Mr. Chairman, the Government’s White Paper on the report of the Erika Theron Commission was not received with equal enthusiasm everywhere. There was disappointment, among some Nationalists too, unfortunately. I shall refer to them again later. Then, of course, there was also a great deal of criticism. In the course of the debate hon. members from this side of the House dealt fully with the criticism of the White Paper expressed by the Opposition. As far as the criticism advanced by the Opposition is concerned, it seems in any event that they are always harping on a few aspects of the White Paper, on those few recommendations which were not accepted by the Government, and that they have not shown enough appreciation of the Government’s reaction—the Government’s positive reaction—to the vast majority of the recommendations. The hon. the Minister has already referred to this in his speech on Friday.

I think, however, that the disappointment and criticism with which many people, including well-meaning people, received the White Paper, is due to something they expected of the White Paper which they should not have. They apparently thought that the White Paper should be a blueprint or ground-plan for the Coloureds. However, the White Paper was never meant to be a blueprint or a ground-plan. It is merely a reaction to the Erika Theron Commission and as such, merely a continuation of the dialogue on the future of the Coloureds, a further stage of the dialogue—a dialogue which has been stimulated to a large extent by the recommendations of the Erika Theron Commission, a dialogue which is being conducted on the socio-economic and the political development of the Coloured population.

Therefore, the White Paper was not meant to be the last word, but rather a further word and part of the dialogue. That is why the White Paper is in point of fact a declaration of intent in many respects—when one judges it as a whole. A declaration of intent by the Government concerning the large-scale socioeconomic development which is going to be tackled by it. Furthermore it is also a declaration of intent concerning the political set-up which South Africa stands on the threshold of, a political set-up which a Cabinet Committee is working on at the moment in order to accommodate the political aspirations of the Coloureds as well. That is why the White Paper is more of a guide. It is not a ground-plan, but can rather be seen as an important cornerstone or building stone of future developments. Many people will be prepared to accept that the White Paper is not a blueprint or a ground-plan for the development of the Coloureds, but will nevertheless ask when they can expect the ground-plan containing the framework of the future development of White and Coloured in South Africa. This is a reaction which one often finds amongst young people, those young people who are desirous of having a vision of the future, who want to know the particulars of the future which they are going to meet. However, they must be fair, too. I myself am still young and I am also hasty. However, when one is on the threshold of a new constitutional dispensation, a dispensation which may ultimately be just as important from an historical point of view as union or the declaration of the Republic, it is necessary to think, speak and act with great circumspection and responsibility.

We must nevertheless bear in mind that the Erika Theron report was only made available by the middle of last year and that since that time, in the short period available to it, the Government has already studied the report properly, formulated recommendations and in many respects has already begun to put some of those recommendations into effect. Within one year after the appearance of the report, as the hon. the Minister also pointed out, the Government has already made a great deal of progress in putting many of the recommendations into effect. Furthermore, considerable progress has already been made with the Cabinet Committee, a committee which was appointed to investigate the amendment of the Westminster parliamentary system to be able to provide for the political requirements of the Coloureds as well. After all, this is not evidence of obstinacy on the part of the Government. It is evidence of strong, responsible movement. Moreover, people often allege that as far as the future of the Coloureds is concerned, the Government is groping around in the dark as if there is no indication of what lies ahead. However, guidelines for the road ahead have often been laid down before. They have been expounded very clearly by the hon. the Prime Minister, amongst others, on various occasions. The Government is not groping around in the dark here. The broad guidelines are clear. However, it is true that there are uncertainties as regards the details. There are uncertainties in connection with putting them into effect, in connection with the machinery, the instrumentation, but as far as the broad guidelines are concerned, there is no uncertainty.

I should like to point out these guidelines briefly. However, I shall say no more than what we already know, so that I cannot be accused of trying to anticipate the work of the Cabinet Committee. As befits a good clergyman, I shall summarize it in three points. The first guideline is that the Coloureds and the Whites in South Africa are geographically so intermingled that any form of homeland for the Coloureds is totally unrealistic and that is why it is not the policy of the Government.

What does Dr. Treurnicht say?

He says exactly the same.

The second guideline is that the Whites in this plural community consider it their right to decide on their own affairs, that the Whites consider it their right to govern themselves and to have the living space which will make it possible for them to maintain their own standard of living and their own norms. The same right and the same opportunities are also granted to the Coloureds. The same right and the same opportunities will also have to be given to the Coloureds in equal measure. To put it differently, there are spheres in which the interests of the Whites and of the Coloureds can be separated in such a way that each will ultimately be able to decide on his own affairs in precisely the same way.

Thirdly, there is the sphere of common interests, of the indivisible common interests, a sphere in which decisions will have to be taken together in some way or other. The first steps on this road of decision taking have already been taken in the creation of the Cabinet Council. In this way the Coloureds and the Indians have been afforded the opportunity, and I quote the hon. the Prime Minister as he put it during the discussion of his Vote (Hansard, 20 April 1977, col. 5637)—

Surely this is very clear. After all, these are realistic, sound guidelines in accordance with which the path of the future of the Coloureds can be worked out further.

However, the responsibility for the future of White and Coloured in this country does not only rest on the shoulders of the Government, of the State; it is also becoming the responsibility of the individual and of the community to an increasing extent to help build our future in South Africa through mutual co-operation and goodwill. The duty of the citizen is no longer merely to make his cross on election day—in the right place, I must add—but also to give effect to the policy he voted for by creating good relations and goodwill. The Government can work out the finest political dispensation, but if it is not supported by mutual trust and goodwill, nothing will come of the political dispensation either in the end. The White community, as the more developed, prosperous group, has a responsibility—I am not saying this in a paternalist manner, not at all; I am stating it as a fact—to extend a hand to the Coloureds in order to give them the necessary guidance and support. In this regard one could mention many examples from many parts of the country which testify to mutual goodwill. I need only call to mind what the farming community of Stellenbosch has done to improve the standard of living of their farm labourers, not only by providing sporting facilities, but also by looking after their social and spiritual interests in a responsible way.

There are so many spheres in which goodwill can contribute a great deal towards helping to create a peaceful, prosperous and just future. I shall mention just a few spheres. In the first instance, principals and teachers at White schools can help their colleagues in Coloured schools a great deal with mutual teaching problems. Once again I am not saying this in a paternalistic way, but with a view to their greater experience in many respects. They can do this because they are all professional people who, after all, serve the same interests, i.e. the education of children. I shall mention a second sphere, and let that suffice. There is also a great need for White and Coloured leaders to have the opportunity to meet one another even at the school level, i.e. as scholars. A generation of Coloured and White children is growing up alongside one another today who know and understand very little about one another. The sooner they learn to talk to one another and to understand one another, the better it will be for South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to follow on the hon. member for Johannesburg West. I can fully appreciate two aspects of his speech. The first is his frank admission that there are people who are dissatisfied with the White Paper. However, I do not agree with his interpretation of the reasons for their dissatisfaction. But the fact that he is prepared to admit that it is a disappointment to many people, is a step in the right direction as far as I am concerned. The second is the three guidelines mentioned by the hon. member on which we in these benches agree with him, because we have always maintained that a geographical division is not at all possible as far as the Coloureds are concerned. With regard to the second guideline mentioned by the hon. member, it has always been our point of view that the Coloureds can have a measure of control over their own matters. But when we come to the third guideline, that of social interests, where there has to be joint decision-making, that hon. member is in full agreement with this side of the House. How is it possible for him to be sitting in the same party as the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, who has utterly repudiated the idea of joint decision-making? Hon. members on the opposite side maintain that the only issue is a homeland for the Coloureds, but another aspect is involved as well. The hon. member also said there was no point in differentiating the lower levels only, and then deciding everything jointly at the higher level. A report from Rapport states that he rejects the whole idea of joint decision-taking on matters of common concern. It is not I who reject the guideline to which the hon. member referred. It is the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration who rejects it. It is high time the hon. the Minister gives us his personal view of the matter. After all, every hon. Minister, Senator and member of the NP has his own view. I think the hon. the Minister should give us his view today.

†I would like to commence my speech virtually where I ended off last year when my time expired. I was explaining that it would cost the country only some R10 million to bring about salary parity between Indian and Coloured teachers with qualifications above Std. 10 and White teachers with the same qualifications. I want to warn this hon. Minister that it is getting very late in the day. The necessity for salary parity cannot and should not be seen as just a method to rectify economic injustices. It goes far deeper because it is, in fact, a social injustice. Salary differences between professional people with the same qualifications are the greatest insult imaginable.

*Hon. members so often say that one should not injure other people’s human dignity. But for as long as we do not have salary parity, we do injure the human dignity of people every day.

†I am afraid that when we eventually get round to implementing it, we will derive no benefit from it as far as improved relations are concerned, purely on account of the accumulated bitterness caused by the long delay. I raise the matter here once again on account of a spirit which I detected in the White Paper. If ever there was a spirit of “mañana”, a spirit of “tomorrow is yet another day”, I have found it in this White Paper, particularly as far as salary parity is concerned. The hon. the Minister keeps on saying that they have accepted 103 recommendations, but we are interested to know when those recommendations will be implemented. Let us, for example, take recommendation 97 which deals with salary parity for university personnel. Instead of a definite statement that this will be implemented immediately, within six months or within a year or within some fixed period of time, it is only stated that the Government agrees with it in principle. Yet, as a result of the efforts of an hon. member on this side of the House, viz. certain questions asked by the hon. member for Edenvale, the hon. the Minister and his department were forced to investigate the matter and it was discovered that it would cost a mere R15 626 to effect salary parity for professors and lecturers at the University of the Western Cape. This “mañana” attitude is also found when one comes to teachers. In this case this “tomorrow is another day” attitude is even more profound because the whole question of parity is subjected to the financial situation in the country. The overall financial situation in the country controls every aspect of life. It is quite unnecessary to have stated this unless this is stated as an excuse why this cannot be done. I want to ask the hon. the Minister one favour. When we receive his department’s report next year, a special paragraph should be included in which it is stated what amount is required to effect salary parity for professional Coloured men and women. The hon. the Minister and his department owe this to the people they serve.

*Now I want to deal briefly with the question of the control of Coloured education. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is really possible for a certain group or community to have control over the education of their children if they do not have a direct say at the highest level. It is not possible. If one examines the score of recommendations concerning education in the White Paper, one finds that in only two or three cases is the matter left to the CRC for decision. What is even more ironical, is that when it is left to the decision of the CRC, one realizes that they are not really in a position to give effect to the decision. Let us take recommendation 81 as an example, which deals with pre-school education and in which it is recommended that the Government is to accept a greater measure of responsibility. Several recommendations concern subsidies and assistance from the Government. To me that reflects the whole attitude adopted in this White Paper. That is why people are disappointed. The attitude adopted in the White Paper is similar to that of Pontius Pilate when he washed his hands in innocence. I quote—

One does not know whether one should laugh or cry. Even if they were to decide that they wanted to give this matter the highest priority—I am not talking about pre-school education as such; I am just talking about the principle—they would be unable to do so unless they had the funds. The question is not whether they have a Cabinet Council or not. The fact remains that the Coloured Council has to stand waiting, hat in hand, until our Cabinet decides what amount will be available to them and until we in this House approve it. It is no use saying that they have had a say as far as the Cabinet Council is concerned. How long do hon. members think we can continue with this farce? Every time one asks questions in this House about Coloured education, it is pointed out to me that it is a matter that has been transferred or delegated to the CRC, but that the hon. the Minister has obtained the particulars or information for us. It is a farce, however, because the real control is not in their hands. The real control lies where the money comes from.

Now I should like to make a few brief remarks on differentiated education. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I find it pathetic that the hon. member for Durban Central found it necessary this year to continue the speech he made last year. [Interjections.] Has he gained no new insight during the past 12 months? He came forward with negative criticism and tried to drive a wedge between the hon. the Deputy Minister and other Nationalists, and he based his attempt on a report from a Sunday newspaper. After all, the hon. the Deputy Minister said he would provide him with a copy of his speech. Surely the hon. the Deputy Minister has never said anything which is in conflict with the whole idea of the Cabinet Council. However, the entire speech of that hon. member was made in the same negative spirit that has permeated the whole debate on Coloured Affairs up to now. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central started it. He noted a larger degree of frustration and enmity amongst the Coloureds. The hon. member for Rondebosch said the Government was dominating the Coloureds and the hon. member for Pinelands said that the Government was oppressing the Coloureds. That was the drift of their speeches. If one looks at the White Paper or at the report of the Erika Theron Commission, two things become very clear. Firstly, one sees the White man and the Brown man walking the road ahead together, and, secondly, one sees that three important obligations flow from all these things. A heavy responsibility rests on the Government, and I want to concede that; a heavy responsibility rests on the White man, and I want to concede that as well; but a heavy responsibility also rests on the Coloured in particular. The Coloured himself must help under these circumstances. He has to help himself and we have to help each other on the road ahead. He has an extremely important task to perform. In the first place, if South Africa is besmirched abroad, then it is the task of the Coloured to stand by South Africa. Then the White man and the Brown man must stand together and stand firm in one common fatherland. Those Coloureds who see Black Power as a Utopia will find that as a minority group, they will be oppressed and crushed through Black fraternization and as a result of Black domination.

In the second place, it is absolutely essential that the Coloured realize that he has to activate his own people to become more economically productive in South Africa. If one thinks of the fact that only 10% of all the people in South Africa pay income tax, and, furthermore, that far more than 90% of those taxpayers are Whites, then one realizes that the Coloured has to aspire to higher positions and higher incomes and that he must do this on the basis of his own achievements and on his own merits and obtain increased participation in the South African economy in this way. If one thinks of the fact that only 2% of the Coloured population are employers, then one realizes that the Coloured community will have to do something to increase that percentage. There are numerous opportunities for Coloureds to become prosecutors, magistrates, physicians, social workers and dental surgeons. In the technical field there are also opportunities for electricians. There are vacancies and bursaries are available. These people must make use of the existing opportunities.

In the third place, it is of cardinal importance that the Coloureds select the cream of their community to act as leaders, people who can lead from a position of the strength of their own leadership, people who have the interests and the upliftment of the Coloureds at heart, people of whom the Coloureds themselves can be proud, people who do not lead through confrontation and who do not lead by means of threats of “all or nothing”, because that type of thing will not get anyone anywhere in life.

In the fourth place, it is extremely important for the Coloured to gain a fresh awareness of the fact that the crime rate and the rate of juvenile delinquency in his ranks are higher than in any other population group in South Africa. These are aspects he has to counteract. He must set himself the task of removing the agitator, the saboteur, from his community. He must strive after the maintenance of order. He must strive after the elimination of chaos. He must strive after the retention and development of that which is his own. He must show greater loyalty towards the Police Force and he must make his own people available to do police service. That feeling of contempt amongst the Coloureds towards their own people who are serving in the Police Force to protect the Coloureds themselves, must be removed in the best interests of the Coloured population and of co-existence in South Africa.

There is another matter of cardinal importance. In the fifth place, we have now arrived at the juncture when there is a greater need for mature leadership and statesmanship amongst the Coloureds than ever before. There is a greater need for this in the sense that the development of a firm economic and social set-up must serve as an infrastructure for a sound political dispensation. That is why I believe that the CRC must be accepted as a phase of constitutional development and that the Coloured must strengthen himself politically from that platform and develop attitudes and relations amongst Coloureds, i.e. between Brown and Brown and between Brown and White, so that this may serve as a further encouragement to establish relations on the road ahead.

In the sixth place, I also believe that the Coloureds must take cognizance of cases where the Coloured and the White man have differences. The answer to such cognizance must be acceptance and respect. Such cognizance and differences must be answered by negotiation. If the White man feels he must have a law prohibiting immorality, if he feels he must have a law prohibiting mixed marriages, and if these feelings are confirmed by opinion polls, then the Coloured must take cognizance of those things even though he may disagree with them. He must then reveal his differences around the negotiation table just as the White man is also taking cognizance in South Africa of the increasing demands for more participation by the Coloured in political development. Just like the White man, the Coloured must be prepared to talk in order to deal with those problems.

In the seventh place, and most important of all, it is vital that Coloureds should establish a strong sense of responsibility amongst their own people because the power of a sense of responsibility amongst the people of a population group determines the power, quality and integrity of a leader. It also determines the achievement of that particular group.

I believe, furthermore, that in these particular circumstances the White man has a task to perform and a role to play. The White man must take cognizance at all times of the pressing problems confronting the Coloured. The White man must exploit and further every possibility in order to afford the Coloured the opportunity to develop himself, to progress to an equal status and to receive political recognition. Furthermore, inasmuch as there is opposition in his heart to the advancement of the Coloured and to certain promotion opportunities being made available to the Coloureds, the White man must remove that opposition from his heart. But, Sir, the White man and the Brown man will walk together on the road ahead and they will have to help each other. They will have to negotiate with each other. This necessity to walk together may not be answered by threats or confrontation, because those are things which cannot get anyone anywhere in this life. I believe, furthermore, that a special task and duty rests on the shoulders of the Government. I also believe it is apparent from the entire White Paper that it is the desire of the Government to establish a new dispensation in which the Coloureds will be able to have greater participation. That is why it is the task of the Government to determine all the needs of the Coloureds and to meet them as far as it is possible to do so in practice. That is why the Government has committed itself unequivocably in the White Paper to bringing about the strongest possible socio-economic upliftment of the Coloured. But the Government also knows that that alone is not enough.

The Government also knows that there is a growing need amongst the Coloureds for greater recognition of their human dignity and for greater political recognition. That is why the Government is prepared to give the Coloured a bigger and more active part in the political decision-making processes in South Africa.

That is why it is prepared to give the Coloured a say in a system of orderly development alongside the White man in South Africa. Moreover, the Government is prepared to give the Coloured effective say in matters affecting himself. Furthermore, the Government realizes that in its own interests, the position of subordination which the Coloured occupies in so many walks of life in South Africa, must be removed.

To confirm the good faith and bona fides of the Government in this regard, one need only point out that as far as income and educational achievements are concerned, the Coloured population in this country has made more rapid progress than any other population group in South Africa. I believe that the road ahead is a difficult road of co-operation so as to improve relations. Without that we cannot go to meet the future in peace. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in his speech, the hon. member for Durbanville concentrated chiefly on the symptoms of community poverty which one finds among the Coloured population. Actually, he had a rather incorrect view of the problem of the infrastructure on which those symptoms must be got rid of.

The other part of his speech was closely connected with the arguments which the hon. member for Johannesburg West tried to present. It is actually a contradiction of the argument which I presented in my own speech the other evening, namely that the Coloured is a political football or matter of dispute in the NP caucus and that this leads to large-scale confusion. I do not know what goes on within the caucus when they talk to one another, but at least I know what happens in public. The hon. member for Johannesburg West said that one of the three guidelines was that there should be joint decision-making on matters of common concern.

In this regard I want to quote what the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education said in a speech. A report in The Cape Times of 17 June, which the hon. the Deputy Minister can of course deny, reads—

Now one finds oneself in the dilemma that on the one hand, joint decisions are essential, and on the other, that the hon. the Deputy Minister immediately spells it out that certain consequences follow on joint decisions which are going to have a direct effect upon the future dispensation for the Coloureds. That is why the Coloureds, ourselves or anyone else is justified in asking what political dispensation the Government has in mind for the future. If one looks at the White Paper, it is clear that recommendation 153 is the point of intersection of various possible future dispensations for the Coloureds. This recommendation concerns the Coloured as a separate, ethnic and identifiable cultural group, the recommendation which the White Paper of the Government rejects. The hon. the Minister also quoted it—

After that it states—

Depending on where one puts the emphasis in those two phrases, one can apply various policies with respect to the Coloureds. I want to put it that the Government has not yet settled this matter to its own satisfaction. If one looks at the recommendations of the Theron Commission, one sees that there is a very clear, logical coherence. In other words, if one accepts certain central recommendations of the report, including recommendations Nos. 153 and 178, they entail certain consequences as regards the implementation of the other recommendations. However, if one takes out the recommendations concerned or rejects them, there are yet other consequences. Moreover, this is precisely what happens. In the White Paper, the Government rejects central recommendations of the Theron Commission, and because the Government does this, it creates confusion. It is misleading and results in there being a great deal of uncertainty at the moment about what the future of the Coloured is going to be.

I want to show this by referring to a few of the recommendations of the commission. If we look at recommendation No. 4, which concerns the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, it is clear that there is tension in the ranks of the Government. The Theron Commission accepts that this Act is harmful to Coloured/ White relations, that it is a law which serves no real purpose and is not essential and that in fact it concentrates on borderline cases. It is stated in the report that in any multinational community, a community in which there is a plurality of population groups, sanctions are exercised by the communities themselves as far as this type of phenomenon is concerned. This is also stated in the White Paper, but the Government nevertheless finds it necessary to keep this Act on the Statute Book. The result is that exceptional cases, borderline cases, are elevated to a central problem in the community. The Government cannot get away from this, but also admits that the people of South Africa, chiefly by means of the exercise of their own sanctions, will themselves see to it that this type of thing will not happen.

It is stated in recommendation No. 22 that more funds should be made available for the Coloured Development Corporation, for example, to enable them to do their work better. It concerns the whole question of economic upliftment. In the White Paper, the Government reacts to that recommendation as follows—

The question is: Who determines the priorities in terms of the overall set-up of Government financing? It is not the Coloureds who determine it, but the Government itself. Through the Cabinet Council, the Government must tell the Coloureds: “You are now going to have a say in how we determine the priorities.” However, they have no direct influence on how they are determined. Therefore this is, quite simply, misleading. Of course, it is stated in principle that they should get more, but whether they will get more, will not depend on their demands, but on the order of priorities.

Now we come to the whole question of contradictions. In recommendation No. 94 the commission recommended that the University of the Western Cape should be opened up and that all students should be allowed to go there. The Government rejects this and what they say in this regard, is, to me, a clear-cut case of conflicting decisions and contradictions.

What clashes with what?

The recommendation states the following inter alia—

1. (a) alle universiteite vir Kleurlingstudente … oopgestel word;
2. (b) benewens bestaande reëlings die Universiteit van Wes-Kaapland toegelaat word om gekeurde Blankestudente op nagraadse vlak in te skryf;
3. (c) keuring en toelating van studente by die universiteite behoort te berus.

Those recommendations are rejected, but then the Government went on to say—

On the one hand they reject the recommendation and on the other they say that they agree that the universities should decide on the selection of students. What exactly does the Government mean by this? How can they say on the one hand that every university should have the right to decide …

That is the case, after all.

That is not the case, Mr. Chairman. Section 21, which now stand to be changed, expressly provides that certain students may not be admitted. The Minister now has to decide who those students are. Either the university has the right to do so, or it does not. The Government cannot say that they reject the recommendation and then in the same breath say that they agree that the selection of students should depend on the universities.

Throughout the White Paper one can point to instances where it is misleading and creates uncertainty so that people do not know what is going to happen in the future. There is an irresoluteness about it. The point I want to make is that this irresoluteness, uncertainty and lack of clarity in the NP is the biggest single factor contributing towards confrontation politics in the Coloured community. The Coloureds are beginning to feel that their future is being argued and wrangled about in the ranks of the NP. They have no guidelines to hold up to themselves or their children and this leads to dissatisfaction and confrontation. It is pointless for the Government always to point to other people and to berate them and hold them up as scapegoats. The actual scapegoat which gives rise to dissatisfaction is the uncertainty in the ranks of the Government.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rondebosch will always remain a unique case study for various disciplines at any university. Whether one adopts the Freudian approach or any other approach, the hon. member is always interesting. I also take personal interest in the hon. member and that is why, for the sake of the various disciplines, I should like the hon. member to stay in this House for a long time so that he may talk to us for a long time to come, because he is a typical example to us of what a person does not want to be and ought not to be. The hon. member and his colleagues form a small party, but I think there are a thousand times as many stresses in his party’s caucus and a thousand times as many potential stresses in their policy as the hon. member could ever think of.

The hon. member spoke about the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education and the hon. member for Johannesburg West. The hon. the Deputy Minister is a little older than 2 and I shall not deal with him any further. However, I want to draw a comparison between myself and the hon. member for Johannesburg West. Of course, we often have our differences. For example, he thinks the Maties are a better team than the Tukkies.

Oh, come on!

It is not just that, however. The hon. member does not understand the situation. Of course the hon. member for Johannesburg West and I often differ about things, but the point is that we both have the same principles and ideals. Does the hon. member think there could be such a large party without an interaction of thoughts and ideas? However, that hon. member is hoping for a rift in the NP so that he will be able to derive some personal advantage from it. I think the hon. member is propagating it, too. The thought the arrival of the new Minister of Foreign Affairs and others would cause so much tension within the NP that we would break up.

The hon. member’s problem lies in his training and not only in his constitution.

The same parrot!

Since the hon. member has made an interjection, I want to tell him that with his constitution, he would find it easier to co-operate with a man like me than with the hon. member for Rondebosch. The hon. member for Yeoville knows many things, but there is one thing he does not know yet and that is a Boer. When a Boer does not want to be a Boer, on must forget about him and leave him alone. He is the most dangerous person there is. As a person who wants to be part of a particular cultural community, the hon. member for Yeoville should rather co-operate with someone who appreciates his own heritage rather than with some who does not. I want to return presently to what Dr. Boesak said and give him the same advice.

I think the problem of the hon. member for Rondebosch is that he sees the population problems in South Africa from a sociological point of view. The most dangerous thing one can get is a sociologist meddling with population problems. We can discuss this further on a later occasion. The hon. member has no knowledge of peoples, ethnic relations, the process of acculturation and enculturation or the workings of these things. The hon. member is a sociologist and he imagines that he is still at Stellenbosch where a group of them sit around and nod their heads at each other and find the great solutions to all the problems of the world. That is where the hon. member’s problem lies, because one is never able to deal with such matters from such an academic viewpoint.

That is where the problem lies.

Hon. members say there is tension in the NP. But they have been saying that for the past 30 years. The wonder of the NP is that after 30 years, after so many new generations, one finds that there are still people who can take a fresh, new look at problems and that comradeship still exists, comradeship which that hon. member will never know, because he knows in his heart that his own people do not accept him. The PRP is creating a pathological atmosphere which holds danger for every population group in South Africa. They are creating a platform for people who do not have the knowledge, the understanding, the moral fibre or the inclination to make a real attempt to solve the problems. So it was, for example, that Dr. Boesak wrote the following as an epitaph for the report of the Erika Theron Commission—

It is a someone with a doctor’s degree who is writing such things. It is quite possible that he went to Holland for his doctor’s degree, to Dominee De Liefde and all the other dominees who are so venomous towards the White man in South Africa, just as venomous as the turbulent priest to whom the hon. the Prime Minister referred. These people look at the White Paper and at the actions of the NP from an unscientific background, a background which is based only on hate. If the hon. member for Rondebosch still has any fairness, understanding or scientific spirit in his system, then he must tell me whether he agrees with this epitah written by Dr. Boesak. He says: “Hier rus ’n kommissie, eens edelgebore …” and I agree with that, because the commission was born of the heart of the NP. I agree with that entirely because the commission was born of a party which is eager to solve the problems of South Africa, not only the problems of one group, but the problems of all peoples in South Africa. But now look at the last part of the epitaph: “… maar nou deur ’n Witskrif vir ewig verlöre”. Surely that is not true. Does the hon. member for Rondebosch mean to imply that he agrees with that part of the epitaph? Does he agree that because of the White Paper, the report has been lost for ever, that nothing remains of it? Surely that is not true. Surely the hon. member knows it is not true.

Let us take a brief look at some of the recommendations and at what the White Paper says about them. The hon. member for Rondebosch specializes in education. Did he go into the recommendations relating to education in the White Paper? [Interjections.] Does the hon. member mean to say that the White Paper rejects all the recommendations made by the commission in this connection? Surely that is not true. How could those recommendations be lost for ever? Most of the recommendations relating to education are being accepted, where these things are not already being done. Those hon. members are now creating a platform for a person like Dr. Boesak, a man who can do a lot for his people, to …

You created that platform.

It is true that we created a platform, a platform by virtue of which for the first time in their history, the Brown people in South Africa are receiving more within the South African structure than any other Government has ever given them. The hon. member is a man of great knowledge. He would do well to go into the political, sociological, socio-economic and educational background of the Brown man and to see which Government has done most for the Brown man. Those hon. members are sitting there in their party—I shall go on telling them this—as the extension of colonialism. They are the extension of British imperialism. [Interjections.] The hon. member may smile if he likes. That is in fact the problem of the so-called Afrikaner academics and of the people who use that party. The hon. member for Rondebosch is being used in South Africa just as Dr. Boesak is being used by certain elements; that is how the hon. member for Rondebosch is being used and that is why what he wants to see in South Africa will never transpire. The hon. member is simply an expendable pawn. As long as the hon. member with his double-barrelled Afrikaans name accepts and understands these things and as long as Dr. Boesak refuses to realize how he is being used and abused by those people, they will be rejected not only by the White community, but also by the Coloured community.

There are many people who feel unhappy about what the White Paper says about certain recommendations. I want to state categorically that there are far too many people in South Africa—including academics—who do not take a really scientific view of the problems, of their origins and of the solutions to them, people who are ignorant of what the NP has done so far. They are ignorant of that, and they do not reveal any understanding of the problems faced by a party when it works. There are too many people sitting in their studies and drawing lines who cannot apply themselves to practical politics or give effect to anything. I think the hon. member for Rondebosch would be able to learn a great deal if he were to free himself from the restrictive academic climate of sociology, the subject in which he has been trained, and concentrate on the general problems of South Africa instead.

I should prefer to come back to the Erika Theron Report. It is interesting to note that when the Department of Coloured Affairs took over Coloured education—to a large extent, of course, it was taken over from the churches— there was tremendous resistance. Some very ugly predictions were made in relation to the Coloureds. The report of the Erika Theron Commission says the following, inter alia—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the speech of the hon. member for Rissik was, as usual, very interesting. Actually I think it was more of a private argument. [Interjections.] I would rather concentrate on the technical education of the Coloured people.

†Mr. Chairman, there is a great deal one can say about technical education among Coloureds. My approach is not so much a political approach. My approach is that of a practical engineer of an industrialist. I look at South Africa’s need for tradesmen as our over-riding need. I believe we are wasting a great potential among the Coloured people, a potential which is not sufficiently exploited. Among the Coloured people we have the greatest reservoir of manpower available to us. However, we are not making use of that. I do not believe anyone can contradict my statement that the Coloured people are a reservoir of skilled manpower.

I had the pleasure of visiting the Bellville training centre in the company of the hon. the Minister last Friday on the occasion of the presentation of certificates to the first group of trainees who had completed their training at that centre. I was very disappointed though not to notice any hon. members of the Government side supporting the hon. the Minister at that ceremony. I am sure it is of great significance to those trainees and to the staff of the centre—especially those belonging to the Coloured group—when they realize that members of Parliament are taking an interest in their work.

I was also very fortunate to be present at the opening ceremony of that particular training centre some three years ago. Now, after three years, it is clear what important results have been achieved there. The results of the training centre have been really impressive. I do not want to go into it in detail, because it is a matter that has been covered by the Press. Nevertheless, I know not all hon. members will be aware of the fact that 40 Coloured trainees entered for the course three years ago. Two of them later withdrew due to ill-health. The remaining 38 did their final trade test at Olifantsfontein this year. Of them 37 passed. The pass mark in a trade test is 60%, which, in my opinion, is a high mark. Of the 37 who passed, eight received an A pass, 22 received B passes, and seven received C passes. The one who failed only missed his pass by 2%. He scored 58%.

I happened to have the opportunity of speaking to their examiner who had come from Olifantsfontein to attent the presentation ceremony. He told me that he was sure that if the one who had failed were to repeat the test in six months, he would have no difficulty in passing. He commended the trainees for their behaviour and for the standard of their work. He assured me that they were by far the best group he had ever encountered at the trade testing centre.

I may add that they achieved wonderful results from the night-school classes. They all passed the various courses, the NTC I, II and III, and there were many distinctions amongst them. The top boy established an all-time record at Olifantsfontein for his trade test as a motor mechanic. He obtained a pass mark of 86%, which is a record for Whites as well. This proves the capability of the Coloured men and boys for doing manual work and that kind of trade work which we so much require in South Africa. In this respect I must compliment the Department of Coloured Relations, the hon. the Minister and his predecessor for having the vision and courage to start this course at a cost of R750 000. We are also aware of the high costs that are involved. The hon. the Minister mentioned that it costs R5 200 to train one motor mechanic in this course. This may sound a great deal of money, but it is not when one compares it with the cost in respect of a White immigrant possessing the same qualifications. What does it not cost the Government to bring them to South Africa? In many cases they are misfits and in many cases they are unilingual. Sometimes they do not even speak the language of the country. What does it cost to train a White apprentice? I wonder if the hon. the Minister of Transport can tell me what it costs to train a White apprentice. I am sure it is more than R5 000 and they do not get comparable results from them, that I do know.

The value of a Coloured tradesman is immeasurable. First of all, White tradesmen can be released, and those White tradesmen who are ambitious can then be free to become teachers, technicians and trade instructors to do the work which they are capable of doing. It also promotes the free enterprise system, because every one of these men who is a qualified tradesmen is a potential capitalist. He can go out and start his own business and he can employ his own people. This is the sort of thing we want. Every tradesman in South Africa is a potential capitalist.

As praiseworthy as this course is, it is only a drop in the bucket. I wonder how many hon. members are aware of the fact that only 37 tradesmen have qualified after three years. We hope that each year from now on another 37 will be qualifying, or perhaps even 40. This figure does not even balance the loss of White tradesmen in the Western Cape per year who die, who retire and who go into their own business or other lines of business. We need far more of these tradesmen. However, private industry is playing its part. I see, according to the report on education, that in 1974 there were 2 943 Coloured apprentices who were undergoing technical training at the technical colleges. Therefore private industry is employing Coloured apprentices, but I do wish to criticize the Government for the way it is behaving as far as Coloured apprentices are concerned. It is not playing its part. For example, let us take the Department of Transport. There are 7 588 White apprentices, but not a single Coloured apprentice. In the case of the Department of Water Affairs there are 79 White apprentices, but not a single Coloured apprentice. In the case of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications there are 89 White apprentices, but not a single Coloured apprentice. The only Government department that is playing its part in some small way is the Department of Public Works, where there are 44 White apprentices and 14 Coloured apprentices. Of those 14, six are plumbers, one is a bricklayer and seven are carpenters. In a certain way they are therefore playing their part. Of course it may also be selfishness, because they do require these people. But the Department of Transport cannot tell me that it does not require plumbers, bricklayers or carpenters. This department could also do its bit and I think it is up to this hon. Minister to start working on his colleagues in the Cabinet to see that they too employ Coloured apprentices, especially in areas where there is a predominance of Coloured people, such as in the Western Cape. This is a matter which must be investigated and the Government must play its role. After all, the Government, the South African Railways and Iscor are the largest trainers of apprentices in South Africa.

I would like to remind the hon. the Minister that one of the recommendations of the Erika Theron Commission was that where there are large concentrations of Coloured people, something should be done to promote intensive training in various trades for the Coloured people.

This was accepted in the White Paper without reservation. I wish to refer to recommendation 36 in which it is recommended that special attention should be given to those trade opportunities in respect of which only a few Coloured artisans are qualified. The White Paper rejected this recommendation, arguing that the present system was perfectly efficacious and that it was being continually up-dated. It promised to investigate the admission of Coloured apprentices to restricted trades and to remove the handicaps, if any. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister what has been done in this regard. Can the hon. the Minister tell us whether any of these handicaps have been removed and whether Coloureds are being employed in these restricted trades? I do not only refer to the trades in which White apprentices are not interested, such as the building trade where they cannot get any White apprentices and accordingly have to take on Coloured apprentices. There are many other trades to which the Coloured is equally fitted but they are a closed shop to him because they are considered to be the preserve of the White apprentice.

In the same tenor I want to refer to the training school for Coloured farmers at Cedara in Natal where the Government has decreed that it will admit young Coloured men who want to study farming on a permit system. I understand that it is very difficult to get a permit and, furthermore, that there is no provision for the housing of these boys. They have to live in Pietermaritzburg if they wish to attend Cedara. This is certainly something the department should see to. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we could almost regard the debate we have had so far as a philosophical one. There has been some philosophizing here about the dispensation of the Coloured in South Africa. It is very interesting to consider some of the philosophical approaches and to analyse them. If I were the hon. the Minister, I would feel very good about some of the compliments he was paid from the opposite side. I do not know whether the compliments were always paid intentionally, but they were in fact paid.

There are at least a few reasonable people on the opposite side.

However, with regard to the matters raised by certain hon. members opposite—and I am referring in particular to the hon. member for Sea Point, who, unfortunately, is absent at the moment—it was said that if one were to look at the White Paper, one would see that the Government had made no adaptations to its policy. Surely it was not the object of the Theron Commission to prescribe policy to the Government. The hon. member for Sea Point went on to say, however, that although no adaptations of policy had been made, the majority of the recommendations had nevertheless been accepted. What does that imply? It implies that Government policy is such that without adaptations of policy being made, it has been possible to accommodate a large number of the recommendations. This proves that the Government’s policy is not a narrow one, but that it is a policy within the framework of which many things can be done, things which the Government is in fact doing. It shows us how well-considered and how well-planned Government policy is. In the speech he made earlier on and by way of interjection, the hon. member for Rondebosch admitted that the Government had created a platform for those people to state their case. We are not ashamed of that. On the contrary, we are proud of it.

