R4,18 to Port Elizabeth? Surely, in these circumstances, the hon. the Minister cannot be giving serious consideration to developing that area. I want to address an appeal to the hon. the Minister today. If he is in earnest as regards the development of that area, there must be standard rates for electricity throughout South Africa.

Then I want to come to rail transport. The difficulty with the border areas is that their biggest clients are on the Rand which means that everything must be sent to the Rand. With the recession we are experiencing at the moment, people do not carry such large stocks and consequently they have to place orders more often. Mr. Chairman, with all respect towards the Railways, you know how long it takes the Railways to get a thing to Johannesburg. It is simply an impossible affair. Unless the hon. the Minister is prepared to recommend that a road transportation service be introduced to Johannesburg, the matter will not be rectified either. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who spoke before me, discussed a local matter which the hon. the Minister will probably reply to. Therefore, the hon. member must excuse me if I do not react to his speech.

One of the most striking objections and even complaints today, from the circles in the business and industrial world in particular, is that the Government is exercising more and more control over the regulation of man’s individual, as well as his collective and social life, over the past few decades. It is in any event one of the dominant characteristics of the post-war period, that the more life becomes organized on a collective basis, the more aspects of private life are brought under the control of public administration in its many forms. A great deal has been said, and volumes have been written, about the necessity, the justification and the dangers of increasing public administrative control. The modern industrialized and technological structure of society cannot exist without authority any more than could the most primitive tribe. State intervention in a system, of free enterprise is a phenomenon in most of the Western democracies today. The danger of this so-called creeping socialism is that it takes place unnoticed and often at the invitation of private sectors which wants too much protection in the form of tariff concessions, etc.

Having made these general statements, I should like to deal with Dr. Wassenaar’s book, Assault on Private Enterprise. I want to begin by conceding immediately that Dr. Wassenaar advanced a number of valid arguments in regard to certain matters, although I think that some of his arguments can be considered far-fetched. I think that Dr. Wassenaar is being too negative and that he does not write enough about the inherent strength of our country and concentrates chiefly on the weaknesses which he observes. For the writer, nationalization is a term which he interprets in a very wide sense. He equates it with communism. That is why the sub-title of his book is “The Freeway to Communism”. This description would obviously have caused a stir, but it is a generalization which is scientifically inaccurate, and it is understandable that it would cause indignation. On page 28 he says—

On page 30 he goes on to say—

Consequently, to Dr. Wassenaar communism is synonymous with nationalization. That is why, according to his view, all taxation, all price control, all legal provisions concerning labour relations, all prescriptions concerning the establishment of industries, all interest rate control measures, the establishment of Iscor, Sasol and so on, must be considered as nationalization. Therefore it is clear that his whole argument is based on his definition of “nationalization”. This definition is seriously warped, for the following reasons: Firstly, all capitalist Governments have the right to levy tax. Secondly, as the modern industrial society in the West became more complex, it necessitated greater control. Thirdly, the establishment of a public corporation cannot be seen as nationalization.

In the book The New Industrial State, the author indicates that the so-called socialization of the Western capitalist system forms part of an unavoidable process of development due to the greater complexity of modern industrial civilization, which is dominated by the technological structure. For instance, the author concludes as follows, and I quote—

He wrote this book as long ago as 1966. I quote further—

But what does the Financial Mail of 4 February 1977 say on page 283? The title is “The Colossi at the Cape”. The introductory paragraph which I should like to quote, reads as follows—

The title page mentions no fewer than 103 “major investments”, in which these two groups do have a controlling interest. I quote further from the title page—

On page 286 of the Financial Mail the author concludes as follows—

I think that this article speaks volumes. Unfortunately, time does not allow me to enlarge on this at greater length. In the time still at my disposal, however, I want to react to a few other statements by Dr. Wassenaar. When he criticizes the decision with regard to the number of companies—television companies—he is actually upsetting his own plea by already criticizing the Government for not having intervened more purposefully by allowing only three, instead of six, companies. It is also unfair to hold it against the Government that television sets are being manufactured in Lesotho and in Swaziland.

Furthermore, it is difficult to agree with Dr. Wassenaar that a greater degree of intervention by the authorities, for instance in compulsory Government bonds, represents a “high way to communism”. In connection with the article which I quoted from Financial Mail, the question may arise as to whether the authorities do not lay down this condition in order to bring about greater security in the investment of companies. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Smithfield, that historical constituency, on his fine, positive contribution. It is worthy of the Free State.

Hear, hear!

We are grateful for the exceptional degree of prosperity we are able to enjoy in this country. In past years this was greatly to our advantage. Unfortunately, prosperity also has its drawbacks. Apart from the fact that prosperity promotes a love of luxury and that it undermines the backbone of a nation, it also entails drawbacks for the economy of a country.

In times of sustained prosperity, impurities occur in the economy of a country, impurities which must be eliminated at some stage or other. Impurities have slipped into our economy too. We shall have now to get rid of these impurities again.

I want to refer to some of those impurities. One of the biggest problems is to be found in human nature. In times of prosperity, remuneration for work usually rises out of proportion with work performance and people are tempted to live beyond their means. This usually has very detrimental consequences. An investigation in this regard has just been completed by the University of the Orange Free State. From data which was obtained from 109 South African businesses, it is apparent that the wages of Black people have increased by 54,4% over the past three years and that the wages of Whites have increased by 30% during the same period. Here we have had too rapid a narrowing of the wage gap. This does not, however, bother me so much.

What is, however, alarming, is that 82,5% of the employers who were approached in the course of the investigation, said that productivity had not increased proportionately with the above-mentioned wage increases. The question therefore arises as to whether the economy of a country is able to absorb without adverse effects a continual increase in salaries and wages out of proportion to work performance. A red light is flashing for our economy here.

We have a very loyal, responsible workers’ corps in this country and we do not want to blame our workers. We are, however, faced with a serious problem.

I want to refer to a very reliable international study undertaken by the Union Bank of Switzerland in connection with working hours and leave in 37 countries. If the following four professions are taken into consideration for the purposes of this study, namely bank cashier, motor mechanic, bus driver and departmental store manager, it becomes apparent that on the average, South Africans had 3% working days’ leave per annum more than people in other countries. South Africans also worked 1% working hours less per week than people in other countries. Therefore we have longer holidays and shorter working hours than the other 37 countries. Do hon. members think that a developing country like South Africa can afford to adopt the working and vacation habits of old, established countries? After all, if a young man adopts the habits of an old one, he is looking for trouble. We cannot carry on in this way in South Africa. It is a matter deserving of the most serious attention of the trade unions and employers. They must see to it that greater productivity is achieved.

I want to refer to another problem. The hon. the Minister also referred to it. In the years of unprecedented prosperity, many of us fell into the habit of buying indiscriminately. In particular we cultivated the habit of buying expensive imported goods. We know that the hon. the Minister has already done a great deal to discourage the importation of non-essential goods, but if one looks at the list of the imported goods, it amazes one that we import what we do. In one year we imported whiskey to the value of R12 million. We imported wine to the value of R6 million, whereas we produce some of the best wines in the world in South Africa. Furthermore, we imported tobacco to the value of R9,4 million, knitted shirts—imagine—to the value of R5,4 million, children’s toys to the value of R2 million and even brooms and brushes of more than R2 million and dusters and washing pegs for hundreds of thousands of rands.

By buying South African and buying fewer luxury goods, we can serve South Africa in three ways. Firstly, we strengthen our country’s balance of payments because we are saving international money. Secondly, we strengthen our growth rate because demand is rechannelled towards the local market. Thirdly, we can help to keep inflation in hand by buying South African because we have cost inflation and not demand inflation at the moment. It is the considered opinion of economists that selective purchases of more South African goods can bring about an annual saving in currency of between R400 million and R500 million. In this regard the housewife in particular can play a very major role, because three-quarters of our consumer expenditure is done by women. The women of the country decide on purchases to the massive amount of R12 milliard.

It does not stop there, however. More imported goods can be locally produced and in this way we can create employment opportunities for the unemployed. It should be a challenge to the industrialists in South Africa. The people who are so fond of buying luxury imported goods, must remember that South Africa needs that currency very badly for other essential purposes. They must bear in mind that South Africa, with its various population groups, has one of the highest population growth rates in the world. In order to provide them with work, the Government is simply forced to tackle large projects, and a great deal of machinery and equipment has to be imported for this purpose. It is no wonder, therefore, that 50% of our imported goods in 1975 consisted of machinery. This means that importation of machinery in 1975 amounted to R3 milliard.

The non-Whites in South Africa must guard against becoming their own enemy. Due to the riots, industrialists resorted increasingly to more capital-intensive labour methods which eliminate labour. This is one of the reasons why the importation of machinery increased from 40% to 50% within a few years. This is also a reason for the unemployment amongst Blacks in the country.

I want to touch on another problem, an impurity in our economy. The prosperity we have experienced, made of us spendthrifts of our savings. In a time of world scarcity of capital, only one thing remains to one and this is to become more self-supporting and to generate one’s own capital. One’s savings can make a major contribution to this.

What, however, is the position in South Africa? If we compare our saving figures with those of other comparable countries, we find that the savings of South Africans amounted to 23%, those of Canada 24%, which is the nearest to our figure, those of West Germany 32%, those of France 34%, those of America 38%, those of Japan 44% and those of Australia 48%. Therefore we are saving half of what a country like Australia saves, while South Africa with its large-scale capital programme sorely needs our savings in these times.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member for Bloemfontein North will excuse me if I do not follow his line of debate. I should very much have liked to spend quite a bit of time on what the hon. the Minister had to say, but my time is very limited and there is a subject I wish to deal with. Nevertheless I cannot let what the hon. the Minister has said, go by without making any comment.

I agree with the hon. the Minister that the present lack of confidence which is permeating our economy and the present recession are due to a number of factors. However, where I cross swords with him, is over his attitude with regard to the part which Government domestic policies play in our economic situation and the effect which they have on business confidence, particularly that of overseas investors. Will the Government not get it into its head that measures such as job reservation, which prevent people doing the jobs of which they are capable, which prevent people working where jobs are available for them and where their skills are required, which prevent people having their wives living with them, which introduce a whole gamut of discriminatory measures which work to the disadvantage of people on account of the colour of their skins, are as abhorrent to the civilized world as they are to us on this side of the House? In my mind there is no doubt about it that if these measures—just the ones I have mentioned— were to be abolished, the image of South Africa would immediately improve in the eyes of the Western World and the confidence of these countries in our economy would be restored in a very short time. This can be brought about just by removing those abhorrent discriminatory measures.

I want to deal with another matter which the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens has referred to, namely the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions. I think the hon. the Minister is aware of the view I take in regard to the maintenance of strong competition as a vital element in the free enterprise system. I believe that competition is one of the absolute musts if one is to get a free enterprise system to work. It is the element which protects the consumer against exploitation and which ensures that he gets the best deal. It is the element which promotes efficiency and eliminates inefficiency. I know that it is a hard taskmaster, that it entails the survival of the fittest and that many businesses, as a result of competition, fall by the wayside. It is the element that promotes innovation, new ideas, new methods and improvements, but most important it is the element which ensures the most efficient use of our resources, particularly our scarce resources of capital and of skilled labour, because in a competitive society one cannot afford to waste or to use inefficiently one’s scarce resources. I regard competition as being far more important in promoting the welfare of the economy and the protection of the consumer than the whole battery of controls and legislation which the hon. the Minister has at his disposal or which he is proposing to get this House to give him. If one has effective competition, the need for Government interference largely falls away, because competition is a far stronger disciplinarian than any control can be. It is competition which induces that self-control by businessmen which the hon. the Minister was speaking about when he addressed the House. Therefore I think that the comprehensive inquiry which the commission has reported on, is of great value and I would like to express the appreciation of this side of the House to members of that commission for the very thorough investigation for which they were responsible.