Earlier on, the hon. member for South Coast paid a tribute in his speech and expressed his appreciation for the training of technicians. He said there was a tremendous “reservoir of skilled manpower” amongst the Coloureds. That is true. The Government is engaged in that; he attested to that and said that the results could be seen over a period of three years. Those are compliments to this side of the House, to the Government and the hon. the Minister and his department. The hon. member for South Coast went on to say that everyone who had been trained in this way could go and open his own business. That is an admission that no ceiling is placed on these people, that they may develop and become entrepreneurs. The hon. member for Sea Point said we should have round table conferences and take decisions on common matters. I want to ask hon. members of the PRP whether they believe in full integration with the Coloureds. Do they believe we should integrate with the Coloureds fully? Three hon. members of the PRP are present at the moment but not one of them wants to nod his head. Not one of them wants to say “yes” or “no”. I put this simple question to them: Should we integrate fully? One simply does not get a reply.

What do you want to do?

I am still coming to that question. I shall come to that hon. member presently. The following question was asked over the floor of this House. Is the Coloured part of the White nation? As far as I am concerned, the answer is “no”. If the answer had been “yes”, then a charge of gross discrimination could have been levelled not only at this side of the House, but also at the opposite side of the House as a whole. That is why I am asking the hon. members opposite …

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

No. I want to continue my speech. I shall come to that hon. member in a moment. That is why I am asking hon. members on that side of the House: Is it their policy that we integrate with the Coloureds fully? In other words, do they regard the Coloureds as part of the White nation of South Africa? If their answer is “yes”, then politically speaking, they are blatantly dishonest.

In what respect?

Because one cannot discriminate politically against a group of people whom one looks upon as part of one’s nation. However, that is what the official Opposition is doing and also what the PRP is doing.

Where?

The Coloured must realize that absorption into White organizations is not to his advantage.

Why not?

Because if he is absorbed into White organizations, he neglects his own. We have witnessed this in numerous spheres. These people will not develop to an equal status as long as they are regarded as an appendage or part of White organizations, and that holds true in the sphere of societies, sport clubs or whatever. We want them to develop their own organizations.

In a separate economy.

Yes. After all, this does not mean that once these people have established their own organizations and associations, there can be no liaison. Not at all. The implementation of the White Paper is not only the task of the Government; it is also the task of the private sector. When we speak of matters such as equal wages, I ask hon. members opposite: Who is preventing the private sector from paying equal wages?

But one has to be realistic. One cannot come forward with impractical proposals and then expect them to work in practice. Let us just look at one sphere, the question of Coloured housing. We must accept that there is a tremendous backlog in this regard. It is with great gratitude that we take cognizance of a movement such as the Urban Foundation which is now growing out of the private sector. It is a good thing and we are pleased about it. But why is this happening only now? The housing of the people living in the towns and cities has always been seen as the task of the Government alone. Surely that is not fair. Let us consider the position in the argicultural industry. That hon. member knows as well as I do that agriculture is the only industry which, down the years, has catered for all the housing needs of its people. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, as far as the speech made by the hon. member for Malmesbury is concerned, I want to say, since he dealt with the improvement of the socio-economic position of the Coloureds, that the hon. member will find that there are precious few hon. members in this House who would not say that the progress in that direction in the past decade or so has been spectacular. I do, however, want to go so far as to say that I do not think that that is really the main subject of debate here today.

I think that in reality, the subject of the debate here today is how we Whites can come to an arrangement with the Coloureds who share the same territory with us in South Africa. The question is what we must do in order to give them the right to administer their own intimate matters and then, at that level where one cannot divide any further, how the correct arrangements must be made so that those people will have a share. The matter involves the question whether we are prepared to let the Coloured remain a second-class citizen in South Africa forever or whether in the course of time, we can move towards giving them citizenship in South Africa equivalent to that of the Whites. I think that in reality, that is the issue in South Africa.

When I spoke about this on Friday afternoon, I said, inter alia, that we were concerned about that final constitutional dispensation which we were to create in South Africa. I also said on that occasion that the interim Government White Paper made it very clear that the Coloureds would be given no representation in this institution or in the provincial councils and that there would be no homeland either. The Government has given us two clear alternatives which it is not prepared to accept. It does not accept the idea of a homeland. Secondly, it does not accept representation in this Parliament either, and I assume that includes the Other Place. As a previous Minister of Coloured Affairs, Dr. Van der Merwe, said, the Government does not envisage that either.

If that is the situation, then I am worried about the type of speech which the hon. the Deputy Minister made last week at Sabra. That hon. gentleman has been so kind as to give us his complete speech. The fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister is not interested in sharing political power, reappears like a refrain throughout his entire speech. The hon. the Deputy Minister does not exclude the possibility that in the course of time we may have to adopt the same approach towards the Coloureds as the Government has in respect of the Black man. I quote from page 22 where the hon. the Deputy Minister concludes his speech—

That is that hon. gentleman’s conclusion.

Do you have any fault to find with it?

Surely that is not the answer for South Africa under these circumstances. Anyone could come to the conclusion which the hon. the Deputy Minister has come to here. Is he helping us to find an answer in respect of what has to be done with regard to the Coloureds? He does not exclude the question of a homeland. According to The Argus the hon. gentleman said in reply to a question …

Did you read Saturday’s Die Burger?

Yes, I too read it.

If you have read it, then you now find yourself in two worlds.

Did the hon. the Deputy Minister repudiate the following as well?—

Did the hon. gentleman repudiate that as well?

To administer his own affairs.

I want to know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister repudiated that as well, viz. that the greatest measure of self-government could be given to these people as well on the same basis as the hon. gentleman has in mind for the Black man? Did he deny that as well? That is the issue. We want to know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs think we can move in the direction of the homeland idea in respect of the Coloureds, i.e. eventual sovereign independence.

If the hon. the Minister says that that is so, then I want to know what the hon. member for Moorreesburg thinks about it. That hon. member has repeatedly stated that the White man and the Coloured are treading the same path and that there should be a form of partnership between the White and Coloured in South Africa. Unless we gain clarity about the Government’s approach, viz. whether it wants the Treurnicht approach of movement in the direction of the homeland, or whether we are to move in the direction of a closer partnership, we cannot conduct a meaningful debate in this country in respect of the Coloureds.

You are a little in the dark.

I am not in the dark. We want to know whether we are on the same road as those people. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether or not the Coloureds are a nation in embryo.

Do you want an answer now?

Unless the hon. gentleman gives me those answers …

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

No, the hon. gentleman will have a turn to speak. [Interjections.] I want to know from the hon. gentleman whether they are an important part of our plural society or whether the hon. the Deputy Minister is splitting hairs by talking about the plurality of communities. Unless we gain clarity on these matters, we cannot conduct a proper debate on this matter.

We in these benches have no objection to the CRC moving towards a higher status than they enjoy at present. We also believe that their Executive could have fully fledged Ministers. The situation could develop in which the CRC as a body gets more power and responsibility than the present provincial council. Then it would definitely be a form of parliamentary institution in South Africa. However, it could never be a sovereign parliament which shared sovereignty with us in the same territory.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether he is aware of the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister said in 1974 that they would gain full sovereignty over their own people?

Sir, we can understand that they will be given sovereignty, but it can never be full sovereignty in the sense that they may decide for themselves on matters concerning foreign affairs, defence, treaties with other countries, etc. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to give the hon. member for Newton Park a well-known Afrikaner saying to consider, viz. that the person who chases someone else, does not stand still himself. If that hon. member and his party are going to chase after the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, then I predict that they will achieve nothing in politics and that they will never be able to make a positive contribution. [Interjections.] I think the hon. member for Newton Park might as well wait for the answers to his questions; the hon. the Deputy Minister will reply to them in good time.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Newton Park spoke in the same vein as the hon. member for Sea Point Friday afternoon.

Really, that is not true !

I shall prove to the hon. member that it is true. He spoke in the same vein as the hon. member for Sea Point, the hon. member for Pinelands, and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central and Mooi River last year. To be more specific, all those hon. members regaled us with clichés, with meaningless slogans. If it was not joint decision-making, it was some other meaningless expression of that nature.

In that regard, I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Johannesburg West said earlier today in this debate, viz. that in these times we should speak with responsibility and caution on these matters. However, we must not speak with responsibility and caution only, but with clarity as well. We must not come up with hackneyed phrases and pretend to be uttering pearls of wisdom, as the aforementioned hon. members have done. I am referring to the constant reference being made to sovereignty. For example, the hon. member for Sea Point said on Friday—

The hon. member for Newton Park also spoke this morning about sovereign independence and about a sovereign Parliament.

I want to say a few things about the concept of “sovereignty”, because I believe it is necessary for us to gain clarity in this debate about that concept. In the political sense, sovereignty may have various meanings. I think that for the sake of greater clarity it is necessary to note briefly what sovereignty comprises and implies in this regard. Fundamental to the doctrine of sovereignty is the point of departure that there must be a highest authority in every State, which is subordinate to nothing and no one, and is therefore called the “sovereign”. Furthermore, it is assumed that this sovereign complies with three requirements, or has three properties, viz., firstly, the sovereign is indivisible because there can be only one highest authority in a country; secondly, the sovereign’s authority is original because the highest authority certainly cannot stem from another authority, since then it would not be the highest authority; and, thirdly, the authority of the sovereign is unlimited because if there were a higher authority to limit its authority, it would no longer be sovereign.

I want to state categorically that the assumption that there has to be a sovereign power in every State, is unfounded. I want to refer this House to the following statement by Prof. Smith on page 223 of the 1931 edition of The British Yearbook of International Law—

In other words, sovereignty was only an expression used to describe certain political circumstances, if and when they existed.

The doctrine of sovereignty dominated the science of constitutional law in some form or other for a long time. However it is doubtful whether, and if so, to what extent a modern parliamentary democracy complies with the three aforementioned requirements of a sovereign, or displays the three aforementioned properties, and whether the so-called sovereignty is vested in such a modern parliamentary democracy. In his book The Law and the Constitution, 1959, Jennings differentiates between sovereignty in the political sense and sovereignty in the juristic sense. In the political sense, the electorate is sovereign because it establishes the authority and, in the final analysis determines the policy of that authority. In the juristic sense sovereignty is only the expression which indicates that the courts will always give juristic recognition to the authority’s decisions or laws.

After being very much in favour for a century and a half, in England as well, the popularity of this doctrine of sovereignty has been diminishing in recent times. These days, English constitutional lawyers prefer not to use the word “sovereignty” in relation to the British Parliament, but to give preference to the expression “parliamentary supremacy”. In the 1967 edition of Verloren van Themaat’s Staatsreg, Professor Wiechers puts it as follows—

To substantiate this I also quote what Hood Phillips writes in The Constitutional Law of Great Britain and the Commonwealth—

In the second edition of the aforementioned work, he states unequivocably—

Even the British Parliament, the mother of Parliaments, can apparently no longer comply with the requirements of the concept of sovereignty and no longer displays the properties of a sovereign. However, hon. members of the Opposition level at the Government the reproach that the CRC, the Cabinet Council and whatever political organs the Government is planning for the Coloureds, are not and will not be sovereign.

You initially said that they would be sovereign.

I maintain that the continued use of the word “sovereignty” in relation to the political rights and the constitutional dispensation of the Coloureds can have only a confusing effect on the matter and ought therefore to be stopped. Let us debate the real purport of the political dispensation that has been created for the Coloureds, or which is envisaged for them, but let us avoid the use of outmoded terminology such as “sovereignty”—a concept whose content and purport are in any event far from clear and which, in any event, may not be applicable to the situation in question. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened with great attention and appreciation to what the hon. member for Mossel Bay said. In many fundamental aspects I agree with the hon. member, for example about reflection, about the concept of sovereignty and about the undesirability of using expressions in our political structure which can only lead to confusion.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay did not take it any further, however, because he should also have indicated to us how indeed, with regard to the common ground—I shall return to that later—an arrangement would perhaps be found, however it may be termed, in accordance with which there should be effective division of power without the concept of sovereignty. In all humility, it seems to me that the hon. member for Mossel Bay should rather make his representations to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. In an interview with Die Burger the hon. the Deputy Minister referred, inter alia, to his statement at the congress that Coloureds and Indians should be given full political self-determination. The hon. member for Mossel Bay should tell me: Is full political self-determination sovereignty or not?

No.

The hon. the Deputy Minister said the following in that connection—

That is what the hon. the Deputy Minister quoted here just now. However, he goes on to say-

I shall return to that later, however. The hon. the Deputy Minister therefore said in fact that it was possible to apply the doctrine of sovereignty with regard to the Coloureds. That is what the conflict and the argument is about.

I am one of the people who share in the disappointment of the hon. member for Johannesburg-West in the White Paper.

I am not disappointed. [Interjections.]

The report from which that White Paper arose, does not only consist of recommendations, it also contains a large number of facts, a large number of findings based on the investigation done by the commission, its hearing of evidence and its own analyses. I shall return to that later. If one wants to know what the fundamental philosophy, the basic purport of the report is, one can summarize it in the following ten points: In the first place there is recognition in the report of the pluralistic nature of our society. In the second place there is the fact that the report accepts that it is normal for the forming of groups and communities to be based on colour, standard of living or level of socio-economic development, but rejects the view that such an order can be maintained by means of legislation or in isolation.

In the third place, the report states clearly that the Coloureds do not have a separate cultural identity and that the sub-cultures found amongst the Coloureds, are of lesser import. In the fourth place, it is contended that the Coloureds do not constitute a separate nation or a nation in embryo. Fifthly, much of the Coloured population—probably approximately 40%—are in a state of chronic poverty. Furthermore, the measures of separation instituted with regard to Coloureds in terms of the Government’s apartheid policy, are completely unacceptable to the Coloureds. In the seventh place the Coloureds are strongly opposed to the present socio-political grouping. Furthermore, the commission found that in point of fact, the present socio-political grouping does not achieve its purpose and furthermore that the present dispensation cannot be transformed or converted in such a way that it can indeed develop into an effective functional institution.

In the ninth place, the proposals of the Government with regard to the inclusion of Coloured leaders on an executive level, by means of the appointment of Coloured representatives to councils and commissions, and the creation of a consulting Cabinet Council, is not accepted by a majority vote in the CRC. In the tenth place, the socio-economic problems of the Coloured population are insoluble without satisfactory direct representation in the various Government institutions.

When we consider the White Paper, it becomes apparent that nowhere in the White Paper is there the slightest indication that either the Government or the hon. the Minister were aware of this basic philosophy, the driving force behind the report. The only thing we find here, is fragmentary treatment of the recommendations as if the recommendations indeed effectively reflected or could reflect that philosophy or thrust of the report. In that respect I want to refer to what the consequences thereof have been. I have already referred to the consequences of the policy, to the views of and the statements made by Prof. Erika Theron and Prof. J. B. du Toit with regard to the consequences of that policy. In this regard I briefly want to quote from the book by Prof. Erika Theron and Prof. J. B. du Toit, Kortbegrip van die Theron-verslag. I quote from page 111—

Mr. Chairman, this applies to you and me. What is said here, is not said by people who are hostile to the Afrikaner or who do not know the Coloureds.—

That is the crux of the problem. That is the crux of the report. But I seek in vain for an answer to these things in the White Paper. The only thing I find in the White Paper, is a fragmented reply to certain of the commission’s recommendations. I am grateful that some of them are accepted. The report exposes a situation of great need, of tremendous bitterness and frustration amongst the Coloureds due to the fact that the present dispensation is totally unacceptable to them in many spheres and is indeed completely rejected by them, in particular the apartheid policy of the Government and the present political order. As regards these things too, I see nothing in the White Paper.

The hon. the Minister says however that we can look with great pride at all the recommendations which have in fact been adopted by the Government. But the recommendations are not the crux of the matter. In that respect the reaction by Prof. Theron and the other six members, after publication of the White Paper last year, was completely correct and justified.

What about the reaction of the other members?

They say—

What an indictment the hon. the Minister! I again quote—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, seeing that the hon. member apparently still has a lot to say, I rise to give him the opportunity of continuing his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Piketberg. I again quote—

That is the position. Therefore the hon. the Minister should not come and say that we should look at what the Government did accept, as if that is the answer we are seeking in these times in which we are living.

There are three basic recommendations of importance in the report, viz. recommendation No. 11(c) which deals with the transferring of funds in order to combat effectively the state of chronic poverty in the community; recommendation No. 153, which deals with cultural matters; and recommendation No. 178, on the political order. If we look at what the White Paper says about the three fundamental recommendations which, I believe, lay the foundation for the philosophy in the report, I can only say that it is an absolute scandal. What does the White Paper say about recommendation 11(c), which deals with the only effective way of combating the community poverty in which virtually 40% of those people find themselves? It reads—

My goodness! That is a string of meaningless clichés. Those hon. members on the other side who hoped to find an answer in the White Paper, should have another look at the answer.

I now come to recommendation No. 153, dealing with the cultural life of the Coloureds, in the light of the findings of the commission that the Coloureds do not have a separate identity. The White Paper says the commission is divided on the matter and then says—

The commission did in fact find that the Coloured does not have an identity of his own, unless the Government says that purely on the grounds that these people are Coloureds, as some hon. members quoted here what is stated in the report. From the point of view of colour, I suppose they are, broadly speaking, an identifiable community, but what has that to do with culture? And it is precisely in respect of the culture of these people that the report found that the Coloureds had no own identity. Nevertheless it is stated clearly in the White Paper—

What in Heaven’s name does that mean? The White Paper then reads—

The Coloureds do not want to be treated separately with regard to cultural activities and that is why the Government rejected the recommendation. The commission found that time and again. The White Paper then reads—

In conclusion we find this fine sentence—

What does that mean? And then the concluding sentence—

I ask the hon. the Minister whether the commission knew what the Government’s point of view was with regard to ballet classes in Worcester? What is meant by “die Regering se standpunt is reeds bekend” ? This is the sort of thing which is said which means absolutely nothing.

Finally I come to the last recommendation, recommendation no. 178, concerning the appointment of the Cabinet Committee. The Coloured members stated their point of view very clearly, that the Coloureds should be represented at all levels of government. They asked for a commission of experts. They did not ask for a party-political commission acting within the guidelines indicated by the hon. member for Johannesburg West.

The hon. member for Johannesburg West mentioned three guidelines. The first is that there cannot be a Coloured homeland. That he will have to discuss with the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education.

The Government says so in the White Paper.

Secondly, he says that where things are divisible, there has to be separate self-determination. That is just the question, viz. what is divisible in this entangled position in which Whites and Coloureds live. Who is to decide on the question of divisibility, they or the Government? The Coloured has already indicated that he does not see himself as a distinguishable cultural entity. To say now that the Government accepts as a guideline that what can be separated, as the Government sees it, should be accepted as a basis, is indeed where the rot lies in the tree’s roots. In the third place, the hon. member spoke of common areas. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education said very clearly in his speech that as far as he was concerned, there could be no joint decision-taking on matters of common interest because matters of common interest do indeed affect the inherent interests of the Whites as well. Most of the matters that are common to both; are matters which affect our existence as people of South Africa. I have great appreciation for the hon. the Deputy Minister. He states it very clearly when he says that there either has to be sharing of power—whether by means of consensus or not—or we have to state very clearly that the White man has to stay in charge as regards common spheres. That is what he said, if I understood him correctly. If he does not say that, he cannot continue with the idea that he will not allow Coloureds to consider with him those aspects which affect the Whites as well. Then it is “baasskap”. If the Coloureds do not have the right to make decisions jointly with the Whites, as the hon. member indicated, and if the Whites have the right to decide unilaterally on the matters which affect them jointly, that is political “baasskap”. The problem I have with the hon. the Deputy Minister, is that I find it more and more difficult to follow him. In all honesty, his credibility is diminishing by the day. He is like a flying firefly: here one moment, gone the next. One moment he talks about a homeland. Then, however, he says that it is not a homeland, but only all the Coloured areas. The one moment he says the Coloureds cannot be sovereign. On the other hand, however, he said that he did not believe in joint decisiontaking.

Why are you gesticulating like that?

I am only asking that the hon. the Deputy Minister, for his own sake, should tell us clearly what he means by these terms and should tell us exactly where he stands.

Where do you stand?

You know where I stand. [Interjections.] In reply to the question by the hon. the Minister of Defence, I want to say to him that I accept purely and simply that the time for discrimination against the Coloureds is past. In the second place, I want to say that we can only have racial peace in South Africa if the Coloured, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central indicated, has representation at all levels of Government.

On whose behalf are you talking now?

That brings me to the third point which the hon. member for Johannesburg West mentioned here. There are also other guidelines, not only those three. One of those guidelines has been stated here repeatedly by the Prime Minister, viz. that no Coloured will ever have a seat in this sovereign body—whether the hon. member for Mossel Bay likes it or not. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, having listened to the empty but noisy speech by the hon. member for Edenvale, I should like to ask at this stage: What have we heard from the UP and the PRP in this important debate? All we have heard from them is words, words—hollow, empty words ! These were words which did not spell out a policy, words which offered no solution nor suggested anything constructive on this important Coloured problem. We had a plurality of confusing words from them. [Interjections.] The only conclusion we can come to in this debate is that the PRP is sliding down the slope to full political integration and “one man, one vote” as far as the Coloureds are concerned. They just do not have the courage to say it straight out.

I should also like to talk about another important matter. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the success which his public relations committees are achieving. The establishment of the relations committees for Coloureds was one of the most important developments in the improvement of White/Coloured relations which has ever taken place in this country. I had the privilege of being able to help look after the interests of the Coloureds in the Free State for several years. That is why I speak from personal experience when I say that one of the most serious complaints which they had throughout the years was: You talk about us and you talk at us but you do not talk to us. However, since the establishment of the relations committees we have been talking to them and they have been talking to us, and this has very good consequences. In this way, it has been possible to identify and eliminate problems. It has been possible to find more and better employment opportunities for the Coloureds. It has also been possible to effect a substantial improvement to the Coloured people’s position in general. After the recent riots, there is a desire throughout the country to create better relations between White, Brown and Black in this country. A grey-headed old Coloured man once told me at Thabapatchoa in the Free State: You Whites must not let go of our hand because otherwise we are lost as Coloureds. The Whites of South Africa are extending their hands more and more to the Coloureds, but the Coloureds must not push them away. They must take our hand. As a good friend of the Coloureds I want to talk to them in a very frank way today. There are Coloureds and there are Coloured leaders in this country who push away the hand of the Government. Those people are on a dangerous path. There are people who tell them to do so, White people too. Some of those people are sitting here in the House in the PRP. These people are not really concerned about the interests of the Coloureds, but they want to ride on the political back of the Coloureds. They offer the Coloureds golden apples, but those apples are rotten inside.

The Coloureds must also guard against being taken in tow by Black Power politics. A yawning chasm awaits them in those politics. Fortunately, there are conservative Coloured leaders who realize this and who also realize that their salvation lies with the Whites.

After everything that this Government has done for the Coloureds, one expects more understanding on the part of Coloured leaders and more recognition of what has been done for them. When the Opposition was in power in this country, the Coloureds lived in such degrading circumstances, in slums, that they had no chance of becoming decent human beings. They must not forget the Sofia Towns, the Windermeres and the Cato Manors of Opposition days.

Look at Elsies River today.

This Government has created all the opportunities which are necessary for the self-development of the Coloureds. The Coloureds are firmly planted on their own political platform today and they can come into their own in education, in the professionals in commerce and in many other spheres. We are starting to hear the most positive things about the Coloured people as labourers, because in many places the Coloured people have become the corner-stone of the building industry in our country. As shop assistants and cashiers they are very courteous, helpful and efficient.

It is clear from the report of the Theron Commission that there has been great progress amongst the Coloureds; this is the result of measures which this Government has been taking over the years. A challenging era is awaiting the Coloureds. If they accept this challenge, many doors to development will open for them. However, it will to a large extent depend on themselves how they are going to make use of these opportunities. There can be no doubt as to the goodwill and good faith and of its willingness to eliminate the grievances of and injustices to the Coloureds. Thanks to the actions of the Government, the Coloured has already been elevated to the middle class and no one in this country will dare to refer sneeringly to the Coloureds as the “Hotnots” again.

I want to tell Mr. Sonny Leon that he is hopelessly wrong in alleging that the White Paper contains meaningless concessions. I want to tell him that that White Paper is one of the most important, most meaningful documents which has ever been produced in connection with the Coloureds. A great deal of good can emanate from it, but then the Coloureds must grasp it with both hands, and not refer to it so disparagingly as they so often do. The possibilities for the full development of the Coloured population of this country are contained in that White Paper. Apart from everything which is proposed for the cultural and economic upliftment of the Coloureds, the Government of this country has declared itself prepared, for the first time since Union, not only to consider the possibility of an amended political dispensation in which the Coloureds can be accommodated, but to hold out the prospect of a meaningful solution by means of which their political aspirations can be recognized. This is the first time in our history since Union that this has happened. I say to the Coloured that he must grasp what is being offered to him with both hands. Then he will achieve his aspirations in this country much more quickly. He must remember that his salvation is with the Whites.

Mr. Chairman, in regard to the speech of the hon. member for Bloemfontein North, I want to say right away that I agree that relationships between Coloured and White people are of the greatest importance in this country. I heard him say that many Coloureds are rejecting the hand of the Whites. We reject out of hand his other suggestion that we do not have the interests of the Coloureds at heart. However, the real point is that the Coloureds themselves can see that the most important recommendations of the Theron Commission, which after all was appointed by this Government, have been rejected in the White Paper.

I want to deal with a matter which arises out of the White Paper the hon. the Minister tabled in the House after the report of the Theron Commission. It arises out of recommendation 4, in which the commission recommended the abolition of the Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act. In the White Paper the Government refused to accept this recommendation. As a result of that, of course, those Acts remain in operation. This matter has been briefly touched upon by the hon. members for Piketberg, Durbanville and Rondebosch. The retention of these laws creates a specific problem for certain people in my constituency, and I want to raise this problem with the hon. the Minister. As the Minister entrusted with the affairs of the Coloured people, he will no doubt be able to clarify this problem. I shall very briefly set out some facts so that the hon. the Minister can understand the problem. When I have set out the facts, I shall deal with the problem.

The facts concern a certain middle-aged woman living in Durban North with her husband and children. Some time ago she was shocked and disbelieving when out of the blue she received a Coloured identity card. She went straight to her attorneys and said that she wanted to appeal against that because she was not a Coloured, but a White. Her attorneys were out of time with the appeal. This lady is in fact White, not in law, but in fact. I know this lady. I do not want to add to her misery by mentioning her name in the House. 27 years ago she married a White man. Both she and her husband have grown up in Durban North. In fact, both her parents were White and voted for this Parliament over the years as Whites were entitled to do. When she grew up, she was educated at a local White school. Her father worked for the S.A. Railways for 44 years. Finally, at the age of 20 she met a man at a party and the next year she was married to this man. All her life she and her children have lived in Durban North as Whites. All her children have gone to White schools. Her husband is an ex-serviceman and she is a housewife who has never had to work. Her husband is classified White. However, now of course, her children are all classified as Coloureds, although neither she nor her children have ever really known any Coloured people. Apparently her classification arose out of the fact that her grandmother was born in Mauritius. The grandmother was apparently a White person, but because she was born there, this woman has been classified as Coloured.

What is the position in which this woman now finds herself? Her marriage is of course illegal in terms of the Mixed Marriages Act. Also her children are bastards in terms of the law. They have to leave the home of the father. Of course, if they continue to live together it is illegal in terms of the Immorality Act. The problem is that this Coloured lady was in fact married to her husband by Almighty God, the same Almighty God to whom we dedicate ourselves every day in this House. We all know it is Almighty God’s word that this Coloured lady must live together with her husband until death parts them. Those are His words. According to the laws of this Government, namely the Mixed Marriages Act and the Immorality Act which the White Paper refuses to abolish, she is committing a criminal offence every day. Of course she cannot obey the law of God and the laws of this Government at the same time. Even the meanest intellect can grasp that fact. Arising out of this I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations one simple question. Must this lady defy the law of God, or must she defy the laws of this Government?

They are not incompatible.

She has to defy either the one or the other. She has no alternative but to defy either the law of God or the laws of this Government. That is the situation created by this Government. I want to say to the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations that I have very little doubt that neither he himself nor any other member on that side of the House will have the courage to answer that question. I have put that question and I should like to hear an answer to it.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not react to the speech of the hon. member for Durban North; the hon. the Minister will provide him with an answer. I want to return to the report of the Theron Commission. I want to state that that report once again highlighted the two major problems in the Coloured community, viz. the socio-economic position of the Coloured and the problems resulting from that which, in the main, amounts to the lack of a sound, systemized community development programme, and, secondly, the problem of the constitutional dispensation in which the political aspirations of the Coloured population have to be satisfied. The point I want to make, is that both these problems, the socioeconomic problem on the one hand and the constitutional problem on the other, can be merged and that the solution to that is heading for one central point, i.e. the establishment of a local authority system for the Coloureds. Such a local authority system for the Coloureds not only constitutes the foundations of a future political dispensation, but also affords the Coloured leader and the Coloured community the opportunity to participate in the creation of a community life of their own. It affords the Coloured the opportunity to accept responsibility for the type of community in which he wants to live.

It is a matter of the greatest importance that the Coloureds be placed in a position to assist in developing their community life. The instrument which he needs in this process of developing his community, is a local authority system of his own. The future of the Coloured must be left in his own hands. The community itself must accept responsibility for the administration and provision of housing, for the provision of health and welfare services, etc. The community itself must be involved in cultural and community services. Up to now the Whites have been doing too much for the Coloureds. The Coloureds themselves must be placed in a position to create their own community. This can best be done by establishing their own local authorities. This is a special requirement in developing a Coloured community, but it shall also be an ingenious system of management. Every one who has knowledge of the complexity of the problem, will understand that there must be a special relationship between the Coloured municipal council on the one hand and the White municipal council on the other, and that a particular formula will have to be worked out between the two councils so as to enable them to take joint decisions on matters of common interest. It is a unique formula that will have to be found, one which already exists in the policy of the NP. This formula places a special responsibility on the shoulders of the White local authorities, and the creation of and participation in local authorities pose a unique challenge to the Coloured leaders. A clear message should be conveyed to the Coloured leaders that any boycott of the establishment of local authorities will be highly irresponsible and that they will be doing their community a disservice by taking that step. I want to make it very clear that the local authorities and the establishment of local authorities do not constitute an apartheid measure. It is an essential structure for a civilized and orderly community. It is the basis for sound, systematic community development and it is the foundation for a political dispensation. If the Coloured leader and the Coloured community cannot or will not accept responsibility at this level, they have no political basis on which to build. I shall even go so far as to say that in that case there is no hope of a satisfactory constitutional solution to the Coloured question. In that case the Coloured community will suffocate, in the socio-economic sense, in the problem of community poverty.

I want to address the hon. the Minister. When we consult the data obtained from the census, we note that approximately 700 000 members of the Coloured community, i.e. 74%, have become urbanized. When we make a further analysis of the data contained in the census, we notice that the urbanized Coloured community falls under the jurisdiction of only eight local authorities. If, in terms of the data contained in the census, we can add another 11 local authorities, the inhabitants of which number 10 000 and more, we are faced with the fact that 20 local authorities in the Republic will provide for the needs of 80% of the Coloured community.

We know of the commission appointed by the hon. the Minister in terms of sections 28 and 29 of the Group Areas Act, but I nevertheless want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible for this commission to submit an interim report. This will enable us to continue establishing local authorities for the Coloured community. For instance, I cannot see why there should be any delay in establishing Coloured local authorities in the Cape Peninsula while the commission is engaged in investigating Indian authorities in Natal.

I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that there are several local authorities in the Cape Peninsula that are ready to establish Coloured local authorities. The ground has been prepared for this process by means of the management system. There are several local authorities that have erected buildings, for example, council chambers, for the Coloured community. The only thing the White and Coloured authorities are waiting for, is for the process to be put into operation. I am of the opinion that the commission should submit an interim recommendation to the hon. the Minister, so that the local authorities for the Coloured community may start operating and so that we may continue with the development of a sound, systemized community life for the Coloureds and at the same time afford the Coloureds an opportunity of accepting responsibility and of identifying themselves with the community of which they form part.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bellville made a very interesting speech, but he should pardon me if I fail to react directly to what he said. In my opinion the debate on this Vote is one of the most important debates on the Budget and in this watershed period of our political history it doubles in importance. Unfortunately the commitment of many hon. members of this House to their parties, their policies and their caucuses is of such a nature that they have become prisoners of some kind of commitment and the debate is suffering as a result. Every now and again one hears fine utterances from the Peters in this House, but what we perhaps need in this House is a Paul. It is obvious that although every hon. member is looking for the heart of the matter, everyone is talking around the point to such an extent that no one gets to the point or dares to do so. The tragic consequence of this state of affairs is that the debate conducted outside this Parliament is of a much higher quality than the debate conducted here in what is the highest authority of our country. At this juncture our fatherland, the fatherland of the Coloured man and the White man, is under enormous pressure from both the Russian imperialists and our erstwhile friends, the Western powers. It is vitally important that our people be brave and motivated not only in the front lines on our borders, but also in this House. Indeed, at this stage of our history it is much more important that the brave men here shall stand up and be counted. South Africa, the Afrikaner, the English-speaking person, the Brown man, the Black man, our whole caboodle of population groups, can no longer afford having relations politics as a monopoly of the inner circles of the governing party.

Opinions should be exchanged across the floor of this House or in standing committees of the House in a constructive manner, and not in a “I am looking over my shoulder” manner, so that we may come to the point in that way. When I speak of the “I am looking over my shoulder” psychosis, I am speaking from experience, because I suffered from that for a long time.

All of us speak too readily of the Coloured problem or the Coloured dilemma. Surely we are adults, people who have been placed here to deliberate and to arrive at reasoned conclusions. Who of us have ever taken the time to consider that seen from the point of view of the Coloured, especially the well-to-do Coloured, there is also a White problem or a White dilemma? Surely these people are of our blood, of our culture, of our faith, they speak our languages and if we were not here, they would never have existed. Therefore it cannot be denied that at times they view the dilemma of their White compatriots with a degree of bitterness and doubt the goodwill and the spirit of co-operation of the vast majority of Whites.

Let us consider the report of the Erika Theron Commission in broad outline. After three years of hard work the commission, consisting of hon. members of this House, academics and members of the CRC, produced their report. This very voluminous and important report was tabled in this House. Before one had time to blink one’s eyes or study the report properly, the White Paper of the Government was tabled as well. Since that time the whole debate has been concentrated on the contents of these two documents. The SAP and I are very grateful for the announcement made by the hon. the Minister right at the commencement of this debate, i.e. that a lot of hard work is being done to implement the recommendations accepted in the White Paper. I believe, however, that a third document was called for. Seeing that the report dealt with the future of the Coloured group in this country, seeing that the stated policy of the Government is one of separate development and seeing that there is a Coloured Persons’ Representative Council, a council established in terms of that policy, would it not have been more diplomatic and sounder politics to have submitted this important report to the CRC with the request to draw up a well-considered and motivated White Paper for the attention of the Cabinet and Parliament? Such a White Paper would have referred to the recommendations they wanted to have implemented. It would have been drawn up according to their determination of priorities and their motivation as to how and when certain things should be done. Had we done that, I believe that we would have had quite a surprise. In that case I believe we would have made a great deal of progress on the road to full co-operation with the CRC and the alleviation of the growing bitterness in the soul of the Coloured.

However, that is water under the bridge. I refer to it nevertheless because there are still people here who use the word “never” when they speak of some of the recommendations of the commission. There are still people who speak of final solutions. Such things simply do not exist in politics. If they did, politicians would have been extinct many centuries ago.

Political power consists of two important factors. The one factor is power—the power of numbers, economic power and military power. The second factor is the willingness of a Government to adapt to the development, the needs and the demands of the people it governs. Politics is the science of human relations. A Government that loses touch with the people it governs will immediately have problems. The time has arrived for further adaptations to our human relations in the Republic of South Africa. It is our duty to proceed with a programme of re-education of all our people and to break away from the colonialistic concept of sheer domination to a concept of real freedom and independence. Only in this way can we create an era in which adaptations will lead to mutual trust and mutual participation, and to the re-orientation and a mobilization of all our conservative powers against the threats from the outside world and from Africa.

†We might need to reorientate and to re-educate ourselves. It might mean that we would have to rewrite some of our history books. It might mean that we would have to have refresher courses for some of our older teachers. The Cabinet Committee on adaptations to the Westminster system is merely the beginning, and we are awaiting its findings with great interest. It could be the first step towards a new and more fruitful era in the field of human relationships.

It is more logical to adapt positively and rationally on the homefront than to continually withdraw and appease on the external front without making the necessary adaptations right here. While we believe that the beginning of the end of our problems lies in a federal approach in regard to the Coloured people, we feel that if the Cabinet Committee were to find some formula by which the Coloured people could have greater representation in the decision-making processes of government, we would have no objection to it. I can state categorically that it is the policy and the wish of the SAP that the Coloured people and the White people should move closer together and that the mutual trust and respect that once pertained, and still pertains to a large extent, between the two groups, should be built on and consolidated in the interest of all South Africans.

In this spirit I want to appeal to all Coloured people to have nothing to do with Black Power movements, which are foreign-inspired and not in the interests of any South African, whatever his colour might be. Finally, I believe that one of the most important, and simultaneously one of the most hurtful things that has ever happened to the Coloured people, happened when their municipal vote was taken away from them. One must appeal to the lower authorities of government, municipalities, local authorities and divisional councils. They are the people who have direct contact. I believe that an appeal should go out from this House to tell them that they are more responsible than anybody else in South Africa to remove the friction that can cause hurt to people. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to add a few more ideas to the discussion which has been going on for quite a while now. I should like to return to the speech by the hon. member for Edenvale and just point out that his contribution did not actually bring any clarity as far as the findings of the report of the Theron Commission or the White Paper are concerned. It struck me that the hon. member emphasized once again that the Coloureds have no identity. On a previous occasion he made a speech in which he tried, amongst other things, to prove that the Coloureds are not a nation. I think that we should open our eyes to see what is really happening in South Africa. Then we will theorize less and confuse one another less. The fact is that if we look at the situation in South Africa, it is clear that we are dealing here with a specific population group; not a nation—if the hon. member wants me to concede that to him—but definitely a population group with a specific identity, a group which can to a large extent be distinguished from the White population group, just as we also make some distinction between the White Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people. There is not a complete difference. In fact, there are similarities in many spheres, but one would have to be blind to deny the fact that we are dealing with a specific population group with their own identity here. If one holds a conversation with these people, it is very noticeable that they always talk about “our people”, which indicates identification with a specific population group. Several times I have even heard people talk about “the people of our Coloured nation”. To be practical when we want to discuss the future of these people, we must at least admit and accept that we are dealing with a population group which has its own identity and which has a growing group consciousness.

The hon. member for Edenvale made extensive quotations from and references to the report of the Theron Commission. I do not want to refer to the White Paper, but to a few particulars in that report. If one looks at page 441 of the report and examines the details in connection with the identification of the Coloureds as a group, and one looks at table 20.6, one finds the answers to the question of whether a Coloured person is proud to be called a Coloured. The summary of the replies indicate that that pride is found amongst 72,2% of the Coloureds that were questioned. 21,7% do not agree. On page 442, paragraph 20.64, we find the statement, “die Kleurling moet nie agter die Witmense of die Swartmense aanloop nie; hy moet as Bruinmens agter sy eie leiers saamstaan.” In table 20.7 we see that 58,6% agree with this, 23,9% do not and 17,5% are uncertain or unspecified. As far as identifying with the Black population group is concerned, paragraph 20.71 reads—

The reply to this is that the vast majority of the Coloureds do not agree. 24% agree, 44% do not agree and 32% are uncertain or unspecified. I want to point out that this type of questionnaire is, of course, just an attempt to get an approximate, reasonable idea of the view and attitude of these people. When one looks at the questions and replies of the respondents, it is clear—and it cannot be denied—that one is dealing here with people who identify themselves as a specific population group. We are dealing here with a population group which is identified by the other population groups. We do not doubt that the Coloured population is a population group. If one sees a group of Coloureds today, for instance if one goes to a large school where there are 2 000 children—and it is interesting to know that there are already Coloured high schools with 2 000 and more children—it would only be a blind man who would say that those children are Whites or Blacks. One would say—because one sees it with one’s own eyes—that we have a specific population group here, which, as far as its appearance is concerned, can be described as Coloured. The development indicates that the NP policy has helped these people to develop what I might almost call, a respectable identity. I can only foresee the Coloured population becoming increasingly proud of their Coloured identity, becoming proud of the fact that they are Coloureds and that as Coloureds they are capable of achievements and able to make their contribution to South Africa as well.

The crucial issue is this: There is no one who does not want the Coloured population group and the Coloureds in general to make progress. No one is really happy about the fact that there is such a large percentage—40% was mentioned—who are economically under-developed and backward. I think that I am stating an accepted fact when I say that nobody in South Africa is actually satisfied with this or takes pleasure in it. We try to enable this population group to come into its own, to develop and to make a valuable contribution towards the progress and achievements of our country. This morning, the hon. member for South Coast referred to the training of Coloured mechanics. He actually emphasized their training and achievements and I appreciate the fact that he referred to this. This is not the only sphere in which this is happening. It is happening over a wide front. It is happening in the sphere of education. There has been such rapid development there that it has been impossible to keep pace as far as the provision of school buildings and qualified workers is concerned. This is one of the spheres, viz. the sphere of education and teaching, in which there is still much to be done. It is the one sphere which shows us that the Coloureds are a specific population group with their own identity which they can rightfully be proud of. It is also a sphere where the Coloureds have already come into their own to a considerable extent in spite of the fact that they are treated separately and have their own educational system. In that sphere there are already—if my figure is correct—25 000 men and women teachers. These people do valuable work, although many deficiencies remain. There are many of them, as we know, who are not properly qualified yet. However, there was a time when many of our Whites—some of the teachers of hon. members and some of my own—were not properly qualified people. I know very well that in my time there were teachers who began teaching with a std. VIII certificate and 0.3 training. Some got the 0.3 training by means of a sort of correspondence course. No one is ashamed of this, because it is a stage of development. If there is a stage of development in the training and education of the Coloureds which still leaves much to be desired, it will not remain that way. It is just one way of showing that we are on the road of development with this population group.

We can also look at the economic sphere, and there the position is just the same. If one goes back 50 years and compares the situation which prevailed at that time with the situation today, one has to admit that these people have come a long way. If one takes the past 1½ decades since 1960, one will have to admit that the people have developed more rapidly over this period and progressed more rapidly in the economic sphere than ever before. I am just mentioning these few things in order to indicate that we are on the road of development and that we need not argue any more about the question of whether the Coloureds are a population group, a nation or a people.

Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful to the hon. member for Piketberg for his very neat exposition of the situation of our Coloured population in the country. There are hon. members opposite who asked me whether the Coloureds were a nation, a nation in the making, as well as all kinds of other related questions. However, these are questions which, in my opinion, make no sense. The hon. member for Piketberg replied to them very effectively, and I hope the hon. member for Edenvale was listening. Specifically with reference to chapter 20, he not only spoke from his knowledge as a member of the commission, but also as a person who grew up in the heart of the Western Cape, where the bulk of our Coloured population lives, and who therefore knows the Coloureds. Surely everyone who knows the Coloureds, knows that they are a heterogeneous population group. It is true that one cannot say that all 2½ million of them have identical characteristics, yet those of us who come into contact with the Coloureds know that the result of the opinion poll, as reflected in chapter 20, is true. The hon. member for South Coast was so kind as to refer to the historic occasion last week when the first certificates were presented to the first group to complete its studies at the centre for the training of motor artisans in Bellville South. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central was also there that morning. I want to remind them of the words of a prominent Coloured who is a member of the advisory board of that institution. Those hon. members will remember. He spoke at that ceremony. Do hon. members know what he said? He said: “Ladies and gentlemen, for me it is a red-letter day because these chaps are my boys.” Can the hon. members remember his saying that? Can they remember his saying with the greatest pride: “I am speaking as a South African first of all, but I am also speaking as a Coloured man, and I am very proud of the fact that these boys today—my boys; I regard them as my boys—have been able to make a success of this course.” Surely that is the right spirit.

But any good teacher would say that!

He is not a teacher, my friend ! He serves on the advisory board. He is a leader in his community. [Interjections.] He is a leader in the Coloured community and serves on the advisory board of that institution. That hon. young member should take his cue from more experienced members such as the hon. member for South Coast and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central for a while.

Do not start insulting people again.

Oh please, you have far too much to say.

I do not know whom I have insulted now. Have I insulted the hon. member next to him by saying that the person being referred to here is not a teacher, but a community leader? [Interjections.]

Order!

I should now like to deal with a few matters which stood over on Friday evening, points which were raised by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central and also by the hon. member for Sea Point. The hon. member for Sea Point apologized for not being able to be here. He is here today. I shall try to deal with these points chronologically.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said that the principal message of the Theron Commission report was that we should make peace with the Coloureds. But surely we need not make peace with our Coloured population. We have never at any stage declared war on them. What we have to do, is to come to an agreement with our Coloured community on how to co-exist in this country. That is what we should do. Consequently the Theron Commission report points out the progress that has been made, even though there are some hon. members in this House who do not want to hear what progress has been made because, to their way of thinking, it is not a good thing that progress has been made. I remember the remark made by the hon. member for Durban Point the other evening. Surely the message of the Theron Commission report is that tremendous progress has been made and that we are on the verge of further development. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central went further and said, and I am quoting his specific words—

This hon. member who is a reasonable member, went too far at this juncture. Surely it is not a case of dialogue and understanding for one another breaking down. There are some people who say, as the hon. member for Edenvale quoted, that we no longer know one another and that we are living at cross purposes, but surely that is not the whole truth. I can speak from my level and say that there is more dialogue taking place with Coloured leaders today than ever before in our history. In fact, at this moment, one of my colleagues in the Cabinet is holding talks on matters in regard to which the hon. member for Green Point is also experiencing problems. He is having an interview with members of the CRC. Unfortunately I cannot be there because I am involved in this debate. The other evening, when he became a little obstreperous, I told him that members of the CRC were better able to plead their own case than he was.

After five years of asking.

Because I have to be here my department has held talks with another group of Coloured leaders on another level this morning.

Marvellous!

Yes, it is marvellous, if only the hon. member would realize that.

We talk with Coloureds everytime our Coloured affairs group meets.

Order! I am not going to keep on calling for order.

We are talking about dialogue. In the Coloured community there were specific political leaders who wanted to break down the dialogue and bring about a confrontation because they wanted to build up a strong-man image for themselves. There were such people, and I believe that they received their advice from certain hon. members on the opposite side. I shall produce my evidence for saying this in due course. There were people in the Coloured community who believed in confrontation and who believed that dialogue should be broken off. But what has my experience been during the past 18 months and more? I found that a growing number of requests to come and discuss problems have been made to me through the Administration of Coloured Affairs, and what is more, these requests have come from supporters of the Labour Party. It happens almost every day, and even on the day on which I have to leave for Pretoria next week, I have many appointments of this nature. What is more, we have already held quite a number of talks this year with those members of the Executive of the CRC who are members of the Labour Party, whereas their attitude before was that they did not want to talk to the Government and to the authorities. Several discussions of their specific portfolios have also taken place with individual members of the Executive. I want to say that I am pleased that there are men among them who are prepared to work for their own people and to give very intensive thought to the matters which they have to deal with. Consequently there is dialogue, to an increasing extent. I share the opinions of the hon. member for Albany and the hon. member for Newton Park that it is a pity that the people who are prepared to hold dialogue on all these levels, are not prepared to hold dialogue on the very highest level. My point is that the statement which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central made is not valid, and that dialogue is not being broken off. He went further and said that I had admitted this myself through the establishment of the system of relations committees. Then surely the hon. member, who is interested in these matters, does not know what relations committees are all about.

I know precisely what they are all about.

I said three years ago, in 1974, that the experience we had gained on the committees that had been established here in Cape Town in 1962 by one of my predecessors, the present Minister of Defence gave rise to the need to appoint relations committees throughout the Republic of South Africa.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, when the Committee adjourned for lunch, I was dealing with the aspect of dialogue and liaison and had referred specifically to the system of public relations committees, of which there are now more than 100 in this country. I had pointed out to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central that, in contrast to what he had said, I had not admitted through the introduction of this despensation that dialogue was being broken off, but that I had in fact taken this idea further three years ago because a need existed for the extension of a dispensation which had previously existed only in the Cape. I also want to tell the hon. member that the relations committees are doing brilliant work on the local level to identify and tactfully eliminate any bottlenecks which may exist, bottlenecks of which local circumstances are frequently the cause. What is more, they are doing brilliant work in the sense that White and Coloured leaders—because the committees are constituted on a basis of local leaders—are learning from one another every day. In addition the committees make regular reports to my department. A submission is made to me of their activities on a six-monthly basis. Matters which they were not able to solve are then taken further by my department and me. Here in my hand I have the latest bulky six-monthly report.

Not only does dialogue take place on the levels to which I have referred, it also takes place on a personal level, on a person-to-person basis. Everyone who comes into contact with the Coloureds knows that a so-called breaking off of dialogue and a hardening or relations is not all that true. If one talks to the lowest, one knows where these people stand. In spite of everything which Mr. Sonny Leon, the leader of the Labour Party, has sometimes said from public platforms, one need only read the interview which he had with Mr. Schalk Pienaar in Die Huisgenoot to get to know the individual better, and realize that his relentless attitude is sometimes merely for the sake of effect. For the most part the reality is quite a different matter. Last year I went to Natal—the hon. member for Berea is aware of this—at the request of Mr. Morris Fynn, a member of the Cabinet Council. He initiated the entire matter. The net result of the visit was that a relations conference was convened. Several other members of the CRC, local Coloured leaders, members of the Durban City Council and others were also invited to that conference.

In spite of the fact that the springboard for some was one of confrontation—the hon. member for Berea will know about this because he was present that day—the net result was such a successful exchange of knowledge and information—we on our part were able to hear what the problems of those people were—that shortly afterwards a Labour member of the CRC came to me with the request that such a conference should also be convened in his part of the country—not in Natal. In March this year I went to Kokstad to open a regional development congress. When it was heard that I was coming, the request was made whether I could not come down a day before the time in order to get together all the local Coloured leaders of the surrounding towns, as well as with the representatives of the town councils, to discuss matters of common interest. That, too, was a brilliant success, as everyone who attended that conference will testify.

That is why I can say that dialogue is taking place today on a far wider and more penetrating scale and that it is also far more meaningful than at any previous time in our history. This simply underlines, to my mind, the policy of this Government, viz. that structures will be evolved for each of the population groups through continuous contact and dialogue on all levels. We have it today on the level of the Cabinet Council, on lower levels and between city councils and management committees, although the latter, in my opinion, do not work equally effectively everywhere, because there is sometimes something lacking in the very personalities of the leaders on the management committees and in a few cases, too, on the part of the town councils as far as the necessary goodwill is concerned. However, I do not want to comment any further on this matter now.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central asked about the progress being made by the Cabinet Committee which is instituting an inquiry into the Westminster system. The hon. member for Sea Point also put that question to me, and he will simply have to take cognizance of what I am going to say now, for I shall deal simultaneously with the point he raised.

The hon. member for Edenvale said this morning that the commission had recommended that it should not be a political or a Cabinet committee, but a committee of experts. As an academic, the hon. member ought to know that a committee of experts will inevitably consist of people who are trained in constitutional law. If one instructs a committee of that nature to investigate such a matter, they may, on the basis of their professional knowledge and ability, present a variety of models. Ultimately the matter would then have to be referred back to another body for the necessary guidance. That is why the Government has appointed a Cabinet Committee which has to occupy itself with this matter from day to day, but which has also been directed—in fact, it is stated in the White Paper—to make use of experts as well. Now, hon. members must not ask me who the members of the Cabinet Committee are—it is after all a Cabinet Committee. Nor must they ask me who these experts are, for that will be made known later.

One hon. member raised the point pertaining to liaison with the people involved. Not only did the hon. Minister of Defence say here last year that there would be liaison with them, but it is also stated in the White Paper that, after this committee has reported to the Cabinet, no further steps will be taken before the leaders of the communities in question have been consulted. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central asked me about this committee. He wanted to know what they were doing, and so on. He will recall that, arising from a question which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana asked me one day, he placed a question on the Question Paper to the effect that if Members of Parliament wished to make suggestions in this regard, how should they set about it, and when could they do so. I replied that members of Parliament were under no obligation to come forward with suggestions, and that if they felt themselves called upon to do so, it had to be done in writing and as soon as was feasible. So far no suggestions of any kind have been put forward by of the hon. member and his party. In contrast to that there was so much interest on this side of the House that we have two different groups which are functioning on a co-ordinated basis and have involved other groups in their activities. Suggestions have even been made to the committee from outside this House, and from the Coloured community itself. Although I virtually invited the hon. member to do so, no effort has been made on his part to become involved in this investigation.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central asked me where a blueprint is to be found in the White Paper.

Yes, where is it?

Surely the hon. member is an adult person. Surely he knows that it is stated in the White Paper that a Cabinet Committee is dealing with this matter. We invited the hon. member to help us to draw up a blueprint, but he did nothing in this regard, except to make a few remarks in his speech the other day which gave me the impression that he did not understand these things very clearly. After he had asked: “Where is the blueprint for the future?” he said (Hansard, 17 June, 1977)—

If he is seeking such a blueprint, I can tell him that the speech made by the present Prime Minister in 1974 at the CRC, is a blueprint of this nature. I do not know whether the hon. member has read that speech.

Many times.

With reference to the speech made by the late Dr. Verwoerd in 1961, the hon. member went on to say—

That was how the hon. member argued. Does the hon. member understand that Dr. Verwoerd referred to a Cabinet of Ministers for the CRC?

Yes.

I am pleased that the hon. member understands it in this way.

When are the Ministers going to be appointed?

I shall deal with that. The hon. member should just exercise a little patience.

If the hon. member had read the other blueprint—as was spelt out in the speech made by the present Prime Minister in 1974 and which he does not regard as being very good—then he must have seen that the Government is prepared to proceed to do so. However, it cannot come from one side only in a paternalistic way, as the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Rondebosch want. The creation of this body has to come from the side of the Coloureds as well. In his speech the hon. member also said—

He wants these Ministers to be appointed. I myself believe that the time for this has arrived, and I have even said this in public. The Government and I are not the stumbling blocks in that respect. The hon. member said further in his speech—

When the hon. member talks to the members of the Executive again, he should tell them that story as well. In the first place he will be helping the Coloured community, for that blueprint is ready to be implemented. However, it depends on co-operation on their part.

In his speech the hon. member made certain proposals, and I want to state them in the light of his failure to submit proposals to the Cabinet Committee. He proposed that the Coloured Council and the Indian Council should form an electoral college and should then elect 10 people to represent them in the Senate. He went on to propose that they should in the same way, through an electoral college, elect 10 people to represent them in the House of Assembly. He said (Hansard, 17 June, 1977)—

He then argued—

Exactly!

The hon. member is reproaching us for not accepting all the recommendations of the Theron Commission. Now, however, he is putting forward a proposal which he himself says is contrary to the report. [Interjections.]

The hon. member, as well as the hon. member for Edenvale, are until next week members of a party with a constitutional policy of two Coloured Councils—or whatever they wish to call them. That is still the policy of the UP. I have not yet heard the hon. Leader or any other hon. member announce that they have changed their policy in this respect. The hon. members are therefore still hon. members of a party with that official policy. The best attempt of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central at a new dispensation is to come forward with proposals of this type. [Interjections.]

He also spoke of a Turnhalle congress which we should commence in this connection. The hon. member is far behind the times. On the Cabinet Council there have been discussions on this basis for a long time now. [Interjections.]

The hon. member also came forward with another proposal. He did not submit it in a written form and as soon as possible, as I asked him to do. He did it in his speech on Friday.

But now you do have it in writing.

I now want to analyse this proposal, and I hope the hon. the Leader of the Opposition remembers it when he bids farewell to his party next week and begins a new one. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central went on to say in his speech (Hansard, 17 June, 1977)—

I do not hold this remark against the hon. member. I am not looking for a job. But please take note of the hon. member’s reasoning. He compared the situation of the Coloureds with that of the Indians and said—

I agree with the hon. member that this is so as far as their own departments are concerned.

He went further and said (Hansard, 17.6.77)—

It is very obvious.

The obvious explanation is that the Indians are lagging behind. The Coloured people already have their own Administration operating under the auspices of their own executive.

On the other hand the Indian people are only having their first election now, after the necessary legislation has been passed here. They do not yet have an administration of their own, and everything has to be done by the Department of Indian Affairs. Therefore I simply cannot follow the reasoning of the hon. member.

It is very sound.

The hon. member stated very explicitly that he was in favour—and I welcome his standpoint—of the elected leaders in the Executive serving on the Cabinet Council. I am very grateful that the hon. member adopted this standpoint. Other hon. members also stated their standpoint, admittedly not hon. members of the PRP. They are giving those leaders other advice. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central stated his standpoint very outspokenly, and I now want to ask him to support me in this regard. I am not doing so for some ulterior reason or other. We find that leaders in the Coloured community and newspapers circulating primarily among the Coloured community are pleading with these people to take their places in the Cabinet Council so that they can serve their people in the full.

Members of the Cabinet Council have declared themselves prepared to make way for the elected members of the Executive. Nevertheless I want to say to the credit of those who are serving on the Cabinet Council at present that they have, during the short time the Cabinet Council has been in existence, done excellent work for their own people. Many positive things have been decided on through their mediation and announcements in that regard have been made, all owing to the work of the Cabinet Council.

†The hon. member also referred to the shortage of technically trained Coloured people in various State departments. He was joined by the hon. member for South Coast in this regard. I do not think they have painted a true picture. All figures indicate that, during the last couple of years, the employment of technically trained Coloured people in several State departments has improved from year to year. Is the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central aware of the training provided by the S.A. Railways and by the Defence Force? It was announced either early this year or late last year that the Air Force had started training Coloured artisans …

Mr. Chairman, does the hon. the Minister know how many apprentices are being trained by the S.A. Railways? Does he know how many Coloured artisans or technicians are employed by the S.A. Railways?

I do not have the figures available right now, but I can get them for the hon. member. The hon. member is very well aware of where the problem lies in regard to the training of these Coloured youngsters. The hon. member should have discussed the issue under the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Labour. The hon. the Minister of Labour and his predecessors on several occasions pinpointed where the problem lay, i.e. with the unions. Nevertheless, the hon. member should be aware of the fact that, about a fortnight ago, prior to the handing over of certificates at Bellville where the hon. member himself was present, the Postmaster-General handed over certificates to 15 Coloured TV technicians. That is a clear indication that all the possibilities are there for Coloureds to be trained and employed by several State departments.

*I come now to the hon. member for Sea Point. The hon. member was not here on Friday evening when I dealt with his arguments concerning the Cabinet Council. I did it then because the matter had also been raised on this side of the House. The hon. member will simply have to read up what I said. I furnished full particulars in that regard.

The hon. member wanted to know why the Government had appointed a commission and then failed to accept all the recommendations of the commission. I do not think it has ever been the intention that, when a commission is appointed, the Government should accept all the recommendations of that commission. As far as I am concerned, that has never yet been the intention. If the hon. member had listened carefully on Friday, he will remember that I indicated to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central how a proposal which he had supported together with the majority of the members of the commission, had been rejected by his party in the yellow document which they subsequently published. After all, the Government has to advance reasons as to why it is rejecting a recommendation. As far as I am concerned, this was in fact done in this case. Let the hon. member for Edenvale talk about a fragmented reaction if he likes. But he will agree with me that this White Paper represents a far more thorough and better motivated study of the matter than became apparent from the speeches made by hon. members opposite, whose speeches testified to a superficial study of the report.

The hon. member wanted to know from me what changes were being envisaged. However, if the hon. member reads the White Paper he will find the reply to that question. All the replies he is seeking, are in the White Paper. He also put questions to me in regard to the implementation of the accepted recommendations. When the debate on my Vote began, I announced what was going to be done in this regard. I pointed out that my department would co-ordinate the implementation of the recommendations. The hon. member then went on to make a strange statement. According to him, many Coloureds are so frustrated by now that they are beginning to leave politics. The hon. member said—

I do not think the hon. member is correct here. I think he confers too often with Dr. Allan Boesak and with Gatsha Buthelezi and people of their persuasion. That is the hon. member’s problem.

He is a Black Power apostle. —

Now the hon. member is arguing that the Coloureds are drifting away in other directions. According to him they are turning to education and to commerce where they, so he maintains, are doing well. However, that statement is not correct. Surely a person who has been trained as a teacher is in education. Surely he does not withdraw from some situation or other to enter education. Surely he is in education. The hon. member’s view of matters is not a true one. That people nevertheless enter the business profession, thanks to the help of the CDC, is surely a good and a desirable thing. Surely the hon. member should be as pleased about it as I am. I do not think that the hon. member’s reasoning was entirely correct here.

The hon. member then referred to Dr. Allan Boesak. I have just said to him that I think he confers too often with Dr. Boesak. The hon. member then went on to refer to his party’s publication, Deurbraak. That is the publication in regard to which he was taken to task the other day by the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Rissik also referred to this publication this morning.

I have read this article. I want the hon. member to know that. However, it does not deal with the Theron report. It is a proclamation of Black Power. That is what it deals with. The hon. member can try to wriggle out of it again, as he did the other day when the hon. the Prime Minister tackled him about another article in this publication. He can try to wriggle out of it as much as he likes, and say that it does not necessarily represent his opinion, but if a cartoon such as this, in the form of an epitaph: “Here rests the Erika Theron Commission”, is published, surely it has to be done with the consent and the knowledge of the editor. This thing is a disgrace, and represents an attempt to play off Whites and Coloureds against one another. It is devilish work on the part of the PRP and of this publication which is engaged in this. I shall deal with this matter again at a later stage.

The hon. member asked me what had become of the investigation which the hon. the Prime Minister announced in 1974, an investigation into the revenue resources of the Coloureds, and to what extent, as their structures are developed, they are able to bear the burden of their own budget—partially, or to whatever extent they are able. I said last year in this House that this investigation, as directed by my department, had been completed last year already by the Bureau for Economic Politics of the University of Pretoria. It is in my possession …

What are the results?

It indicates what revenue the State can obtain from the Coloured population by means of direct and indirect taxation. It also indicates that that revenue alone cannot bear the burden of the present budget of the CRC. That was never the intention of the Government. The intention was simply to make certain what resources they did in fact have, and to what extent these would have to be supplemented.

The hon. member also asked what had become of the legislative powers of the CRC. The hon. member knows that the CRC already has certain legislative powers. He has, after all, passed certain legislation, even though it happens, as it did last year, that a member of the Executive introduced a piece of legislation in the interests of his people in the Transkei to render a service to the elderly people who are living in the Transkei, and that he was not present at the division in order to vote for it. Even though such things happen, legislation is nevertheless being introduced. In fact, quite a few pieces of legislation have already been disposed of. I have good reason to believe that legislation will also be introduced at the ensuing session of the CRC by one of the members of the Executive. I do not want to give any further details about that today.

I think that I have now more or less dealt with the points raised by the hon. member. His major point was the Cabinet Council, which I discussed on Friday evening and which I do not want to spend any more time on now.

†Mr. Chairman, I now come to the hon. member for Pinelands. He made remarks about White officials in the Administration of Coloured Affairs making all the final decisions. That is what the hon. member said. The hon. member should be aware that White officials in the Administration of Coloured Affairs operate either in terms of powers delegated to them by the individual member of the executive or after the executive has expressed an opinion in regard to any general matter. He should know that. I can inform the hon. member that after the present members of the executive had assumed office late last year, they withdrew all the powers previously delegated to officials. They thought that they could handle it themselves. Thereafter they again delegated certain powers to the officials. The hon. member also referred to White officials still filling the top posts in the Administration of Coloured Affairs. What does he expect? The Administration of Coloured Affairs was started in 1969 by White officials who at least held the top administrative posts. There were no fully trained Coloured administrative officials available. The fact is that a replacement programme was formulated shortly after the Administration came into being. It was aimed at filling all the posts at the earliest stage feasible. The programme was actually approved by the executive at the time and the progress made is reported to the executive annually. The hon. member can even have a look at the annual report of the department and that of the Administration of Coloured Affairs. If he is fair-minded he will agree with me that major progress is being made to phase out White officials especially at the lower levels and to fill the posts by Coloured incumbents. All possible measures have been introduced to accelerate the training of Coloured officials. Special training courses are offered apart from ordinary in-service training. Bursaries are made available for further study in respect of certain professional posts. Deserving candidates already employed are granted study leave, on full salary, to follow courses at the University of the Western Cape in order to qualify themselves better for their position. As far as officials at clerical and administrative levels are concerned, the Public Service Commission lays down a certain qualifying period of service, which is applicable throughout the Public Service, for progress from rank to rank. Does the hon. member agree with me that that is the way one should handle a situation like this? As soon as Coloured officials in these categories become eligible for promotion, they are immediately promoted. The White occupants of the posts are transferred to other departments to make way for the Coloureds so promoted. A Coloured official eligible for promotion at any stage has at no time to wait for promotion because a White person fills the post to which he can be appointed.

*However, the hon. member did not stop at that in meting out insults to the officials, to people who make it their life-task to help train other people who are not yet very experienced. It did not end at meting out insults to White officials.

†The hon. member also referred to the promotion of Mr. A. J. Arendse to the rank of deputy commissioner although the executive had recommended another person. I must point out to the hon. member for Pinelands that never before have the merits or demerits of officials serving the State been discussed in this House. It has never been done. It does not matter whether it is a White official or a Brown official. I maintain that it is not done.

Who discussed the merits and demerits?

Does the hon. member want me to discuss the merits and the demerits of the two gentlemen concerned in this House? Why did the hon. member blame me for appointing the man who was best qualified and who was senior to the other man, in that particular position? Why did he blame me? The hon. member served for many years as a minister of religion. Let me ask him whether it was his custom as chairman of his church council, when he entered the pulpit on a Sunday-morning to tell his whole congregation what his council had discussed about individuals? Is that part of his custom?

I take into account what the council recommends.

I can ask the hon. member for Rondebosch the same question. He was not a minister of religion, but he came from an academic background and he was a member of the senate of the university. Was it the practice of the hon. member to discuss in public the next day what the senate of the university had discussed confidentially concerning appointments? Was that his practice.

It is not an analogous case.

It is an analogous case. If it was not his practice, if he maintained a certain code and acted according to certain norms of etiquette, why does he drag the names of two Coloured officials across the floor of this House here?

It appeared in the Press for months.

The hon. member says: “It appeared in the Press for months.” We can see what went wrong there. That hon. member says I am paternalistic. Yet I have to try, in a nice way, to teach other people how one should do things. I am doing so in a friendly way, without reproaches, but I am going to tell these two their fortune. !

They are quaking in their boots!

Let me tell the hon. member where this matter had its origin. I was not paternalistic. When the Executive intimated, when the position of deputy commissioner fell vacant, that they thought a Coloured could be appointed, the secretary of my department met them in December in Cape Town and said that we were prepared to promote a Coloured although there was not one on the administrative staff. We chose one of the best professional officers in the field of education. He was a man of proven ability. We sought out the best one. We were prepared to accommodate them and that is not paternalism. I informed them that this would be done with the full consent of the Cabinet. My request to them through my Secretary was that they should submit a panel of names so that the available people could be evaluated. That hon. member may laugh if he likes. He was a member of the teaching profession. He ought to know therefore what merit means.

Those two hon. members, the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Rondebosch, belong to a party whose policy is one of “merit and merit alone”. Why is the hon. member not, then, prepared to allow merit to apply here as well? I must now perforce criticize the Executive, although it is not my practice to criticize them in public, but the names of these two persons were published previously in the newspapers. That is not how one sets about one’s task if one is serving under an oath of confidentiality in a body such as the Executive. One does not mention names so that the public can cast a doubt on the appointments, as those two hon. members did here today. The Executive came to me with only one name. However, I said that things could not be done in that way, and asked them to consider other persons as well. But they were not prepared to do so. The Public Service Commission made its recommendation, and they accepted full responsibility for it, because all ranks in the Public Service, from the rank of deputy secretary upwards, have to be submitted to the Cabinet for a final decision. The Cabinet, on my recommendation adopted this resolution and I accepted full responsibility for it. I believe that I did the Coloured community and the Administration of Coloured Affairs a service because an excellent candidate, a person who was a member of the Theron Commission, Mr. Arendse, was promoted to that position. He was by far the most senior person. What effect would it have had on the staff of the Administration of Coloured Affairs, a position which has been built up over the years, if a junior person had been promoted? That is why I deplore the fact that those two members kicked up such a fuss about this matter and dragged it across the floor of this House to such an extent. I almost want to say that this makes me suspicious. I am saying this because there was another story which those two hon. gentlemen raised here as proof that I allegedly acted paternally towards the Executive and that I begrudge their making decisions themselves. Both those hon. members adopted that standpoint. I am referring to the invitation which the Executive wished to address to Chief Gatsha Buthelezi to open the next session of the CRC. What I ask myself is why they are always the advocates of this type of thing. Perhaps I should marshall the facts of the story in careful sequence. When this invitation was made public from another source—not by me—and the Press approached me, I said in my statement to the newspapers that I had no knowledge of such request. I said that no such request had yet reached me. I added that if such a request would be made, it was the prerogative of the State President to officiate at the opening of bodies of this nature. If he could not officiate, someone else is designated in his stead. I added that the CRC was not a party-political congress to bandy other names about.

However, I have other information as well which I can give to this House. My departmental head had an interview with the Executive and they informed him that if politicians— they regard me and other Ministers, even the President of the Senate who opened the last session, as politicians—opened the CRC, the Labour Party would boycott the opening. He then asked them what they would do if Chief Buthelezi were to do so. They then discovered that they were also dealing with a politician in his case. I find it interesting that the hon. member should raise this specific point, because the hon. member for Pinelands is the person who, after I had made my Press Statement and before I had received such a request asked me whether the Executive had invited a specific person to open the next session, who he was and whether I had acceded to the request. I gave him the answer to that and I also said that it was the prerogative of the State President. After all, all kinds of alarm bells were by that time ringing in my head. I read the following in their publication, Deurbraak, in which a photograph of Chief Buthelezi appeared and also one of the hon. Minister Schalk van der Merwe on his way to open the CRC, under the headline “Klap in die gesig vir die VKR”—

Surely I had stated, not whom I had in mind, but whose prerogative it was. Nevertheless this little publication wrote: “Klap in die gesig vir die VKR”. Now I want to know from hon. members: Was it their advice to the Executive to invite Chief Buthelezi in order to bring about a confrontation? Look at the prominence given to this matter in their newspaper! If that was their advice, I want to tell the two of them today that it is a slap in the face of the State President to do such a thing. It is a slap in the face of the State President. I want to reiterate that this publication of theirs, by practising this kind of confrontation politics, is driving a wedge between Whites and Coloureds in this country and is trying to unite the Blacks and the Coloureds and is trying to play a Black Power game. I also want to tell the hon. member for Sea Point what the Prime Minister told him the other day, that he will have to see about this publication of his.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

The hon. member must first give me a chance. The hon. member for Sea Point will have to look into the role which this publication of his is playing. I think he can begin by taking a look at the man who is editing it, because he is a man who years ago, when he had to do his national service, did not have the courage to do it, and cancelled his citizenship and then subsequently became a South African citizen again.

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister tell me whether it was the State President or the hon. the Minister himself who refused to allow Chief Buthelezi to come?

Really, I give the hon. member for Rondebosch credit for more intelligence than that. It is the prerogative of the State President. You do not give the State President a slap in the face by inviting a stranger from elsewhere to open proceedings which it is his prerogative to open. One does not do that. All that I did was to point out to the Executive that it was the prerogative of the State President.

Before I resume my seat, I want to deal with the matter raised by the hon. member for Berea.

†The hon. member for Berea took me to task because of the fact that the English version of the Theron report has not yet been tabled. The hon. member referred to a question he put to me in February this year and also in the course of April in reply to another question I informed the House about the translation of the Theron report. On account of what he said I get the feeling that the hon. member is regarding me as a sort of a glorified translator. I can tell the hon. member that I have done quite a lot of translation in my lifetime, but I will never venture to be a sworn translator. That is a professional job. I do not think the hon. member himself has any aspirations of becoming a sworn translator.

*Mr. Chairman, surely that is not my task. It is the task of another department, and surely the hon. member could have raised that under a discussion of the Vote of the Minister of National Education. If he asked me whether I did my part, I can tell him that I did. I did so by means of correspondence and talks with the hon. the Minister concerned. He, on his part, told me about his problems as far as the translation bureau, which overburdened with commission reports, is concerned. I can furnish the hon. member with certain information in this regard. As Dr. Koornhof, the Minister concerned, wrote to me in reply to my repeated representations of 2 June, 14 days ago, the amount of English translations had increased by 88% last year. I want to quote from his letter—

He went on to say what steps had been taken. He pointed out that the White Paper had also been handed in for translation in April, and that it was being translated with the utmost dispatch. In contrast to what the hon. member said here the other day, there is the gratifying news that the translation of the report of the Theron Commission has been disposed of. It is now in the process of being printed.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister how it then came about that he advised my colleague, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, that it was likely that the English version of the report would be available during September or October 1976?

That was according to the information I had then. I am dependent on the information given to me by the Department of National Education. The hon. member accused me yesterday of blowing my own trumpet last year when I said that had it not been for action which I took, the Theron report would not have been published before November last year. It has now been proved how long merely the technical aspect of translating and printing of a report of that size takes. The hon. member will agree with me that if I did not take certain steps last year, we would not have had the Theron report available in one language before late last year.

Mr. Chairman, as the hon. the Minister was in the House when I was in the House, may I ask him whether he remembers how long it took for the report on South West Africa, a report which was just about the same size as this one, to be published?

Mr. Chairman, I think I have dealt with the matter sufficiently. The hon. member can rest assured that the report is now in the process of being printed.