The first message that comes out of this report, is that the position of competition in this country at present is far from satisfactory. With one exception the 1955 legislation has not been effective. In 21 years only 15 investigations have been made under it and in only ten of those investigations has effective action been taken. The commission itself states the following—

The notable exception, of course, has been the prohibition of retail price maintenance which has been a considerable force in promoting competition, particularly price competition in proprietary branded lines. I do believe however, that there are still many spheres in which monopolistic conditions are rife. In this regard, for instance, I think of the paper industry, the newsprint industry, where there are only two producers. They have interlocking shareholdings and they fix the prices of newsprint. The packaging industry has such a rigid price ring that not even the biggest buyer can break it. The banks also fix their rates of commission, their ledger fees and their hours of doing business. It might well be that some of these things are in the public interest, but I maintain that they need investigation and that amongst the practices being pursued there are undoubtedly many which are keeping up the cost of living. The commission made what I think was an important recommendation on how to deal with this matter, i.e. that the Board of Trade should be relieved of its duties in so far as monopolistic investigations are concerned and that an independent Monopolies Board should be established with power to investigate independently of the Government. The board would also have power to investigate practices followed by organizations in the public sector as well as by organizations in the private sector. I believe this is a very valuable recommendation and that it is also the way to put teeth into preventing monopolistic circumstances arising which are not in the public interest. I would like to see the hon. the Minister—I hope he is listening to me— implementing this recommendation as soon as possible. It would have the full support of this side of the House and it would give the hon. the Minister a weapon which, I believe, would be far more powerful than the present Act and far more powerful than the battery of other controls such as price control, the Trade Practices Act and so forth that he has at his disposal.

The other recommendation made by the commission, viz. the recommendation in regard to watching over mergers, take-overs and other methods of acquiring control over businesses, is something which I think the Government should approach very carefully.

If you have mergers and amalgamations, would that not lead to the conditions of which you are speaking?

I do not believe that in practice the merging of firms and take-overs have led to monopolistic conditions which have not been in the public interest. There may have been the isolated case but I do not think the Government is warranted in implementing the recommendations of this commission just to take care of those isolated cases. Takeovers, as the hon. the Minister will know, are delicate affairs. They have to be done secretly and they have to be done quickly. If that does not happen, one gets a situation of speculation where shareholders, staffs and the businesses themselves can get hurt. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Constantia must excuse me for not following up what he said, but I trust the hon. the Minister will dwell for moments on what he said so as to reply fully to the allegations made here by him.

I think this side of the House is fully aware of one of the bottlenecks in the economy, and everything possible is being done to meet this problem. To be specific, we must rectify our balance of payments position as soon as possible otherwise we shall have to witness the development potential which the country has remaining unrealized to a considerable extent, to the detriment of the Republic’s future prosperity. It must be realized that without a sharp and timeous increase in exports, the economic life of the country, the standard of living, employment, preparedness, and peace and order could change drastically in the future. I want to give hon. members the assurance that the hon. the Minister, the Department of Commerce and the Department of Industries are fully aware of this problem and are doing everything they can to solve it. It remains a primary requirement that the balance of payments position must be strengthened to such an extent that it will be able to accommodate the anticipated upswing in the economy in the times ahead. The country can prosper only if there is a considerable increase in the production of all goods and services, for domestic consumption as well as export. When we look at South Africa, we realize that we have a very wealthy country. Particularly when we look at the mineral resources which South Africa has, we must make it our objective to bring about a fourfold increase in exports over the next 10 years. Then—and the possibility undoubtedly exists—South Africa could become the leading exporter of minerals and metals in the whole world. That must be our objective when we talk about the mineral resources of South Africa. It appears, therefore, that it will be increased exports of minerals and metals in particular that will have to solve the country’s balance of payments problem. It is not only minerals and unprocessed raw materials of the agricultural and mining sectors that play an extremely important role in South Africa’s total exports; the export of manufactured goods, refined raw materials and construction services are already making a large and rapidly increasing contribution to the country’s export services. There is still a host of export possibilities, for example, an increase in the export of mining equipment and certain sorts of capital goods as well as construction and engineering goods. A gradual increase in export services will occur on the basis of an economic recovery in the USA, Europe and Japan. South Africa must take advantage of this and gain those markets.

Let us look at some figures. Many negative things have been said in this House today, but let us take a look at our export figures. I think South Africa is on the right road. In January 1977 our imports amounted to R434,l million, as against exports to the value of R371,0 million. In February 1977 our imports were R435,4 million in comparison with exports of R332,8 million. In March our imports were R439.0 million in comparison with exports of R460,8 million. In April our imports were R399,8 million in comparison with exports of R491,8 million. South Africa’s economy is still strong and stable. In considering our exports, one must bear in mind that it is not the duty of the Government alone to do something about the matter, but that the private sector, too, has a major and decisive role to play. In this regard I should like to refer to the Commission of Inquiry into the Export Trade of the Republic of South Africa, and more specifically to paragraph 107 on page 652 of their report, where I read the following—

Fortunately, there are some people in the private sector who realize this. These are people who are prepared to do their share. At this stage I should like to refer to a newsletter of the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce in which their president said the following—

As I have said, the Government is doing everything it can, but there must be closer liaison between the public and private sectors in order to realize the objective of increased exports. This co-operation makes it necessary for each to realize its responsibility towards the other. Moreover, there must be a joint effort and individual contributions must supplement one another and merge into a cohesive programme to promote South Africa’s exports.

I have here in my hand a pamphlet published by the Directorate of Export Trade Promotion of the Department of Commerce. It is a very illuminating pamphlet. This department offers assistance in developing export markets in approximately 50 countries. I want to plead with the hon. the Minister today, in all humility, and say that there are too few people in the private sector who know what export is. When one speaks to industrialists or dealers who could in fact export and who have the products to export, one comes across the problem of that person asking one how one is to go about exporting and what the export procedures are. I am asking the hon. the Minister and the department to give some publicity to this sort of pamphlet which gives people a clear idea of the benefits which export holds for them. Let us dwell for a moment on this pamphlet in which I read—

These are experts who are prepared to listen to people and to promote their interests.

I should like to refer to a certain newspaper with which I do not agree politically, but today we are not talking politics. I am referring to the Sunday Express. An interesting column appeared in this newspaper, namely “The Export Express”. On 15 May 1977 one found that the “Export Express takes off’, as they put it. In an introductory article the Minister said—

In the Sunday Express of 29 May 1977 they went on to say—I should like to emphasize this as well—

As I have said, there are people who would like to do their share. I should like to refer hon. members to an export guide which is to be published. It is published by the South African Foreign Trade Organization. Everything is offered on a tray to the industrialist who is able to export. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the debate being conducted in this House this afternoon, is a very important one. Its two legs, viz. namely commerce and industry, are probably two of the most important aspects in any nation’s life. I think that we, and particularly the Opposition, could give much more serious consideration to these two matters. It is not only the Government or the private sector that has a task in this regard, but the Opposition as well. If time allows me to do so, I want to come back to the hon. member for Yeoville a little later on.

There are two matters I should like to raise. Firstly, I want to refer to the South African Bureau of Standards. In the current estimates R6,8 million is being voted for the Bureau, as against R6,7 million last year. The revenue earned by the Bureau itself during the past year represents 67% of its operating expenditure as against 52% in 1975 and only 45% five years ago. In this instance we are dealing with a Government institution or corporation, like Iscor, Escom and similar institutions, which has a tremendous task to perform in the interest of the people of South Africa. As a result of the far-sightedness of the Government in the past, all these institutions were established. I think it is a good thing that we should consider one of them, the South African Bureau of Standards, today. The increase in revenue earned by the bureau itself, may largely be attributed to two factors, viz. television inspection and SABS mark fees collected during the past year and, secondly, the increased consumer interest in mark-bearing products. This is one of the most important aspects of growth we have witnessed during the past few years. I want to make a special plea today, viz. that a great deal more be done in this direction. I shall give some consideration to this matter later on.

I also think we would do well to take a look at the importance of the Bureau of Standards. It is one of the 25 founder members of the International Organization for Standardization, or ISO as it is known. The UNO accorded increased status to the ISO during 1976 so that together with a handful of other institutions, it is now on the top rung of the ladder of the UNO’s official sources of information. The chief objective of ISO, one of the most important organizations of the UNO, is to promote international trade and to serve the interests of consumers throughout the world. Let us take a brief look at our own Bureau of Standards and at the role the Minister and his departments and particularly the Director-General of the Bureau and his employees have gained for South Africa in the world by means of this institution. In addition to its work load in this regard, there are three important things in particular to which the Bureau has given consideration in recent times, and they are standardization, the certification of products and tests. We have become internationally renowned and have won great fame for ourselves. I should like to quote one paragraph on page 5 of the annual report—

It is by means of the expert knowledge, smart action and know-how we have sent into the world, that this institution has won that fame. The institution is one of seven of the world’s leading authorities in that field and serves on that international body.

When we page through the annual report, we come accross several instances of outstanding work done by the Bureau, for example packaging for the EEC. In this regard the Bureau of Standards plays a tremendous role. It prescribes and helps to prescribe and ensures that we employ packaging methods that are acceptable to the EEC countries. We are all aware of the tremendous scope and importance of the EEC countries. I am thinking of South Africa’s cement exports. I am thinking of the fire arms imported in November last year. Certain specifications were laid down and the Bureau of Standards attends to these, because all types of weapons of an inferior quality entered the country and the bureau attended to this matter. There is a whole range of things in which the bureau is involved, for example velocity meters, school-clothing, etc. I am thinking, for example, of an item which everyone of us uses every day, viz. a cheque form. At present there is a factory in South Africa which is able to manufacture the paper on which cheques are printed. Over the years it has been the British Clearing Banks that have specified what quality of paper had to be used for cheques. This was also prescribed as a requirement by the local banks’ Automation Standards Committee. Now we no longer need import that paper for cheque forms; it is manufactured in South Africa and we are saving foreign exchange in this way. We think of international sizes, the measurements of clothing, metrication, etc.

At present, the USA has not made as much progress as South Africa when it comes to metrication. The Americans recently sent a number of delegates on a two-week tour of South Africa to come and learn from us.

Australia, too.

Yes, and there are many other countries as well. That proves that as far as technical knowledge is concerned, South Africa is in the vanguard and that the world can come and learn from us. The Bureau of Standards renders technical assistance on a large scale to Africa as well. For example, we think of Swaziland, Lesotho, Rhodesia, Mauritius, Reunion, Botswana, the Malagasy Republic, Mozambique, Zambia, Transkei, etc.

In South Africa we are still saddled with too many items that have not yet been standardized. There are tremendous shortcomings here, for example, as far as the packaging of fruit, vegetables, etc., is concerned. I ask that we give drastic consideration to this in future to ensure that more standardization takes place. Even if it is by way of a levy or whatever, manufacturers must be obliged to package their products in containers which make it possible for everyone to compare the products of the various manufacturers. At present we have different sizes at different prices. No housewife can see at what prices she ought to buy or which products she ought to buy. The different sizes simply cannot be compared.

I want to proceed nevertheless by making an appeal that we take a look at whether we cannot make even more knowledge available to the world in this regard. The world needs our knowledge. South Africa is a small country but in many fields it has the necessary knowledge and I ask that this institution be used to inform the world to a greater extent and to place more knowledge at the world’s disposal. I am asking whether something could not be done in that respect.

I now turn to our export promotion. The hon. the Minister and many other hon. members have discussed, and we are continuously discussing, the importance of our export trade. We must export. It is vital. That is why I want to address a request to the hon. the Minister. We have here an amount of R42,9 million voted for export promotion. The question arises, however, as to whether we are seeing all of this in its proper perspective? Are we doing things in the right way? Do things link up properly? It is essential for any production leader and for any financial manager to be continually aware of production methods, forms of finance, and so on. I am not quite sure that all the benefits we are offering are in the interest of the promotion of our export trade. Can we not consolidate to a larger extent? Can we not launch a more intensive investigation into the more effective utilization of the ways in which we spend our money, in the interest of our export trade?