*At this juncture I shall resume my seat to afford hon. members another opportunity to participate in the debate.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to reply to the speech of the hon. the Minister as he was essentially replying to speeches of other hon. members who dealt with specific issues.

It seems to me that we have had a very unreal kind of debate because we have not been discussing the real issues. There seems to me to be two themes which arise out of the speeches which have been made by Government members. On the one side there was the constant theme of the material or socioeconomic development of the Coloured people and on the other side a warning, often directed in very paternalistic terms at the Coloured people to avoid “Swart Mag”.

It seems to me that hon. members on the other side of the House are living in a dream world if they believe that the material development of the Coloured people only is going to satisfy the Coloured people. I also find it amazing that hon. members on the other side always seem to think that if the NP Government had not come into power in 1948, South Africa’s development would have come to a dead stop.

Sir, most of the development we have had in this country would have come anyway from the basic structure of our economy. I venture to suggest that, were it not for the NP Government, there would have been much faster development. Therefore, to spend time concentrating on the material development of the Coloured people is to me astonishing. Furthermore, I think we ought to remember that it is precisely this Government that has held back the faster development of the Coloured community. It did so through its attitude on job reservation and through its moving of Coloured people out of areas where they could develop themselves—not that I would wish to detract from the many positive aspects; I do not believe that it is right to do that. The point is that one can develop people materially as much as one likes, but it does not help. Lord Milner maintained that after the Anglo-Boer War he gave the Afrikaners the best education money could buy. He brought in highly qualified Scottish teachers and agricultural experts, but that did not satisfy the Afrikaners. Of course it did not satisfy them! [Interjections.] Just listen! The very reaction I am getting from the hon. members opposite is the reaction one also gets from Brown people when they hear the kind of speeches we have had from the opposite side. It irritates them; it upsets them. If one wants to see this position demonstrated, one sees it demonstrated in the reports of Professor Gerrit Viljoen, the rector of the Rand Afrikaans University, who said that one of the tragedies of the South African situation is that the Afrikaner “volk” does not seem able to put itself into the shoes of other people. The best way to debate in this House is to pose a situation where one puts the Afrikaner people in a certain position. Then, when one gets the sort of reaction I got just now, one can simply say to them: “Well, that is just how the Coloured people react.” I cannot understand why hon. members opposite do not realize this.

In the second place there were many warnings from that side of the House against Coloured people being attracted to “Swart Mag”. Sir, the Coloured people’s interest in “Swart Mag” is an inevitable reaction against “Wit Mag”. The whole object of, for example, the hon. Leader of the House, ever since he was a NP organizer as a young man, has been to unite Afrikaans-speaking people in the NP. That is how he ran the whole Oudtshoorn by-election in the early 1970s. The Coloured people have reacted against that. They are unimpressed by White promises. The great Cape section of the NP was going to protect the Coloured people, but what did they do? They did nothing for the Coloured people! Thus we arrived at this situation which is tragic in the extreme. I believe it is absolutely tragic, because the Brown people are being separated from and are being called a “volk in wording” by the very people with whom they have the most in common. The hon. member for Piketberg realized that. He said the Brown people are a recognizable group—of course they are—but he did not call them a “volk”. He said they are recognizable like the English-speaking community is recognizable. Sir, if that hon. member believes that the Coloured people are similar to the English-speaking community in terms of their cultural differences while they are not a separate “volk”, I want him to tell me why the Coloured people cannot sit in the same Parliament with English-speaking people? If the hon. member for Piketberg believes that Coloured people should have their own representative council, why does he not introduce one for English-speaking White South Africans, because if he is going to be logical, that is what he should do. Therefore, the hon. member is not very convincing on this level.

Mr. Chairman, I believe we have had an amazing debate so far. There have been a number of issues in the shadows. The one has been the committee which is enquiring into the Westminster system. All of us are waiting to find out what has happened to that committee. Those of us who have been in the UP caucus for the last three or four years have learnt a great deal about politics, about leaks to the press, and about what happens when people are jockeying for position. If I have learnt one thing as a very junior member, it is that I have learnt to smell whenever difficulties are being experienced in another political party. When one gets the “weerbarstigheid” of a man like dr. A. P. Treurnicht, the Deputy Minister of Bantu Education and Administration, and one gets the hon. member for Rissik agreeing that he disagrees with the hon. member for Johannesburg West, one begins to smell things I have been familiar with for four years, ever since I have been in the caucus. This shadow of Westminster has been hanging over this debate, because we all know that a debate on the future of the Coloured people is pointless if the Westminster issue is not resolved.

Nothing will happen.

This is precisely what we have to try to find out. I agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that nothing may well happen, but the point is that something theoretically could happen. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Johannesburg West said that something as important as the creation of Union could happen. Anybody who reads that history realizes what a significant event that was, because it clearly shaped a whole new constitutional dispensation.

I believe the debate which we have had in the NP has perhaps been the most amazing thing. We have the classic example that 21 million people in this country have to wait for 2 million to decide what they are going to do with the rest of us. I believe this is what is worrying us. What is particularly worrying is that events are already deciding what is going to happen.

I want to pay tribute to the hon. member for Mossel Bay. I believe he made one of the most courageous statements in the interests of South Africa when he told the hon. member for Newton Park that if he was going to follow the hon. member for Waterberg, then he was going to get absolutely nowhere in the politics of South Africa. The hon. member for Waterberg is not only Dr. No, but also Dr. Nowhere, because he is “weerbarstig” and he is holding back the development of this country. I believe there are wise men in the NP who see that events are moving around us. Our country is going to get blacker and blacker as well as browner and browner. I am not frightened, but we have to come to terms with the situation. We cannot live in the days of 1966 and 1948. Yet, in Durban the hon. member for Waterberg propagated good NP policy in 1966. But it has changed. Of course it has changed and who is going to be such a fool as not to realize that politics must change? We do not live in a permanent situation. That is the important thing about the NP. I believe that the hon. member for Mossel Bay did us a service when he pointed out to that little “splinter, weerbarstige” party led by the hon. member for Newton Park that if they are going to start following the hon. member for Waterberg they are going to end in a dead-end street and are going to get nowhere. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have often wondered why they call the hon. member who has just resumed his seat “Haas Das”. However, I am now convinced that they call him that because he probably amuses the children. The hon. member said that he smelt something. I think he smelt himself. If the hon. member wants to go back in history to the time of Milner, I can tell him that the position of the NP towards the Coloureds is not at all comparable with the position of Milner towards the Afrikaner.

It is absolutely comparable.

I shall explain to the hon. member why it is not comparable. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. members must give the hon. member a chance to make his speech.

The difference is that, if I know my history, Milner wanted to integrate the Afrikaner with the English-speaking people. He wanted to break down the identity of the Afrikaner with an imperialistic policy. The Afrikaner of today and the NP want to maintain and expand the identity of the Coloured. This is the big difference. The one policy wanted to break down while the other wants to build up. It will get up absolutely nowhere to refer back to history and the time of Milner while we are dealing here with positive matters. [Interjections.] The NP wants to develop the identity of the Coloureds; it does not want to break it down. I am sorry that the hon. member for Edenvale is not in the House now, because what he said this afternoon, is probably the policy of the group to which he belongs. I do not know whether they are still a party. This morning the hon. member said that the Coloureds had no identity of their own. I think that the hon. member owes the Coloureds an apology because it is an insult to say that the people have no identity. This morning I asked repeatedly whether hon. members on that side of the House—this holds for all the parties on that side of the House—want full integration for the Coloured people or whether they consider the Coloured people as an integrated part of the nation. I have not yet had a reply from them.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether he considers the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people to be fully integrated?

The Afrikaans and English-speaking people form the White population of South Africa. [Interjections.]

The problem of the hon. member for Durban North concerned morality. He wanted to know whether the poor Coloured person should listen to the will of God or whether he should listen to the will of the Government. But that is not an argument. The hon. member is a lawyer and I now want to know from him: Has he ever handled divorce cases? Whose will did he carry out then? Was it the will of God or was it the will of the law? It is now being asked what the priorities of the Coloureds are and whether we have given them the opportunity to say what their priorities are. They do have the opportunity of saying what their priorities are. They have the necessary bodies and they have a say in the Cabinet Committee; they just have to use it.

I allowed myself to be led astray this morning by replying to statements made by hon. members on that side of the House and therefore I did not get round to what I actually wanted to say. This morning I made the statement that one of the most serious problems which the Coloured population is faced with is the question of housing. Then I said that the groups of Coloured people involved in agriculture were privileged because agriculture was the only industry which made full provision for its people’s housing.

There are problems in this regard as well, however, because agriculture as a whole is struggling today, especially with capital shortages. During the past few years, from 1969 to 1977, 1 346 houses have been erected on farms to the value of more than R8 million. This was made possible by the Government’s policy of making money available—to the agricultural industry too—to provide for housing for Coloureds. During the recent riots, there were no disturbances in the agricultural sector. The Coloureds in agriculture, although they are often considered the most backward group of the Coloured population, are a happy group of people. They are happy because there is a proper understanding between employer and employee. The Coloured man knows that his employer will look after him; he looks after his housing and cares for him when he is in trouble.

Coloured people involved in the agricultural industry consist of two groups. On the one hand there are the employees and on the other there are the employers, the entrepreneurs. I am particularly concerned about this entrepreneur class in agriculture. A developing community like the Coloured one has to have a firm agricultural basis as well. All nations which have developed have started out from an agricultural background and have subsequently entered the industrial and service spheres. Land is available, but the development of the land is falling behind due to various factors.

An important factor in this regard is the tradition which Coloureds in the rural areas cling to. It is useless to say that these people do not have an identity. They have an identity and they have their traditions. These are things which we must recognize and appreciate. Although we would like to see the Coloureds in the rural areas developing and accepting ownership of their land, they are slow to do so. This creates problems. I must add, however, that the White entrepreneur in agriculture has always cared for the Coloured entrepreneur in agriculture, so much so that White agricultural co-operatives have always been prepared to provide production capital, loans and other means of production to Coloured farmers on credit. This was in spite of the fact that they had no guarantee that they would ever get their money back. One particular co-operative which I know of has suffered damage amounting to thousands of rands in recent years due to credit which was granted to Coloured farmers in good faith. We do not bemoan this, but one would be glad if a better dispensation could be created and agricultural co-operatives could be enabled to cover the credit extended by them by means of proper securities.

Of course, land is not the greatest problem when we want to establish the Coloureds in agriculture. Management ability is a problem. When we look at the White Paper, we see that as far as the Coloureds in the Agricultural sector are concerned, the vast majority of recommendations have in fact been accepted. A fine thing which has been established is the agricultural liaison group between the Cape Province Agricultural Union and the CRC, known as the joint agricultural committee. Therefore, when the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central alleges that dialogue has broken down, I tell him that this is not true. This is another proof of that. This joint agricultural committee is proof of how liaison is taking place between the two population groups today. They are consulting on a wide variety of matters; they are talking about wages, pensions, the use of alcohol, working hours, medical services, land tenure, the granting of credit and the training of the Coloureds, etc.

The Coloureds in the agricultural sector, the employees as well as the entrepreneurs, are privileged today in knowing that the White South African farmers are friendly towards them and want to help them to get ahead. Something which we cannot lose sight of is the fact that, in the present economic conditions it is difficult to find the necessary capital to help the Coloureds get on. What they need, amongst other things, is long-term capital to obtain land, as well as short-term and medium-term capital. Therefore, where we make provision in our legislation for the CRC to provide funds by means of the Agricultural Credit Board, I also want to suggest to them that they should not only look at the industrial development of the Coloureds, but also at the Coloureds in the agricultural sector.

Mr. Chairman, I want to return to the hon. member for Malmesbury in a moment or two. However, before doing that I would like to make some comment in response to the hon. the Minister. I want to react to what the hon. the Minister said in his reply to the debate a little earlier this afternoon. The hon. the Minister referred to remarks I had made on Friday evening concerning the appointment of the new Deputy Commissioner. He said he felt that what I was doing was unparliamentary in terms of custom and tradition and that what I really should do was to abide by a code of honour. I want to ask the hon. the Minister one question. Do any of the members of the CRC executive serve on the Public Service Commission?

Do you think any member of the Cabinet serves on the Public Service Commission?

The hon. the Minister does not have to ask another question. The answer is obviously “no”.

I cannot understand why you ask the question.

I shall try and deal gently with the hon. the Minister, but let me move on. If that is so, let me ask the second question. Do we have any Coloured people at all on the Public Service Commission?

Order! The hon. member may not ask questions and then wait for replies.

Mr. Chairman, I know the hon. the Minister is going to reply to the debate and that is the whole idea of asking the questions. However, if he wants to shout the replies across the floor, he may do so as well. The point that I am making, however, is that the only opportunity that the CRC executive or, indeed, the Coloured community as a whole have in making any kind of recommendation regarding a very senior appointment, i.e. that of Deputy Commissioner, is through direct representation, because they do not serve on the Public Service Commission. They have a small committee that can make …

Do you believe in merit or not?

Mr. Chairman, it is very difficult to abide by your ruling when the hon. the Minister insists on replying right now. Perhaps he could leave it until a little later. The point that remains is that once again we have the Coloured people in a situation where the best that they can do is not to make decisions, but to make recommendations. They made specific recommendations concerning a specific gentleman for this post and I believe that was overruled by the Public Service Commission and then by the hon. the Minister.

With regard to the invitation to Chief Gatsha Buthelezi to open the next session of the CRC, the hon. the Minister wanted to know whether I or my colleague, the hon. member for Rondebosch, had suggested to the executive that they should invite Chief Gatsha Buthelezi. I want to reply to him immediately and say that we did not and that we would never be so presumptuous as to suggest whom they should ask to the opening ceremony. That is my reply to the hon. the Minister.

What was your role in the case of Andrew Young?

That is another question. I shall come back to that in another debate. Let us stick to the question the Minister has put to me. The hon. the Minister suggested that if we had asked the executive to invite Chief Gatsha Buthelezi to open the new CRC session, it would be a slap in the face of the State President. Is he suggesting that since, so far as I know, the idea for inviting Chief Gatsha Buthelezi originated with the executive itself, they in turn were delivering a slap in the face of the State President, because that is the implication of his remarks?

There are a number of other points which the hon. the Minister did not have the time or the desire to answer. Therefore I want to return to a few of those points again. For example, I mentioned that it was stated that the Coloured people should have control of their educational institutions, whereas we know that in the case of the University of the Western Cape, with regard to the retrenchment … I see that the hon. the Minister will answer that again so I will not belabour the point.

If the mountain will not come to Mohammed, Mohammed must come to the mountain.

I made a point earlier in my speech that one of the major grievances of the Coloured people is that whereas they do have representation and they do have the opportunity to make suggestions and recommendations, time and time again that is where it stops.

That is nonsense!

By way of illustration I mentioned that they have no power whatsoever on a number of major decision-making bodies in South Africa which directly affect their daily lives, for example, municipalities, divisional councils and provincial councils. Here, too, they are merely consulted. I believe that the whole procedure of the Government in getting people together to have dialogue is actually going to be counter-productive, because again and again they are brought together all over the country, as the hon. the Minister indicated, but, time and time again, all they can do is to make suggestions or recommendations and without fail, when anything fundamental is discussed, asked for or suggested, this is waived because it is not Government policy. If one want to invite confrontation, all one has to do is to continue to have dialogue, which does not mean real dialogue, namely a genuine exchange leading to a decision taken by both parties, but a series of requests and recommendations made by one group in response to an opportunity made by the ruling group, in reply to which the Government has to say again and again that it cannot abide by those decisions and that it cannot do what they are asking for because it contradicts Government policy. That is exactly the answer they gave in terms of the Erika Theron Commission.

Prof. J. B. du Toit, secretary to the Theron Commission, put it very well when he said the following—

That was the burden of the speeches made by myself and some of my colleagues earlier in this debate. I want to suggest that at no time did the hon. the Minister touch sides as far as that major argument is concerned, namely that the Coloured people as of now have no real opportunity to negotiate—and I want to underline the word “negotiate”—in the power structure and the governing bodies of the country. We are told, not only by the hon. the Minister, but by several other hon. members on that side, that what we have to wait for now, is the Cabinet Committee because they are going to make decisions which are going to be incredibly far-reaching. That is not good enough, because after all this Government has been in power for nearly 30 years and it is still trying to find a solution.

I now want to come back to the hon. member for Malmesbury. He constantly challenged us in these benches and asked whether we believed that the Coloured people as a whole were part and parcel of the White community and therefore an integrated whole. He answered his own question by saying that he did not believe this himself. That is why they are in the dilemma of trying to find the future.

Do you believe that?

Yes, I will come to that. This is where the Government makes its mistake.

What do you believe?

If you give me a chance, I will tell you. Those of us who sit in these benches do not take as our starting point whether or not integration is good or bad. We take as our starting point the fact that one has groups of people living in South Africa and that if one is going to find an equitable solution to the problems of race conflict in South Africa, one group cannot for ever sit in judgment and make decisions over another group. Either one must decide that there is going to be a partition, a process of carving up and giving to people the right to make their own decisions in their own areas and their own countries, or one has to decide that those people who live in the common areas have an equal right. That is why we believe in equal opportunity and, as the hon. the Minister reminded the House, why we stress the word “merit”. We do not take as our starting point integration. If it leads to that we have no problem with it whatsoever, but it does not start there. It starts in the sharing of power. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the question of whether or not the hon. member for Pinelands made unparliamentary statements in his speech last Friday evening, I shall leave to your discretion. What I do not doubt for one moment, however, is that he made reprehensible statements. However, I do not intend to descend to that level, so I shall leave the hon. member at that.

I want to come back to what the hon. member for Pinetown has just said in respect of my earlier speech. A good friend of mine, who was a very wise man, often told me that he had never had any problems with a rich man, a strong man or a clever man. However, he added that he prayed the Lord to preserve him from a poor man, a weak man and a stupid man, because you always have trouble with them. This is why I am having “trouble” with the hon. member for Pinetown. The hon. member for Pinetown likes to give out that he is a very bilingual person. However, he showed here this afternoon that he has absolutely no idea of the Afrikaans idiom. I said, with reference to the speech made by the hon. member for Newton Park, that if he and his party were going to run after the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, they themselves would not be standing still either. However, the hon. member for Pinetown interpreted my words as meaning that they would get nowhere if they followed the hon. the Deputy Minister.

But you said so.

These two statements are as far removed from each other as the East is from the West, but I shall nevertheless spell it out for the information of those hon. members. That expression simply means this: If hon. members of the SAP are going to develop an obsession about what the hon. the Deputy Minister is alleged to have said and if they are going to keep harping on that, they will be so busy trying to get at the hon. the Deputy Minister that they will have no time for anything else. This is what the expression means, and nothing more. The hon. member for Pinetown thought he was being very clever, but he missed the point completely. He simply displayed his ignorance of the Afrikaanse idiom or his inability to interpret it.

I come now to the comment made by the hon. member for Edenvale on my previous speech. The hon. member for Edenvale implied that he agreed with a great deal of what I had said, but then he tried to take me to task for allegedly having contradicted what the hon. the Prime Minister had said on occasion. I want to refer to what the hon. the Prime Minister himself said in that speech to which the hon. member for Edenvale referred. I am referring to a speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister in this House on 4 February 1974. I am not referring to the whole speech, of course, but only to the part of it which has a bearing on this matter. I am not going to quote it verbatim either—that would take too long—but I am just going to give a free interpretation of what the hon. the Prime Minister said. The hon. the Prime Minister was discussing sovereignty on the abstract, philosophical level. He was not moving in the sphere in which I moved in my speech, i.e. the sphere of political organization, the sphere of political institutions, such as a Parliament or other body, which is alleged to be or which ought to be sovereign. The hon. the Prime Minister was speaking in the Philosophical, abstract sense of the sovereignty over his people, or the sovereignty of his people. Therefore we were not moving on the sare level at all and I have no fault whatever to find with what the hon. the Prime Minister said. It is to be clearly distinguished from the sphere in which I discussed the terminology.

In the spirit of my previous speech, I briefly want to expose another mistaken belief which I think is quite commonly held. I am referring to the idea of moving away from the Westminster system. Recommendation 178(c) of the Erika Theron report reads as follows—

Paragraph (a) of the minority recommendation is almost identically worded. However, when we look at the various reservations recorded in respect of this recommendation, it appears that there was in fact no unanimity among the various members of the commission in respect of (a) their view of the political development of the Coloureds and (b) what the said recommendation entails or ought to entail. Then I cannot help wondering whether the commissioners all understood what was meant by the Westminster-founded system of government. In any event, I find no indication in the recommendation that the existing Westminster-founded system of government should be rejected or deviated from. The only reference is to change and adaptation.

I believe that no system of government which developed in Britain, Europe or any other part of the world out of the political circumstances prevailing at a specific time and at a specific place can necessarily be applied unchanged or without qualification to the unique circumstances prevailing in the Republic of South Africa today. I believe that the unique political challenges presented by the plural community of the Republic of South Africa in our times require a unique answer.

It follows from this that I believe that the Westminster system of government, as developed in Britain, cannot be made applicable to the Republic of South Africa without adaptation. In fact, our present system of government is already an adapted form of the Westminster system of government. That is why we speak of a Westminster-based system of government. It means that our system of government is based on the essential characteristics of the Westminster system of government, but that a structure of our own has been built upon that basis, a structure which serves the plural South African community and which has been adapted to the local circumstances and the South African political history.

I cannot find any reason or justification for changing the essential characteristics of the Westminster system on which the political structure in the Republic of South Africa is based. The challenge presented to us by the political aspirations of the Coloured people can, I believe, be met within the framework and on the basis of the essential qualities and characteristics of the Westminster system of government. This will necessarily require a further adjustment of the existing Westminster-based system of government as we know it in the Republic of South Africa.

If we want to make any further projections, we must be realistic and we must recognize that this also means that the Coloured leaders must be prepared to accept greater political responsibility in respect of their own people. The question is whether they have always been prepared in the past to utilize the opportunities they were afforded. The question is whether, in addition to demanding rights, they are also prepared to accept the responsibilities that go with those rights. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the first speech made by the hon. member for Piketberg he said that the main reason why the Government was unable to accept the recommendations of the Erika Theron Commission which we consider to be the most important ones was that they conflicted with the policy of the NP. As politicians, we realize that a policy is important to a political party. It is not something one can simply push aside. I concede that the Opposition parties are sometimes just as dogmatic about their policy as the members on the Government side are about theirs. What we shall have to learn on both sides is that it is really fruitless for us as Whites to spend days arguing here about whose policy is the best. It is not so much a question of a good or a bad policy. For example, if the system of apartheid had been acceptable to the Coloured population, there would have been no further debate on the subject in this House. Therefore what counts, and what we have to try to decide here, is not whether a policy is good or bad—these are abstract concepts. There is really only one question which is important, and that is whether the policy which is being followed, no matter what policy, is acceptable not only to its creator, but also to those to whom it will be applicable. If it is acceptable to one side only, there will be conflict, confrontation and instability.

And if it is unacceptable to both?

I shall come to that… Then the result will inevitably be the revolutionary conditions that have developed over the past year.

I am not saying this to the NP only, because the same applies to the political parties on this side of the House. It will be of very little use to us as Whites to argue here about whose Coloured policy is the best, for by “the best policy” we mean the one which is best for the White people. I want to emphasize that the only policy, no matter what form it takes, that will succeed in the long run, will be a policy which is acceptable to the White people as well as to the Coloured people. Therefore it is essential that the Government create machinery—I think this must be done urgently—by means of which the Whites and the Coloureds can have joint consultations about a policy for the future and can reach consensus about it.

The hon. the Minister said that there was contact between them and that they were having talks. However, he will concede that that contact and those talks always take place within the framework of the NP policy. Hon. members say that Coloured people should join the Cabinet Council and that they can continue their discussions there. However, this is the same old story again, talks within the policy of the Government, within the framework of a one-sided policy system. The whole purpose of the Cabinet Council is to be part of and to some extent to round off the existing policy system which has been rejected over and over again by the vast majority of the Coloured people. I am not advising the Coloured people on whether or not they should serve on it, for that is their own choice. However, hon. members will admit …

What about the Whites?

I shall deal with that. Hon. members will admit that the Cabinet Council is not the product of joint deliberations. It has been unilaterally designed and is intended to lend further stability to the existing policy system of the Government.

That was the proposal of the previous Executive.

The hon. the Minister can reply later. This is the way I see it. It is intended to enable the Government to say that it has involved the Coloured people and the Indians in the central decision-making process. This is the way it will seem to many people. This is precisely the problem which the Labour Party is faced with. In actual fact, however, this will be misleading, for it is not going to be a super Cabinet. It is not going to be a Cabinet in the true sense of the word, where the leaders of the three groups meeting there will have equal authority and an equal say in decisions. Once again it will be a question of master and servant, because it is part of the policy system of the Government. In any event, what we have learnt about the Cabinet Council up to now is that it will introduce nothing which does not already exist, for at this moment representatives of the Coloured Council and of the Indian Council have the right to talk to the hon. the Prime Minister or any other Minister about questions affecting them. That right already exist. So the Cabinet Council is not introducing anything new. It is simply confirming the right to come and talk in the office of the Prime Minister about the problems which they experience, but always within the framework of the governing party’s policy.

The trouble is that these talks have been taking place for years. Every time there are talks, the Government fails to go to the heart of the problem.

How do you know that?

But we can see that! What is the heart of the problem? The heart of the problem which the Coloured community has is how they can get away from White political domination and from White dictates, how they can get away from a system which is nothing but political imperialism. That is what they want to get away from.

The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education also used the word “imperialism” on television the other day. He said he was opposed to political imperialism. I am sure he would not like to be an imperialist, but to give a practical example, there he is sitting, a White man, in his capacity as a Deputy Minister of Bantu Education. That is a form of imperialism. There the Minister of Coloured Relations is sitting. “Relations” is a very fine-sounding word, but in actual fact, he is the White Minister in charge of most matters affecting the daily life of the Coloured people. Recently we saw once again that in spite of everything the hon. the Minister says, the CRC does not even have the freedom to choose whom it wants to invite to open its session. The White Minister dictates what should be done, and it is this imperialism which the Coloured people want to escape from. This is the heart of the problem. Hon. members must tell us how, in their opinion, the Coloured people can escape from White imperialism.

The Government ought to create machinery which will not be an institution of the present policy system, but an ad hoc body on which the Whites and elected Coloured leaders can serve to work out a mutually acceptable policy for the future ab initio and together. I want to say to the hon. the Minister of Defence that if the Whites and the Coloureds in South West were able to work out a mutually acceptable system, why can it not be done here? If it cannot be done, the road ahead will be a perpetuation of a revolutionary situation. I am convinced that the Coloured leaders would serve on such a consultative body, but the Government never produces a policy which has not been worked out unilaterally; it always produces one which is designed to satisfy the voters of only one section.

The hon. member for Carletonville spoke a true word the other day. He complained that leading politicians on the Government side were using a wealth of words and concepts in describing their policy these days—those were his words—but that they always neglected to explain what they meant by the words they were using. He complained that his people were confused. Die Transvaler agreed with him and said that there was too much “vaagpratery” on the part of the Government. It is true that people are indulging in vague and conflicting talk to an extent unprecedented in our political history. For example, there are concepts such as “moving away from discrimination”, “pluralism”, “cantons” and many more besides. These are all only words. Nothing is the subject of so much vague talk as the future position of the Coloured people. For about 15 years we have been hearing about plans for “expanding” the CRC. Hon. members are welcome to look it up in the debate. I have been counting today: One speaker after another, including the hon. the Minister, has said that it is going to be expanded. “Expansion” is a fine word, but when are they going to make a start on it? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, a debate about the Coloured people has been going on in the Public Press, both English and Afrikaans, over the past few days. It will be a pity if the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs lets the opportunity pass by without providing some guidance in the debate which is taking place there and which, in my humble opinion, is having a detrimental effect. I think that whatever we say about the socioeconomic position of the Coloured people, whatever we have to say for or against it, until such time as South Africa succeeds in finding a political solution for the Coloureds, their socio-economic position will not be seen in its proper perspective. I do not doubt this.

You have it the wrong way round.

No, Sir, it is not the wrong way round. The hon. member may take a look at the history of Africa. If one uplifts a nation in the socio-economic sphere without uplifting it politically at the same time, an imbalance arises in the structure which leads to rebellion and revolution. If one uplifts it politically and not socio-economically, there will also be an imbalance which will lead to revolution, as has happened in every Black State in Africa. I shall not take the matter any further. It is as plain as a pikestaff to me that one must maintain a socio-economic and political balance in every community at all times.

I do not want to ask the hon. the Minister to spell out the details to me or to cross swords with and act against the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. When I tell him to find a solution, I am not asking for details—this can come later— but I want to know from him what direction he is taking with the Coloureds in the political sphere. Does the hon. the Minister believe that the political destiny of the Coloureds will coincide with ours, or does he see their destiny along a separate road? It is as simple as that. Does the hon. the Minister believe that the destiny of the Coloureds will coincide with that of Whites, as I do? I do not see any other solution. The political destiny of the Coloureds and the Whites will have to meet somewhere and the two will have to find one another, no matter what one does.

If the hon. the Minister does not see it in this way, the NP is wrong to allege that the Coloureds are not a nation on their own. This is the view of the NP. They say that the Coloureds are not a nation or a nation in the making. Since this is the case, the Coloureds do not have their own homeland and one cannot give them a homeland. Therefore, if one wants to give them equal standing in South Africa, one has no option but to say that the two parallel roads will not continue like this for ever on the political road ahead, but will meet.

All I am asking the hon. the Minister today is to see that the debate outside does not obstruct the whole matter once again. As I understand the matter, people are thinking about the fact that the political destiny of the Coloureds and the Whites lie along the same road, and I should like to think about this too. However, if the hon. the Minister allows another point of view to enter again, which says that the destiny of the Coloureds lies along a separate road, the hon. the Minister will be harming his own case. That is what we want to prevent at all costs.

Secondly, I should like to tell the Government through the hon. the Minister that we must forget about still having years to solve this matter. If the Government succeeds in making rapid progress with the political question, we shall make a breakthrough on this level such as you and I have never known, and it can only promote South Africa’s case, not only here, but abroad as well. Both the Whites and the Coloureds are waiting for clarity about the future. I know the hon. the Minister does not want to enter into a heated debate, but I want to tell him: Remember the time factor. Give us clarity about where we are going in this situation.

Thirdly, I want to say that the hon. the Minister has already got political instruments for local politics on the local level. We have the CRC already and the hon. the Minister must give these people the right to exercise meaningful powers. However, the hon. the Minister must also see that they fulfil the responsibilities entailed by the powers which he gives them. This is the level at which the Coloureds must show whether they can govern themselves. If they cannot do so, their inability to govern themselves will hang like a millstone around their neck forever when they want to voice their opinions on the political destiny of South Africa. They must first prove themselves. I think they can do so. Give them a chance. Do not hesitate, because time is running out. Give the Coloureds the chance of governing themselves and let us talk about the direction in which we believe the Coloureds should move in the future.

Mr. Chairman, we have come to the end of the discussion on this Vote, and to hon. members on both sides of the House who have taken part, I should like to convey my thanks for their interest. I know there are several members on the Opposition side who take a sincere interest in the Coloured people and who assist them, each one in his own neighbourhood. I want to ask them not to be guilty of paternalism. Our assistance must be directed towards promoting leadership among the Coloured people, something for which such a serious plea was made in the debate by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn, the hon. member for Johannesburg West, the hon. member for Newton Park and others.

And by the hon. member for Durban Central.

Yes, by him as well. [Interjections.] I want to begin with the hon. member for Maitland. He wants to know how I see the road that lies ahead for the Coloured people, whether it will coincide with that of the Whites or move away from it.

The political road.

Yes, the political road. I cannot devote the whole afternoon to this matter, but I gladly refer the hon. member—I have already mentioned this to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central—to a blueprint—the best one could get—in the form of the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister on 8 November 1974. The hon. member would do well to read that, for it is a blueprint of the road that lies ahead for the Coloured people. The road coincides with that of the White man, because the hon. the Prime Minister said that we should take one another’s hand, and as we walk along our parallel road, bridges must be built. We are doing this and we are consulting on various levels, as I have already told another hon. member this afternoon.

Person to person?

Yes. We are doing this in many spheres. We are part of one homeland, and here I want to point out, for the information of the hon. member for Edenvale, that there is no question of a homeland for Coloured people in the policy of this side of the House. I have here in my hand the interim memorandum published by the Government last year together with the publication of the Theron Commission’s report. In paragraph 5 I read the following—

Nowhere did the Theron Commission refer to the existing institutions. The hon. member will concede this, because he quoted from recommendation No. 178, and nowhere is it said that the Coloured people should be given representation in existing institutions. I read further—

Is it not correct to say that the Coloured members of the commission said on page 525 of the report that they understood by recommendation No. 178 that there would be direct representation in the existing bodies, which would therefore include this Parliament?

I hope the hon. member also appreciates the dilemma of the commission in many respects. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central also qualified that recommendation according to his views. This is the problem of our situation. That is why we cannot say …

But the majority proposal was accepted.

Yes, but the hon. member then qualified the recommendations according to his own views; he wanted to work in the old federal policy of the UP, which they have never been able to sell.

I have referred the hon. member for Maitland to a specific blueprint, for that will show him what has been envisaged. Some blueprints of our own are lying ready at the moment, including plans for legislation to be introduced in Parliament if the members of the Executive of the day—not only the Cabinet Council; that is not our only concern—are prepared to fulfil their functions as Ministers of their own Cabinet. If they were to do so, these blueprints would be put into operation.

The Public Service Commission completed an investigation last year concerning the organization of their directorates and their own departments. Therefore everything is ready. The obstacle is not presented by me or by hon. members on this side of the House. The hon. member for Maitland could help us by looking at the hon. members next to him.

That would not help; it is impossible.

There are a few remaining matters to which I want to refer. The hon. member for Pinelands pointed out that there was a matter which I had not yet dealt with. I shall do so now. It has been alleged that the CRC does not have any real powers. The hon. member also wanted to know from me whether any member of the Executive was serving on the Public Service Commission. I would have thought that the hon. member—he has had a good training—would have shown a better grasp of the situation. A politician does not serve on such a body. This is precisely my problem with this whole set-up, i.e. that politically inspired decisions are taken in a structure of officials which must be built and where political interests cannot be allowed. Now the hon. member actually wants a member of the Executive to go and serve on the Public Service Commission. If a member of the Executive were in fact to serve on the Public Service Commission, we would come to the next problem raised by the hon. member. He said—

The council of the University of the Western Cape, as inherited by me last year, is composed of six Coloured and a number of White members. There are more Whites than Coloureds. I concede that to the hon. member. However, we had the situation that a decision had to be taken one fine day about the appointment of a professor. His permanent appointment had not been confirmed the year before, and his trial period had been extended because there had been dissatisfaction with his work. A majority on the council decided that he should not be appointed and that his services should be terminated. What did the hon. member do then? The hon. member then made the reproach that they had no real powers and that there were only six of them. Is the hon. member now going the same way as a councillor of the university who told the Press that the council had voted on the appointment of Dr. Mohammed on a racial basis—a person who had no right to speak on behalf of any other member of the council?

You see, Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of dilemma in which one finds oneself. If the hon. the Minister of the Interior were to nominate a member of the Executive to the Public Service Commission and a situation such as this one were to arise, we would have a repetition of this kind of thing. There would be confrontation again. Reproaches would be made against the White man again. For that reason I told the Executive that as soon as they obtained ministerial status, they would be able, as a part of their whole future dispensation, to appoint their own service commission in which they themselves would be able to take decisions from the second highest rank upwards. From the second highest rank downwards would not fall within the scope of their decisions, but would be a matter for their service commission, as is the case at the moment in the Public Service. I hope the hon. member is sensible enough to understand this. The hon. member made all kinds of reproaches about the appointment of Prof. Mohammed. According to him, this happened because the people did not have a meaningful say. Does the hon. member for Pinelands mean to tell me that the members of that council were not academically qualified to pass an opinion? Does the hon. member mean to tell me that someone like Mr. Justice Banks was not academically qualified to take an objective decision? After all, he is a man who has sat on the Bench. Is this the hon. member’s approach? Why then does he make such allegations and such accusations in this House today?

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout alleged that the Cabinet Council had been planned unilaterally by the Government. He cannot sell his own policy. He has a little circle of only four around him. One must have a basis from which to proceed, after all—a point of departure—in order to gather others around one on a body such as the Cabinet Council. The hon. member does not have control over his own affairs, but now he blames the Government and says that the Government took a unilateral decision about the establishment of the Cabinet Council. However, he is wrong. The Cabinet Council was established at the recommendation of the previous Executive of the CRC. If the hon. member was not aware of that, he simply has to take cognizance of it now. It was not the unilateral creation of the hon. the Prime Minister or of the Government. The proposal came from the previous Executive of the CRC, and if everyone would only play his part on this council, it would work.

The hon. member for Malmesbury referred to the special problem of the Coloured people in agriculture. Apart from those living on farms in their own right, he also mentioned the Coloured people in rural districts in which there is communal ownership of land. In a certain sense this is undesirable, of course. From an agricultural point of view it is undesirable and from a social point of view it is also wrong. Land must be privately owned. However, it is a difficult matter.