I wish we in South Africa would stop crying about the narrowing of the wage gap. It is too silly for words. I now want to turn to the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member actually cried out hysterically and asked what the hon. the Minister had done to create more employment opportunities. Only recently people were crying out that the State was doing too much; that it was interfering too much. The Government really cannot do everything simply to provide employment. We in South Africa must leave something to the individual himself. The manufacturer, the dealer, the producer and the worker must do something themselves. South Africa’s labour force is a very responsible one. Only recently the workers in all sectors—the private and the public sectors—intimated that they would not demand higher wages. They realize that their actions are in the interest of South Africa. Many of the unemployed are not genuinely unemployed, many of them are work-shy. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, because of the limited time at my disposal I am not going to react to the speech of the hon. member for Sunnyside. It has now become absolutely essential that every South African of every race answer the call of South Africa and that everyone do his share.

†Mr. Chairman, this could be one of the strongest economies in the world if all of us, of all race groups, stood together and pulled together. In order to achieve this White and White should in the first instance find one another. That is priority number one, something which should be accomplished urgently. Thereafter White and non-White must find each other, also urgently, in order to develop South Africa in peace, in harmony and in stability for the sake of all the people of South Africa.

The future of everyone of us depends on the extent to which we co-operate with one another. The buying power of the rand has dropped dramatically and the cost of living has soared to the extent that the have-nots are not able to make ends meet. There are have-nots among all the race groups and we have now even reached the stage where the haves cannot make ends meet. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I understand some hon. members are included among the haves.

We do not eat caviar all day long like you do!

Mr. Chairman, there are hundreds of thousands of unemployed people throughout South Africa. The economic climate which has built up over the last few years has led to the current situation. In hard times like these Escom spends money as though it is going out of fashion. Among other things they build a super-duper complex for R24 million. This complex is meant to be their new headquarters. This is a shocking state of affairs.

I realize that Escom is autonomous and that they are allowed to build their headquarters without permission from the hon. the Minister. I also accept that building operations began before the hon. the Minister was appointed in his present office. I believe the hon. the Minister should inform Escom that in these times we are absolutely shocked and dismayed at Escom’s extravagance, particularly as it occurs at a time when we can least afford it. The hon. the Minister should also inform Escom that we are shocked at their apparent indifference to the financial position of South Africa.

The hon. the Minister has a duty to have an eyeball to eyeball encounter with the people of Escom in connection with their over-extravagance. There is no shortage of prophets of doom and of gloom in South Africa. I believe we must look realistically at the problems facing us, and also at the implementation of the solution. Then I believe these prophets of doom and gloom will disappear. We must face it that there is a crisis of confidence in commerce and industry, both locally and overseas. The reason is that investors want one assurance only and that is that they can get political stability in Southern Africa and in South Africa. With the help of every South African of every race we can establish our good faith and we can show the investors, both internally and externally, that we can give them stability in South Africa even if it cannot be done in the rest of Southern Africa. In order to achieve stability a lead from the Government as well as a special effort from each person from each race is required. As far as we are concerned the Government has up to now failed to motivate the people, but all of us are prepared to follow a lead if a lead is set by the Government. This country has the most wonderful investment opportunities in the world. For the last 30 years foreign capital should have been streaming into South Africa. Yet, it has been coming in at a very slow rate even over the last 30 years. The Government has obviously failed to sell South Africa over the last three decades. No one expects the Government to yield to unreasonable demands, but at the same time the reasonable aspirations of every South African, irrespective of race or colour, must be capable of fulfilment. I do not believe there is any necessity for things like job reservation or the rate for the job. Those can be dispensed with.

I would like to deal with another matter. In Europe there is an economic marriage in the form of the European Common Market. In Southern Africa we should have an African Common Market. I hope the hon. the Minister is listening to me because I see that he is talking to the officials. I have made an appeal to him that in Southern Africa we should have an African Common Market. South Africa has the expertise in every field, for example, transport, mining, medicine, commerce, industry and agriculture. With this expertise we should be the dynamo or file power-station of the African continent. We are of Africa and we have a most valuable contribution to make. In certain large schemes we have already made that invaluable contribution.

The Minister has to make it priority number one that every South African who can assist in this task must do so. The Western world has a responsibility to ensure the economic advancement of Africa. The advantage of the free enterprise system must be made more obvious to everybody living throughout Africa. In other words, the hon. the Minister must use the good offices of the West where he can to ensure that joint development takes place between South Africa and those African States that want to join an economic union with us and want to conclude economic agreements with us. Failure by the West to adopt a responsible attitude could lead to more States turning and leaning towards Russia. I would like an assurance from the hon. the Minister today that he will work out in the near future a blueprint to set about this economic unity in Africa that I have just spoken about. The investment opportunities in South Africa are unlimited, except, as I have said before, for the one and only limitation, i.e. the policy of the Government over the last 30 years. At this point in time I believe all of us have a responsibility and must act responsibly in that regard.

There are very large scale foreign investments in South Africa, but it is but a fraction compared to what we could attract to this country. It is absolutely vital that we start processing our raw materials so that we can earn thousands of millions of rands of additional foreign exchange that could be earned by semi-processed products. Like the other members of my party, I believe in the free enterprise system. We feel that money must be found locally and abroad, for example, for the semis plant at Saldanha. I am not saying that this is a priority, but in 1976 we were told that the semis plant at Saldanha would cost R1 500 million and that South Africa could earn an additional income from that of between R400 million to R500 million from the semis plant. I believe the Government should seriously consider taking the private sector into partnership in that sort of scheme, and, if necessary allow the private sector to own the controlling interest. This will give private enterprise an enormous boost. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider allowing a company to be formed and part of the finance to be found by the public either being allowed to subscribe to preference shares or to provide the loan capital at a reasonable rate of interest. Linked to the loan capital must be the right to convert it to share capital when the scheme becomes viable. Naturally one would want the Government or Iscor to guarantee the project. It is absolutely vital that the private sector be drawn by the Government into these semipublic corporations in order that the free enterprise system in South Africa may flourish once again.

I now want to discuss another matter. The private sector needs a boost and the Government must instil confidence by leading the way. If we do not use the available cash to create job opportunities, we are going to face the most serious problems imaginable. In a newspaper article we are told that over the next 23 years we are going to have to create 1 500 jobs per day. I do not know how accurate that estimate is. However, I do know that our economy must be sufficiently strong to create those job opportunities. In order to ensure that no job opportunity is lost, the hon. the Minister must review the attitude to section 3 of the Environment Planning Act, which we discussed earlier. We mentioned that since the inception of that Act some 2 000 applications for new industries and extensions of industries have been turned down. We also mentioned that something like 100 000 potential Black employees did not get employment. To that figure must be added all the Whites, Coloureds and Indians who also would have worked in those factories. If one projects this figure over the next 10, 15 or 20 years, it means that thousands of millions of rands will have been lost to this country and that hundreds of thousands of people who would have got employment, have not got employment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Walmer made a very good speech. However, better speeches were made by hon. members on this side of the House. I want to make special mention of the speech made here by the hon. member for Worcester. I noticed that some hon. members were not listening attentively to what he was saying. They simply looked because they are better at looking than thinking. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Worcester on the speech he made here.

One particular speech which impressed me, was the one made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein North. He delivered his speech here today in a particularly forcible and systematic manner and his speech was completely to the point. The hon. member for Walmer did not make a bad speech either. Of course, I am now going to make the best one of all!

I want to be practical in my speech. I think we have rather too many philosophers and too few practical people in the world today. Here we have another philosopher, the hon. member for Houghton, entering the Chamber. She can philosophize a great deal about “Black Beauty” and write great things about it.

What is our problem today? I have taken a look at everything going on around us. Do hon. members know—these are not my facts, but those of a prominent car magazine—that we have 200 different types of hooters for motor cars in South Africa? I shall speak slowly, so that these facts may register with hon. members. We have 400 different types of oil filters. The manufacturers of spare parts manufacture more than 300 different types of clutch plates.

The hon. member for Walmer says—and he is right—that we have a population explosion on our hands and that we shall have to provide so many employment opportunities per day up to the year 2000. Can our country, which is confronted with that challenge, any longer afford to have so many different models of vehicles? A further analysis indicates that whilst we have only 5 000 units for each model, other countries, such as France, have 145 000 units for each particular model. For a Volkswagen 1600 or a Volkswagen 2000, for example, there are 120 000 units for each model in Germany. I do not want to take up any more of the time of this House, however, by quoting a host of figures. The fact remains that we have too many variations and models in South Africa as far as our motor industry is concerned. Why am I singling out the motor industry? The motor industry is one of the industries in the private sector employing the largest number of people in the country. The motor industry is therefore a very important industry.

Another problem we are faced with in South Africa—this is as plain as a pikestaff—is that there are too many dependant, unproductive people, old people and young economically inactive people as against our number of potentially productive people. If I remember correctly, the ratio is approximately 52% to 47%. This is a problem with which we are very definitely going to be confronted in future. It is a pleasure for me—I have championed the cause for years and years—to see one hon. member after the other standing up now and raising that issue. One reads about it in all the newspapers these days as well. I do not want to talk about it any more, because we all know enough about it, but unless we in South Africa, just as in other parts of the world in which a terror of numbers has confronted the populations, come forward with a reasonably quantitative population policy, we shall have no alternative but to be confronted in future with one of the greatest socio-economic problems in our fatherland. I am saying this in the light of what I have read in the report of the Erika Theron Commission, viz. that we have 5 million people in South Africa who have to do all the thinking, undertake all the entrepreneurial work and all the planning. Fewer than 2 million of those 5 million are skilled and 3 million are unskilled or semi-skilled. One speaker after another is standing up in this House and saying that in another 23 years, in the year 2000, we shall have 50 million people in South Africa. I say the burden is going to be too heavy for those 5 million people and for the small group of skilled people.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister: How much progress have we made in the direction of standardization? The hon. member for Sunnyside, too, referred to that and I cried “Hear, hear!” We cannot speak of standardization if we have 200 different types of car hooters, 400 different types of oil filters and 300 different types of clutch plates in South Africa. By way of standardization, one attains the following economic momentum, viz. mass production. I also want to ask the hon. the Minister: How much progress have we made in the direction of mass production? Mass production is the one process by means of which one can reduce one’s unit costs and production costs. After all, I do not need to be a philosopher to know that. We therefore have too many models, too little standardization and too little mass production.

There are too many people dependent on those people who have to produce the food and goods. Our technological knowledge is not equal to and adequate for the population pressure and there is an imbalance between our population growth and the increase in our technological ability to maintain the growth—an hon. member put it very elegantly earlier on—which will enable us to have employment for everyone in the year 2000.

One thing I do not want, is for South Africa to end up in the hunger belt that is encircling the earth. If we look around us, the Black African States are already within the hunger belt. We have a great responsibility. We face a tremendous challenge, to use the popular expression. Consequently, we have too many of those things.

There are a few things, however, of which we have too few and I want to conclude on that note. I can say, and I am not saying this to pander to popular opinion, that the allegation that we have so much unemployment, is a little exaggerated. I am talking about the Blacks and I am talking in a practical sense. During the past week and the previous week as well, people in my constituency went to Bophuthatswana and Vendaland to recruit labour. According to the reports I received, the people in those homelands are simply not interested in work. They are interested in one kind of work only and that is the kind a person can go to do in Johannesburg and Pretoria, because then that person can go and live in one of those Bantu townships. Therefore, selective unemployment exists amongst those people. It is not true, however, that there is general unemployment amongst the Blacks in those homelands.

Depends on the pay.

I drive around there, but I cannot go into Bophuthatswana with the hon. member, because it would look too bad. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be able to speak after the hon. member for Carletonville. It is a pleasure in the sense that he is a free-thinker.

I object. [Interjections.]

Sometimes it is embarrassing to speak after him, if one does not agree with him, but today I agree wholeheartedly with the dignified old frontbencher.

I am glad that the motor-car has come up for discussion. I must admit that I have never seen a motor-car as a status symbol. Because a motor-car is not a symbol of anything to me, my motor-car is perhaps older than that of any other hon. member.

I believe in the economic integrity of South Africa; I believe that this is a country which, from an economic point of view, has a history and a record which may be compared with those of any country in the world. I am grateful that we have an hon. Minister of Economic Affairs who is filled with economic patriotism. Economic patriotism radiated from his entire speech this afternoon, and that is why an appeal was made for greater unanimity and solidarity in the economic field in South Africa.

I want to discuss one matter specifically and pointedly, and I know that the hon. the Minister is giving this matter serious consideration. In fact, to him it is a matter of the highest priority. I am sorry to say that down the years we have received no assistance or support from the Opposition in promoting and expediting the decentralization of industries in South Africa. On the contrary, it has been a tremendous struggle in years gone by. Their view of the entire concept of the decentralization of industries has always been coloured by ideological problems and ideological objections. This concept constitutes one of the most realistic approaches in South African politics and it is of major importance. According to an article which appeared in Tegniek in December 1976, 75% of the country’s Blacks, 93% of the Whites, 86% of the Coloureds and 92% of the Asians will be living in the cities in the year 2000. This will happen if we do not implement this policy. The urban population will increase from the present number of 12 million to 40 million and 32 million of this number will be Blacks. One might also look at the comments made by the Viljoen Commission in 1958. At that time the following was said—

Therefore, an over-concentration of workers in the industrial areas constitutes a social problem.

I think we need to reconsider one important aspect. In this country with its tremendous economic potential, a country which, as I have said repeatedly, could develop into an economic giant, we need to plan not over the short-term but over the long-term. I have unshakeable confidence in the economic future of South Africa. That is why I am saying that these things must be done over the long-term. When dealing with industrial development, we must bring about that development in a way which will be beneficial to South Africa. We must do it in an economic, practical and realistic manner.

Let us look at the reasons for decentralization in South Africa. There are some important reasons. Decentralization promotes increased productivity since workers spend less time travelling between their homes and places of employment. We hear many pleas from the hon. member for Houghton on behalf of the Blacks, but I have never heard her say that it is basically wrong for a Bantu worker in Johannesburg to have to spend from six to eight hours per day travelling between his place of employment and his home. Surely this has a very detrimental effect on productivity. Of course, it also has a detrimental socioeconomic effect on the Black worker. The hon. member for Houghton and her party are champions of the cause against the decentralization of industries, but she does not care what happens to the worker who has to spend from six to eight hours per day travelling between his home and his place of employment. I think it is unfair; it is unrealistic.

Apart from the high costs of services, transport, water, accommodation, power, and so on, in the large cities, it is becoming virtually impossible to provide the necessary facilities for these people due to limited space in the large cities. It has been estimated that the delay of commercial vehicles in Johannesburg due to the congestion of traffic will cost the country R680 million during the next 15 years. This is a complete waste of capital and this country needs capital so badly. Let us look at the subsidy for the transport of Bantu. The subsidy amounted to R24 million in 1974. It has been estimated that the provision of decent transport for the large urban complexes in the Republic will require more than R2 000 million. It will cost that much to eliminate any further traffic congestion. The House can see, therefore, what it would cost the country if all industries were to be centralized as is the ideal of many industrialists and politicians.

A study has been made of the centralization of industries, and the effects of this on the large cities in South Africa. It is interesting to look at this recently completed study of direct and indirect costs of unlimited centralized development in the Republic. In the study it was found that the current real expenditure per capita from the cities’ rates funds on five important municipal functions had gradually increased as communities had grown. According to the study, the Municipalities’ real capital expenditure per capita showed the following increases over the same period of growth: Johannesburg, R10 to R89; Cape Town, R41 to R99; and Durban, R55 to R105. We can therefore see the tremendous burden that is being placed on the local authorities. Irrespective of the level of government in South Africa, it is in these very times that we have to counteract overspending and the squandering of capital.

Last year the hon. the Minister made an announcement on further concessions to border industries. I am pleased to see that this has produced a wonderful reaction. In 1976 no fewer than 386 industrialists made use of these concessions and moved to the decentralized areas. Symposiums were held overseas, inter alia, in London and Germany. Representatives of the IDC and of various other corporations were sent overseas. They did a good job of work overseas and aroused the interest of entrepreneurs to invest in South Africa’s decentralized areas. It is important for us to realize that we shall have to formulate a system over the long-term in South Africa which will perhaps be more involved than those in countries having a homogeneous population. When we experienced the riots last year, we found that the very areas in which the riots occurred were the centralized areas. Peace and quiet prevailed in the decentralized areas due to the socio-economic set-up in those areas. The people in those areas live in their own houses with their families. In those areas they live according to their traditions and tribal customs, and they can go forward into the future in this way. We in South Africa will have to consider the development of our industries with great circumspection.

However, the local authorities in the growth points in South Africa also have an obligation towards the White worker to establish the necessary infrastructure to make those growth points attractive to the White worker and to ensure that those people who come from the metropolitan areas, will be happy there. I want to state with pride that Rustenburg in my constituency offers a city dweller every opportunity he could get in the metropolitan area. In the field of education, there is a technical college and there are technical schools, Afrikaans-medium high schools and an English-medium high school. All the facilities are there and they are situated in the most beautiful scenery one can get. Our future lies in the development of border industries in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know why the hon. member for Rustenburg must spoil what started off as a good speech. He started off by talking of the errors that creep in where one gets a large concentration of people in an urban area He proceeded to plead for decentralization. Indeed, he pleaded a very, very good case until he got to the end when the truth of what he was pleading for became apparent. It turned out that he was not pleading for decentralization for economic and sociological reasons, but purely for political ends. [Interjections.] Yes, decentralization in pursuit of an ideology, as this Government has practised it over the last 20 years, an ideology which we have opposed repeatedly. He knows that where there has been decentralization for economic and sociological reasons, we have supported the Government.

Where? Give me one example!

However, not in one case where decentralization has been for ideological reasons have we supported it. He said that in 1924 the subsidy to transport African workers in urban areas to their work amounted to R24 million. I want to ask the hon. member whether he knows how much is being spent today to transport workers from the homelands to their work in the urban areas?

At least it is productive.

It is not productive at all to transport workers from the Mpumalanga township at Hammarsdale 35 km to Pinetown to work. How far do they transport these workers from the homelands around Pretoria to Pretoria where they work? What does it cost them? And what does it cost them in time? Yet this is what is happening. That is why I say the hon. member has spoilt a very good case when in the end the truth came through that he was pleading for decentralization not for economic reasons, but for ideological reasons only.

I am sorry to see that the hon. member for Carletonville is not here to hear what I have to say. I believe he made a very good speech this afternoon. I always enjoy listening to him because he has a unique way of putting things. When he said that there were too many “toeters”, too many models and too many different types of each component of motorcars I must agree with him. I wonder if the time has not come for him to think, perhaps, of the need for a “volksmotor”. Perhaps that is what he was getting at.

He introduced a subject which I wish to discuss further with the hon. the Minister, viz. the question of underemployment and unemployment in industry.

Has the hon. the Minister any idea— because I have tried to get some idea of an overall picture—of what the extent of the underemployment of our industrial potential in the country is today? Has he any idea of what that is costing the country, because this underemployment of our industrial capacity is part of the price we are paying for the running down of the economy? Yesterday, under the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Planning and the Environment, we discussed unemployment, and this morning we discussed the matter further, so I do not want to discuss it with this hon. Minister. However, I wonder if he has any idea of what effect the underemployment of people has on the economy as a whole. Particularly those of us who are trading with the African people have found a complete change in the pattern of business. Those of us who have had general dealers’ businesses, where we have sold clothing, hardware and foodstuffs, have found that our percentages have dropped, but that the percentage of purchases of foodstuffs and necessities, which by nature are the low-profit lines, have increased. The sales of the high-profit lines, which are the luxury lines, the non-essentials, have decreased. This has been a marked change. When we speak to our customers and we ask them what the reason for this is, we are told: “Sitola i—short time”—“We have been placed on short time.” Some of the industries at Hammarsdale are working only three days a week. What is the effect of this on the economy as a whole? These people, as I say, are buying only food. They have become far more cost conscious and they are buying special offers. The only way one can draw people into the shop is by advertising special offers, etc. This is having its effect. Why is this? This has come about because, as hon. members on that side have said—I think it was the hon. member for Sunnyside—we have a very responsible corps of workers who have restrained their wage claims. For how much longer can those people be expected to restrain their wage claims in the face of the tremendous increases which they are greeted with every single time they walk into a supermarket to buy their food?

Do not be an agitator.

It is all very well for the hon. member for Worcester to make a noise. He is one of the privileged few who can afford to. He can tighten his belt, but those people who have a low income can no longer afford to tighten their belts because there is nothing left to tighten. That is the problem.

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

I am sorry, my time is limited. We have the situation that the cost-of-living index increased by 11,1% last year. We find, if we compare the figure for April this year with that of April 1976, that it has increased by 11,5%. We find that in January and February it increased by 1,6% each month. I do not have the latest figure, but it has been estimated authoritatively that for the first four months of this year the consumer price index went up by 4,6%, which gives us an inflation rate of over 14% this year. Is the Government going to be in a position to control this? If this is going to happen, if this increase in the consumer price index is allowed to continue in this way, no longer will the hon. member for Sunnyside be able to boast about a responsible workers’ corps, because they will be compelled through circumstances to break their word and to demand increases in salaries. It must be remembered that the figures which I have quoted are before we have had the full effect of the increase in the rail tariffs, before we have had the full effect of the increase in electricity tariffs, the increase in the fuel price, the increase in the price of steel, the additional sales tax imposed by the hon. Minister’s colleague and the 15% surcharge on imports. Those are the figures before the effect of those increases has come through. Those increases, I must remind the hon. the Minister, are all as a result of direct action by, or under the control of the Government. This is why I say: How much longer can we hold the dam before that dam breaks? Our workers have been responsible. I am quite prepared to concede them that. They have been responsible in the past, but how much longer will it be before they are compelled by circumstances to break their word and to demand increases in salary? The hon. the Minister knows what that is going to mean. The spiral will then really be set off again and we will return to 15% and 18% increases in the consumer price index in one year. I am only referring to the increase in food prices, not in general.

Then there is a specific matter regarding the increases in prices which I wish to discuss with the hon. the Minister this afternoon. We have found that when the price of a commodity goes up, immediately the price of any similar commodity goes up as well. If the price of margarine is increased—as has just happened—because of the increase in the price of vegetable oil and oil seeds, immediately the Dairy Board rushes in and asks for an increase in the price of butter. Although they are sitting with a surplus, they immediately rush in and ask for an increase.

We also have the same situation in the case of coffee. There has been a tremendous increase in the price of coffee. We all know that the coffee crops in Brazil have failed and that that is the reason why the price of coffee has gone up. However, what has happened with tea? We have had six increases in the price of tea since December last year. We find that tea which in January was costing R2,75 a kilo is going to cost us next month, so we are told, R4,25 a kilo. I believe the hon. the Minister has to look into these matters in order to find out why the related commodity is also suddenly boosted in price. It is quite obvious to me that the distributors, the manufacturers, or whoever is concerned, are not basing their prices wholly on the production costs. They are taking the opportunity of increasing their prices, because the competitive commodity has had to increase its price as well.