The rural areas are in control of their own affairs. I have been told that if anyone of them were to propose that their land should be sold piecemeal and in economic units, it would cost them their heads, figuratively speaking. But now I am able to tell hon. members the good news that the member of the Executive responsible for rural areas, Mr. David Curry, understands this problem and has taken the initiative. I had a long discussion with him last week. I appreciate it when a Coloured leader such as Mr. Curry has understanding for a problem situation among his people, a problem which cannot be solved by the stroke of a pen, but which can only be solved by constant effort. I believe that Mr. Curry will give special attention to this aspect and that we shall gradually come closer to a solution.

The hon. member for Durban Central—I am sorry that it took me so long to get round to him—alleged, in connection with the question of salary parity, that it would cost R10 million to achieve parity for Coloured and Indian teachers. I do not know where he gets his figures from. He also said that it would only cost R16 000 for the small number of staff at the University of the Western Cape that would be affected.

I base it on the reply that was given me.

Very well; that may be. But this and the other point which the hon. member made concerning pre-school education, where he said that if the Executive wanted more funds, they had to come and beg for it from the Government, these things are not true.

I did not say they had to beg; I say they had to wait until funds were available.

That brings me to the point and it also brings me to the hon. member for Rondebosch, who spoke of the CDC. He asked the following question: If there were to be more funds, as recommended by the Theron Commission, who would determine the priorities? These hon. members show a total lack of understanding of what a budget entails. It is the task of my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance, but those of us who sit with him around a table learn from it. Decisions have to be taken on a priority basis after all. Decisions cannot be taken in any other way than on a priority basis. But as far as the budget is concerned, the Minister of Finance does not draw up the budget of every department. Every department starts from scratch on its own budget, and according to its needs. In this way, the Executive of the CRC and the officials draw up a budget and then they approach us with it. It is weighed together with all the other needs in order to determine priorities. When it comes to the final point, they still have the right to discuss it further. This is the way we have done it in the past, approximately 14 days or three weeks before the introduction of the budget in this House. I want to repeat: That idea of confrontation no longer exists. We have had discussions for about two hours, during which these members of the Executive have made pleas for their specific interests, showing sound judgment and good insight. I am grateful to my hon. colleague for still being able to accommodate them in circumstances in which further curtailment has been necessary. This is the way we budget. This is the level on which one starts. However, hon. members allege that the Executive has to come to us hat in hand. Surely they negotiate just as everyone has to negotiate for what is required and for what can be granted.

The achievement of salary parity does not affect only the relationship of Whites with Coloureds and Indians, and it does not affect only teachers. Its implications are much wider. I do not know how to bring home to the hon. member for Durban Central the fact that even if one began with a small category, such as the one of R16 000 which he mentioned, and one created parity just for them …

The one would at least have made a beginning.

Can the hon. member imagine what one would have let oneself in for? One would not be able to resist the pressure, and my hon. colleague has to find the funds. If one singled out one category, one would not be able to refuse to do the same for others. For this reason one has to move towards this point as the economy of the country allows it.

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

No, I am sorry. I have forgotten to reply to the hon. member for Umbilo, because he is not here today. However, he apologized to me for not being able to be present. He raised a matter in connection with welfare on Friday, a matter about which he knows a great deal. He made a plea for the representation of Coloured people on the National Welfare Board and on regional welfare boards. He also pleaded for parity in respect of pensions. As the hon. member knows—and I shall furnish him with more detailed information later—the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions is working on legislation designed to change the composition and functions of the National Welfare Board. It is intended to introduce this legislation next year. The hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions recently had a brief discussion with me because I had initiated this matter when I was serving as his Deputy Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions and because the legislation affected my department and the Administration of Coloured Affairs. Unfortunately, I cannot give the hon. member any further particulars at this stage, except for saying that legislation will be introduced next year and that his arguments will be considered in the process.

As regards his argument in connection with parity in social pensions, I can assure him that this is a fine suggestion. One would like to have parity, but there is another factor which has to be considered. There is an interdepartmental committee which considers pension proposals from year to year, as the hon. the Minister of Finance indicates that funds are available. However, social pensions are intended to be merely a supplementary income, and the interdepartmental committee therefore ascertains what percentage the pension forms of the average income of the population group concerned. In the case of the Coloured people, they are already receiving 56,8% of the average Coloured income. In the case of White pensioners it is only about 20%. One must keep this in mind in striving for parity in that respect.

I do not want to keep the House any longer, but I still want to say a few things to my good friend, the hon. member for South Coast. He asked for greater training opportunities for Coloured people in technical directions, as did the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. The following technical colleges already exist: Athlone in the Cape, Kimberley, Port Elizabeth, Durban and the new college in Johannesburg which is to be opened later this year; there is a branch of the Port Elizabeth technical college at East London, and Pietermaritzburg has a branch of the Durban technical college. In addition, there is the Peninsula College for Advanced Technical Training in Bellville South. This is a large college, and another one is being planned. Furthermore, continuation classes are being held at Worcester and Bloemfontein on a part-time basis in order to train people in technical directions. At many of the high schools which are being built, there is a technical branch as well in terms of the system of differentiated education. All these things are being done in an attempt to provide the Coloured people with better qualifications in the technical field. To the hon. member for Durban Central I can say that the progress which is being made in the Administration of Coloured Affairs in respect of the teaching of their own people—the hon. member for Pinelands would do well to listen to this too—is such that we already have 30 inspectors of education. In addition, there are 24 subject inspectors, and there are two and may shortly be three—because there is a vacancy to be filled—chief inspectors of education. In other words, the cadre of people which has to decide who is to be promoted is becoming more and more representative of the Coloured people themselves.

I want to thank hon. members once again for their interest and their participation in the debate. If I have not been able to thank everyone personally, especially hon. members on my side, I shall do my best to do so afterwards.

Votes agreed to.

The Committee reverted to Votes Nos. 6, 15, 34 and 41 of Schedule 1 and S.W.A. Votes Nos. 1, 8 and 26 of Schedule 2.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Amendments agreed to.

Schedules, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, we come now to the last stage in the most important debate this session on the economic and financial situation in our country. Let me say at once that on the economic front, since the session started, I have been able to discern nought for our comfort. During that period the depression through which the country has been going has deepened, growth—if there was any at the beginning of the session—has certainly slowed down to probably a negative factor at the present time, the balance of payments is still a major problem, unemployment has increased to an uncomfortable extent, particularly amongst our Black population, and inflation is higher than it was when we started this session. This is a critical situation and these are all critical problems. I consider the two most critical problems, however, to be the increasing unemployment and the higher rate of inflation we are suffering from. These are the two factors that are causing enormous hardship to many members of our population. The dimensions of this situation are increasing, more people having less money to spend on goods that are costing considerably more. That gives rise to one result only. It gives rise to a plummeting of living standards to a level where poverty becomes fairly common.

What I find worrying about the present situation is that it is not only the result of cyclical factors. I know that cyclical factors are, in fact, playing their part, but it is also the result of fundamental, structural weaknesses in our economy which have developed during the period of Nationalist Party rule and which are largely the result of policies followed by that party. I say this because the long-term trend, since the Nationalists took over nearly 30 years ago, and particularly in recent years, has been for economic progress, measured in terms of economic growth, to slow down until it has reached a very modest pace. This, by any standard, is a worrying situation in a country which has a fast-growing population, the majority of whom are very poor. It becomes an even more worrying situation, however, and an indictment of the Government, when one realizes the huge potential for rapid growth that exists in our country. I need only mention the fact that South Africa is the fourth most highly mineralized country in the world. We have the potential to become a net exporter of energy because of our large reserves of coal and uranium, a situation which gives us the opportunity of falling into the same fortunate categories as the Opec countries in a world which is hungry for energy.

But the availability of enormous natural resources such as we have in this country, while of great advantage to us, does not in itself ensure rapid growth or prosperity, as we have seen under the NP Government. The economic growth which we need depends on the political and social structure of our society.

In the world at large we have roughly three types of country as far as growth is concerned. Firstly, we have countries that have grown very fast over a period of years, countries that have attained a 10% or more rate of real growth. These are countries such as Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan. I may say that all these countries are also countries that have been blessed with virtually no natural resources except their people. Secondly, we have countries that have grown at only a medium pace, such as the Common Market countries. Thirdly, we have countries which have grown at a slow pace, have not grown at all, or whose economies have even declined, amongst which are some countries of the Third World. Until we went into the recent period of recession two or three years ago, South Africa could only boast a medium-pace rate of growth, more or less in line with the Common Market countries, and far short of the rates of growth of the targets set by the Government in its economic development programmes. In the present decade, that is since 1970, in the last six years, growth has slowed down even more. It can now only be regarded, over this period, as being slow. We have grown barely faster than our population, with the result that our living standards over this period in the present decade have been virtually static.

What period is that?

Since 1970. Last year our living standards actually dropped and they are going to drop again this year. They are dropping at a time when unemployment is increasing very rapidly. Yet, if ever there was a country which needed growth to resolve its racial problems, to be able to make necessary social and political changes for a stable and peaceful population, that country is South Africa. I ask members on the opposite side of this House how we are going to achieve a minimum poverty datum line for our population, how we are going to close the wage gap, which they profess it is in their policy to do, if we do not grow fast and have a bigger cake to be shared by all members of our population. In fact, I would go further than that. I would say that if we in South Africa are going to survive as a Western, private enterprise society, we are going to have to grow faster.

Obviously there are lessons to be learnt from those countries which have achieved a fast rate of growth. There are certain features that all of them have in common. All of them have a large measure of political stability and social order that has been maintained with the consent of the population and through no form of coercion at all. All have had good educational systems that have been available to all at all levels, primary, secondary, technical and university. All have had strongly private enterprise societies. All have kept their Government expenditure down to relatively low levels. Despite their dependence upon imports, all have recovered from the shock of higher oil prices better than most other countries have, including our own. I make this comparison because I believe we are not going to get out of our present economic rut and we are not going to see the growth we need until we look at our problems from a fundamental and structural angle and we change policies where they need to be changed, which means making fundamental changes in certain directions.

I see three main developments as being necessary if we are going to achieve a satisfactory rate of growth in South Africa. The first development we have to see is education for our Blacks at secondary and technical levels being greatly expanded. I am aware of what the Government has done in regard to increasing education facilities for our Blacks, but that is not enough to achieve the rate of growth that we have got to see in this country. What we need is a crash programme of education at secondary and technical level for our Blacks, a crash programme similar to that advocated by the hon. leader of my party some years ago. This I regard as priority No. 1. Obviously, once educated, our Blacks must have no obstacles put in their way, such as job reservation and the Environment Planning Act, to prevent them from using the skills which they acquire through education. These skills are going to benefit not only themselves, but also the country if they are allowed to use them. I believe that skill in our manpower is the first requirement that we need to develop our natural resources at the pace they should be developed. However, manpower is not the only resource we need.

The second development we have to see in this country if we are going to see growth, is that the size of the Government machine must be reduced and not increased. The Government still spends too large a proportion of our national income. In the high-growth countries to which I have already referred, such as Japan, etc., Government expenditure is relatively much lower than it is in South Africa. In Japan, for instance, taxation takes only 18% of the national product, whereas in South Africa it takes 25%. This is something we have to face up to if we are going to see prosperity. It is no coincidence that in this decade, since 1970, growth in Government expenditure has been in inverse proportion to growth in the economy. It is a fact that the number of people employed in Government service—I include all levels of Government service down to local government service—has doubled during the period 1970 to 1976. During the period 1973 to 1976 State Government expenditure actually doubled when the gross national product only increased by 50%. In other words, Government expenditure rose at double the rate of the national product.

I know the hon. the Minister is going to reply that he has made cuts in expenditure in his budget. I know he did, but the cuts he made were primarily on capital items and not on current expenditure. He did not reduce the size of the bureaucracy. This is where the reduction in our expenditure has to be made. I believe this can occur without causing any hardship in the civil service. It can be done merely by not replacing people who retire and leave the service. Our bureaucracy as it is uses much too much of the nation’s skills. Take, for instance, the number of graduates employed by the State. The State is using skills which can be put to much better use by the private sector.

There is something more the Government can do in regard to expenditure: it can cut out waste. In the Committee Stage we have already discussed the position of the Film Board, where vast funds have been spent on facilities which have been grossly underutilized and wasted. This is nothing to laugh about. The wastage of the taxpayer’s money by the Government is a very serious matter, and this is what has been happening in the case of the Film Board. We have also learnt of consulting fees amounting to R132 000 being paid to the firm of O’Connell Manthe and Partners to design a Bantu brewery in the Eastern Cape, that expenditure having been completely wasted when the erection of the brewery was abandoned. That was money down the drain. There must be a shocking degree of lack of proper investigation, planning and liaison by the Bantu Administration Board for that area and by the other agencies involved for this to happen.

Until State expenditure as a percentage of total expenditure shows a further considerable decrease, particularly as far as current expenditure is concerned, we are not going to get rid of evils in our economy such as the high inflation rate. One can have as many antiinflation manifestos as one likes, but as long as one has a high rate of State expenditure one will still have a high rate of inflation. We are not going to get rid of our balance of payments difficulties or of the high level of taxation until State expenditure comes down to a lower level. Nor can the economy be placed on the path of growth until this happens. In other words, the direction in which the Government is moving must be reversed. We must move towards and not away from, as we have been doing, private enterprise having a larger share in our economy. The problem the Government is facing—let them face up to this—is that it is difficult to get rid of bureaucracy while the Government continues to follow policies which mean controlling the lives of virtually every individual in every race group in the country. That is what the Government is basically doing through its policies, and this brings into sharp relief the price we are paying for apartheid, because much of the Government machine is concerned with enforcing apartheid.

The third development that must come about if we are to see growth, is the following: in a country such as ours with the vast natural resources of the kind we have, our resources being primarily mineral resources, we are not going to develop or grow quickly without a considerable inflow of foreign capital, but we are not experiencing that inflow at the present time. I have said before during this session and I want to say again that, if we are to have any chance of attracting foreign capital on the scale we need, we must make political changes.

Foreign investors are holding back not for economic reasons, but for political reasons. They realize as well as we do what a richly endowed country we are. For that reason they would like to invest in South Africa. However, they feel that as long as discrimination is practised on the basis of colour in economic and social areas, so long will the world pressure be kept up on South Africa, and they fear that more and more unrest will take place in our country as a result of discrimination. That is what is holding back investment in South Africa. Therefore I regard it as an absolutely essential condition for faster economic development that the quickest possible dismantling of statutory discrimination in the economic and social fields should take place.

Businessmen are showing the way. The Cape Town Chamber of Commerce has issued an anti-discrimination manifesto to which hundreds of its members have subscribed and which they are now putting into practice. Cape Town business has not fallen apart as a result of not applying discrimination. It is going ahead as well as business in any other centre. The Urban Foundation, founded by businessmen, is another example of what businessmen are doing to improve the lot of the non-Whites in this country. These are movements the Government is following and following reluctantly. What is needed of the Government is to lead the way, and not to follow these movements as it is doing.

I would say to the Government that the dismantling of discrimination in the way the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce has shown it can be done, is one of the quickest ways to ensure that there is growth in our economy. That does not mean introducing “one man, one vote”; it does not mean majority rule or chaos. If any of those things were likely to happen they would be the quickest way of frightening foreign capital away. Anyone who does not face these facts is being thoroughly unrealistic about the situation in the country and is burying his head in the sand.

Finally, I would like to repeat that I regard the very future of democracy and the capitalist system of private enterprise in South Africa as being dependent on how successful that system is in achieving quick economic development, because it is only possible to get rid of the huge differences which exist between the Black and White salaries and wages, property ownership and possession ownership and to raise living standards if we develop and grow quickly. The richer we become, the stronger we become as an industrial, trading and military power. I am not a militarist, but I believe that it is strength in these areas which gives us as a people the best chance of a future of freedom and peace.

I recently saw a calculation which showed that had South Africa grown in the last 29 years, during which we have had NP rule, as fast as Japan has grown during that same period, we would now have been three times larger and stronger economically than we actually are. We have had all the resources and facilities to have done so, except a good Government. We would have had an average standard of living three times as high as the standard of living that we have at present.

I believe had that occurred, we would not have been in an impregnable position. This is the size of the opportunity which we have lost during the last 29 years. This is a measure of the need for a new political dispensation in this country. If we are not going to continue to lose out in the future, as we have lost out during the last 29 years in so far as economic growth is concerned, the very least we must do, is to put into practice the three developments that I have described in my speech.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Constantia started by saying that we were still in a period of economic recession. However, that is nothing new. We are of course worried about the fact that we are experiencing an economic recession, but the speech by the hon. member for Constantia this afternoon, bespoke so much pessimism that he apparently had no hope for the future. That is in strong contrast to this side of the House, which has faith in the country, in its people and in the future of South Africa. We treat the matter positively and we look at the future with great expectations for an economic revival. The hon. member spoke in particular about the question of inflation and about unemployment. The hon. member pointed out that the inflation rate in South Africa is still rising, but in my opinion that was a wild guess. I do not believe the hon. member has the latest figures relating to this matter. As a matter of fact, inflation is one of those things in our economy which are reasonably under control at the moment, mainly as a result of the fact that there is a considerably reduced demand for goods.

The hon. member also made a few remarks about unemployment in South Africa. Naturally that is a situation about which we, too, are concerned. We should, however, keep in mind that there is in fact a relative degree of unemployment in certain sectors in South Africa. There are certain sectors which can still provide a considerable number of jobs. In this respect I am thinking, for instance, of the mining sector. We are therefore dealing, to a very great extent, with selective unemployment. The Government is observing the situation very closely and will take the necessary steps if the situation should deteriorate at all.

In the climate in which the debate commenced this afternoon, not a single ray of light in our present economic set-up was mentioned. I want to mention just a few in passing. There is for instance a greater volume of export, the improvement in the balance of payments—we cannot ignore this—the fact that reserves in South Africa are in a better state and that the economy of our trading partners is slowly but surely recovering. Naturally that can be of great advantage to South Africa, too. Neither can we ignore the stability of the gold price in recent times, because the whole economy of South Africa revolves around gold to a very large extent. It is also clear that the measures adopted by the hon. the Minister earlier on during the budget, have begun to show their effectiveness. That bears witness to the hon. the Minister’s profound insight into financial matters.

The hon. member for Constantia contends that the Government spends too much and compares us with a country like Japan. However, what this hon. member forgot to say, is that Japan is a developed country which, in the nature of things, needs to spend much less on its infrastructure. A developing country like South Africa has of necessity to spend more money.

The hon. member also maintains that our economy in South Africa has fallen behind as a result of the political structure in South Africa. I think the policy of the NP bears witness to the greatest task of socio-economic upliftment which has ever been tackled in the world. If the hon. member wants to escape this fact, he is not being honest about the realities of life.

We have nearly come to the end of this parliamentary session. It is a session which was characterized by a few very important events in the political field. We started with chaos in the ranks of the Opposition. That chaos still prevails. No one can make head or tail of this political monster which is still in a totally fluid state, and from which only a few tails protrude here and there.

What is the reason for this political chaos in the ranks of the Opposition? The reason is obvious. They have no common and clear political aims or political philosophy. They are faced with the dilemma of their own capitulation politics, and in the process they are getting more and more entangled because they have already written South Africa off. Now those people are grasping at political straws, like drowning people from a sinking ship.

One of the alarming facts about the past session has been, however, that the Opposition did not hesitate to make certain statements, here in the House as well as outside, which caused serious damage to South Africa, in particular to the economy. The hon. leader of the PRP—and I regret sincerely that he is not here this afternoon—even encouraged American undertakings to institute sanctions and economic boycotts against South Africa.

That is not true!

The hon. member for Yeoville says it is not true.

Nor is it!

In that case let me read to the hon. member what his hon. leader said to Business Week. He said—

You are talking rubbish!

The PRP cannot deny this flagrant attack on the economy of South Africa. It is written here in black and white.

That is typical of your twisting of facts to suit your argument!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sea Point even visited Zaïre. I think the hon. leader of the PRP at least owes this House an explanation of his visit to Zaire. Judging by the reports and articles appearing in Deurbraak, the mouthpiece of that party, we can believe that he only brewed trouble for South Africa during that visit of his to Zaire.

I want to refer to another incident which took place during the past session. The hon. member for Johannesburg North saw fit to launch a reprehensible attack on the hon. the Minister of Finance in the public Press. The hon. member saw fit to place the hon. Minister’s person, his integrity and his credibility under suspicion. It was not about what the hon. the Minister had said, but about what certain news media alleged that he had said with regard to the in-and outflow of foreign capital. The hon. the Minister’s speech is in Hansard for anyone of intelligence to read and to understand, but I do not know whether it is sometimes asking too much of the Opposition to appeal to their intelligence in that regard. After eight years in politics in this House, I can say that this cheap politicking is to my mind one of the most shocking events of my political career, because in this process these gentlemen succeeded in wreaking untold damage to South Africa and its economy. Especially in these difficult times, it is indeed inexcusable to allege that the hon. the Minister grossly misled the public, and whereas the hon. member for Johannesburg North himself admitted that the hon. the Minister did not mislead this House, it attests to the utmost wilfulness. How on earth is it possible for the hon. the Minister to mislead the public by means of a speech in this House which does not mislead the House? Why did the hon. member not direct his complaint at the news media in this respect? It is this total immaturity of the Opposition which has landed them where they are today; i.e. in this total political confusion.

Except this Opposition.

At this stage I am prepared to exclude the SAP from this confusion. The motives of the PRP in particular with regard to the future of South Africa, are being very seriously questioned in politics. They go out of their way to place the police under suspicion in the execution of their duties, whereas the police have a very difficult task. They are the people who take it amiss of us when we question their loyalty if they try and protect students who are trying to foment racial unrest, as in the past and in recent times. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member does not seem to recognize a point of order, but I should like to ask whether it is parliamentary to say “ons betwyfel die lojaliteit van daardie agb. lede”. You will remember your previous decision in this regard. [Interjections.]

Order! In the past I had no doubts whatsoever about the word “patriotism” because “patriotism” has a very wide meaning. It includes language, culture, religion, and so forth. Loyalty applies more to someone’s faithfulness towards his country as such. Since the hon. member said in any event that hon. members should ask themselves the question, I cannot rule it out of order in that sense.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I state again that I ask the question, as I rightly have it in my notes, whether that party holds it against us if we have any reservations about their loyalty.

The hon. member for Houghton also owes an explanation to this House of what she did in Johannesburg at the student demonstrations and meetings, where the black crosses were burnt and which ultimately mean racial defiance in South Africa. Can they really hold it against us that we question their motives? The question arises—certain members of the PRP can also ask themselves this—as to what unknown power is behind that party and also behind certain English-language newspapers in South Africa? There is something sinister in the activities of that party.

The time has come for those hon. members to lay their bona fides on the table and to expose them. If they do not do so, the time will come when South Africa will no longer tolerate such an undermining political structure as that party. We shall have to look at the innards of that party, because they are seriously abusing the freedom South Africa affords them.

In contrast, the NP is a party which has acted with the greatest responsibility during this session in the midst of the dangerous domestic and foreign situations and also with regard to the economic position in which we find ourselves. These problems were tackled by the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Minister of Finance and the Cabinet, with insight and confidence. The hon. the Prime Minister is a statesman of world stature at this stage. He is undoubtedly the strongest leader in the West and is recognized as such by the world to an increasing extent. He turned his visit to Vienna, which he started in a position of defence of South Africa, into a triumph for South Africa, and even the Sunday Times was prepared to admit that. Under the strong and dynamic leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister the NP is going ahead with the development of its policy.

However, we have to eliminate a very serious misunderstanding which has arisen particularly in recent times among members of the Opposition and certain English-language newspapers. In the implementation of its policy, the NP is indeed moving away from discrimination and it is placing the emphasis on the development aspect of its policy. This should not however, be seen as the granting of concessions with regard to the basic premises underlying our political philosophy of separateness.

Therefore it is necessary to endorse certain basic premises once again so that there will be no misunderstanding in this regard. These principles comprise the basic differences between this party and the Opposition parties on that side. Firstly, the NP does not believe in the sharing of political power. That is why separate political structures are being created for each population group so that each can rule over itself. Only Whites will decide in this Parliament on the future of the Whites and the hon. member should make no mistake about that. The other population groups should work out their political future outside this Parliament and preliminary structures to this end have already been created for them and have to be developed in future.

The NP believes in separate residential areas and separate social structures and will develop that to safeguard its own identity. Naturally there will be certain grey areas, particularly in the sphere of commerce, industry and economics, because of the way the population is composed in South Africa and because of the fact that separate structures and facilities have not yet been created for everyone.

Thirdly, just as the interdependence of nations in the economic field is indivisible in a modern world economy, the economic interdependence of the nations of South Africa will also be indivisible. This fact is a mighty political weapon contributing to calm and peace and mutual co-operation among the nations of Southern Africa and of Africa as a whole.

On these three principles hang the whole philosophy and the policy of the NP. They are also backed by our standpoints that we do not interfere in the political and foreign affairs of other countries and nations. We do not believe in economic boycotts or sanctions against other peoples, regardless of their political structures. We believe that every nations has the right to self-determination and the maintenance of its identity, as well as the development of its own nationalism. Especially since we are moving away from discrimination and seeking methods to move away from the Westminster system, hon. members of the Opposition and the Press should not make the mistake of reading anything different into the basic policy of the NP. The NP has retained the political initiative through the years because it is neither stagnant nor inflexible in its political thinking. A lively political debate takes place within the framework of these principles and that has always contributed to our retaining the political initiative. We have always succeeded in capturing the imagination of the voters of South Africa and that is why we sit on this side of the House in such large numbers. During economic recessions the Government is usually at its most vulnerable with regard to the voters because the voters feel the pinch.

What we find after two years of recessionary conditions in South Africa, is, however, really remarkable because during recent times the Opposition was not even prepared to fight a by-election against the Government. That is proof of political dynamism virtually unparalleled in the world history. When they go home this recess, the Opposition can set their minds at rest. This party’s Prime Minister, together with his Cabinet, will govern South Africa well as they have done for virtually 30 years now. They have the ability, as they have proved, to guide South Africa through these difficult times. Our Minister of Finance and our Minister of Economic Affairs are equipped to put South Africa back on the road of economic prosperity to which we look forward in the immediate future. The realistic, conservative financial policy of the budget is already bearing fruit. I have already mentioned the rays of hope. I am, however, glad to learn that the hon. the Minister is disposed to stimulate the economy during the second half of the year, particularly in view of the fact that inflation is relatively under control. The stimulation of the economy seems to me to be becoming a matter of some urgency and can probably be done later in the year with little adverse effect. If it is not done, we might find that many deserving undertakings go under and that the hon. the Minister may find at the end of the financial year that he does not obtain the expected income from the surcharge and income tax of persons and companies. He will know best, as he has always known in the past. We face the future with confidence because we are positively orientated and because we believe in the future of South Africa and in the future of our politics. We also believe that when we meet here again next year, the situation will have changed considerably.

Mr. Speaker, the Third Reading debate on the budget has already taken a somewhat interesting turn in that contrary to the customary practice the hon. member for Ermelo did not get up after the hon. member for Constantia. What was done instead was to put into the debate a mud-slinger, the hon. member for Newcastle, who slung mud around the place, who turned facts around to suit himself. We found ourselves, in fact, in a most remarkable situation in the sense that a so-called financial debate, which is supposed to …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

So it is wasting time again, is it?

Is that hon. member allowed to refer to another hon. member as a “mud-slinger”?

Order! I think the term “mudslinging” has often been used in this House. Therefore I cannot rule it out of order.

He is a slinger of dirt.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to say that another hon. member is a “slinger of dirt”? The hon. member for Yeoville has just said that. I ask that he be called to order.

This is, of course, a campaign to stop one from speaking, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] It is quite obvious.

Order! I said I would allow it. The hon. member may proceed.

It is quite obvious what the tactics are, because what is happening is that there is obviously an intention to hold the chairman of the select committee back so that he can then make his speech at the appropriate time. I will come to this in a moment. I want to deal with some financial matters right at the beginning.

I believe that an essential ingredient in regard to the restoring of investor confidence is stability. In a community which is tom by riots, by disorder and by urban terrorism, there is no attraction for the foreign investor, nor does the local entrepreneur want to start any new enterprises or to expand. Stability is essential in so far as progress and confidence are concerned. The terrorist knows that if he can cause concern and diversion of resources, he is then already on the road to success. Change which comes about as a result of disorder and pressure is construed as weakness and causes more demands which, if not met, can cause more disorder. A programme of meeting legitimate social, economic and political aspirations must therefore anticipate the disorder and remove the platform of the disruptor. This programme of change must be combined, I believe, with a firm enforcement of law and order. A changing society cannot be controlled by weakness. In the light of these submissions, I would like to comment on the recent disturbances, because I believe that they are relevant to the economy and to the financial position of our country.

I think, if I may put it this way, that the recent disturbances demonstrated that there was clearly a desire by forces outside of South Africa to fan the flames as far as they possibly could. They had their motives in seeking to do that. Secondly, I think there was a clear demonstration by many Blacks on 16 June that while that date was symbolic and important to them, they in fact wished to avoid violence. I believe that there were many Blacks who wished to avoid violence and in fact demonstrated that. The third point I want to make is that I think that what was demonstrated was that there was a greater degree of skill and training on the part of the Police, and that they had more appropriate equipment than they had a year ago.

The fourth point is that I believe there was a greater restraint on the part of many of our policemen in very provocative circumstances, something which stands very much to their credit. I want to say here and now that I believe that the ordinary policeman does not enjoy putting down riots. I believe that the ordinary policeman would much rather be doing his routine job of protecting the public against ordinary crimes and would rather be patrolling the streets of Soweto in order to protect its citizens and make them safe against robbery, rape and murder than be using tear gas or other means against rioting people. I believe that that is the motivation of our Police. I do not think that anybody can say that our Police enjoy the sort of job that they have to do in the national interest and which they have to do in order to preserve stability in the country. I believe that this is the task that we now have to look at. I believe that we have to look at the protection of the individual in this society. The Blacks in the urban areas very urgently need to choose leaders by a proper process. There are no proper institutions in the urban areas to enable such leadership to evolve. Proper local government with power and resources is required. If those institutions are created and responsible and truly representative leadership does evolve, the question that has to be asked is: Can it in fact survive and can it be properly protected, or will the leadership be intimidated and so become ineffective? There is a classic example of an urban Bantu council. The question is: Did they resign because they chose to resign and because they felt voluntarily without duress that they wanted to resign, or was it because there was pressure put on them to resign? I want to say today—I am pleased the hon. the Minister of Police is here—that if the ordinary Black citizen is protected when he is in his home or in the streets, the leaders can and will also be protected and they and leaders of Black people other than extremists will be safe. I want to ask whether this should not be a major priority for the Police and whether in fact the safety of the individual—I include the Black and the White individual—is not the best protection for our society. Law and order give stability. This in turn gives the correct climate for change. This is a combination which can restore confidence both locally and abroad.

We are at the stage where the budget debate is in its last phases. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I regard this as being a budget without a plan and a budget of unanswered questions. We have major problems which face our economy, a lack of economic growth, a high rate of inflation, a lack of investor confidence, difficulties with the balance of payments and unemployment. The maintenance of a depression by deliberate Government action has helped to improve the current account of the balance of payments, but the deteriorating political situation has hit investor confidence and the capital inflow. Unemployment has been aggravated and inflation has been accelerated by a variety of factors, including increased unit costs by virtue of, underutilization of manufacturing capacity and particularly by increases in Government administered prices. Despite our demands, however, the Government has given no answer to a request that it should tell us what its plans are to deal with these issues, either in the short term or the medium term nor is there any indication that the Government has any plans to deal with the long-term problems of a non-cyclical nature which both exist and are developing in the structure of our economy.

The economic development programme, as recently presented, is no plan at all. It is not even a forecast, except of the problems which are to hit us. The Government is today challenged to formulate and state its long-term economic plans and the mechanism it envisages to realize them. In this very debate I challenge the hon. the Minister to reply to some of the unanswered questions. Firstly, how does he envisage that investor confidence will be restored in the face of increasing attempts, both internally and externally, to create uncertainty, confusion and instability? Secondly, how does he in fact propose to find the money to meet rising aspirations and increasing demands for defence and police expenditure? Thirdly, how is the Government in fact preparing us to deal with potential and possible threats, which we hope will not materialize, of possible boycotts, sanctions and pressurization not to invest or trade in the light of the fact that we have a dangerously open economy in which more than half of the gross domestic product is related to exports and imports? Fourthly, how does the hon. the Minister propose to attract the risk capital necessary to develop new industry and mining activities? Fifthly, and lastly, how does he propose to meet the clear trend that living standards are dropping in the community, as indicated in the reductions in the per capita gross domestic product and the per capita disposable income available to us?

At an earlier stage during this budget debate the hon. the Minister put a challenge to us by saying that the people sitting in these benches, the PRP, should in fact help, particularly in regard to image. The question I want to put to the hon. the Minister—particularly after the speech of the hon. member for Newcastle—is whether he really wants any help at all. We believe we do help. The mere fact that we are here, politically active in this Parliament as a peaceful alternative, participating in the parliamentary process, demonstrates to the world at large that there are certain basic freedoms which continue to exist in South Africa. We are partly responsible for demonstrating that. The often irrational and generally false attacks made upon us by Government members, attacks in which they portray an image of us we do not have—there was another example of that a short while ago—do more harm to South Africa’s image than they do to us. Our very existence helps to improve South Africa’s image abroad. The hon. the Minister of Information smiles, but he knows it is true. There is very much more which we could in fact do if the Government permitted us to. I want to direct one specific challenge to the hon. the Minister today. South Africa’s relations with the United States are, I believe, in a delicate phase. We need the friendship or, at least, the understanding of the United States. Should we not concentrate on this and launch what, I believe, might correctly be called “mission USA”, a massive effort by South Africans to put a case for peace and understanding to the opinion makers of the United States, to the Senators, the Congressmen, the business and trade union leaders, the professions, the bankers, the industrialists, the churchmen and all others who help to shape opinion in the United States? I am not talking of a white-wash operation; I am talking of putting our case realistically and honestly. If we do that, it will make an impact. There are many doors which the hon. the Minister of Information knows, can perhaps be opened more easily by us in these benches than by the Government. The question is whether, if the Government does launch such an operation, such a “mission USA”, they want us in it, because we can make a contribution for South Africa. I do not believe that this is a time for routine diplomacy, or for mere parliamentary missions. It is a time when the best talent available should be used, irrespective of political party, seniority and the political office that is held.

The hon. member for Newcastle, of course, had something to say about the committee of inquiry into the statement made by the hon. the Minister of Finance. I want to deal with this now, if I may. The most remarkable thing about this whole inquiry is that the NP majority on that committee decided that, whereas it was quite proper for the hon. member for Johannesburg North to give evidence—he was only too keen to give evidence—during which he was subjected to the most determined cross-examination that I have seen for a long time, quite often a completely hostile cross-examination, when it came to the question of whether the hon. the Minister of Finance should be invited to give evidence before the committee, the NP majority sheltered him; when it came to the question of calling him in, they would not agree to it. Let me go one further; the hon. the Minister of Finance knew the committee was sitting, he knew that deliberations were taking place, but he gave no indication that he wanted to give evidence at all. Oh no, Sir!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Yeoville allowed, in referring to a Select Committee of Parliament, to say that “the cross-examination was hostile”? Does that not reflect on the members of the Select Committee?

Order! That is obviously the hon. member’s personal opinion. The report of the committee is before the House and the evidence has been published. Therefore the House can judge whether his opinion is valid or not. The hon. member may proceed.

The question which needs to be answered by the hon. the Minister today is why he was not prepared to subject himself to questioning by the committee.

Was I the accused?

Yes, you were; of course you were! It was an inquiry into what you said and not into the hon. member for Johannesburg North. [Interjections.] The inquiry was into an allegation made by the hon. member for Johannesburg North against the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

Sir, the hon. member is obviously endeavouring to waste time.

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member for Yeoville allowed to refer to the hon. the Minister of Finance repeatedly as “you”.

Order! The hon. member should address the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask you in a moment to rule that there is a deliberate attempt being made to abuse the processes of this House … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must allow the hon. member to deliver his speech.

However, it goes one further. We demonstrated that within 24 hours of the speech of the hon. the Minister on 14 February the Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank delivered a paper at a bankers’ conference which was completely in contradistinction to the direction taken by the hon. the Minister on that same day. That demonstrated that the hon. the Minister, when he spoke on 14 February, knew what was meant by private long-term capital, and knew that within 24 hours it would be told to the public that public corporations and local authorities would no longer be classified in that category. The hon. the Minister did not, in fact, disclose it to the House. I have the document here. I tried to put it before the Committee, but the hon. members of the committee would not allow it to be put before the committee. That is how they kept the evidence out. When one tried to demonstrate on figures published by the World Bank that the situation in truth was that in so far as the money markets of the world were concerned, they had expanded and not contracted, the hon. members would not allow it. These figures show that it was not more difficult for them to get money as the hon. the Minister has alleged, but that South Africa’s share of it had been reduced. What did the committee do by way of a majority decision? They stopped the evidence from being led. That is the way this committee was conducted by a majority sitting on it. That is the way it is done.