I believe the hon. the Minister has to look into these matters. He has the power to investigate them. He has the right to make public the results of such investigation. In certain cases he has the power to act against those people. In some cases, I believe, increases are coming about because of monopolistic conditions pertaining. I now refer to the coffee and the tea industry. The hon. the Minister knows how many concerns are involved in those industries in this country. Is it not perhaps because of monopolistic conditions which exist there? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South said at the beginning of his speech that he agreed with the misgivings which the hon. member for Carletonville had expressed about the fact that approximately 200 different hooters are manufactured in the country. Considering the performance of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South in this House, one is inclined to suggest that the hon. member for Carletonville should really have referred to 201 different hooters in South Africa. [Interjections.]

In actual fact I should like to refer to another aspect of the subject under discussion. This is the supply of electricity by Escom to the agricultural sector in South Africa. When one asks whether it is advisable for a country such as South Africa to see to the provision of telephone services in the cities as well as in the rural areas, everyone will maintain that it is obviously desirable, for the sake of the orderly development of the country, that there should be telephone services in the rural areas. Now I want to ask the same question regarding the supply of electricity to the rural areas. In terms of the present provisions of the Electricity Supply Act, there are certain obstacles in the way of the economic supply of electricity to agriculture, especially in the remote rural areas.

We have the ironic situation that many farmers have main power supply lines crossing their farms, while they themselves are unable to get any electricity from those supply lines. If we consider what facets are influenced by the supply of power to the agricultural sector, it appears that the following are among the most important. In the first place, I am convinced that we could have a very efficient agricultural production if Escom could supply electricity to farmers on an economic basis. I am also convinced that it is becoming more and more important, for the sake of the security of South Africa, that farmers, especially those on our borders—those who may form our first line of defence in a time of crisis—should have silent electric power.

In speaking of silent electric power, I am referring to Escom power, because it is less desirable, for security reasons, to have electric power which is accompanied by a continuous thudding noise. What is also important is that if the electric power is provided by machinery, the machinery is mostly switched off at some time during the evening. For security purposes in particular it is desirable that the power should be available all night at the press of a switch. For security purposes, therefore, it is a very important factor that there should be economic, silent electricity available in the remote agricultural areas as well.

Another factor is that this would help to save on foreign exchange, for at the moment, every farmer virtually has to have his own power station on his farm. This means that he has to have his own machinery, which is almost always expensive, imported machinery. What is more, the farmer will always remain dependant on foreign exchange for the supply of fuel to keep that machine going.

Another aspect I should like to mention is the depopulation of the rural areas. I want to ask this reasonable question: How many people are there who leave the rural areas to go and live in the cities for the sake of enjoying the convenience of electricity? How many people are there who would remain in the country if they could have the convenience of electric power in their homes? In my opinion, the depopulation of the rural areas is a very important phenomenon, and in this respect, too, we must consider the value of economic electricity supply by Escom in the rural areas. If electricity were to be made available at economic tariffs in the rural areas as well— just as telephones are provided on an economic basis throughout the country—this would bring about a much greater utilization of internal sources of power. South Africa’s sources of hydro-electric power could be developed on a much larger scale and the coal resources in South Africa could also be better utilized. Internal power sources would therefore be developed to provide the additional power. This would make the country much more productive and economic.

There are many anomalies. I want to refer to one. At the moment the Electricity Supply Act provides that any supplier is responsible for its own maintenance. In my constituency we have the situation that the small town of Colenso, which has its own power station, has to accept responsibility, as a subsidiary supplier of power, for its own maintenance staff who have to be on duty 24 hours a day. Colenso is a small town, and because of the maintenance costs, the electricity supplied to the town by the municipality of Colenso costs much more per unit than the electricity supplied by Escom to a much smaller town in a rural community with far fewer consumers. Escom therefore supplies electricity more cheaply than can be done by the power station situated in Colenso. So there are many anomalies.

I want to plead for joint planning to be undertaken by the Department of Economic Affairs, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and the internal security sectors of South Africa to consider which amendments can be made to the Electricity Supply Act in order to make it a practical proposition for electricity to be supplied at economic tariffs all over South Africa. This is essential for an efficient security situation in South Africa and it is essential for the better economic development of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I want to avail myself of this opportunity to reply to a few matters raised by hon. members. Before I do so, however, I should like to make two announcements which I think are important and which have bearing on the speech made by the hon. member for Constantia on monopolistic conditions.

I just want to announce that a notice will appear in the Gazette tomorrow morning in terms of which I request the Board of Trade and Industries to institute an investigation in terms of the Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act into the desirability of retaining the provisions of Government Notice No. R.465 of 25 March 1966. In terms of this notice biscuit manufacturers are prohibited from collectively increasing in any way the selling prices of their biscuits without the prior approval of the Price Controller. Interested parties may, over a period of six weeks, address any representations in this regard to the Board of Trade and Industries, Private Bag X342, Pretoria, 0001.

In tomorrow’s Gazette it is also being announced that I have instructed the Board of Trade and Industries, in terms of the provisions of the Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act, to institute an investigation into and report on the supply and distribution of fertilizer in the Republic of South Africa. The Board of Trade and Industries is going to institute an investigation into the possible existence of monopolistic conditions in the supply and distribution of fertilizer. This investigation arises from the findings and recommendations of an earlier investigation of the board into the fertilizer industry in South Africa. Interested parties may similarly address their representations to the Board of Trade and Industries.

In regard to Sasol, it is my pleasure to announce here that the Bosjesspruit coalmine near Secunda—to which the hon. member for Standerton referred in his speech which will cost an estimated R257 million on completion, went into production yesterday as part of a programme to develop a sufficient number of work fronts and to prepare for the ultimate requirements of the Sasol 2 factory.

Digging operations on the first shaft at this mine commenced in November 1975. At present this mine is being opened up by means of mechanical shovels to make it possible, when the Sasol 2 factory is in full operation, to produce 12 million tons of coal per annum. The mine has coal reserves extending over an area of 875 sq. kilometres. The coal layer occurs at a depth of between 100 and 200 metres. There are two shaft systems, and each system consists of three shafts, viz. an inclined shaft, a vertical shaft and a ventilation shaft. The stoping techniques—this is important— which will be used, viz. the strip stoping method, and the use of mechanical shovels, ought to make it possible to exploit approximately 60% of the mineable coal reserves, as against the 30% and less which is obtained by the utilization of the conventional chamber and pillar method. At present the mine’s labour force consists of 93 Whites and 420 Blacks. When the full production stage has been reached, it is expected that there will be 394 White and 2 155 Black employees. The mine’s initial production rate is estimated at plus-minus 80 000 tons per month. Of this 30 000 tons per month will be delivered to Escom in terms of a contract for 1 million tons of coal from the mine for use in the Escom power stations. The remaining plus-minus 50 000 will be stored until the factory comes into operation upon completion.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens asked me why it is not possible to publish the economic development programme. In this specific regard he pointed out what the estimated real growth rate in our economy should be in order to make provision for the increasing number of workers entering the labour market. I hasten to explain what the circumstances in this regard are. In doing so, I am also replying to a question put by the hon. member for Yeoville in respect of the economic development programme. Hon. members will recall that, when I addressed this House earlier this afternoon, I pointed out that our economy had undergone certain structural changes, to which we would have to adapt our planning. I must point out that up to now the basic intention with the economic development programme has been to identify the bottlenecks in the economy. The objective has also been to determine the medium-term growth potential of the South African economy, i.e. the growth rate which could be achieved over the programming period— which is usually five years—if the expected production factors—I want to emphasize this—were fully utilized. As hon. members know, certain changes have taken place as a result of the oil crisis in those countries in Europe with which we have traditional trading ties and from which our capital traditionally came. One of those changes was the damping of their rate of development. Those countries had to counteract inflation after their recessionary periods. They also had to devote their attention to balance of payments problems as a result of the high cost of imported energy resources.

During the past year certain structural changes have also occurred in our own economy, as also happened in those countries which are dependent on the oil with which the oil-producing countries supply them. It has entailed that there is now a lack of historical information, or data, for it is no longer available. That is why these countries find it difficult, and why South Africa also finds it difficult, to plan in the short term for the possible effect of the changes to which I have referred on the growth potential of their economies and on our economy. Apart from the above-mentioned factors, factors which are related to the oil crisis and the price increases, there is also considerable uncertainty about the possible future course of oil price increases and, as far as we are concerned, specifically of the gold price as well.

At this stage, too, there is no clarity in respect of the amount of foreign capital on which South Africa will be able to rely in future. Hon. members are aware that it is one of the scarce production factors in South Africa and that the uncertainty in respect of the flow of capital has a significant effect on our medium and long-term planning. Therefore hon. members will understand that, on the basis of these two factors alone, it is not possible, or at best very difficult, to determine the growth potential of the South African economy over the programming period, i.e. 1976 to 1981, with any reasonable degree of certainty. Even if it were possible to determine it, and even to do so accurately, and to eliminate all the bottlenecks which will be identified in the programme, it is, in our opinion, very unlikely that the economy will be able to grow in accordance with its potential over the new programming period. I should like to explain why I doubt whether this will be possible. The present acute and protracted recession has entailed that the economy, having already been under-utilized in the base year, viz. 1975, will grow considerably below the potential over the first two years of the new programming period, viz. 1976 and 1977. It will therefore be unrealistic to expect that it will be possible to make up this lost growth over the remainder of the programming period. In view of these circumstances the Economic Advisory Council of the hon. the Prime Minister was of the opinion that the Government was unable, under the present circumstances, to commit itself, as in the past, to specific target rates purely on a potential study based on certain uncertain suppositions in regard, inter alia, to capital flow and to what is going to happen in future with the oil price. The Government has prepared a document summarizing the general policy approach required from the authorities, an approach which is envisaged in the programme. In addition the advisory council has expressed doubts as to whether the approach which has so far been adopted in drawing up the economic development programme is in all respects still the most appropriate under the altered circumstances and in particular it pointed out the need for other forms of related economic planning which are more feasible.

I shall refer to this more comprehensively at a later stage. In view of this the advisory council has recommended that an investigation be instituted into a new approach to the economic planning of South Africa, and has advocated new guidelines for the information of the private sector arising from the changes to which I have already referred and to which I shall refer again. The Government accepted this recommendation, and having regard to that fact as well as to the fact that it is not possible to seek to achieve it at a specific rate, it was decided to publish only a short summary of the programme. The full programme will be available in duplicated form on demand from the office of the Economic Advisor of the hon. the Prime Minister.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens referred, inter alia, to the criticism levelled by Assocom at so-called State interference. In my opinion the hon. member has already been given an adequate reply to this specific statement by the hon. member for Smithfield, who in this connection made a very important contribution and dealt quite effectively with the author of a certain book. Although we debated the question of State intervention in the economic life of our country at an earlier stage, it is nevertheless essential that, when we discuss this subject, we do not do so in vague and generalized terms, but that we should deal with the matter more specifically. I have already formulated the philosophy and standpoint of the Government in this regard repeatedly, and I do not intend taking this any further now. In my opinion it is time we tested our accusations against quantitative criteria when we discuss this subject. As far as I know, those people who are so quick to generalize in regard to the State’s participation, have never gone so far as to discover the quantitative criteria for themselves.

In the second place I want to state that the State’s intervention in the economic life of our country is determined by various circumstances, and that it consequently varies from time to time. What is more, the State does not intervene of its own accord either. In fact, there was not one hon. member this afternoon who did not advocate State intervention in one form or another. Basically, by levelling criticism at my department and at the policy of the Government, economically speaking, and to expect the Government to take steps and to accuse it of not having taken steps, implies nothing but to ask the Government to intervene to a certain extent in the private economic system of our country. I think hon. members will understand that in our time, in our country, made up in the way it is, there can be no question of absolute freedom in our enterprise system. The best we can do under the circumstances is to make the system as free as possible. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens says that he agrees with me in this respect.

When does the State take action? When does it participate and when does it intervene? Let us take a look at the first facet. When does it participate itself as entrepreneur? I need not point out to hon. members that it does so for strategic reasons that one of the best examples of this is the fact that Sasol 2 is being constructed for strategic reasons, as part of its overall contingency planning for any threat which may become valid in respect of South Africa as far as its energy supply is concerned. Nor is there any need for me to point out, secondly, that it intervenes in this sense that it enters the manufacturing sector itself for the provision, to a large extent, of munitions for our country. But surely this did not only mean that it participated itself. It also meant that through its entry into the manufacturing industry as far as the Defence Force is concerned, it created the opportunity for more than 800 other industries to develop. The State has also participated in respect of the transportation system and telecommunication services of the country. Once again I inquire, in all fairness, whether there are hon. members who would ask today that these activities be transferred to the private sector. And if they were transferred—I am not condemning the profit motive which applies in the private sector as compared with the service motive which is the norm when the State undertakes such things—what would the cost increases be which would accompany such a move?

I also want to refer to our electricity supply. The hon. member for Constantia levelled criticism at monopolistic conditions in our economy which were detrimental to the public-interest. He was quite justified in saying this, and I endorse what he said. And when he praises the result of the commission of inquiry into this specific subject, particularly the specific recommendation dealing with the establishment of a permanent body which may also act of its own accord, this is in fact nothing else but to say that we should intervene in the economic system when there are specific reasons for doing so. What does he mean when he says that? We intervene when competition, which forms the basic of our market economy, is inadequate or does not exist. The hon. member referred to this himself.

I am mentioning these examples because I want to advocate to the hon. members once again that when we—each one of us in this House—discuss the economic system which we endorse and wish to promote, and when we discuss it here in these debates, we should display a sense of perspective.

The hon. member went further and said that the Government’s inability really to escape from its ideological policy was proved by the fact that it did not take any positive action in respect of the Theron Commission report. I do not intend discussing that now. However, I want to ask the hon. member in all fairness, instead of joining in a chorus of condemnation of what the Government has done or intends doing in this regard, to make an in-depth study of the Government’s standpoint and decisions on that report. There is a second thing I want to say to him in this regard, and it is very important. I know of no Government in the history of South Africa which was prepared to subject a major and important part of its relations policy and philosophy to a commission which, firstly, did not consist of its own supporters and, secondly, included representatives of the Coloured people of our country.

Thirdly—and this is important—there is the fact that the Government reacted assentingly to the recommendation in the report by the majority and the minority of that commission on a political dispensation for the Coloured people, and to such an extent that it stated that it agreed that the present dispensation did not afford an opportunity for full participation by the Coloured and Indian population in the political life of our country. The Government even appointed a committee to reflect on the future course, and to make recommendations in this regard. Does this not testify that we are, in regard to these people, stating very clearly to the general public that the dispensation which applies at present to the Coloured people is not a culminating point, but is to a large extent in fact a point of departure? I want to say once again that the mere fact that the Government says that this is not a culminating point, but a point of departure, means even more. It also means that our thinking in respect of the form of the progress of the Coloured and the Indian people in relations politics is not static. Assocom, through its spokesman, the chairman of the Chamber of Commerce of Cape Town, which is affiliated to it, spent little time on the things with which it ought to occupy itself and more time on those things with which we have to occupy ourselves. The hon. member should please advise them that they can best make a contribution towards changing the political dispensation and system by leaving it to this council chamber of the country. I want to emphasize that there is no restriction whatsoever on any person in respect of his participation in and his statements on politics. But I want to warn once again that we should be careful that the credibility of bodies associated with organized commerce and industry does not disappear simply because minorities within those organizations want to take advantage of these organizations for political ends because they cannot promote their objectives in other ways. I am saying this in all earnest. The record in regard to the relations between the private sector and my department and I myself, has to be maintained. I want to emphasize that there were few periods in which the co-operation of Government departments with organized commerce and industry was closer than it is at present. My department and I have gone out of our way to accommodate organized commerce and industry, particularly under the present circumstances. During the past year I held discussions with organized commerce on their problems on more than 80 occasions. I intend doing so again.

The hon. member went on to say that the anti-inflation programme had been a failure. However he quoted no evidence to support his statement. In this regard, I should like to adduce evidence, evidence which in my opinion is authoritative. I am not referring here to myself, but to the people who were involved in the programme.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is aware that Dr. McCrystal himself publicly expressed his bitter disappointment at the results of that programme.

Surely Dr. McCrystal did not term the programme a failure. He expressed his opposition to certain facets of it. But allow me to reply to the hon. member’s statement, and let me do so as a reasonable person. Does the hon. member agree with me that the people who are best able to assess the effectiveness of the programme are the people who were involved in it? Does the hon. member agree that that is a reasonable standpoint to adopt?

Yes.

The hon. member says “yes”, and I think he is correct. The majority of the members on that committee were drawn from the private sector. The programme in its totality was to have terminated at the end of March this year. I, personally, convened their closing meeting. At that meeting the committee, which consisted of representatives of the private sector, commerce, industry, workers’ groups, etc., unanimously decided that the committee should continue to exist so that it can monitor any additional progress that can be made. In other words, far from condemning it as a failure, these private sector people saw the advantages of the type of discipline and the type of co-operation which one has when people meet for a common purpose. Of course it is not possible for me to judge the success of the programme quantitatively. But in all fairness, let us consider the situation. In 1975 the rate of inflation was more than 12%.

The hon. member will agree with me that since the programme there has been a very gradual downward tendency in the growth of the inflation rate, so much so that during the last quarter of last year the inflation rate was on an annual base of 9%, and that was the case in spite of the fact that the devaluation of the rand in September 1975 had had a significant effect on the inflation rate, conservatively calculated at 4%. If we take this into consideration, I think the hon. member will immediately agree with me that a significant measure of success was achieved, which cannot be ascribed only to the anti-inflation programme, but is also attributable to the fiscal and monetary measures adopted by the Government in order to be of assistance, for example the curbs on Government expenditure. Of course it is true that the inflation rate for the first quarter of this year has shown an upward tendency, viz. of 13%. This is to a large extent attributable to factors with a non-recurring effect. For example, it is due to the fact that, fuel prices were increased by 4 cents per litre on 7 January and also to the increase in indirect taxation in order to pay, in part, for our financial expenditure for the year. It is connected with the increase in railway rates as well as with the increase in electricity tariffs and in administered prices. Is there any hon. member who wishes to argue that those increases in administered prices were not essential? If there are such members I should like to hear from them. I think a heavy responsibility rests on the Government to avoid a further increase in administered prices during this financial year, if it is in any way possible. On the authority of my colleagues I say that if nothing unforeseen happens it ought to be possible to avoid an increase in railway rates, in steel prices and also in post and telecommunication tariffs during the present calendar year.

And electricity tariffs?

If it is possible I should like to ensure that they are not increased either. However, I do not want to leave anyone with an erroneous impression. The hon.member knows that in respect of Escom itself, we are dealing with a financing problem. The hon. member is well aware that it has become essential for us to undertake a larger measure of the financing of Escom from capital which Escom itself is able to create. I have nothing to hide from hon. members, I find it a pity that it became necessary, in a time of economic slackness, to increase prices and tariffs, because that had a depressing effect. I believe that whereas the short-term measures of the inflation programme relating to price, wage and salary disciplines have now disappeared, although the need for such discipline has not disappeared, there is—and this has already been clearly illustrated—a greater measure of self-control among employees, among industrialists and among dealers than ever before in our country.

We should not allow ourselves to be misled by the exceptions, by those who are not doing their duty. The majority of them are cooperating with us. This is the direct result of the kind of discipline and self-control which developed in our country owing to the co-operation of all the sectors on the anti-inflation committee. In the second place I believe that there are certain factors present in the economy by means of which it is possible to ensure once again that the inflation rate is kept in check, and is even reduced during the present year. These are to be found, inter alia, in the phenomenon of unemployment, something to which several hon. members referred. I share their concern. In addition there are such factors as diminishing profits, unutilized production capacity, the non-availability of capital and others as well which together, I believe, are going to contribute towards curbing inflation.

I place a high premium on our ability to apply this self-control because all of us, I think, ought to know that the two conditions with which we shall have to comply if we want a sustained economic growth are basically situated therein that we shall have to reduce the inflation rate to an acceptable level, and, secondly, that we shall have to strengthen our balance of payments position. I shall return to that later.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens went on to refer to the motor industry. I should not like to become involved in a quarrel with the hon. member now. All that I want to tell him is that, precisely because I believe that the motor industry plays a very important part in our economy—because it is a labour intensive industry—and because I know that uncertainty about their future exists in the motor industry—in view of the existing local content programme—I requested the Board of Commerce and industries to undertake an in-depth investigation for me prior to the expiry of the rest period—that is phase IV—and to report on their views on the future of the industry. I do not wish to anticipate their recommendations now …

It is a good report.

… except that I want to say that it is a good report. At the request of the motor industry and their organization, and also at the request of the Federation of Motor Industries, I agreed to give them time until the end of July to submit their memoranda relating to their standpoints on the report to me. If that had not been the case, I would already have taken a decision in this regard. But the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens will know that the report actually contains three important recommendations. I should like to refer to those recommendations.

The first is that we should continue with a local content programme, although on a voluntary basis and with the necessary incentives. The second recommendation is that we should include light commercial vehicles in the programme. In the third place—the hon. member is aware of this—we should, instead of import control, apply tariff protection in regard to imported models and impose customs duties.

I do not intend commenting on this now. I am mentioning it to the hon. member simply to indicate to him that we foresaw problems. He need not praise us for it. However, I am certain that the hon. member will concede to me that at least we were “on the ball” as far as this matter was concerned.

Quite a big ball!

The hon. member went on to refer to the financing of State corporations. I do not want to elaborate on that now. I take it there are other hon. members who may possibly want to discuss this matter. But I want to point out that I consider it to be important that we set the debt ratio in respect of the financing of State corporations in order. I hasten to say that it is not in order at present, that, at a very critical juncture, it is not in order. In any case the hon. member now knows that we are giving positive attention to the matter. But I do not want to go into it any further.

The hon. member then referred to the fishing industry. I do not want to say very much about that. But I do not understand the arguments of the hon. members. I really do not understand them. On the one hand hon. members criticized me for ostensibly having failed to control price increases, inter alia, price increases in respect of foodstuffs. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South did that. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens criticized me because I had made an arrangement whereby the fishmeal industry first had to supply the reasonable requirements of the local market before they exported their produce. I want to ask him in all fairness: Does the local industry not, in exactly the same way as agriculture, also have a responsibility to the interior? Surely it is true that the maize price abroad is far in excess of the internal price, and that the agricultural industry could therefore export maize at a far higher price than the internal price. However, we expect the various sectors of our economy to make a greater contribution towards satisfying the requirements of our own country. If I expect this of the agricultural industry …

What about the maize farmer …

I am coming to that. I gave the hon. member an opportunity to make his speech, and he must not interrupt me now. Depending on the circumstances, we expect the agricultural industry to meet South Africa’s needs at a lower price than they are able to realize abroad. What makes this industry so sacrosanct that they cannot do the same? What are the facts? Surely there was a stage when the internal price for fishmeal was higher than the price abroad. What happened then? Once again, all I am pleading for is perspective. At present the fishmeal industry is having a more difficult time than they had in the past. The fact of the matter is that the production of fishmeal in the past was 240 000 tons per annum. This year the industry’s expected total production—if I remember correctly—is 162 000 tons. This is principally due to poorer catches and to a certain extent to my own actions, namely that I reduced the quotas along the south-west coast in order to protect our fishing resources. The hon. member should not reproach me for doing these things, things which are in accordance with what the hon. member theoretically advocates, but which he does not want me to do in practice.