This little blue document will rival Punch in time to come for being one of the most humorous documents there have been, or maybe it will be “Oom Kaspaas” that it will go into competition with. The Government will become the laughing stock in the financial sectors of the world, because they pretend that facts are not there and think that they, by a majority decision, a political decision by a committee, can change the facts internationally. What kind of arrogance is it that can try to do that? One cannot change the facts by a majority decision. Sure, one can decide to do things, but the facts are there for all to see. What is remarkable is that there is a list of people who, according to this committee by their majority decision, are all wrong. There are the publications of the World Bank, Euro Money—a world-famous publication—The World Financial Market, the Financial Times in England, Mr. Aldsworth, the Managing Director of Barclays Bank …

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

No you cannot. There is also Dr. Cronje, the Chairman of Nedbank, Mr. De Villiers, the Managing Director of General Mining, the Vice-Chairman of Marks and Spencer and the Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank. According to the committee all their opinions and views are wrong.

You are talking nonsense.

No, Sir, I want to quote from international figures. The simple issue is that the hon. the Minister contended that everybody had difficulties in borrowing money overseas. Australia can borrow 40 times as much, on the published figures, as we can. The total international market rose by 45% in 1976, foreign and international bond issues rose by 48%, publicized Euro-currency credit by 40%, but South Africa’s borrowings fell by 21% and its total share of borrowing fell by 47%. The hon. the Minister has the audacity to say that in the world markets everybody is short of money, while the figures show that all the markets expanded by more than 40%. The majority of that committee, by a political decision, had the audacity to make a decision ignoring these facts.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of personal explanation, because I have listened to more nonsense in the last few minutes than in a long time. [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon. the Minister wants the time of the House to make a personal explanation he must not pass remarks. He should make his point.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will sit down, I will make my point of personal explanation. My point is that I did not say that everybody in the world had difficulty in obtaining capital. It is a complete misrepresentation of what I said.

We can always have another committee of inquiry and let the hon. the Minister this time have the guts to come and be questioned, the guts which he did not have …

I was not

The hon. the Minister did not have the guts to come before the committee …

Order! The hon. member cannot make that accusation. He knows full well it was a decision of the committee. The hon. member may continue.

The hon. the Minister knew that the committee was sitting.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to accuse the hon. the Minister of not having had “guts”. Must he not withdraw that?

The hon. member is not entitled to say that and he must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir. The hon. the Minister knew the committee was sitting and the hon. the Minister knew that if he wanted to give evidence, he could do so, but he did not do it.

I was not aware …

I shall leave it at that, not for a majority political decision to judge, but for the international financial community to judge. They will not judge South Africa, but they will judge politicians who put politics before South Africa and who were not prepared to pass an objective judgment on what the facts were.

Mr. Speaker, I have just listened to the hon. member for Yeoville, who called the hon. member for Newcastle a mud-slinger. I have never heard such temerity, audacity and arrogance before. That hon. member has been treating the House to nothing but mud-slinging and more mud-slinging for the past half hour. The problem with the hon. member for Yeoville is that his direction of thought runs in a single channel, a direction of thought which varies from absolute political inferiority to absolute arrogance.

You could not even ask the questions, as the record shows.

What is the hon. member doing? He is condemning the hon. the Minister and by doing so, he is possibly satisfying his political inferiority. He questions the statement of the Reserve Bank, the most authoritative body in South Africa as far as finance is concerned. He also accuses the Select Committee of bias, incompetence and whatever else he can add to that. I was the chairman of that committee and I had no problems, except with the hon. member for Yeoville. [Interjections.] This strongly reminds me of the old saying: “Only our little Harry is in step!” However, not only did the hon. member sling mud; he also acted in extremely poor taste—in the poorest taste I can imagine—by trying to involve innocent people. In this regard I am referring to the Press statement which he published in The Cape Times at the end of last week. The Press statement appeared on Friday and certain allegations were made concerning withholding of evidence. However, the hon. member knows that the committee was functus officio at the time that report was published.

I never used the word “withholding”.

The hon. member also knows that the committee or any member of the committee had no share in the distribution, preparation or publication of that report. He knows that all documents of the report and everything which concerns it is open to the inspection of every member of the committee and every member of the House of Assembly who has an interest in it.

Then why was everything not published?

The hon. member knows that it was impossible to include all documents in the printed report, because there were certain bulky documents like the report of the Reserve Bank, etc., which could not possibly have been included in that report. The hon. member also knows that there was a discussion with the secretariat and that it was agreed—the hon. member was also present— that documents would be published in a supplementary form. In spite of that, the hon. member went running to the Press, and with the clearest insinuation, not only as far as the conduct of the committee is concerned, but also as far as the parliamentary secretariat …

That is untrue, and you know it!

… and I think it is a disgrace.

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville may not say that. He must withdraw it.

Withdraw it, Harry!

Harry, withdraw it!

Yes you, Harry! Withdraw it!

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member knows it is true. [Interjections.] It is not my task to defend the findings of this committee in the House. Hon. members have the report in front of them. Someone has quite rightly said so. In spite of what the hon. member for Yeoville says, I want to allege that I believe that this report is based on the greatest possible leniency towards everyone who was concerned. A great deal of patience was shown towards all. I am prepared to say that I am juridically prepared to defend this report in any court in the world. I want to recommend this report to the House in its entirety and to submit it for consideration with the greatest confidence. Let us accept that this was not a political finding. Hon. members should take note of the form which divisions took. The divisions were usually eight to three. The majority vote in this case did not consist only of members of the NP. Therefore I believe that the statement which the hon. member for Yeoville made is a reprehensible one. It was reprehensible of him to allege that this is a political report and a political document. [Interjections.]

Order!

All I am asking is that this report, a report based on extremely reasonable grounds, should be considered by the House, taking account of the preponderance of evidence which is before the House, and that, during the Third Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill, the House should confirm the report so that it will be stated in the record of Parliament for the future that the hon. member for Johannesburg North was condemned for having made unfounded and false allegations against the hon. the Minister of Finance of the Republic of South Africa. [Interjections.]

It will be recorded that the hon. member did this in an extremely irresponsible way. It will be recorded that he made an unfounded and personal attack on the integrity and credibility of the hon. the Minister of Finance. [Interjections.] It will be recorded that the hon. member for Johannesburg North did incalculable damage to South Africa and the economy of South Africa in an irresponsible and unfounded way, and with premeditation. It will be recorded—let the House take note of the fact that this is the behaviour of a leading figure in the hierarchy of the PRP. Let the House take note of the fact that it is the behaviour of a senior executive director of Anglo American in South Africa.

In this report—and I want to put this on the record very clearly—we came to the following conclusion, and I quote paragraph 17 of the report—

Let me say that the allegation that the hon. the Minister had grossly misled the public was supported by only one vote, that of the hon. member for Yeoville. He was the only one who voted for that. That was the voting in the Select Committee, and then the hon. member has the audacity and the temerity to tell us that it is a political decision. Let me tell the hon. member, however, in connection with what he said, that the test is not what is written in magazines; it is not what is stated in the Financial Mail; it is not what Mr. Aldsworth said; it is not what the South African Press said; it is not what Dr. Frans Cronjé said; but it was …

And the Reserve Bank and Dr. De Kock …

Yes, Dr. De Kock.

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville has already had his tum to speak.

In connection with Dr. De Kock, about whom the hon. member had so much to say, I want to mention that Dr. De Kock’s speech was never submitted to the Select Committee. Why not? It is because the hon. member for Yeoville kept it. It was already in the possession of the hon. member for Johannesburg North. He referred to it in his evidence. In a very cunning way, after the evidence had already been concluded, the hon. member for Yeoville produced this magazine and said that we must look at it. This was after the evidence had been concluded. He is not going to bluff me or this House with that.

Mr. Speaker, what was this investigation about? The investigation concerned the allegation of the hon. member for Johannesburg North when he said—

He went on to say—

What did the hon. member go on to say? He said that he had only looked at the speech made by the hon. the Minister on 14 February, while there had been two speeches by the hon. the Minister, on 7 February and on 14 February. When he was asked what his charge was, he said—

that of 14 February—

On the question of why he did not take the speech of 7 February into account, he explained very naively—

He accused the hon. the Minister of having singled out one particular aspect in order to promote his case, and what did he do? There were two speeches by the hon. the Minister, namely the introductory speech and his reply to the Second Reading debate. The hon. member for Johannesburg North made a serious charge against the hon. the Minister and he based it on that one speech only. When we asked him how he could do so, his reply was: “That is irrelevant.” We told the hon. member that if he had in fact read the speech of the 7th, and had read it together with the speech of the 14th, he would have been able to satisfy himself that the hon. the Minister had not misled anyone. His reply to that was* and I ask hon. members to judge whether this is a reply: “Yes, but the public was not there; they do not know what happened there.” This was his reply.

And when we consider the evidence, when we consider the preponderance of evidence, when we do so in a very realistic and unbiased way, when we have to give judgment in a very honest, unbiased way, he has the cheek to say that it is a political decision. As far as the Reserve Bank and the charge are concerned, we had one important means at our disposal for determining whether what the hon. the Minister had said was misleading, as the charge alleged, and whether it was the truth. What means was this? It was the Reserve Bank, the most authoritative body in South Africa which could give us information. However, let me just bring a few aspects in this regard to the attention of hon. members. The hon. the Minister alleged, for instance, that the net capital inflow for 1976, would amount to R800 million. At that time the official figures were not yet available or known. We specifically put this question to the Reserve Bank, and the reply was the following—

The hon. the Minister said that the net capital inflow amounted to R800 million. Is that misleading? We also asked the Reserve Bank whether there had been a net capital inflow in the fourth term of last year. The estimated figure which the hon. the Minister had given was R240 million. The Reserve Bank gave an unequivocal reply to this question. That is why it was not necessary for us to call the Reserve Bank as a witness. The bank replied to a questionnaire which we submitted to them. This questionnaire was prepared after consultation with the hon. member for Yeoville. After that we also sent a telex message in order to accommodate supplementary questions which he asked. However, he now asks why we did not call them as a witness.

The hon. member also asks why we did not call the hon. the Minister as a witness. The hon. the Minister made two speeches and these are both in print. Therefore it was not necessary for us to call him because he could not add anything to that, nor could he retract any of it. I am pleased and grateful because after having listened to the hon. member tonight, I think that I judged correctly in not subjecting the hon. the Minister of Finance to the humiliation of cross-questioning by that hon. member. The Select Committee—and I have a great deal of respect for those hon. members on that side who served on it— announced that it considered this matter in a serious light because it could have far-reaching implications. Of course it could have far-reaching implications. Hon. members will agree that the concern of the committee in this regard was legitimate. It was a serious allegation. What exactly was the nature of it? The allegation was that the hon. the Minister of Finance had grossly misled the country. This is a tremendous allegation to make in the year 1977. If one says that the Minister of Finance of the Republic of South Africa misled the public, not only the hon. the Minister, but the Cabinet, the Government and this Parliament are involved—in fact, our whole financial structure. The allegation was: The Minister had misled the public and had withheld material facts from it—and this was broadcast to the world. It was said that he had done the country a disservice.

What are the implications of this? The implications are that the hon. the Minister of Finance cannot be trusted with the finances of the Republic of South Africa. This was said in a Press report outside Parliament at this particular juncture, when we are keen to ensure that our financial integrity and reputation remain unimpeachable, for the sake of our negotiations with the IMF and other bodies. It was therefore an attack on the personal and political integrity of the hon. the Minister. It was also an attack on the office of the hon. the Minister. However, how was it done? It was done by a number of Press statements which were issued outside the House. The opportunities available to the hon. member for Johannesburg North for putting his case in the House of Assembly were never utilized. He runs to the outside world and made one damning Press statement after another in order to damage the person and integrity of the hon. the Minister. Not on a single occasion did he make use of the opportunities which he had. In his speech on the 10th, a speech which he made in this House in reply to what the hon. the Minister had said, he did not say a word about the things which he had blurted out to the Press. On the 15th he issued his Press statement. At the Third Reading he did not make a speech in this House at all, while he had in fact been told to appear here and do so. However, he then hid behind this weak excuse. If this hon. Minister had been guilty of those things which the hon. member for Johannesburg North had accused him of, it would have created a very serious situation here.

Then he would have had to resign.

The implication is in fact that he would have had to resign. Since the hon. member for Johannesburg North is therefore guilty of these gross accusations, these absolutely unfounded accusations, I want to bring it to your well-meaning attention, Mr. Speaker, that I believe it is the task of this House to bring him to book. This is a flagrant defamation of the hon. the Minister’s good name. The hon. member for Johannesburg North is in fact the one who has done South Africa a disservice. I consider it a sustained economic attack on the NP and the hon. the Minister. That party can simply not take it that an English-speaking person of the calibre of Senator Horwood, a man of such high repute, is able to represent this party as Minister of Finance in such an efficient way. With this attack they are trying to destroy him and they do not care what methods they use to do so. I want to repeat that the hon. member for Johannesburg North is an executive director of Anglo-American. The head of Anglo-American, Oppenheimer, is also the father of the PRP. The hon. member for Johannesburg North emigrated to South Africa, and he may still have British citizenship. I do not know. [Interjections.] A while ago the hon. the Prime Minister put a question in a debate in this House. He asked Mr. Oppenheimer where he stood. The hon. member for Johannesburg North must not try the patience of this Government too far. [Interjections.] South Africa owes him nothing. South Africa does not owe him any thanks. South Africa got along for years without his presence. [Interjections.] I say with responsibility that there is little room for him and his hencemen in South Africa. So that the hon. member for Johannesburg North can follow it clearly, I say to him in English:

†This was a most frivolous and irresponsible act and behaviour on the part of the hon. member for Johannesburg North, and we shall not tolerate it in this country.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ermelo replied to the hon. member for Yeoville in a particularly efficient way, and the reply he gave him was a very effective and decisive one. If I had made an allegation similar to the one made by the hon. member for Johannesburg North, I would not have shown my face in this country again, but while the hon. member for Ermelo was addressing him towards the end of his speech, the hon. member sat there with the most sickening grin imaginable on his face.

Before the hon. member for Yeoville came to the report on the allegation by this member, he made the statement that there was a need to promote our image abroad. He went on to ask whether they could be of any assistance in this regard. Yes, the hon. member can be of assistance. He can help by curbing those wild, irresponsible statements by hon. colleagues on his side. When these most outrageous allegations are made about the hon. the Minister of Finance, allegations which involve his integrity and tell the outside world that he wants to mislead the world in the most disgraceful manner, that he presents critical local conditions as being rosy, then the hon. member for Yeoville has one task only, and that is to condemn that conduct and statement of his colleague in the strongest possible terms, but he comes here and steps into the breach for him. So, if he wants to ask whether he can be of assistance in promoting South Africa’s image, I want to say that the hon. member does not have the ability to do so, because he has proved in this House today that he has greater loyalty towards a colleague who makes irresponsible statements than he has towards South Africa.

As he has done in hundreds of speeches before, the hon. member for Yeoville again spoke of a “programme of change”, a “climate of change” which was necessary in this country. I do not think there is any expression which the hon. member uses more often in his speeches, except for that expression which he uses after every third sentence, and that is “I believe”. If there is anyone who can talk about “change” with authority, it is the hon. member for Yeoville. This is the third party to which he has belonged since he came to this House in 1974.

It is not the end yet.

I understand, as my hon. colleague says, that he has itchy feet once again, because his stay of almost two years in the PRP has been long, difficult and bitter.

The hon. member for Constantia who spoke before the hon. member for Yeoville, also spoke about “change”. I want to predict that most of the members on that side who are going to participate in this debate, are also going to talk about “change”. Here on my bench I have the 138th Bill introduced this year. Do you know that every one of these Bills which have been introduced represents a change? The Government accepts that the status quo cannot meet the new situation and that any new situation demands change, a new law. In the past we have often accused the Opposition of being inconsistent. At least they are consistent in this. Not only do they preach change; they practise it too. We are on the eve of one of the greatest changes in official Opposition parties in this House. After next week a new party will be formed. When that has been done it will mean that there will not be a single member on the opposite side who came to this House in 1974 who has not belonged to at least two political parties in this time. The hon. member for Yeoville and his colleagues now belong to their third party.

The UP has experienced many storms in the more than 40 years of its existence. With its demise things are no different. Of all things, problems have been experienced with the date of the funeral of the UP. You will remember that it was originally arranged for 25 June, but then it was discovered that one of the members could not be present on that day and the date was changed to 2 July. This, of course, was a bad oversight, because the fact that the July Handicap is run on that day, had not been taken into account. The Natalians drew the attention of the leaders of the party to that. Fortunately, the leaders of the party got their priorities right and changed the date once again, this time to 28 June. Now there is a possibility that Parliament will still be sitting on 28 June, but their Chief Whip has stated that that will not prevent them from going ahead with that dissolution congress. I hope nothing more serious than a Parliamentary session, such as the birthday of an hon. member’s mother-in-law or nephew, occurs that will force them to change that date once again.

If there were problems in connection with the funeral of the UP, there was also a great deal of drama about the wedding of the UP due to take place the day after. As hon. members know, this marriage was announced as far back as last year. It will be no ordinary marriage but a real “save South Africa” marriage. Arrangements for this wedding Were started feverishly; a marriage officer was appointed to draw up the contract. There was a great deal of dissatisfaction about the arrangements, so much so that big brother Myburgh and five of the other brothers left home to fend for themselves. Eventually all the arrangements had been made and the people concerned arrived here one Saturday morning just to finalize everything. Present on that day were the marriage officer, Mr. Justice Kowie Marais, with a 14-point contract for the marriage, the leader of the Opposition as the bridegroom, with his best man, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, the bride from Sea Point was there with the bridesmaid from Rondebosch and even the little flower-girl, Mr. Theo Gerdener, was present.

Then a very strange thing happened while the arrangements were being made, one of those things one reads about only on the back page of the Sunday Times.

Is that the first page you turn to?

The bride from Sea Point eloped with the marriage officer. The little flower-giR1, magnanimous as she is, immediately proposed to the bridegroom who accepted; otherwise he would have had to go through the marriage ceremony on his own next Tuesday. Poverty is no joking matter but I understand that the dowry of this flower-girl who has become a bride in the meantime, is rather meagre. I understand that she is bringing very few supporters along to this wedding.

Isn’t there a reception either?

To tell the truth, the only supporter one knows of with any certainty, is someone with the very appropriate name of Geoff Omin.

Why does the Opposition find itself in such a pitiable state? After all, the climate has never been more favourable for an Opposition to flourish. We are experiencing the most difficult economic circumstances this Government has ever experienced in its history. These circumstances afford any Opposition an opportunity to grow. However, the Opposition has been becoming progressively weaker. I think there are two reasons, and I should like to point them out briefly. In the first place the Opposition finds itself in this situation as a result of its policy, and in the second place, because of the statements made by some of its members.

The Opposition is struggling because it has been kicking against the pricks of nationalism over the years. It made the bad error of judgment of underestimating the driving force of nationalism. The Opposition also denied the national aspirations of the Black peoples and their inalienable right to self-determination. I do not think there is a single hon. member, except perhaps a few hon. members in the PRP, who has not yet asked himself whether the answer to the multi-national situation in South Africa is not to be sought on the road of the NP.

I think of the numerous members, a one-way traffic, who have crossed the floor of this House to this side over the years. We have lost count of the numbers. Subsequently some of them became members of the Cabinet. But each one of them advocated a policy which they opposed most enthusiastically at one time. This makes one wonder just how many members are still sitting on the opposite side who also harbour doubts about their own policy in their hearts wondering whether we may not possibly be on the right road.

One does not expect members of the Opposition to take over our policy bag and baggage, but there is always room to oppose within the acceptance of certain basic principles. All those who support the principles of separate development do not necessarily have to sit on this side of the House. One can support those principles and still sit in the Opposition benches. I have been speaking of certain basic principles which there are. Many years ago the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development mentioned four principles which are just as valid today. He said in the first place we should accept that there were different peoples living in South Africa. I think it is possible for all members to accept this. In the second place each one of these peoples should be able to follow its own road to self-determination while there would still be interdependence. In the third place: In the long run no people should govern any other people. In the fourth place: Every people must be the most important in its own territory. I see the hon. member for Bryanston listening attentively. It seems to me even he supports these four principles. If, one day, we can get so far as to achieve consensus on these four principles—not on the details thereof, but on the basic principles—it will be the greatest breakthrough in the history of our relations politics in this country. Perhaps I am just a complete optimist dreaming of the day when the Opposition, as a watchdog, will test every action of this Government against these principles—in fact this is the most important task of the Opposition. This is probably too much to expect, but in my heart I would rejoice if we were to have a cutting attack by the Opposition on the Government because the Government was not carrying out its programme of decentralization fast enough or because it was not doing enough about the development of the homelands.

We have often done that.

I am very pleased: that is welcome criticism. The tragedy of the past is that the Opposition reserved its sharpest criticism in this House for those measures by means of which we wanted to implement these principles. A few weeks ago we had the debate on Bophuthatswana. Each one of those four principles is implicit in that Bill, but the UP and the Opposition as a whole put up fierce opposition to that measure. The Opposition wasted its energy by contesting what it basically ought to agree with.

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend I read that Mr. Gerdener had announced that there would be a new programme of principles once again. He said that he and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had reached consensus on that programme of principles. It would appear to me as though the UP had followed the advice of the PRP, i.e. if one wanted a new policy, one should rather found a new party. I hope the aforementioned four principles will be included in that programme of principles in some way, in their own language, in their own idiom and that it will be headed by this: “We are going to make things hot for the Government if it does not implement these principles consistently and expeditiously.”

My first point of criticism holds good for members of the Opposition. It is their inability to see the realities of South Africa and to make provision for them in their policy.

The second point of criticism holds good for a few members of the Opposition only: a Minority, but a very vocal one, that makes very irresponsible statements, statements which are detrimental to the country. This session we have had extremely delicate matters to deal with. We have moved in fields where angels would fear to tread, but members of the Opposition rushed into those fields with large, cumbersome boots as though they wanted to break and destroy everything. At times one gained the impression that hon. members on the opposite side had lost all self-control and wanted to break everything down in a spirit of iconoclasm. We heard sounds from the opposite side. The hon. member for Orange Grove—I think it should rather have been Lemon Grove, because he is so sour; at least he is smiling now—was one of them, sounds which would have pleased our most bitter enemies. At times the hon. member for Edenvale, the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Sea Point tried to outdo their mentor, the hon. member for Houghton, in disparaging South Africa.

I think it is appropriate for everyone to look into hiw own heart and to ask himself: Do I not have a share in this? If I have been able to control myself and this has not come about as a result of my statements, have I perhaps allowed others to make such statements? Have I defended them? Sir, one gains the impression that the people who have acted in this manner are either stupid and without political feeling or perhaps just too robust in politics, people who get so carried away by their own enthusiasm that they make those irresponsible statements.

Is it perhaps their frustration talking, causing them to abandon their judgment? Are they perhaps just being wilful and calculating? Do those people want to create as much atmosphere as possible on the domestic scene? Do they want to muster powers against us abroad? If the situation here has become so untenable there will naturally be a political advantage for them here. Is it perhaps realism that they are displaying? Do they realize that they will never remove this Government from office in the conventional way and that they will have to use extra-parliamentary action? Such action is no good. The irony of it is that they have hurt South Africa. They have hurt themselves that is why they are looking as they do—and they have made the NP stronger.

The major objection to those people is not that they have a viewpoint which is to the left of ours. I am prepared to tolerate their liberalism, just as long as it is honest liberalism. I think liberals are impractical, naïve, romantic dreamers, but nevertheless I have a kind of sneaking admiration for the honest liberal, especially the liberal who sees the distress of people, whose imagination are gripped, whose feelings are aroused, whose sense of sacrifice is ignited and who is moved to action by the distress of people. One always has respect for the champion of the underdog. Emily Hobhouse and Campbell Bannerman were liberals and their names will live forever in our history. However, I do not place the members of the PRP in this category. I think the only exception is the hon. member for Parktown. Politically I disagree with the hon. member. He is a liberal, but I think he is what he is and does what he does from conviction. I wish I could say the same about his colleagues.

Last week no crosses were planted, no protest meetings were held and no placards were waved at Stellenbosch. However, every Sunday morning there are 600 students who travel by bus, train, car and bicycle to go and preach the Gospel to Coloured and Black people in the Peninsula. At the moment the medical students of Stellenbosch are in Lesotho where they are rendering free medical services in the hospitals. Every vacation one finds the students of Stellenbosch in the homelands building a mission church or carrying out a research or planning project. Surely people like these are the true champions of the underdog. Often people who know least about the Black man and do least for him, shout the loudest. In conclusion I just want to address a few words from the Bible to hon. members of the Opposition, and we may make them applicable to ourselves. We must always look into our own heart and pray every day that a watch will be set before our mouths so that we may be prevented from complicating South Africa’s task and so that we may be part of the solution and not part of the problem of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of my remarks, I shall deal with some of the matters raised by the hon. member for Port Natal.

*The hon. member talks about policy and I would like to know one thing: When he talks about policy, does he refer to the Treurnicht policy or to the Worrall policy?

†In relation to the Select Committee I want to make it very clear that I defend no one; I defend only the truth. [Interjections.] I can already hear the hon. member for Yeoville grunting. That was what he was doing all the time during the Select Committee, grunting his way through. The one truth was that the hon. member for Ermelo, who was the chairman of the committee, gave every single member of the Select Committee an opportunity to ask what he wanted when he wanted to.

And then voted it down.

The members of the Select Committee are mostly seated here tonight, even those in the Opposition, and I think they will bear it out that the hon. member for Ermelo leant over backwards to give each member of the Select Committee an equal opportunity in the Select Committee. In fact, if I had to be perfectly candid tonight, I thought he allowed the members of the committee far more scope than they were entitled to. It is better, however, to lean over in order to broaden the scope than it is to narrow the scope. The hon. member for Yeoville saw fit to reflect on some of us who served in the Select Committee, but he refused to deal with the evidence in the report, because the evidence is absolutely irrefutable. The hon. member had no case on the merits and he resorted to mud-slinging and to making personal attacks on people. Why did the hon. member for Yeoville not deal with the Press statement on 15 February 1977 by the hon. member for Johannesburg North or with the hon. the Minister’s speeches of 7 February and 14 February? Why did the hon. member not deal with the admissions made by the hon. member for Johannesburg North, admissions which stand on record? Why did the hon. member not deal with the details of the cross-examination? All he said was that the cross-examination was hostile. The hon. member for Johannesburg North is here today. Can he tell me, in all honesty, that when I or when any other member questioned him, there was any hostility in our attitude? There was certainly no hostility ibn my attitude. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville made a totally unfair allegation and it does not befit him to make that sort of allegation.

I had to object to it.

Order! I have already called the hon. member for Yeoville to order. He has already made a speech, and must therefore stop his running commentary now. The hon. member may continue.

The hon. member for Yeoville reflected on some of us in relation to witnesses not called and in relation to other matters and said that this was a political decision. Let us examine the political decision that was taken by the hon. member for Yeoville and let us see if he came to the committee with clean hands. My contention is that the hon. member did not come to the committee with clean hands and I am going to prove it. On 17 February 1977, as reflected in Hansard, cols. 1695 and 1696 and elsewhere, the hon. member for Yeoville showed that he was in agreement with the hon. member for Johannesburg North in the allegations that the hon. member for Johannesburg North made against the hon. the Minister.

In other words, the hon. member for Yeoville had decided on the issue before he came to serve in the Select Committee. That being the case, the hon. member for Yeoville should have refused to serve in the Select Committee. The hon. member for Yeoville had no excuse. He is a man with legal background. He knows legal procedures. Nevertheless having fettered his discretion, he saw fit—he came to a political decision—to serve on a Select Committee on which he had no right to serve. [Interjections.]

You sound a little hysterical!

The same remark applies to any other hon. member who took part in that debate on 17 February. They should not have served on the Select Committee. However, it is even more applicable to someone with a legal background and with legal experience. I believe the issues were very simple. The issues are still simple. Is there any truth in the allegation that the hon. the Minister of Finance grossly misled the public regarding the inflow and the outflow of capital? The hon. member for Johannesburg North made the allegation but the evidence on page 20 and elsewhere in the report makes it abundantly clear that his allegations had no foundation whatsoever.

Today, as in the Select Committee, a mass of information and a torrent of words are used which serve merely to confuse the issue and have no real relevance to the subject matter under discussion. There is a smoke-screen thrown down over a simple issue, in an effort to sow confusion where it does not exist. The six members of this party, to the best of my knowledge, have always voted against Budget proposals, and some of us have been engaged in heated debates in this House and in the Provincial Council. We have reflected heavily on the competence and the ability of the man introducing the Budget. However, to the best of my knowledge we have never reflected on the honesty of the man concerned. In other words, blast the hon. the Minister of Finance when he deserves to be blasted, but do not question his honesty and integrity unless it can be proved beyond any doubt.

Hear, hear!

In the time allocated to me in this debate, I obviously cannot go into all the details. However, I want to go into some of the details. We in this party accept the report of the Select Committee. The allegations by the hon. member for Johannesburg North reflected on the honesty, the credibility, the status and the prestige of the hon. the Minister of Finance. The hon. the Minister has been completely cleared and vindicated, and the people in the financial world, both locally and abroad, deal now as in the past, with a Minister of Finance whose honesty remains unimpeached.

When the hon. the Minister of Finance goes abroad and negotiates for foreign capital he does so on behalf of South Africa, and he represents South Africa in the most reputable financial circles throughout the world. His success or his failure is of vital importance to all South Africans. In view of the significance of negotiations it is essential that he has the backing of all public representatives and of all South Africans. I am sure that even the hon. member for Yeoville would wish him well in his negotiations.

In the circumstances the hon. member for Johannesburg North and those who support him should reflect in depth on withdrawing their allegations, more particularly in view of the findings of the Select Committee. The hon. member for Johannesburg North made it very clear in answering questions put to him by me and by other hon. members that the hon. the Minister of Finance did not mislead the House. He felt, however, that the hon. the Minister of Finance had grossly misled the public. In view of the fact that the hon. member for Yeoville failed and neglected to bring this to the attention of the House, I would like to quote only four questions put by me to the hon. member for Johannesburg North. I refer to page 20 of the Select Committee report.

1. 30. (Mr. T. Aronson.) Mr. Waddell, did I understand you to say earlier that the Minister did not mislead the House of Assembly, but that he had grossly misled the general public?—(Mr. Waddell.) That has always been the charge.
2. 31. (Mr. T. Aronson.) So you do not believe that the Minister misled the House of Assembly?—(Mr. Waddell.) No.
3. 32. (Mr. T. Aronson.) But you believe that he grossly misled the public?—(Mr. Waddell.) That has always been my view.
4. 33. (Mr. T. Aronson.) Does he not have to mislead the House of Assembly in order to grossly mislead the public?—(Mr. Waddell.) No. I would assume that the majority of the members of the House of Assembly are present during a debate of this importance. Secondly, that they are in possession of Hansard.

Mr. Speaker, according to the hon. member for Johannesburg North the hon. the Minister never misled the House. Then the question arises: Who misled the public? According to the logic of the hon. member for Johannesburg North it could only be the communication media that could be responsible for conveying the news to the public. However, if the hon. the Minister said nothing to mislead the House, the public could not been misled, unless the media wrongly reported him. It is obvious that the hon. the Minister’s speeches of 7 February and 14 February must be taken into account. The hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Johannesburg North felt that only the speech of 14 February was relevant, but both speeches must be taken into account, because on 7 February the hon. the Minister introduced the Second Reading debate and on 14 February he replied to that same debate. I cannot see how the hon. members can want to separate the two debates. On page 24 of the report and on subsequent pages I tried to go into detail and analyse the Press report on the hon. member for Johannesburg North by The Cape Times on 15 February, and I would like to show hon. members what the comparison shows. The hon. member for Johannesburg North mentions the inflow of R635 million which is the same figure the hon. the Minister mentioned and which can be found in col. 885 of 7 February. In fact, this is what the statement of the hon. member for Johannesburg North says—

That is exactly the same figure as the hon. the Minister himself mentioned. Secondly, the Press statement mentions an outflow of R331 million. Here again, the hon. the Minister in col. 884 of Hansard of 7 February says—

The hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Johannesburg North both talk of an outflow, except that the hon. member for Johannesburg North, in fairness, quantifies it. The fact that the hon. the Minister uses the term “considerable outflow” can surely never be grounds for the allegations made by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. The hon. the Minister in his speech of 7 February 1977 mentions that the net capital inflow and outflow during the first three quarters of 1976 is a certain amount, and in the Press statement the hon. member for Johannesburg North uses the exact same figures as the hon. the Minister. There is no difference between them whatsoever. In the Press statement the hon. member for Johannesburg North felt that the money obtained from the IMF should be deducted and not taken into account. This is obviously incorrect and this is what the Reserve Bank had to say on page 65 of the report which is before us, and I quote—

It is obvious on that particular point from what I have just read to hon. members that the hon. member for Johannesburg North was totally incorrect in the assumptions he made.

The Press statement deals with the question of the availability of overseas capital. Information before the Select Committee, including the Reserve Bank report, deals with this matter at length. Page 65 of the report deals with some of the problems. The hon. the Minister, in col. 1402 of Hansard of 14 February 1977, refers to these self-same problems in that regard. This does not justify the allegations which were made by the hon. member for Johannesburg North.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville raised the question as to why the hon. the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Reserve Bank were not called as witnesses. The hon. member for Ermelo put his point of view in that regard. I would like to add that the hon. member for Johannesburg North made allegations which were not proved. The hon. member for Johannesburg North received ample opportunity to prove those allegations. Having failed to prove the allegations, what would be the point of calling the hon. the Minister of Finance to give evidence? There was no information before us as a Select Committee that called for a reply or a rebuttal by the hon. the Minister of Finance. Having failed to prove the allegations some hon. members wanted the Select Committee to go on a fishing expedition. Because we did not want to go on a fishing expedition, we had the outburst which we heard this afternoon.

The hon. the Minister of Finance was bound hook, line and sinker by the speeches he made on 7 and 14 February. The hon. the Minister of Finance had to stand or fall by those speeches and nothing more and nothing less. In the case of the hon. member for Johannesburg North he was invited, in view of the Press statements, to submit evidence to the Select Committee. The hon. member for Johannesburg North was not compelled to appear before the Select Committee. He came of his own accord and he obviously came as he wanted to explain the Press statements and he wanted to substantiate his allegations. I want to say in fairness to the hon. member for Johannesburg North that he answered all our questions directly and fully. When he answered those questions he, in fact, made certain admissions against himself which I dealt with earlier on.

He is a sportsman!

The hon. member says he is a sportsman. I notice the hon. member is also sporting today from one party to the other. On certain commissions of inquiry and even on certain court cases, assessors who are experts sit in on those cases or on those inquiries in order to assist the court or the commission of inquiry. I do not view the Reserve Bank as an assessor as the decision was ours and we had to take the responsibility. However, I view them as experts to whom we decided to put certain written questions. All the members of the Select Committee, as far as I am aware, were allowed to put any written questions which they wanted to the Reserve Bank. No limitation was placed on any member of the Select Committee to the best of my recollection.

That is not true.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North says that is not true. How does he know? He was not on the Select Committee. How does he know, unless somebody on the Select Committee spoke to him?

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

No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will get his chance to speak. The hon. member said it was not true. If the hon. member for Johannesburg North did not serve on the Select Committee, how is he in a position to know which of our deliberations were true or untrue except as stands in the record which is before hon. members today? I repeat, to the best of my knowledge, we were entitled, through the chairman of the committee, to put written questions to the Reserve Bank. As far as I am concerned, the Reserve Bank’s answers were not even needed. We had the evidence before us. As I said earlier on, the chairman leant over backwards to be fair to all hon. members and as such, he allowed the information to come from the Reserve Bank although I do not think it was necessary to get that information.

On page 20 of the report the hon. member for Johannesburg North indicated that he believed that the hon. the Minister did not mislead the House but that he had grossly misled the public. I am of the view that to prove that he grossly misled the public as a result of debates in the House of Assembly, it is essential that the hon. member for Johannesburg North proves that the hon. the Minister grossly misled the House. That allegation or proof was not made and was not forthcoming from the hon. member. As such, together with the rest of the report, it showed that his allegations as contained in the Press report, were totally unfounded and, in my view, totally unjustified.

Unfortunately I now have to come to my two hon. friends in the UP. I would rather not have dealt with them, however, seeing as they are on the eve of very great decisions.

You will not put us off. Do not worry.