I want to thank the hon. member for Germiston District for his contribution.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Yeoville should not be so sensitive when the hon. member for Germiston District is in fact warning us of what could happen in this country. The hon. member warned us not to adopt political policies in South Africa—and I am not saying this in a spirit of reproach— which are modelled on an African pattern. Secondly, the hon. member said that Africa had become independent of the colonial powers that had governed it. But what was sacrificed to this development? Their economic systems. What did they do? They did not adapt the capitalistic system, the technology and knowledge, to the circumstances. They developed a socialism in Africa which was suited to African conditions, with a resultant collapse of their economies. What happened in the second place? Did these countries gain their freedom when they became independent, and did they remain independent after they gained their freedom?

I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville and his party an old question which still contains the same truth: Give me the name of one African country whose political and economic dispensation he wishes to emulate. I want to warn that the statements we make at home should not meet with a response among the forces of violence abroad that want to destroy the dispensation in South Africa. I want to issue a serious warning against this, not because it is based on White selfishness, but because I maintain that if those Marxist minorities take over under the cloak of majority rule, the Black man, the Indian, the Coloureds and the Whites will fall victim to it. That is why …

Who is advocating that?

Until the day before yesterday, those hon. members were championing everything that was being dictated to us from abroad, and condemning everything at home as being wrong. The hon. leader of the PRP went to Zaïre—I do not wish to criticize him for doing so, for everyone seeks out his own company—and upon his return participated in the programme “Monitor”. I want to sum up what he said on that programme. He said that we cannot expect to establish diplomatic relations with Zaïre soon, but that if we handled the situation correctly now, we would, at some stage or another, be able to establish certain trade relations with them. Good Lord, the most naïve of persons would surely, before making a statement like that on such a subject, establish what the facts were. If the hon. member acquaints himself with the facts, he will find that South Africa has never boycotted any country in respect of trade, or broken off relations with that country on the basis of that country’s internal political philosophy. The mere fact that South Africa has trade relations with 48 countries in Africa and a customs union agreement with countries within its geographical area, countries which do not share its political philosophy, nor we theirs, is surely a demonstration that South Africa places a premium on the doors which can open to other parts of the world on the basis of commercial ties. That is why I ask, once again, for perspective in our pleas. I am speaking to that hon. member as a member of that party. I shall refer to his speech in a moment. I want to discuss his standpoints with him.

The hon. member for Standerton apologized for not being able to be present here this afternoon. I want to thank him for the contribution he made in respect of Sasol 2. In this specific connection he really stated the development there very well and statistically correctly. Apart from the fact that Sasol 2 now makes us less dependent on imported crude oil from the point of view of foreign exchange, it is one of the most important elements in the contingency planning of South Africa. I want to express my thanks and appreciation for what Sasol is doing in this regard.

I now want to refer specifically to the speech made by the hon. member for Yeoville. He said that the economic threat to South Africa was a major one. I do not want to argue with him about that. I am not quarrelling with him about that. He said that Mr. Young also said so. That is where I differ with him. I was not in Mr. Young’s company. I was in the company of people who wish to save South Africa, not of those who wish to lay waste to it.

You are not prepared to speak to other people.

I can see your pals? I am not prepared to …

What about the Prime Minister? Are you making the same accusation in his case as well?

I am not making any accusations. Just keep calm; do not be so hasty. When that hon. member becomes angry, his sense disappears, and that is not very encouraging. He must please remain calm. What is he asking me? He said that we have created mass unemployment. Who created mass unemployment?

You.

In what respect?

Your policy created it.

My policy? What did I do? He also said: “You have created economic expectations.” Who created them?

You created them.

Is it a good thing?

Yes, I agree with you.

I am pleased the hon. member says it is a good thing. Did the hon. member create political expectations among them which cannot be fulfilled?

I have never done that …

Order! Hon. members should please not make unnecessary comments. They can speak again in a moment.

The hon. member asked me whether I agreed with him in respect of the question of capital flow. Of course I agree with him.

What plans?

I am coming to that. Surely I discussed this matter long before the hon. member did, and I discussed it in public. Surely I said that since 1946, up to and including 1974, South Africa had been 12% dependent on overseas capital for its capital investment on its major projects and industries. I said that between 1974 and 1976—and I am also replying to the hon. member for Walmer in this regard—this figure was as high as 18%. That is also, inter alia, why we had the highest average growth rate of any comparable country in the world in the ’sixties, and I think the hon. member agrees with that. The reduced capital flow, and the shortage of capital in our country, is attributable to various factors, as I explained. Surely I did not camouflage the fact that the questioning of the stability of Southern Africa, of which we also form a part, was also a reason for that. I point out, inter alia, that the economic circumstances in the countries that traditionally provide us with capital are such that their capital formation capacity has been reduced to 40% of their original capacity. It is only fair to admit this. What did I also say? I said, and I want to repeat …

What about our standards of living?

The hon. member is asking me: What about our standards of living. Of course economic growth, economic development and the raising of the standards of living are economic objectives in any country. However, the hon. member will understand that it depends on the state of the economy whether those objectives can be achieved in the short term over or within a specific period. I do not want there to be any doubt that capital is a scarce production factor in our country. No one can deny that we have squandered it. The State’s own patterns of expenditure could also have been more restrictive. I am not saying this to reproach anyone. It is easy to be wise after the event, but it is difficult to do this when the going is good. If we wish to grow and if we wish to maintain our real growth rate of the past and the available capital flow is not available in the same measure or is not available at all, it means that we shall have to save more internally. I want to ask in all fairness: Is this not possible?

At this moment it is very difficult.

Is it possible? I am not asking whether it is difficult. I want to assure the hon. member that things will be difficult for us in the short term if we wish to win the battle in the long term. Hon. members pointed out how wages and salaries had increased rapidly, while the production per man hour had decreased. I want to assure hon. members that wages have to be earned, and cannot simply be received. Let me debate this matter with the hon. member. He referred to unemployment, and I am as concerned about it as he. Let us see what the reasons for it are. I have already thanked the hon. member for Paarl in this regard, because he touched upon the crux of the matter. Who were the great champions of a distribution of wealth? It was the hon. members over there.

†Where other people pleaded for a more equitable distribution of wealth, the hon. member equated equitable distribution with equality of distribution. They did not plead for the increase in wealth to be divided and they did not plead for an increase in opportunities so that people can earn wealth. They are the apologists for the division of existing wealth which other people have earned.

*Surely it is true. [Interjections.] The hon. member also advocated the narrowing of the wage gap without linking it to increased productivity.

Equal pay for equal work!

I shall come to that later. Certain misconceptions arose in this regard and if the hon. member has now qualified his statements, I want to tell him that there is not a person in this House or in this country who is not prepared, as an aim which they set themselves and in accordance with the economic means of the country, to narrow the wage gap and eventually to eliminate it. However, there is a condition attached, and that is that the production should be equal. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Paarl referred to wage increases—understand me well, I am not condemning this—in the mining industry, and now I want to know from the hon. member: Did it go hand-in-hand with increased production?

Are you referring to Whites?

No, to Blacks. I should like us to put our money where our mouths are. [Interjections.] What happens, however? What is one of the causes of unemployment, apart from the recessionary conditions in which we find ourselves? It is to be found in the fact that because the wages have increased to such an extent, the number of employees have been reduced. The hon. member for Paarl advanced a very valid argument in this regard, i.e. whether it is better to have one who earns a lot or three who all earn something. The fact of the matter is that in the ’sixties we had the highest average growth rate. I now want to ask the hon. member a question, and he must give me a reply: Who is dominant in the economic life of this country? Who primarily controls the industries? The hon. member is an honest man, and I think he will tell me. Who immediately decided, when Black people stayed away from their jobs, to mechanize? Many industries did this, and the hon. member would probably have done so as well. But what they do in practice and what they advocate in theory, are two completely different things. What is the hon. member doing now? He said it was time we considered the labour intensiveness as against the capital intensiveness of our industries. Surely the hon. member is late in the day.

I have been saying it for years!

No, the hon. member has not been saying it for years. The fact of the matter is that since the ’sixties this structural change in our industries has been occurring, i.e. that our industries have been becoming more capital intensive all the time. I warned against it many times, the hon. member knows that. I pointed out that we were, in regard to our industrial development, following the pattern of the old industrialized countries where labour was scarce and capital was available in abundance. We applied this holus-bolus to South African conditions, but I said nothing about it. At present a team from my department is instituting an investigation into measures that we can adopt in this specific regard. I am as concerned as the hon. member about the growing unemployment, but there is no short-term solution to it. Does the hon. member realize that, apart from the positive factors which are at present being revealed with regard to our balance of payments on the current account, the people who plan and assess the economy are of the opinion that we cannot adopt general stimulating measures in this regard?

What about selective measures?

I shall come to that later. In this regard there is once again a misconception. Everyone talks about “selective”, but nobody states where the selective areas are or where the financing should come from … [Interjections.]

Order! If I add up all the interjections made by the hon. member for Yeoville, he has already had another full turn to speak. He must stop making inteijections now.

I shall speak again at a later stage on future industrial development, and I am asking the hon. member to leave it at that for the moment because I should like to make an announcement in that particular regard.

I want to thank the hon. member for Paarl very sincerely for his contribution, because I agree with him. Basically, he refuted the arguments of the hon. member for Yeoville in this specific regard. The hon. member for Florida made a very meaningful contribution, and I want to refer to a few aspects of his speech. The first is that it is the joint responsibility of the entrepreneurial groups and workers groups to preserve our system. I want to say at once that I think that the entrepreneurial groups themselves have a positive contribution to make in bringing home, through their actions, to their employees the value of our capitalistic system. South Africa has a wonderful record of economic growth and development and also has a wonderful record for stability. I want to convey my thanks for this to the private entrepreneurs of our country and to the workers. There should be no doubt about this. Secondly, I want to say that I agree with the hon. member that the entrepreneurs themselves also have a social responsibility. The only pity is that so many of them have discovered it at such a late stage. It is also a pity that the form in which they are employing it is not the best form in which it can be done. I think it is important that it should be expanded.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti is not present here at the moment, and I shall therefore return to him later.

You can talk to me about sugar.

I shall reply to him tomorrow.

He will not be here tomorrow.

Then I shall reply to him in writing. I also want to thank the hon. member for Worcester for his contribution. He supports us, and I think hon. members agree with him and with me that the anti-inflation programme was not a failure. He said that our growth rate had dropped. He referred to our rate of inflation and also dealt with another important matter to which I quickly want to refer. He referred to our tendency in South Africa to import. He pointed out that the amount for consumer goods which are imported totals approximately R400 million per annum. I just want to tell him that there was a significant decrease in our imports last year, which has continued into the first quarter of this year.

In this specific regard I want to make a few observations. It is true that we in South Africa are inclined to import, and I think it is also true that many people frequently advocate a “Buy South African” campaign. I want to say today that I think that our consumer public can do little to cause our imports of consumer goods to diminish. The people who can make a significant contribution in this regard are the dealers and the importers. I maintain that if a specific article is not on the shelf, the public will not buy it. I also want to point out that the trade traffic between countries is not a one-way process, but a two-way traffic and that since there are limitations on my department and on me to prevent unnecessary imports because we cannot afford anything that is prejudicial to South Africa’s exports, because South Africa is a trading country, importers and dealers can help us. I want to make an appeal to them today to help us. I do so on the grounds of that which many of them profess. They profess to have sympathy with the unemployed. If we have to convert that sympathy into concrete terms, all of us should ensure, however insignificant our contributions may be, that the limited demand which exists in this country should be channellized towards South African products. If we could do that and if we could reduce consumer imports products by only 20%, we could save R80 million in exchange and we could divert demand to the value of R80 million towards South African products. It may sound umimportant, but how does this compare with the saving which our fuel measures have led to? Let me say at once that I know that those measures are irritating and difficult—but they are successful. I owe it to everyone to direct a word of thanks to the travelling public for their contribution. If one takes the normal growth of consumption into account, our consumption last month was 22% lower than in the corresponding month in 1973. This testifies to the fact that people have an understanding of the problems of this country. The total amount we save in this way represents only R80 to R100 million in a year. If all of us can save R80 million in this way with so much irritation and sacrifice—it is essential that we should do so—how much easier would it not be to save R100 million by simply not importing certain goods.

By giving up the caviar.

Yes, by giving up the caviar, to put it idiomatically. It can be done. That is why I just want to say in this respect that, since South Africa is being threatened in many respects—I do not deny this—and is also being threatened economically, we should not think that the answer is always to be found elsewhere. The answer is also to be found in each one of us. We should not always think that the answer is a dramatic one. It is frequently a perfectly ordinary answer. Frequently it is the ordinary daily efforts of people which have a dramatic effect. That is why I am advocating, in respect of the economy of our country, not that we should do extraordinary things, but that we should simply do the ordinary things. The dramatic effect will not be lacking. Therefore I am grateful that the hon. member for Worcester and other hon. members discussed this matter.

The hon. member for King William’s Town discussed the position in Berlin with me—he was not seeking a quarrel. I shall furnish him with more particulars on decentralization and our efforts in this regard tomorrow. He also complained about the containerization possibilities at East London harbour compared with the position in other harbours. In this regard I want to tell him that I am not a harbour developer. Nevertheless I shall also deal with this matter at a later stage.

He actually provided the answer to that himself.

Yes, he provided himself with an answer. However, there are certain aspects which I shall first have to go into before I reply to him in that regard.

The hon. member for Smithfield made a very fine contribution, and I want to congratulate him on it. However, he will understand that I do not, at this stage, wish to enter into a debate with the author of the book. I think we understand one another, and that in South Africa the economy is as free as possible, and this is important. I am not unsympathetic towards, nor am I blind to the weaknesses of the public sector. However, we are constantly trying to rectify matters, but in addition to that I want to say that I have great appreciation for the people in the public sector. This country has public servants which, in calibre and dedication, cannot be equalled in any other country I know of. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to associate myself with the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens in this regard, and to thank my own officials for their contributions. They are not paid for working overtime, and they do not go on strike either. Their loyalty to their country and their work is unequalled. I know it is difficult to work if the world becomes a difficult place to live in, and some days I am difficult as well. I have appreciation for the entire public service. We understand that people who come to a Government office, do so because they have problems, either their own problems or problems we have created for them. Therefore I can state categorically that the responsibility of the department in this specific regard is to give people a hearing when they have problems.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein East referred with good effect to the problems in our economy, and he also provided possible answers. Once again we shall have to adapt our spending patterns and habits to our altered resources. Once again we shall have to understand that if we are to defend our country—this is a high economic priority—if we allow our import account in respect of crude oil, in spite of savings, to increase from R225 million to R1 171 million, if we have to contend with a drop of 50% in the gold price over 12 months, and if we have a lack of capital flow, then surely there is only one answer. It is that we shall have to adapt our way of living to the altered circumstances. Once again this can be done in an ordinary way.

The hon. member also referred to increased productivity. I agree with him. In this regard, without going into details, I want to refer to the commendable work which the National Productivity Institute, which falls under the department, is doing in this regard. They have made a considerable contribution towards achieving that very goal. But then I also wish to issue warning, in view of the emotional charge of this statement. We are frequently inclined to confuse concepts and to speak of hard work, while people should in fact work more effectively. Frequently it is also the responsibility of management to ensure this. I thank the hon. member for his contribution.

†The hon. member for Constantia started off by saying that if we would eliminate three abhorrent things in our political philosophy, the attitude of the Western world would change. I would like to discuss that matter with him. I would also like to discuss the type of change that the Western world requires from South Africa. I would also like to discuss with him our preparedness, as to whether we can afford to accede to those requests for change. I find it strange that he could make an observation like that, because the Western world is led by the USA, and not even the members of the PRP are prepared to accede to the change, its form, its type and momentum, which the USA requires from South Africa. Whether I must conclude from the discussions that are taking place that the hon. member for Constantia is now prepared to propagate the acquiescence by South Africa in the demands of the USA …

That is not what I said.

But you said “of the Western world”. Is America not the leader of the Western world? I would like to take the matter further. I would like to ask the hon. member: Since when has job reservation been abhorrent? Since when?

Abhorrent?

Yes, since when? [Interjections.] On the mines as well?

Ever since you put it on the Statute Book.

I challenge the hon. member for Constantia to show me one instance where he has pleaded for the abrogation of job reservation on the mines before we institutionalized—as is now said—job reservation.

The mines are the worse for that.

The hon. member now objects to the institution, not the principle. It is not as easy as that. I know talk is cheap, but it is money that buys whisky. I further want to ask the hon. member: Since when has a form of influx control been abhorrent? Had the hon. member ever voiced his objection to influx control before the NP came to power? Who introduced influx control in the first instance?

Marais Steyn!

What I find strange is that the test of what is abhorrent seems to depend on who takes the action. I will have something more to say about job reservation in a moment. I first want to ask the hon. member in all fairness to tell me when his moral objection began.

When the newspaper told him to.

When The Cape Times wrote a leading article about it.

[Inaudible.]

I really do not want to speak to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I want to speak to the hon. member for Constantia. The two of us have always been on more or less the same level. I therefore want to know from the hon. member for Constantia when his moral objections began.

You are on a very low level!

Well, then I must be able to reach the hon. member for Pinetown, because he is in the mud. [Interjections.] I should like to know from the hon. member for Constantia whether it is the policy of his party that there should be no form of control in regard to influx into the urban areas.

[Inaudible.]

I am asking the hon. member whether there should be no control.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Constantia said, unless I misunderstood him, that he wanted everyone to sell his labour where he could get the best price for it. In other words, the hon. member also discussed the geographic mobility of labour. If that is not what he discussed, he must get up and tell me what he actually discussed.

*Mr. Chairman, the Government through the hon. the Prime Minister, adopted a standpoint in regard to the question of work reservation. The Government adopted a standpoint with regard to work reservation, where it is being statutorily retained and where employers are applying it of their own accord. Now I want to know whether the hon. member for Constantia will contradict me when I allege that entrepreneurs themselves are applying more work reservation that is in fact being enforced statutorily. Then I also want to know what the hon. member has done to persuade those who are applying work reservation, to put a stop to it.

Surely the hon. member knows that labour relations are a delicate matter. In addition, the hon. member knows that the Government’s achievements in regard to the evolutionary process of labour relations have been commendable. The hon. member also knows that the Government has stated that—and this is important—in the negotiations with trade unions it will not place any obstacles in the way through the method it adopts to develop and apply its labour legislation. The hon. the Minister of Labour, in fact, announced during the discussion of his Vote that in this specific regard, and under the direction of Prof. Wiehahn, he was going to institute an investigation into our labour legislation in its entirety. The Government also committed itself to this by way of the anti-inflation programme, and the Government is doing its duty in regard to this matter.

I want to ask the hon. member for Constantia in all earnest to remove the beam from the Opposition’s eye for a change rather than to see the splinter in the eye of the NP. It would also facilitate the task of the Government if the hon. member set an example in regard to this specific matter.

I come now to the report. I put it to the hon. member that, precisely because I am aware of the relatively restricted basis of our economy, and also specifically of our industries, and because, just as he does, I believe that competition is the best mechanism by means of which our system may be served and prices stabilized, and because I believe, as he does too, that competition in South Africa is not always complete and that harmful monopolistic conditions, even oligopolistic conditions, exist, I have had this aspect investigated, and I want to associate myself with the hon. member by extending my sincere thanks to the commissioner. I think that this is a very good report. I want to undertake, to the hon. members as well as the private sector, that I will give a final decision in regard to the report very soon. I shall do so as soon as I have had an opportunity of holding talks with the organizations in commerce and in industry that are affected by it.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister why, if he feels that way about monopolies, does he not do something about retail price maintenance?

The answer is very simple. I am doing something about it. The hon. member will recall that, for the first time in many years, prosecutions have been instituted in terms of the statutory provisions pertaining to the prohibition on the maintenance of prices. The hon. member for Tygerberg was, at one stage, instrumental in these prosecutions. The hon. member knows, too, that our courts imposed a very stiff fine in the case which we prosecuted. In the second place, however, I want to say that it is not very easy to prove a contravention in this regard. I have now ordered an investigation into the need for the lifting of the prohibition on the maintenance of prices in the tyre and tube manufacturing industry. There are circumstances in which price maintenance— although it is prohibited as a principle—are nevertheless desirable for certain reasons. I am thinking for example of the petrol industry. We can discuss this when the Petroleum Products Bill is being dealt with. I do not want to become involved in that now. We are therefore doing what the hon. member is asking for, but in practice it is not always easy to do.

I agree with the hon. member for Sunnyside on the excellent work of the Bureau of Standards. I want to associate myself with his words of congratulations to the Director-General of the bureau on his exceptional distinction. I also agree with the hon. member on the question of standardization, but we have a free economy, and therefore standardization has to be a process which is not necessarily enforced from above. Absolute standardization could lead to the opposite of what we want, namely rigidity and a lack of development and technological progress. We should bear this in mind.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has spoken of productivity. One is struck by the fact that in terms of words, he is perhaps the most productive Minister in the House. I do not want to react to everything he said, for he said a great deal … [Interjections.] We in these benches are very grateful to learn of the inquiry which is being conducted into the fertilizer industry. We are also glad that the coal mine for Sasol 2 is now in production. We welcome these two announcements.

Furthermore, we want to give our wholehearted support to the plea made by the hon. member for Klip River concerning the countrywide supply of cheap Escom power and the revision of the Electricity Supply Act.

So do I.

The hon. member for Carletonville also made a very interesting speech about the varieties of motor vehicles and spare parts which we have in South Africa. We might suggest that we should eventually manufacture only two kinds of motor vehicles in South Africa: A Cartercar and a Youngmobile. Then we could drive them to pieces on the South African roads. [Interjections.]

We in the SAP feel very strongly about the development and the decentralization of our industries. We shall do everything in our power to encourage this. In particular, we feel that it is absolutely essential for us to be self-sufficient in respect of strategic material and strategic products. Nevertheless, we must point out—I want to emphasize this—that we must be very careful in what we do. We must be sure not to discourage large and important investors in our eagerness to get a specific industry established.

The hon. members for Walmer and King William’s Town and the hon. the Minister spoke of a crisis of confidence. In this connection I want to refer to a specific concern by name, in the hope that the hon. the Minister will go into the matter again in order to make more acceptable arrangements for the importation of X-ray films. It is difficult to discuss this matter in detail in the space of 10 minutes. The hon. the Minister is familiar with the background, for I personally arranged for representatives of one of the companies to see him. Quite a lot has been written in the newspapers about this matter.

The existing X-ray film industry is feeling uncertain about its future. According to the Sunday Express, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs opened the Continental Ethicals factory at Rustenburg in January 1977. The investment in this factory is R3 million. The present function of the factory is not really to manufacture film, but to cut and pack it. To establish a full-fledged film-producing factory would cost between R30 million and R40 million, for this is a highly specialized industry. After this factory had been established, an application for tariff protection was published by way of Notice No. 132 in the Gazette of 25 February 1977. However, the factory had also been built in a decentralized area and therefore enjoys a preference of 20% on all tenders. I think that is sufficient. I do not think there is any need for them to have tariff protection if they enjoy such preferences. The result has been, according to the Business Times of 15 May, that the Transvaal Administration is presently paying R93 per 100 sheets of film of the 3M type—the brand name of Continental Ethicals—while the same packaging of 100 sheets supplied by Agfa Gevaert can be bought directly from Belgium for R60 in Rhodesia.

Mr. Kay, the managing director of Continental Ethicals, alleges that the cost for the patient will be increased by only 1% or 2% under these circumstances, because the cost of the film is just a small component of the cost involved in radiological examinations. However, the radiologists do not agree with him. They maintain that it would cause an increase of 10% to 15%. The Radiological Society has voiced a strong objection to the proposed tariff on imported film.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.