Right, I shall not put you off. You have put yourself off. I do not need to put you off. [Interjections.] The two UP members adopted a strange stand. On page 36, question 107, the hon. member for Wynberg asked the following question of the hon. member for Johannesburg North—

In other words, the hon. member for Wynberg indicated that at most he thought the hon. member for Johannesburg North could allege that the effect of the hon. the Minister’s speech could have been to mislead the public. The hon. member for Wynberg and the hon. member for East London City, however, on page 94, voted for the draft report of the hon. member for Yeoville, a report which expressed the opinion that the statements made by the hon. the Minister of Finance did grossly mislead the public. The hon. member for Wynberg, therefore, believed that the hon. the Minister only misled the public, but in voting for the hon. member for Yeoville’s draft report he indicated that he believed that the hon. the Minister grossly misled the public. There is, of course, a vast difference. A bit later on the same day, however, the two UP members, on page 102 of the report, proposed and voted to add a paragraph to the main report, and I quote—

So the UP changed again from voting for “grossly misled” to voting for “misleading”. The UP thus gave the impression of being very confused. At that stage, of course, the UP was heavily engaged in joining up with the PRP and can therefore be forgiven for not knowing the difference between “mislead” and “grossly misled”. There can be no doubt, when going through the report carefully, that the decision the majority came to was the correct decision. I reiterate that I was only interested in establishing the truth. [Interjections.] Hon. members may laugh. [Interjections.]

Order!

Before the supper adjournment I showed that I was not like the hon. member for Yeoville who had fettered his discretion in advance, who had bound himself before the Select Committee had even sat and who had shown that he agreed with the hon. member for Johannesburg North before the Select Committee had even deliberated. On 17 February he agreed with the hon. member for Johannesburg North. I came there with an open mind. [Interjections.] I was only interested in establishing the truth. [Interjections.] I was not interested in politicians or in political personalities.

Mr. Speaker, I think that anyone who listened to the hon. member for Walmer a moment ago, and who had even a tittle of legal training, would have realized that the hon. member for Walmer has no idea of how objective and unbiased a person should be when sitting on a Select Committee. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Walmer should stop playing petty politics by trying to pick out all the people who were on the committee and asking why they had voted for this or why they had voted for that. If he had even a grain of intelligence he would have realized that once a report, which was submitted by the hon. member for Yeoville, was before the committee it was open to any member of the committee to amend that report as he so desired. Quite clearly the intention of the hon. members of the Official Opposition was to move an amendment to the hon. member for Yeoville’s report. To say, therefore, that because we voted for the hon. member for Yeoville’s report we bound ourselves completely to that report is utter nonsense. [Interjections.] There is also something else I should like to tell the hon. member for Walmer. If he reads the report very carefully, he will see that he himself was subject to a rather vacillating attitude.

On page liv we find that he voted in favour of calling for further evidence regarding the publication of the World Bank, Borrowing in International Capital Markets. The next minute, when that motion was not carried, one finds that he voted that there should be no more evidence produced. [Interjections.] If he stands in a glass house and throws stones, I think he should think again about what he says. I want to say that we adopted a completely objective point of view to this whole inquiry. The hon. member for Walmer said: “I defend no person, only the truth.” I want to tell him that we adopted a completely objective attitude, which I believe is the correct one and which, I believe, every member of every Select Committee should adopt.

I wish at this stage to clarify the Official Opposition’s approach to the whole matter and to reaffirm the general conclusion come to by the representatives of the Official Opposition, namely that in certain respects the hon. the Minister had misled the public in relation to his highlighting certain selected facts and figures during his Second Reading speech on 14 February this year, and in implying that capital funds from abroad were generally available to South Africa. This conclusion was arrived at by considering all the evidence that was placed before the Select Committee in a broad perspective, and not, as some may think, by placing entire reliance on the allegations made by the hon. member for Johannesburg North, or the conclusions that he came to. I believe that this is where the hon. member for Walmer went wrong, because he looked at it entirely in that context.

Earlier on in this debate the hon. member for Newcastle also made reference to the Select Committee report, and he indicated that it was regarded by his party as doing South Africa a disservice if the hon. the Minister of Finance was criticized for misleading the public. We reject this allegation completely and disregard it with the contempt it deserves. We will not be muzzled from continuing to criticize the Government and its Ministers, if it is found necessary. We believe that genuine criticism can only do South Africa good, as it demonstrates to the rest of the world that we still have an Opposition in a Western, democratic sense and freedom of expression in our country.

The facts upon which we came to the conclusion that the hon. the Minister had misled the public were the following. In the first place, let us look at the opinions of leading South African economists and other financially involved persons in regard to the availability of foreign capital to South African interests, either by way of loans or by way of investments. I wish to quote just a few of these to remind the House of exactly what was said by these financial experts. I firstly want to deal with a statement made by Mr. André Hamersma on 26 November 1976, in which he said the following—

Let us see what Dr. W. J. de Villiers said on 14 October 1976. He said the following—

Dr. De Villiers is of course the managing director of General Mining, one of the biggest mining concerns in the whole country.

Let us see what Mr. Charles Fiddian-Green, chairman of Rennies, had to say. He spoke on 10 November 1976 and said the following—

Then let us have a look at what Mr. Bob Aldsworth, managing director of Barclays Bank, had to say. On 21 November 1976 he said—

What is the relevancy of that?

What is stated in a New York report? I quote—

That is complete nonsense. There never was an application for 300 million dollars.

This is what is contained in the report. Let us have a look at what Nigel Bruce had to say in a report in the Sunday Times. I quote—

Finally, let us have a look at another report which emanated from New York. It quotes the senior vice-president of the Import-Export Bank, Mr. Stephen Minikes, as having told a congressional committee that South Africa could not get a R326 million loan guarantee to help finance the second Sasol plant, because the bank was unable to find “reasonable assurance of repayment”. I want that background to be borne in mind. This is the background the hon. member for Wynberg and I bore in mind when we sat down and considered our approach to this particular Select Committee investigation.

Some of it is fallacious.

The hon. the Minister can reply in detail at the end of this debate. All these reports and many others known to hon. members give a clear indication to the public that in the opinion of knowledgeable financiers the ease with which foreign capital and investments could be obtained by private institutions and the Government of the Republic, was a thing of the past.

This is no court of appeal for the committee.

It is against this background that one should look at the hon. the Minister’s speech made on 14 February. The hon. member says this is no court of appeal. I am justifying and giving to the House the reasons why the Opposition voted for the motion which I shall refer to in a moment. [Interjections.]

Notice should also be taken of the fact that the Part Appropriation Bill was debated on many different days. The hon. the Minister delivered his Second Reading speech on the Monday. Immediately thereafter the debate was adjourned until the Wednesday, with intervening legislation debated on the Tuesday. The debate then continued through Thursday and was again adjourned and interrupted by private members’ motions on the Friday. The following Monday, after an intervening week-end, the debate was resumed. It was then that the hon. the Minister laid such emphasis on what he regarded as an above average capital inflow to the country, completely contradicting the opinions of the leading financial experts in the private sector. The point I want to make is that the debate was sporadic and not continuous. One must bear this in mind when one tries to relate the speech made on the 7th to the speech made on the 14th.

Furthermore, let us take a look at the words used by the hon. the Minister. In his speech he referred to long-term private capital as being a very good index of overseas confidence. What does the man in the street, the public, understand by private long-term capital? Surely the use of the word “private” connotes anything but that which has subsequently emerged, namely that the hon. the Minister also meant by it the inclusion of State corporations and quasi Governmental bodies such as municipalities and local authorities generally.

To the members of the public the hon. the Minister was referring specifically to what was generally considered as private, namely companies quoted on the Stock Exchange, in other words organizations which do not have Governmental backing. If in fact the inflow of foreign capital had been of the order of R635 million to what the public considered as private concerns, the beliefs of the financial experts would in fact have been contradicted. This is what in fact has happened as a result of the hon. the Minister’s speech. In our opinion the announcement by the hon. the Minister, in terms of which he referred to private long-term capital, led the public to believe that these experts had been proved wrong.

You do not know what you are talking about.

This would have been a highly satisfactory state of affairs and would have had the effect of allaying the fears in the minds of the public that the availability of foreign loans to the country had been detrimentally affected by Government policy or other adverse factors. An analysis of the figures produced in evidence as to how much of the R975 million raised in 1976 was in fact private foreign capital in the accepted sense, viz. to the public, shows that only 26,1% of this sum was in fact private capital.

The hon. the Minister in his speech also referred to the average inflow. I shall quote his actual words (Hansard, 14 Feb. 1977, col. 1401)—

[Interjections.]

Shut up!

Order!

When one considers the actualities … [Interjections.] … one finds that on the corrected figures the inflow of foreign capital, far from being significantly above average since 1968, for 1976 was in fact only R459 million … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. the Minister of Finance is pointing at me, suggesting that I said “Shut up”.

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon. member must resume his seat. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the figure for 1976, far from being above average, in fact amounted to only R459 million whereas the average was R591 million per annum. We appreciate that the actual figures for the last quarter and the corrected figures for the first three quarters may not have been available to the hon. the Minister, but we maintain that it would tend to mislead the public to make such a categorical statement in the light of the circumstances and, we believe, with the knowledge that there is invariably corrected data available and that there probably was such data available—I hope the hon. the Minister is listening—at the time when the hon. the Minister made his speech, viz. on 14 February, and without stating that this was his opinion and that these were estimated figures. We were firmly of the opinion that more evidence was necessary to explain the position relative to the availability of foreign funds to South Africa, particularly in relation to other countries in a similar state of development and with a similar potential and growth. Although we must confirm the courtesy of the chairman of the Select Committee, we must express our dismay at the refusal of the committee to allow an opportunity, firstly, to be given to the Reserve Bank officials to give evidence of a clarifying and vital nature. After all, their memorandum to the committee was only seven foolscap pages in length, while it dealt with a very important matter. Secondly, we are most upset because an invitation was not extended to the hon. the Minister to give evidence if he so desired. The purpose for which we believed the hon. the Minister should have given evidence was to enable him to refute any inference that he had, in fact, quoted figures and selected facts with the intention of allaying fears that the economy had been and was going through a rough time. Without hearing his evidence as to his state of mind, we were unable to state that he had grossly—which infers intention or negligence—misled the public. We were quite satisfied with the evidence before us that the hon. the Minister had made statements during the Second Reading debate which did, in fact, mislead the public and we wish to repeat our views that (S.C. 9—’77, p. civ)—

For those reasons we believe the hon. the Minister did in fact mislead the public.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member’s last few sentences neatly summarized the ineptness of the UP. On the one hand he stated that they could not really make a finding without the evidence of the hon. the Minister, because they wanted to know what his meaning and intentions were when he said this or that. However, immediately after adopting this standpoint they were prepared, in the first instance, to make a finding, whereas they themselves stated that they had insufficient evidence, that the hon. the Minister had misled the public, and when this was rejected, they blithely voted for a finding that the hon. the Minister had grossly misled the public. That is typical of the chopping and changing of the Opposition. [Interjections.] Their ignorance is also revealed. The hon. member speaks of the “revenue bank”. What is the “revenue bank” in South Africa? Has the hon. member never heard of the S.A. Reserve Bank?

I hold no brief for the hon. member for Walmer, but by way of introduction I want to point out that the hon. member attacked the objectivity of the hon. member for Walmer. We would like to know from him why, when they were still in the same party and they had the choice in the provincial council between various hon. members with legal training, they singled out the hon. member for Walmer to serve on a committee investigating the Wave-crest affair. He was objective enough then, but now he is no longer objective because he made a finding which does not suit them.

The hon. member’s whole speech was aimed at proving that the UP was still a factor. What did he advance to prove his statements? He began with a lot of quotations of what people had said three, four or five months before the hon. the Minister held his speech. However, he failed to explain their relevance. The real unfairness of the Opposition becomes apparent, however, when they neglect to quote what the hon. the Minister himself said. The hon. the Minister never painted a picture of a rosy financial situation to this House or to the public.

He did.

The hon. the Minister informed us with great realism and in a balanced way about the real problems we have. Why does the Opposition ignore what he said on 7 February? He said then (Hansard, 7 February 1977, col. 884)—

Why do the hon. members omit to say that the hon. the Minister continued in the same paragraph and said—

Does that sound like someone who is painting an exaggeratedly rosy picture of our finances? I begin to think that other people are doing the misleading, viz. the UP and the PRP. They try and make out that the hon. the Minister of Finance tried to project an image which he did not project and they deliberately keep silent about his factual statement on the real problems of our economy, in order to make political capital.

The hon. member tried to play down the fact that the hon. the Minister tried to paint a balanced picture in his speech of 7 February. But the hon. member has been in politics for a long time and he should know that a debate is a debate and one cannot break up a debate into fragments. The hon. member knows very well that as far as the Appropriation debate is concerned, it is customary and normal for the hon. the Minister to make a comprehensive speech when introducing the Bill and then to deal with specific aspects in a fragmentary way in his reply. The hon. member also knows that one should see a debate as a whole. Even the politically ignorant hon. member for Johannesburg North saw that, when he admitted that, even in his opinion the hon. the Minister had not misled the House.

During the course of the Select Committee’s investigation and activities the UP—with this I want to conclude as regards to the UP— displayed a lack of knowledge, in the first place, and, in the second place, tried as usual to sit on the fence and tried to satisfy everyone. It had not been grossly misleading, but still it had been misleading. They did not have enough evidence, but they did have enough evidence to make a finding. We, the country and the voters are tired of them and it is no wonder that they are on the eve of their funeral.

The serious attack which gave rise to our indignation came from the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member delivered a tirade of unparalleled bitterness tonight. I ask myself and I wonder whether he is not under pressure because he is so often praised for his patriotism, and whether he did not have to prove once again that he is still against the Government and that there are at least certain points on which he still agrees with the other members of his party. It is a long time since I heard a more cutting and a more biting attack. I want to make the statement—and I am going to prove it—that the hon. member went further in his speech than the hon. member for Johannesburg North. He was so disappointed when the hon. member for Johannesburg North admitted that the House had not been misled by the hon. the Minister that he wanted to build up a new case all on his own.

Yes, there were other facts; you are quite right.

The hon. member admits it, but I still want to prove it. The hon. member made the following statement twice tonight—

Immediately afterwards he repeats it and says—

Let us quote from Hansard what the hon. the Minister said (Hansard, 1977, col. 1401) and let us see whether he spoke of “everybody”—

What does that mean?

There is no justification for trying to make out in the House that the hon. the Minister said that every single person and every single country was caught up in a tight international capital market, while the hon. the Minister only made a general statement to the effect that the market in general had become tighter and more difficult. I shall test the hon. member’s opinion against that of the Reserve Bank presently and then the House and the general public can choose whom they want to accept as their “expert”: The hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Johannesburg North, or the Reserve Bank with its record. The hon. member accused us of an unfair cross-examination. In my opinion the hon. member kept seeing himself as the advocate for the defence, because he said that we were attacking unnecessarily. We who know something about the law know that when the advocate for the defence questions his witness again after the so-called cross-examination, he is not allowed to pose leading questions. He is not allowed to ask leading questions, questions which suggest the answer to the witness.

The advocate for the defence was very upset about the admission made by the hon. member for Johannesburg North in reply to questions by the hon. member for Walmer. The hon. member for Yeoville had to correct that; he tried to correct it in his re-examination. I want to quote from page 51 of the report. Unfortunately, I do not have much time and therefore I will not repeat the long preceding question. There the hon. member had already started to suggest an answer to the witness in a fine and subtle way.

Read the whole thing!

I only want to read paragraphs 175 to 178—

1. 175. (Mr. H. H. Schwarz.) That would apply to members of the House as well as to people outside?—(Mr. Waddell.) Absolutely.
2. 176. (Mr. H. H. Schwarz) You put before the Committee a number of newspaper articles which indicate what the newspapers reported from this. Does that mean that yo consider that the public, through the medum of the newspapers, actually construed it in the way in which you indicated, namely that the public took it as being misleading?—(Mr. Waddell.) Yes.
3. 177. (Mr. H. H. Schwarz.) The newspapers took the same view that you took of the statement?—(Mr. Waddell.) Yes.

† The hon. member for Johannesburg North, of course, well knowig what was going on in the minds of the newspapers, being an expert on that, could reply as he did—

1. 178. (Mr. H. H. Schwarz.) They seem to have been misled on this?—(Mr. Waddell.) Yes.

[Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member, who is so intelligent, to read out the question and answer contained in paragraph 120 of the Select Committee Report?

Yes, read it!

Mr. Speaker, I shall come to that in a moment. I shall look that up while I am speaking. That has nothing to do with …

There you are proving your ignorance again!

Mr. Speaker, in that connection I want to make the statement that this re-examination would not have been allowed in any court. The hon. member for Yeoville very adroitly suggested the answers to the hon. member for Johannesburg North. [Interjections.]

Now read 120!

Mr. Speaker, the question in paragraph 120 is a question which I asked. The question is half a page long and I do not have the time to quote it in full. I only asked the hon. member for Johannesburg North whether the hon. the Minister was not refering to a specific aspect when he gave the figures, and whether he was not trying—and that was what I meant—to present the whole picture. [Interjections.] The hon. member’s reply to this was, “But those are the net figures”. There is no question … [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. member tried to deal with this in his report. If it were all that important, and if it supported their case, why did he not mention it in his speech? [Interjections.]

The charge of the hon. member for Johannesburg North is based on two aspects. There are other finer points involved, for example whether the IMF should have been deducted or not, and whether Iscor’s loans should have been specifically mentioned or not. However, there are two main aspects. The first is that the hon. the Minister omitted, while he gave the figures with regard to the inflow of capital, also to give the figures with regard the outflow of capital. The second is—and that is the only thing on which the hon. member for Yeoville concentrated in his speech—that it is untrue to allege that the international capital market was right for anybody other than South Africa.

That is quite correct.

The hon. member says I am quite correct in my summary. With regard to the first aspect, the following: On 7 February the hon. the Minister made the situation clear—and I have already quoted it; I again quote a part of it—by saying the following—

It is as clear as daylight. The hon. the Minister did not say that it was R331 million. He did not mention an amount. However, it is clear and the figures that the hon. member for Johannesburg North quoted in all his evidence tally with the figures of the hon. the Minister. There is no difference. To tell the truth, I think they quoted from the same source.

However, I want to concentrate on the second accusation, the accusation on which the hon. member for Yeoville based the greater part of his argument. This is that the hon. the Minister grossly misled the public by saying that the international capital market was generally right, while they maintain that it was only right for South Africa.

For similar countries!

The hon. member for Johannesburg North made the following charge in this respect—

Sir, I am not an economist; I readily admit that.

You have demonstrated that very well!

I am a jurist, and a jurist is used to evaluating the evidence, and that is the evidence this witness gave. Then I listened to what the S.A. Reserve Bank said. I want to quote three passages from pages 64 and 65 of the report. They say—

They go on to say—

And then—

I therefore had these two allegations, that of the hon. member for Johannesburg North and that of the S.A. Reserve Bank, and I faced the problem: Whom should I believe? Should I believe the Reserve Bank, which is impartial in this matter, which plays a key role in our economy, which is the main processor of basic financial statistics and whose data has always been accepted as authoritative in this House, or should I believe the hon. member for Johannesburg North, an hon. member who represents a party which could benefit if the credibility of the Minister of Finance were to be questioned, an hon. member who could only gain if the Government were to be harmed, an hon. member of whom someone said in an interjection that still held a British passport. He can tell us whether it is true or not.

It is important to me because I should like to know how permanent his presence in this country is. Should I believe this hon. member who had already learnt from the hon. the Minister’s speech on 7 February—I want him to listen carefully now—that the hon. the Minister was of the opinion that the international capital market was tight not only for South Africa? This hon. member spoke on 10 February, and did he show up this so-called gross misrepresentation by the Minister? He spoke about the riots in Soweto. Then he did not regard it as important enough to comment on it; he let it go unanswered. However, when he made a statement to the Press outside Parliament, when he could not be nailed, then he was in a hurry. I ask myself: Whom should I believe? Can anyone hold it against me and the other hon. members on this side that we accept the evidence of the Reserve Bank and not that of the hon. member for Johannesburg North?

The Reserve Bank is not against the hon. member for Johannesburg North.

Mr. Speaker, I want to pose a question to the hon. member for Johannesburg North. He has made a serious allegation and now when a debate is carried on about it, he waves and says “keep quiet” while he talks to the hon. member for Bryanston, I do not know about what. We would be interested to know what they are speaking about.

They are probably talking about true things.

I want to put it to the hon. member: His allegation has been investigated by a committee of this House. It has been investigated fully …

By a bunch of politicians.

… and extensively by a “bunch of politicians” of whom one of the most …

Prominent.

… prominent, maybe, but certainly one of the most wily politicians, is the hon. member for Yeoville. The allegation was investigated by a committee and the committee has found his allegations to be unfounded. I now ask the hon. member, if he has any respect for Parliament as an institution, and if he has a proper regard for the authority of a duly appointed Select Committee, to get up and apologize.

Apologize for a political decision? You must be joking.

If he is not prepared to apologize, is it not fitting that he should at least—if not prepared to admit that he was totally wrong—be prepared to stand up and say: “I admit that I acted in haste; that I overstated my case and that I was too absolute in my judgment.”

Who says he was wrong?

We ask that of him. If he does, I and this side of the House will accept his bona fides. If he does not, he should not expect us to judge him kindly.

Who found him guilty?

The hon. member asks, who found him guilty? His allegation was found untrue by eight hon. members who were elected by the voters of the Republic of South Africa. They considered those eight members worthy of representing them in this Parliament. If the hon. member wants to allege that we were dishonest in our approach and in our testing of the facts, he should say so. If he wants to allege that we were prejudiced or unfair, he has to prove it. It is no use just slinging mud. The evidence given by the hon. member for Johannesburg North himself and his own admission with regard to the question of whether the international capital market was tight or not prove that he was grossly unfair in his criticism. I should like to read paragraph 187 of the evidence to hon. members. In that paragraph I put the following to the hon. member—

To this the hon. member replied—

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can make a speech if he wants to. I say that I am not going to lie awake one single night. We who served on this committee, considered the case objectively and fairly. My conscience is clear because we made a factual finding, a finding which I am prepared—and here I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Ermelo—to defend anywhere.

Mr. Speaker, so far during the Third Reading debate of the budget—an extremely important debate— three hours have expired. All we have heard, with the exception of the speech of the hon. member for Constantia, is about the squabble between the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Johannesburg North. I am quite sure that the people outside, the man in the street, could not care less at this stage of our economic history, whether the hon. the Minister misled them with respect to the availability of foreign capital. What they are concerned about is their present economic plight. What they want to know is whether this Government is going to mislead them about their future. One thing about which one cannot mislead the public in the street today, is that they at the present time, have to pull in their belts as they have never done before. The South African economy at this stage is in serious trouble. I should like to ask any member on the Government benches whether he is prepared to deny that this is the truth. This is a fact. It is also a fact that it is this Government that manages the economy. It is this Government that controls our economy, and no one else. This Government must therefore be prepared to accept the blame for the economy being in the mess in which it is today and must be prepared to accept the criticism. It must also be prepared to take the necessary steps to correct the situation. That is what the hon. the Minister has been trying to do in the past two years, and in the process we, the public of South Africa, are being forced to bite the bullet, so to speak, in order to free our economy from the evil of inflation, and the inflation has been brought about because of this Government’s unwise fiscal policies. So all of us here in South Africa are feeling the pinch, and in the process of correcting this unfavourable economic situation we are experiencing the longest recessionary phase since the Second World War and the highest rate of unemployment since the depression days of the 1930s. This need not have happened, however. We believe that this situation could have been avoided by adopting a fiscal policy which remained true to the basic principles of the free enterprise system. In the past we have warned the Government from these benches, as we shall warn them again during this debate, but in the past we were ignored. As a result, South Africa is now having to live with this Government’s mistakes, and that is why our people are suffering today. It is the duty of this Parliament to sort out this problem as soon as possible, and surely that is what this debate should have been all about.

I think we can say that the hon. the Minister has made a start. His budget last year was designed to correct the adverse economic position we were in, and I am prepared to concede that his policies are having a certain measure of success. As a result of the restrictive effect of the 1976 budget, the overall deficit on the exchequer account has declined and the net indebtedness of the Exchequer to the banking sector was reduced during the second half of last year. This, I believe, is most encouraging because this reduction in bank credit to the Government has contributed to a decline in the rate of increase in the quantity of money and near money in circulation during the latter part of last year. That, of course, is a plus point in the hon. the Minister’s programme in his fight against inflation. If the hon. the Minister continues with this restrictive policy, and if this is coupled with wage restraints and if we allow the favourable free market forces, which are at present being felt in the private sector, to continue to have the favourable effect they can have, I believe that the hon. the Minister should be able to get on top of inflation in due course. There is no doubt, however, that the hon. the Minister is being pressurized in some quarters possibly to ease up a bit in order to give the economy a boost. We read about this in the Sunday Press. This is, of course, his decision. It is a decision which he has to make. He has far more facts than I have, and far more financial advisers than I have. I wish him well, of course, with his future decisions, but I should also like to feel, and feel with confidence, that what he is going to do is going to be in the interests of South Africa and is going to be right for this country. This problem of avoiding deficit financing of Government expenditure is, however, only one part of the problem. The other is the degree of overall Government expenditure. This is the very point which the hon. member for Constantia raised at the beginning of this debate, and I would like to talk about this particular point for the remainder of my time, i.e. the need to reduce the Government’s expenditure. Disproportionate Government spending constitutes, I believe, the root of all our financial worries in South Africa at the present time.

If the hon. the Minister wants a higher economic growth rate he has to first get his priorities right. If he wants a growth rate of 5% or more, surely the first priority is to create an economic and financial climate which will stimulate growth in the private sector. After all, we do claim to be a free enterprise and a capitalist society. It is in this area of our economy where we have the greatest potential for growth in the gross domestic product. But what do we find? Over the past six years the consumption expenditure by the three levels of government—the central, provincial and local authority government—has expanded at a rate far in excess of that of the private sector. Between 1972 and 1976 consumption expenditure by these levels of government increased by 129% while the private consumption expenditure increased by 76%, at a rate of only 59% of that of the public sector. Expressed in another way: Over the past four years the private sector’s share of the gross domestic expenditure actually decreased by 5,6% while the Government’s share increased by 2,4%. Expressed in cash terms this 8% shift is worth a total of R2 350 million. This has been the degree of the switch of this type of expenditure from the private sector to the Government sector. This means that the Government is biting deeper and deeper into the economy at the expense of the private sector. In the process it has tightened a financial strait-jacket.

He is talking to you, Owen.

He does not have to worry.

Sir, I am trying to speak to the hon. the Minister of Finance about things which concern the public. But obviously he is not particularly interested in that. In the process of following his Government’s policy he is tightening a financial strait-jacket, not only around private enterprise, but also around private initiative. When one considers that it is in this section of our economy where the real thrust, the real drive for development and growth has come from in the past, then it is no wonder that our economy is faltering today. To gain an idea of what this means in manpower alone, one finds that during the period 1970 to 1975 the growth in Government consumption expenditure resulted in an increase of 102% in the number of persons employed by Government institutions, including Government corporations. In terms of numbers, it means that these have increased from 676 000 in 1970 to 1 362 000 people in 1975. This is tremendous growth. In fact, it averages a 20% increase per annum over a five-year period.

I therefore believe that I am correct in saying that during the past five years the greatest growth area in the South African economy has in fact been the Government In terms of cash, salaries and wages, in 1970 public servants earned R1 047 000. Five years later they earned R2 224 000, and it is estimated that this year they will earn R3 500 000. This is an awful burden and has to be financed by comparatively few taxpayers in South Africa. Because of this high rate of corporate tax and the inability on the part of businessmen to increase prices sufficiently to protect his profit margin and therefore to protect his capital resources, there has been a continual transfer of real capital from the private sector to the public sector. We have seen this happen this session in the Bills of the Minister of Economic Affairs. This hon. Minister has, in fact, piloted a number of Bills through Parliament this session, Bills that are going to enable public corporations to finance a larger proportion of their capital expenditure from revenue. I am happy to see that the Minister of Transport is here because I want to point out that the Railways too has altered its tariff arrangements so that it also can finance a greater percentage of its capital expansion programmes from revenue. The Minister of Economic Affairs did the same with Escom. We also know that petrol is going up to finance the capital development of Sasol. Thus, these Government corporations can raise their tariffs in order to finance their expansion. But what does the hon. the Minister of Finance do for those areas of the private sector that are price controlled? He is adamant—in fact, at times arrogant—in his attitude towards these people. He totally refuses to allow a fair return on capital. If these industries are to expand in order to get the growth going in this country, they certainly cannot do it out of their own pockets. The only way in which they can do it is by borrowing funds at the high interest rates which apply today. This makes the whole exercise impossible; it makes it uneconomic. After all, this is exactly what representatives of the South African Railways and Escom have said. However, this Government does not allow private enterprise to do what those institutions are doing. Honestly, this country cannot allow this situation to continue. At this stage of South Africa’s development, capital resources are of major consequence. We hear this all the time from the Government and the hon. the Minister. We cannot permit wasteful and unnecessary use of these resources. When they are expended, it must be done in an area where the economy needs it most. We have to ask ourselves whether much of this capital is expended in the area which needs it most. The other day we had a debate about whether certain hon. Deputy Ministers needed new flats at this time in our economic crisis.

If capital resources are to be conserved, and if they are to be utilized to the best advantage and in the best long-term interest of South Africa and the South African economy, it is most essential that we establish clear national economic priorities, which will take into account the needs and objectives of not just the Government sector, but also, and more importantly, the needs of the private sector of our economy. I am convinced that the Government has squeezed the private sector too hard in order to finance its grandiose projects over the past two years. This is exactly what the hon. member for Constantia said when he led off in this debate. He said there can be no real economic progress unless the Government fundamentally alters its objectives and priorities in order to give private enterprise a better chance. This is what is being said today by many people, some of whom are very prominent people.

However, hon. members on that side of the House refuse to heed their warnings. It has been said by a prominent Afrikaner such as Dr. Wassenaar. To me it seems very strange that when such a man, who is after all a prominent member of the Afrikaner Nationalist financial establishment and who is renowned in South Africa and elsewhere for his achievements in the field of finance, has the courage to present facts to the nation in the interests of all of us, he is condemned, ridiculed and castigated. What makes it worse is that this is done to him by his own people. Surely, the facts are there for all to see. We are slowly but surely moving towards socialism. History shows us that in developing underdeveloped countries socialism can only be enforced through the barrel of a gun and by the loss of personal freedom. We see it in Angola, Mozambique and Cuba. Both in this sort of country and in democratic socialist States such as Great Britain State interference in the economy eventually strangles the enormous productive potential of private enterprise.

We have heard an awful lot about patriotism, especially in this House today. So we should when we see the challenges which are facing South Africa at the present time. But surely patriotism does not include burying one’s head in the sand and just saying: “Ja, baas.” If a man as experienced in the field of finance as Dr. Wassenaar is aware of errors being made in this field to the detriment of our nation and our people’s well-being, and has the courage to point to those errors, knowing that in so doing he is presenting a threat to the vested interests of the powers that be, surely that man is a man of courage.

Surely he is patriotic to South Africa, and surely those who condemn him out of what I believe is pure political expediency or in order to protect their own selfish and sectional interests are the people who are a threat to our economy. Surely those are the people who are a threat to the security of South Africa. It is time for a new deal in South Africa. This is the time for fresh thinking in South Africa. This is the time for a re-assessment of our national objectives and priorities, and not purely sectional priorities. Sitting in the benches on both sides of the House there must be many entrepreneurs who have what it takes to create wealth and build up the economy, men with fire in their bellies, the fire that can only be satisfied by achievement. These are the men who built South Africa in the past and these are the kind of men who can get South Africa off the ground right now and build an economy to meet the challenges which face us. The only way to growth and to economic prosperity and security is the way through the private enterprise system. Somehow we have to find the way to motivate such men by creating the correct financial climate, by setting correct priorities and objectives and by creating the correct incentives which will bring out the best in the individual and which will cause him to be prepared to make sacrifices not only in his own interests, but also in the interests of his country. This is where I believe the Government has failed South Africa. It is because of this Government that South Africa is in the plight in which it finds itself today. It is because of this Government that we have queues of unemployed and that we have housewives who cannot feed their children correctly. This situation is clearly due to faults of this Government and this hon. Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for my hoarse voice. I hope that I shall be able to make myself heard. I want to tell the hon. member for Amanzimtoti that when I am dealing with the hon. member for Constantia, I shall be coming back to certain things he said.

Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry that the hon. member for Yeoville is not here. When he walked past me just now, I told him that he should please stay because I wanted to speak to him. He did not, however, have the courtesy to stay. He just said: “You can say what you like: I am going to have coffee.” I shall indeed refer to him in his absence.

We have heard quite a lot about the Select Committee on the allegation by a member. I want to tell hon. members that what we heard from the hon. member for Yeoville this afternoon was “chicken feed”. Hon. members should have seen him on the first day the committee convened. He dug in his heels and wanted to take over the whole committee. He shouted the chairman down and it was only after the chairman told him “You must behave yourself now or I shall report you to the Speaker”, that he came to his senses. That is how we started. Much has already been said on this matter tonight, and therefore I do not want to talk about it any further. Let me just say that in my opinion the hon. member for Johannesburg North was a very unreliable witness. We can prove that what he said and did, and even what he said under oath, does not square up with the truth. I think one can ask whether he is not guilty of perjury. After the hon. the Minister had delivered his speech on 7 February, the hon. member had a turn to speak on 10 February, but on that occasion he did nothing to attack the Minister. On 14 February the hon. the Minister made another speech in which he referred the hon. member to a report in Business Week. The hon. the Minister pointed out to him the role that he and his henchmen, his spiritual allies outside the House, play in harming South Africa abroad. Mr. Speaker, I want to refer back to May of last year when anti-apartheid committees met in Havana to plan how they could cripple South Africa. There were various committees and they discussed various possibilities. They discussed, inter alia, how they could cripple South Africa economically and could institute a boycott against us with regard to foreign loans. Although the hon. the Minister has already done so, I again want to quote from Business Week of 14 February. There one reads the following—

Do you deny that?

That is not true. The article goes further and states—

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

Sit down! I do not want to answer a question by a witness as unworthy as that hon. member. He did not acquit himself well of his task in the committee. After the hon. the Minister had delivered a speech in the House, he jumped in the next morning and made a statement to the Press. The hon. member told the committee he had made a very trustworthy statement. I have the statement here in front of me. As an accountant, I do know how one should make a statement. The hon. member was ashamed to give the statement a heading; he was ashamed to put his name to it, and the figures he used in his statement were the same figures as those furnished by the hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech on 7 February. The statement reads—

In the next paragraph he again mentions an amount of R635 million. The hon. the Minister only furnished this figure in his speech on 7 February, and not on 14 February at all.

The hon. member misled the public with his statement, because he stated—

The hon. member subsequently made a second statement and according to him that was really very accurate. He did not, however, check his figures. Later, in a sworn statement, it became apparent that he never looked at the first speech. If someone makes a sworn statement in which he states that he never looked at the first speech, and then only uses those figures, one can see for oneself what happened there.

We asked the Press to certify the letter and also sent a copy of it to the hon. member so that he could certify that it was, in fact, his Press statement. What happened then? He wrote us a letter, together with the first statement, indicating that there was a second statement. When he saw that he was being hemmed in, he added the following explanation to the end of his first statement—

The hon. member said very clearly in reply to a question of mine that he had handed a statement that he had corrected to the Press. Subsequently, however, he tried to imply that the statement issued on his behalf was the one which had subsequently been changed. Such lies before a Select Committee do not hold water; they cannot be accepted.

Order! The hon. member cannot accuse another hon. member of the House of having told lies.

Mr. Speaker, I shall withdraw that. I do not want to create the impression that it was in the House. We cannot, however, accept the figures the hon. member laid before the committee as reliable, in any case I cannot. What is the motive of the PRP and that of their spiritual allies and henchmen who came from Havana? In the Sunday Times of 19 June 1977 I read the following, for instance, under the heading “250 militants plan how to bury apartheid”—

Further on the report reads—

That is the language used throughout by the PRP, the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Johannesburg North. A short while ago, when the hon. member for Yeoville levelled accusations at the hon. the Minister, he cried: “Leave it to international financiers to judge.” They did not utter a single word to try to promote South Africa’s cause abroad. On the contrary, the first thing the hon. member did, with many fine-sounding words and hollow utterances, was to avow that the Government should use the PRP to influence all the opinion makers abroad, but then he turned around, just like that, launched this terrible attack and tried to stir up as much ill-feeling as possible against South Africa. South Africa has perhaps committed many sins and should perhaps be punished severely, but Heaven only knows why we have to have such a political party as our punishment.

I now want to react to what the hon. member for Constantia and others said with regard to financial matters. There was not much to the hon. member for Constantia’s speech, but the hon. member for Yeoville nevertheless made a big fuss because the hon. member for Ermelo did not take the floor immediately after the hon. member for Constantia. The hon. member for Newcastle is just as experienced a member as the hon. member for Constantia. In fact, I would even have allowed someone to make a maiden speech after the hon. member for Constantia.

I briefly want to discuss a few aspects mentioned by the hon. member for Constantia. That hon. member expressed his concern about unemployment and the inflation rate. That is the very thing the hon. the Minister of Finance and the Government are dealing with; the whole budget aims at that and the hon. the Minister also spelled this out clearly. In effect, the hon. member for Constantia shares our concern and is really only falling into step. I am, however, glad that at least he is worried too. The whole budget is aimed at combating inflation. The hon. member for Constantia and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti claimed that the Government is spending too much. The hon. the Minister, however, spelt it out clearly that if one does not consider the Defence Vote, the growth rate of Government spending is not even 5%. That is far less than the inflation rate. Do hon. members want to imply that we should have cut down even more? The hon. member referred to the fact that we could have saved more if we had had a smaller Public Service, but at the same time he maintains that public servants should get larger salaries.

The hon. member said: “We want a crash education programme for Blacks; no obstacle in their way like job reservation.” If we were to have the crash programme for Bantu education, where would the money come from? Will it come from the private sector, or will it come from the Government? The hon. member must tell me where the money will come from. The Government does everything in its power for education and schooling, much more than any Government has ever done in the past and a thousand times more than the UP did when it was still in power.

Hon. members of the Opposition try to make out that the Government does not spend enough money on the non-Whites of South Africa. I briefly analysed the Votes, and found that the expenditure, with regard to the Votes concerned mainly with the Whites, amounts to R727 million. There are, for instance, the Department of the Interior, the Public Service Commission, the Government Printer, Social Welfare, National Education, Sport, Tourism and Immigration. The amount of R727 million represents only 7,8% of the total budget. If I consider more closely the Votes like Bantu Administration, Bantu Education, Indian Affairs and Coloured Affairs and the statutory amounts paid over to the Bantu—I am leaving out quite a few and not taking any notice of them—I find that 13,7% of the total appropriation is budgeted for people of other colours.

That is nearly twice as much.

Yes, nearly twice as much. The rest of the Votes jointly amount to R7 576 million and represent 78,5% of the total budget. That amount concerns everyone in South Africa. Hon. members can check on that themselves. Let us consider defence. That is, by the way, the largest single item. My question is: Who benefits the most from defence in this country—we or the non-Whites? Proportionally each man’s life is as precious to him as that of the next.

[Inaudible.]

The Defence Force protects everyone in the country, even that hon. member with his big mouth. In other words, it is true that proportionally the Bantu benefit the most. The same applies to the police. In this way one can mention one item after another. Let me just refer, in passing, to public works, immigration, water affairs, transport and so forth. Every man or woman, White, Brown and Black, makes the same use of those services which are provided for them in South Africa. This continual agitation to the effect that consequently the Government does not do enough for the non-Whites, does not hold water. It will be a very good thing if hon. members on the other side would consider these matters for once.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti, as well as the hon. member for Constantia, maintained that the Government spends too much, that there should be limitations on certain expenditures and that the Government—they are running after Dr. Wassenaar, of course—is harming the private sector by over-spending. Where does the Government spend money, thereby adversely affecting the private sector? The Government has created the infrastructure over the past few years. The Government paid active attention to things like transport, telecommunications, water affairs, electricity supply, etc. The expenses involved generally have to be recovered from the taxpayer. The private sector, however, also needs the said services. For instance, no one can open a factory if he does not have the necessary transport facilities, electricity supply, water supply, etc., at his disposal.

The hon. member then claimed that the Government takes away too many qualified people from the private sector. What qualified people, what “skilled labour”, does the Government have? After all the hon. member did say the Government has “skilled labour” at its disposal. Where is it? As far as I know, there are many officials who improve their qualifications on a part-time basis. Show me one single factory, however, which does not have administrative personnel at, its disposal. The greater Public Service is an administrative organization. The hon. Opposition, however, cannot point out a single section of the private sector to me in which there is no administrative staff. Thus we can go through all the sections.

Only yesterday the Government was attacked, ostensibly because not enough immigrants, not enough workers are entering the Republic from abroad. Now the Government is being attacked because there is unemployment in the country. The claim is now being made that there are too many people. Only yesterday the hon. Opposition was complaining that there were not enough employees in the country.

I want to conclude because my chest hurts. In South Africa the Government did everything in its power to develop the economy. We heard of the policy of the hon. the Minister and the Government to protect South Africa’s balance of payments. If South Africa’s balance of payments drops to such an extent that it reaches the danger level, we shall not be able to settle our overseas debts and shall no longer be able to import. The Government, however, will never allow such a risk. As hon. members know, at the moment, things are going so smoothly, as a result of the hon. the Minister’s budget, that we have no reason for complaint. In support of the hon. the Minister I want to emphasize once again that in the months ahead—and, in any event, half the year is over already—we shall be seeing the balance of payments growing strongly. The balance of payments is growing and everything is going well with us. In this respect, however, I want to make an appeal to everyone in South Africa to play their part in damping the inflation rate.

We are very grateful to our employees for not having instituted renewed wage and salary claims. We are also grateful that companies limited themselves to reasonable profits. We want to ask these people: Keep your expenses low and please use your means of production more productively. If we talk of means of production we mean capital on the one hand and, on the other, minerals, raw materials, labour and “know-how.” All these production factors have to be used productively. Only then can one have economic growth and not, as those hon. members request, by negotiating more loans outside or doing something here or something there. The country can only have positive and extensive real growth if everyone co-operates. The hon. member said that Japan had had a growth rate of 10%, but that was years ago when the Republic of South Africa also had a growth rate of nearly 10%. What is Japan’s growth rate at the moment? The hon. member should also remember that Japan is a homogeneous nation and does not have ten different population groups as we have. In addition, one has to remember that the Japanese work two or three shifts, whereas we in South Africa work one shift. The Japanese are labour-orientated and they produce. The hon. member spoke about the private sector. It is no use if the public servants work every night and the private sector does not work.

A further request I should like to make is that our people in South Africa should please buy South African, not only with regard to consumer goods, but also with regard to capital goods which are now being imported from abroad. A great saving can take place in that respect. Many of the goods that we import can be produced or manufactured in South Africa. We can produce some of these intermediate goods ourselves, thus replacing our imports, and this in turn will benefit our balance of payments. Our own capital sources should be implemented more purposefully, specifically to provide the infrastructure of this country, and I am referring to things like transport, electricity, water and telecommunications services. I do not only ask that of the Government. The Government does it in any case. The Prime Minister and other hon. Ministers have spelt it out time and again. I am also making that request to the private sector. There are other hon. members who have also emphasized—we can never emphasize that enough—that all of us, the Government and the private sector, must have another look at where we can improve and where we can save.

With these few words I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the first-rate financial year we have had thus far, in the midst of problems, in spite of the PRP which is trying to place South Africa in the worst possible light abroad, and in spite of all kinds of disturbances on the local scene, disturbances in which we have noticed traces left by certain people. We want to say to them: “Be careful; you will not always escape the consequences. ”

Mr. Speaker, it is remarkable how, one after another the hon. members aspiring to Cabinet posts passionately took up the cudgels for the hon. the Minister of Finance. I trust that they will soon receive recompense for their loyalty.

The Third Reading differs from the Second Reading in this respect that, during the Second Reading, the Opposition refers to the utterances of the Government and the expectations they had created in respect of their policy, while during the Third Reading the Opposition has an opportunity of measuring the actions of the Government, using the expectations they had created as criterion. During the Third Reading we also have the opportunity to put further questions to the Government, and this is necessary, for the Government has failed and throughout this session consistently refused to give satisfactory replies to the fundamental questions put to them. Therefore the Third Reading debate is once again a debate during which questions are put. The question which must be put, is: Did the Government to any degree succeed in bringing about improvements as a result of the problems with which South Africa has been faced. Did they in any respect succeed in diminishing these problems, or have these problems in fact increased? When we look at South Africa’s problems, when we look at the failure of the Government to deal with the problems, when we look at the pitiable failure of the Government in respect of these problems, the question arises: Will the Government, before the end of this session be giving us in this House an exposition of their plans for the future, their plans to solve the questions facing South Africa? There is a pattern which can be espied throughout the actions of the Government. In the first place the Government makes promises and gives undertakings which creates expectations both inside South Africa and in the outside world. However, then they do not fulfil those expectations. We then find that people run out of patience both the people inside South Africa and those in the countries outside South Africa. And when at times the hope runs high that changes are going to be made, that the situation is going to change, that justice and fairness will be created in South Africa for all the population groups, and none of these things materialize, frustration inside and outside South Africa increases. That frustration is the cause of aggressive action and utterances inside South Africa against the Government and the White man, and outside South Africa against the country as such.

Unfortunately there are only a few Cabinet Ministers present tonight while we have to conduct this important debate. The hon. the Prime Minister is for instance not present to listen to what we say and to reply to our questions. However, what I want the Government to do, through the hon. the Minister, is to tell us whether they think that, in respect of the Western nations, we are today in a weaker position than we were last year. Did the Government make any headway in its attempts to persuade the Western nations that South Africa is on the right road? Do we not find ourselves in a much more difficult situation today because there is so much pressure on us? What is the situation in Africa? What has become of détente? What is South Africa’s position in respect of the African States today? Do we not find ourselves in a far more dangerous situation than before? Is there not greater pressure on South Africa today than there was a year ago? What is the situation in Rhodesia? Is it not significant that Mr. Smith in Rhodesia is prepared to make concessions and is making concessions in respect of a policy which is far to the left of the policy which his party has followed and which is even to the left of the policy of the Opposition parties in Rhodesia? Is it not significant that the hon. the Prime Minister had to make concessions in respect of South Africa under pressure of the outside world? This is something he said he would never do. It seems that he will have to accept policies and a political future for South West Africa which was complete unacceptable to the Nationalist Government a year ago. The question which I wish to put, is this: Can the Government not learn from the mistakes of our neighbouring States? Can the Government not learn from the mistakes made in Rhodesia and in South West Africa? Can the Government not realize that if one wants to bring about peaceful, consistent change, one has to start early with those changes?

To what do you wish to make changes?

Does that hon. member realize that if one wishes to bring about changes which will be successful and which will create stability, one must make those changes while one is in a strong position vis-á-vis the outside world? It must also be as a result of one’s own initiative and not as a result of pressure from the outside world. What is happening today, is the result of the fact that the Government waited too long with changes. They are now being forced to make concessions under pressure. When one does this it is impossible to bring about stable changes or to create a stable future.

See what you look like as a result of change!

The question which we wish to put to the Government, is this: Can the Government not learn from the mistakes made elsewhere in Africa? Can the Government not learn from the mistakes it itself made in South West Africa?

What is the position with the Government’s policy of separate development? What is the status of that policy today and how do we assess that policy? Is the policy succeeding or is it failing? Let us look at what happened when the Government came forward with legislation in respect of Bophuthatswana. Bophuthatswana sent the Government an ultimatum and said that they are in no way prepared to accept the Government’s policy or to accept independence in terms of the Government’s policy, unless the Government was prepared to bring about two major changes in that policy. The most important element is that of citizenship. Bophuthatswana put it very clearly to the Government that unless the Tswana citizens have the free individual choice to choose whether they wish to be citizens of Bophuthatswana or of South Africa, they will not accept independence. What will this mean to South Africa? There are now three alternatives. I should now like to know from the hon. the Minister, or from any of the hon. Ministers what will happen if the Government does not agree? The legislation has already been passed by this Government. Therefore the Government claims that independence will come about. However, the Government failed to reply to this Parliament or to South Africa with regard to what will happen. We wish to know whether the Government is going to yield, for if they do the policy of separate development is over and done with in any case. This will mean that millions of Tswana citizens will remain citizens of South Africa, and if this happens, the main objective of the policy to remove the Black man politically from South Africa, will have failed. However, if the Government does not yield, not another single Black State will accept independence, for they have now seen under which circumstances they have to accept independence and what rights they have to sacrifice—the rights of their citizens—as the price to be paid for independence.

What is the position of the Coloureds and the Indians? During the past few days there has been a very interesting debate in this House on the Coloureds. The Cabinet Council was discussed. The Government’s spokesmen contended that the Cabinet Council enables the Coloureds—and of course this also applies to the Indians—to realize their political aspirations. However, when one talks to the Coloureds and the Indians, one realizes that they do not for a moment believe that that Cabinet Council has any chance of granting them equal political rights, and this is what the Coloureds and the Indians would like to have. We see the tremendous confusion in the NP. [Interjections.] There is discord in the NP in respect of this very matter. During the past few days and weeks there has been a public controversy in the National Party and in their newspapers, and one is grateful for that. There are two clear standpoints.

The one standpoint is that of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. The hon. the Deputy Minister has suddenly emerged in public as the leader of the verkrampte wing of the NP. That hon. Deputy Minister says that neither the Coloured, the Indian nor the Black man in South Africa will be granted any opportunity to share power with the white man. They will under no circumstances be allowed to exercise joint power over matters of common interest in South Africa which also affect the White man. That hon. Deputy Minister has adopted a clear standpoint against any form of power-sharing. He sticks clearly, honestly and sincerely to his standpoint with regard to power-sharing. He says that the White man will always be master in White South Africa while the Black man, the Coloured and the Indian will unfortunately always have to be the servant. This is the policy of that hon. Deputy Minister. This is the only way in which one can interpret the words of that hon. Deputy Minister.

However, ranged against him there are other members in the NP, other leading personalities in that party who hold out the prospect of a different dispensation for the Coloured and the Indian. When I look around me, I see the hon. the Minister of National Education and Sport and Recreation, the Minister of Defence and other leading personalities, such as the editor of Die Transvaler. They are consistent in their argument that there should be joint decision-making on matters of common interest as far as the White man, the Coloured and the Indian are concerned. So we see that a definite difference of principle exists between these two groups and the NP. Can hon. members imagine for themselves the confusion this caused in the ranks of the Coloureds and the Indians.

Can hon. members imagine the confusion it created at this very stage where their political future in South Africa is in the balance? Is it too much to ask that one of these Ministers— for example the Minister of Defence, or the Prime Minister because he has taken a specific standpoint—must give South Africa and the Coloureds and the Indian clarity in respect of this matter? Is it too much to ask that this essential matter, this important fundamental matter, must be resolved and that the Government must give a final answer? Mr. Speaker, surely we cannot continue in this way. Surely we cannot continue with a Government that adopts two different courses, that publicly expounds two policies that are fundamentally different. We cannot build a political and constitutional future for South Africa on that basis. That is impossible. It causes confusion, it causes a loss of confidence and as a result of that the Government’s credibility suffers, I wish to put only one question and this is the most important aspect. In the debate on the Coloureds we spoke of sovereignty, whether the Coloureds are a nation or whether they are a nation-in-the-making. It is true that when the NP experiences problems in building out its policy, in explaining its policy, they get confused. They then try to camouflage the realities, the truths with all kinds of intellectual talk and all kinds of academical explanations and all kinds of terminologies. When the Government is not capable of giving a clear explanation in simple terms of what they have in view with their policy, of what is really going to happen with these people—and the Coloureds and the Indians wish to know what is going to happen to them, what their future is and what their rights are—then they camouflage and hide the truth with this ostensibly intellectual talk. The Coloureds and Indians are not interested in such stories. What they wish to know, Mr. Speaker, is this: Are we or are we not citizens of South Africa? Do I or dont’t I have normal and proper civil rights in South Africa? Can I lay claim to or can I not claim to the same education and teaching for my children as the White man? Can I or can I not lay claim to the same job opportunities? Can I live where I wish to live? Will I be a citizen of South Africa and will I have normal civil rights?

The most important thing the Coloureds and Indians wish to known is whether they will have the opportunity, or whether the mechanism will be created for them to call those who govern them, to account for their actions and deeds. They want to know: If the Government does something which is against my interest and harms me, can I call that Government to account? Can we call the White nation and the Government to account if they do something that is not in our interest? Can we vote against those people and replace them with another Government? How can the Coloured, if his four walls are moved from one area to the other under the Group Areas Act, with no regard to the problems of the heartbreak and the pain that it causes, call to account the people responsible for that, in other words, the White Government—for what they have done? How can the Coloured call the Government to account if the Government does not create the same educational opportunities for his child as those that exist for the White man? How can the Coloured call the Government to account if, for example, the Government, against his will, involves South Africa in a war or plunges South Africa into problems by way of taxation or other financial measures? How can the Coloured call the Government to account? The answer is very simple. In terms of the present dispensation he cannot do so. He can tell his representative in the Cabinet Council to speak politely to the White masters and to tell them that they do not like what they are doing. But he cannot really do anything to call them to account, for they do not have the mechanism by way of franchise or their constitutional system to really be able to do so.

The same applies to the Indians. My standpoint is that the Government cannot bluff the people any longer. It will not succeed in constantly bluffing them. It must tell them very clearly what their position is and what their rights and their future are. They wish to know whether the Government will create a system—whatever the structure of the system may be—in which real and just power-sharing will take place. Are they going to be granted the opportunity to call the Government to account?

I also wish to refer to the urban Blacks. The hon. the Minister of National Education and of Sport and Recreation said that it is clear that as far as the urban Blacks are concerned, a new dispensation will have to be created for them. However, the Government did not react to this. From the hon. the Prime Minister we get the standpoint that the Government has concluded its thinking on the future of the Blacks and that the urban Blacks have to find their political salvation in the homelands where, according to NP policy, they belong. There were also other people, among them editors of the NP, who said that a so-called new political dispensation had to be found for the urban Blacks in a so-called White South Africa to grant them political rights of some kind or other. Is it too much to ask the Government to give a final decision in this regard now? We want to know. Most important of all is that the Blacks and the outside world also wish to know this, for the future of South Africa and the attitude and the approach of the outside world depends on this. It is not a disgrace if the Government freely admits that they have made mistakes, that their policy has failed in some respects and that grave problems have arisen. I will accept this if the Government does this and we will help them to find the correct answers.

There are six months ahead before the next Parliamentary session. The question which I wish to put to the Government, is how they are going to utilize those six months to devise new plans, new strategies and new alternatives which they wish to put to South Africa during the next Parliamentary session. Is the Government going to plod and struggle and stumble along with its head in the sand and come up with the same old ideas or are they going to say that they are going to do a re-think, are going to work out new ideas and that they will acknowledge all population groups in South Africa in creating new ideas, policies, strategies and objectives for South Africa? Is the Government going to do this or not? Are we going to get a programme of new ideas and thoughts from the hon. the Prime Minister at the next Parliamentary session or is the Government going to come up with the same hackneyed ideas of the past?

There are three principles that are important in this regard, principles which the Government can to my mind accept as basis. Joint decision-making on the common future of the Black man, the Coloured and the White man in South Africa, is an essential and fundamental principle which the Government will have to accept. If they do not accept this today, they will have to accept it in future. The Government has accepted it for South West Africa. It is absolutely inevitable that the Government will also have to accept it here.

The second principle is that the White man has an absolute right to survival in South Africa. He has the right to maintain himself, his standards and his future in South Africa. Everyone in this country will abide by the fundamental principle that the future and the survival of the White man is not negotiable in negotiations between the Black man and the White man in respect of South Africa’s future. In the same way it is clear that the Black man is not prepared to create a future for South Africa on the basis of negotiations and consensus, unless it means that in that future all forms of discrimination based on race or colour, will be eliminated. If the Government is prepared to utilize the next six months to design a new series of objectives, a new strategy and a new programme of ideas on that basis, they will find that when they submit it to Parliament and to South Africa, there will be support, enthusiasm, strength and energy from all sides in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, if it will not be wasting my time, I should like to give the hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, a little advice. The first time we heard of the hon. member and his three compatriots, they were the men who were bringing about changes in the UP. We know their history; we know how these people got their noses bloodied and eventually ended up with the Progressive Party. I wish to predict that, with the leaders they have, that hon. member and his people who share his views, will one of these days be “to Hel(1)en gone”. I wish to tell the hon. member in all kindness that those of us who have been in this House a little longer than he, can give him very good advice. He put many questions tonight about many things which he finds unclear and confusing. I want to give him advice, good advice I received when I came to this Parliament …

You take my advice, then I’ll take yours.

Mr. Speaker, I said at the outset that I did not wish to waste my breath, but had the hon. member, when he came to the House, sat quietly and modestly in his backbench and listened as I did, he would in my opinion have been considerably wiser tonight. Had he done this, he would perhaps have understood the policy of the NP and he would have been able to make a contribution in respect of his own party. However, right from the start the hon. member put his view very vociferously and with great bravado here. He tried to convince us in this House of his viewpoint. This is where the hon. member made his mistake. He should put his viewpoint to the voters of South Africa. If he can convince them, they will strengthen him in the House and he can have his own way. However, he has no respect for other people’s opinions; he does not even have any self-respect.

You are very insulting.

Yes, I am also coming to that hon. member in a moment.

That is fine. Get a move on, will you; I am waiting.

The hon. member for Bryanston started off by saying that members waiting for Cabinet posts, defended the hon. the Minister in a touching manner. The hon. member is always attaching to another man’s actions something other than he intended.

He has ulterior motives. He is judging another by his standards.

Sir, I am giving the hon. member for Bryanston good advice. He must keep a little quieter and listen more, for then he will make greater progress in politics.

I think that applies to you.

Yes, the hon. member would do well to listen. He can put his viewpoint to the voters outside and pursuade them. It is not the hon. member’s duty to convince us here. I have never heard a minority viewpoint put so noisily as we hear from the hon. members in the House. While we on this side of the House put our viewpoints calmly, after careful consideration and in wisdom, we must always sit here and listen to the minority viewpoint of the hon. members which they cannot manage to sell to the voters. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, do you know what our dilemma in this country is? Our dilemma is that people such as this hon. member and his fellow party members, as well as the hon. members of the official Opposition cannot speak on behalf of their own people, the Whites, in Parliament. If hon. members should analyse the policy of the NP, they will find that we are moving in the direction where the White man speaks on his own behalf, the Coloured speaks on his own behalf and the Indian speaks on his own behalf. [Interjections.] The dilemma is that the hon. members abuse the freedom that they have. The hon. member has just said that his party “proved the basic freedom in South Africa” because they can say what they like. That is our dilemma. After we as the NP had concluded our discussions with Chief Mangope, there was nothing wrong, but after these hon. member had spoken …

That is an insult to Chief Minister Mangope.

No, the hon. member has accused the Government of confusion, but it is he who is confusing people. [Interjections.] The hon. member can kick up a row if he likes; I shall be coming to him in a minute.

The NP is now in its 30th year of government. This is an achievement which, to my knowledge, cannot be surpassed in the Free World. During these 30 years the NP has notched up one achievement after another in South Africa. With the means at our disposal in the economic field and as a result of the chaotic state of affairs in the political field, we have taken from people, but we have also given to them. In the political field we tried to give each person his own identity by providing him with a platform from which he can speak.

As long as he does not speak too loudly.

The NP tried to create a platform for each population group in South Africa from which he can put his viewpoint so that one does not get a confusing and distorted viewpoint as we heard from the hon. members in respect of the Coloureds and the Indians. They said nothing about the urban Bantu and the rural Bantu. They must simply be left out in the cold. In the political field the NP created the opportunity for each person and we shall continue creating it in the future. However, we must deal with the means at our disposal and we must also act in spite of an Opposition that is like a millstone round one’s neck and shackles on one’s legs.

When we come to an important debate such as this, after we have discussed all the Votes, one fact runs through the sources quoted and the debating of the hon. members on this side of the House like a golden thread: The NP has ensured to the security of the country. The NP took many measures and used a lot of money to do this. By way of this budget we will be spending money, but the Opposition members do not always approve of this and therefore they are very critical. The NP has constantly tried to put the progress of South Africa above all else, in spite of the many problems which we experience in various fields. However, our basic point of departure has always been that there must be progress and a growth rate must be maintained which is as high as possible, so that we can implement our splendid policy in respect of all the inhabitants of our country. We also tried to maintain peace, not only internally, but also in the whole of Southern Africa. The Government and the hon. the Prime Minister—thank God for the Prime Minister we have—did everything in their power to bring about these good things. What did we get from the Opposition?

Good advice!

Throughout the discussions and up to the Third Reading which we are dealing with tonight, the good and idealistic things came from this side of which I am a member and the future of South Africa in various fields has been spelt out. However, from the other side of the House the thought has been expressed—I am now going to say this and hon. members must take their medicine—of an unequalled hatred towards the NP. [Interjections.] There are some of the English-speaking members on that side of the House and also the hon. member for Yeoville who hates the fact that the Boers are governing this country and that the Afrikaners form the Government. That is so, is it not?

You are a hater of the English!

I cannot mention the name of one English-speaking member in the House who regarded the hon. the Minister of Finance with sympathy. Every time when an English-speaking member comes to the NP, the English-speaking hon. members on that side of the House try to run him down. Not only do they hate the NP, but they also hate the English-speaking person who joins the NP. [Interjections.] This is disgraceful and I say it bluntly. Hon. members can investigate this matter for themselves and ask themselves whether it is so or not. Let us look at the speech by the hon. the Minister of Finance. The hon. the Minister is English-speaking and I, as an Afrikaans-speaking person, am very proud of the fact that he is on our side of the House. In his speech on 7 February the hon. the Minister covered a wide field. I see the hon. member for Yeoville is leaving the House—he may as well go and have some coffee. The hon. the Minister said, inter alia, the following in his speech (Hansard, col. 884)—

[Interjections.] Hon. members would do well to listen, it would do them good. He went on to say—

In this way the hon. the Minister began to introduce the new item in his speech to us. He started with the unfavourable aspects thereof. He continued—

Then I come to the paragraph which the hon. member for Vereeniging quoted so effectively here. In it the hon. the Minister said—

I wish to state categorically that the hon. the Minister gave a broad outline of the situation in South Africa as it really was. What happened then? The hon. Opposition came here and implied that all capital flow to South Africa had dried up.

Surely that is an old story.

Yes, it is good that hon. members listen to the old stories again.

We have debated them for three hours!

That is quite correct, we have already debated this, but we have not yet debated the section which I am discussing now. The hon. the member for Johannesburg North is a descendant of a once proud nation, the English nation … [Interjections.]

He is Scottish.

Yes, a Scot. I think that was a proud nation. They are still proud today and I wish to honour him for that. The hon. member reacted in his speech to that which the hon. the Minister said, and he said the following—

And then the Speaker called him to order. My contention is that that hon. member, someone who is English speaking, came here with malice aforethought to accuse the hon. Minister, who is also English speaking, deliberately and directly, right at the start, in the first case of dishonesty …

Oh, leave the question of the language!

No, let us face the facts.

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

No, the hon. member can make his own speech. [Interjections.] Let us call a spade a spade. These things go far deeper than the ordinary man sees. Therefore it is correct that we disclose them. When the Speaker called the hon. member to order, and when he was not allowed to say what he wanted to say, he followed his speech of 14 February by a Press statement. He knew, in so doing, he was safe. However, here in the House he is called to order. When the hon. the Minister tried in all fairness to explain this part of his speech, which was wrested completely out of context by the hon. Opposition—by alleging that the inflow of foreign capital to South Africa has dried up—and tried to ward off the attack on him, this hon. member alleged that the hon. the Minister wrested things out of context “in a wholly unjustifiable manner to prove his case”.

“Let me quote some figures which indicate the volume of foreign capital we have received during the last nine or ten years.” I am quoting from the speech by the hon. the Minister of Finance on 14 February this year in the House. The figures quoted by the hon. the Minister are quite correct. He added that he had certain preliminary figures for the last quarter of 1976. The figures released by the Reserve Bank proved that the Minister was quite correct. It later became apparent that those figures were more favourable than the hon. the Minister initially mentioned. Therefore it is out of the question that the hon. the Minister tried to mislead the House or anyone else. However, hon. members of the Opposition parties must now pluck the fruits of their actions. Instead of debating the figures given by the hon. the Minister, as responsible people would do, they wrest everything completely out of context. However, the hon. the Minister gave them decisive replies and they saw that they could not achieve anything, the Press was approached. The results of that is well known. I know we have reached the stage where a complete reappraisal of the various political parties in South Africa is necessary. I believe that we must tell our people that when it is a question of choosing sides for South Africa, of making sacrifices, and of doing good things for South Africa, it is only the NP … [Interjections.] that fulfills its duty; then the PRP and the UP are conspicuous by their absence. They seem to find pleasure in attacking South Africa directly in order to get at the NP in that manner—at least, that is what they think. [Interjections.]

If the hon. the member for Bryanston and certain hon. members had only listened to what the policy of the NP is, they could have argued with the NP purely on a policy basis. However, now they wish to argue with the NP on the basis of their own policy. However, they follow a policy which the NP is not prepared to accept, a policy which the NP will not touch with a barge-pole. The NP is governing this country during the first month of its thirtieth year in office in this country, under very difficult circumstances, not only abroad, but also internally. We will continue along the road taken because we have a policy which we can spell out from A to Z, which can give every person, every population group, that which he loves and also that which is dear to it.

We claim our own identity and sovereignty over our own matters for the White man in South Africa. It is our policy to grant the same to every other population group. The NP will make that its endeavour and during the next 30 and 40 years we will progress along this road, in spite of the Opposition. The Opposition can come along, they can put their policy to the voters outside time and time again, but in this House I think we will no longer take notice of a minority viewpoint which is put in such a vociferous manner. In the interests of South Africa, in the interests of all our population groups, attention will have to be given to that which the NP does. The least they can do, is to acknowledge the honesty of our policy and also to acknowledge this to the other people outside and not always present it in a distorted way and cause confusion.

May the day soon arrive when we in South Africa have progressed so far that the White man can discuss his own matters in this Parliament, the Coloured can discuss his matters in his Parliament and the Indian can discuss his matters in his Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Heilbron will pardon me if I bring the debate back to the sphere in which it belongs, namely in the field of the hon. the Minister of Finance. I think that I may say to the hon. the Minister of Finance that despite the comments by the hon. member for Heilbron, he and I as English-speaking people did come from the same university, have been in the same school of economics and do not have that feeling of “boerehaat” as purported by the hon. member for Heilbron. There are a million reasons why we should return the debate to the economic field. There are a million Blacks struggling in a field of unemployment who are voteless. There are at least 50 000 White and Coloured people in South Africa who would like their voice to be heard in the economic field in this House. For that reason I believe that we in the UP, who have now put in three speakers in the field of economics and finance, make the point that in every village, every hamlet, every town and every city in South Africa people are struggling with a sense of economic insecurity. Large businesses are struggling because they see their cash flows deteriorating. In the field of the building industry there is a recession and in the motor industry thousands of men are being put off; there is a recession and the cash flows have deteriorated completely. In the clothing industry people are being put off daily, and when we talk about people being put off, it does not merely mean picking up their hats as in the old days and moving to a new job; they move into the field of social insecurity and unemployment, a field in which their loved ones, their families and their children face the stark realities of not being able to find food from one day to the other. Therefore I say to the hon. the Minister of Finance that what this debate is about today is the speech of the hon. the Minister in the budget debate on 30 March this year, as an on-going development of Government policy. At the time, the hon. the Minister indicated that we were being buffeted by both political and economic storms, and he was entirely right. He has been a Minister in this House for some years now, and in 1975 the hon. the Minister had the misfortune to have to present to South Africa a situation in which the economy was similarly threatened.

Hon. members in this House will recall that we had to devalue the rand in September 1975 by 17,9%. The official reason given then was the need to strengthen the balance of payments and to prevent the economy from slowing down. The hon. the Minister indicated at the time that in his belief he would achieve the results which he sought. He indicated that there should be no diminution in the general standard of living of all South Africans and that the economy should pick up very rapidly. It may have been a once only episode but as an on-going development, the hon. the Minister will admit that some two years later the economy in our country, with all its assets, is still facing a balance of payments problem, is still facing the fact that we cannot raise all the foreign exchange that we need and that our growth figure is virtually zero. The public life of our country is such that even a newspaper such as Die Burger has indicated that we are getting poorer as we remain Whiter. Only this week Die Burger wrote with regard to the economic development plan of the Government that it is clear that we will not exceed a growth rate of 5% in the current five years, that the standard of living of the average South African will decline in the years up to 1981 and that an austere and more frugal existence is in prospect for us. The paper states that we are in the midst of punishment we have brought upon ourselves and that painful adjustments individually, institutionally and nationally are being forced upon us by necessity. We have sown the wind and are now reaping a whirlwind in which many innocent ones will suffer. This is the light in which Die Burger sees our present economic situation. No less an authority than Prof. Tusenius sees it in the following light—

Against this background I believe that South Africa is looking to the hon. the Minister to indicate in his reply to the Third Reading what progress has been made as a result of measures introduced in the budget. He should also tell us a little more than we are told in regard to the economic development plan as produced by the economic adviser to the hon. the Prime Minister. This most recent plan, covering the years 1975 to 1981, became available to this hon. House after the Votes of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Finance had been dealt with. This is therefore the first time that we can debate it. In the previous economic development plan, the office of the economic adviser to the hon. the Prime Minister stated that they had reached the conclusion that the South African economy had the ability to grow at an average rate of 6,4% during the period 1974 to 1979. The Government accepted the recommendations of the Economic Advisory Council and indicated that, as in the past, it would, endeavour, to the best of its ability, to create the climate which would be necessary for the attainment of this target growth rate. I think we must admit that circumstances, perhaps overseas and perhaps political, have been against us. It is now indicated that in the five years that lie ahead, of which two have already passed, we can only hope that the maximum optimum growth rate that will be attained, will be 5%. It has, however, been indicated by the economic adviser to the hon. the Prime Minister that it is more likely that we will be operating on a growth rate of 3% to 4%. In view of the fact that our population is likely to double by the end of the century, this figure is completely unacceptable.

We find comments such as the following in the Press. In a report under the heading “Werkloses kan na 10% styg” we find comment such as the following—

Against this stark economic fact we have to realize that in the position that we are facing, social insecurity and racial insecurity are problems which must be given most serious consideration not only by hon. members on the Government benches but by all sides of the House. In the economic field we have a duty not to play petty politics in this debate but to realize that we represent the people of South Africa, the Europeans, the Indians, the non-Europeans and the Africans. It is our country and it is their country whose economic future is being discussed here. I believe that I have a right to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance why it is that the Government have not been able to come forward with a long-term plan to highlight and indicate clearly to South Africa the economic and political priorities which will secure our medium-and long-term future, and I talk of a period of 5 to 10 years. There is no business in this country of any merit that does not take an annual look at its situation and chart its forward progress to see that at least its cash flow and its overall decisions take account of future trends. I believe that we are being criminally irresponsible in not announcing some measures to take recognition of the fact that with our tremendous population explosion, we must act in this direction. It is no good merely saying that we shall have to find job opportunities for 1 500 persons per day until the end of the century. We should be deciding whether it is not right and fitting to recognize that perhaps our greatest political problem is the population explosion.

You are right. I fully agree with you.

We have had calls from commerce and industry on a number of occasions indicating that the situation is so serious that we should bring to our assistance people of top-ranking ability, efficiency and entrepreneurship. I am referring to people from commerce and industry, people from both sides of the political fence. I was sorry that some weeks ago the hon. the Prime Minister, in relation to Dr. Wassenaar’s comments in his book Assault on Private Enterprise, ridiculed the idea of consulting private enterprise. We have the director of Assocom, Mr. Raymond Parsons, and Prof. Tusenius indicating that private enterprise has a fundamental role to play in helping the State to solve the overall problem of our economy. I believe that this is a matter that should receive the most serious consideration of the hon. the Minister of Finance. After all, the gravamen of the charge which we, on this side of the House, have raised today is that there is a lack of confidence in our present-day economic sphere. I need only indicate what is being said in Bonn about the South African economy and German investment in this country to illustrate how serious is the impact of this lack of confidence in our economy, both in the external field and in the local field. I quote from an article in the Sunday Times of 7 November 1976—

The article goes on to state—

This is one of the fields, amongst many others, in which we are losing our potential foreign investment. I therefore believe that it is necessary for us in South Africa to take a fresh look at the relationship between private enterprise and commerce and industry. I believe it is only right to say that at the University of Stellenbosch there have been symposiums. Only last week at the University of Cape Town there was also a symposium about The Private Market and the State, a symposium addressed by Lord Robins, by Prof. Hunt who had returned to this country after many years in America where he is recognized as a leading economist, by Mr. Len Arendse, by our own Mr. Gerald Brown, Secretary for Finance, and by Mr. Raymond Ackerman. At this symposium it was indicated that business realizes that the extent of our economy today is so vast that there must be a partnership between Government and private enterprise in the entrepreneurial field. It was also recognized that the State has its role to play but that where a misdirection of total resources occurs because the market mechanism and the disciplines of the market are ignored, the economic machine can only suffer. There was criticism. The hon. the Minister himself will know that the means he has employed in this budget to direct the investment funds of building societies, pension funds and insurance companies has been subjected to criticism.

If we are to be a strong economy, and if we are to have the economic strength to produce a defence mechanism that can mean something in the defence of our borders, we have to ensure that the private enterprise system produces overall wealth not only to create investment capital, which is now in short supply from overseas, not only to reward the worker and the investor in capital itself as compensation for the risk factor, but also to have enough left to ensure that the coffers of the Government will have the necessary funds. At the moment we are suffering from a rate of inflation that is extremely worrying. The hon. the Minister of Finance will recognize that this inflation rate embodies a built-in personal income tax contribution to the Government, and we must never overlook that fact. Because of our system of income tax, as people move from one position in the job hierarchy to another their tax becomes more whilst their real income and the purchasing power of their money does not. As the rate of inflation therefore increases, the Government, by drawing directly from the public in the form of direct taxation, is benefiting its coffers. We therefore ask the hon. the Minister of Finance, in his reply to this debate, please to tell the people of South Africa how far we have come in balancing the books of our great country and to tell us when he envisages our being able to promote manufacturing enterprise so as again to stimulate employment, thus moving away from the state of dire distress in which so many of our people are living.

Mr. Speaker …

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon. the Deputy Minister at such an early stage of his speech, but the House must adjourn.