Mr. Speaker, with your leave I should like to make the following statement: In terms of the provisions of Act No. 40 of 1974, the remuneration of members of Parliament and of office-bearers of Parliament has been adjusted on the same basis as in the case of the remuneration of civil servants. Emoluments of members of the CRC, the Indian Council, members of the homeland Governments, Administrators, provincial councillors and members of statutory boards and others have also been adjusted. In terms of section 14(1) of the Constitution a motion will be introduced to determine the salary of the State President. As regards the remuneration of judges, legislation has already been introduced.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, we have already had ample opportunity in this debate to listen to hon. speakers on the Opposite side. Apart from a few exceptions the general tone of the debate as conducted by the Opposition, was extremely pessimistic. For example, let us take the speech made by the hon. member for Parktown last night. He states, quite correctly, that the most important matter in the economy today is confidence. The watchword in the South African economy must be confidence. However, when one reads the hon. member’s speech, one gains an impression of anything but confidence in the future of South Africa. For example, the hon. member for Parktown goes on to point out that, as a result of the scenario of unemployment, and due to the capital inflow to South Africa, we are moving in the direction of a siege economy. At least this is how the hon. member refers to it. He calls it a siege economy.

His speech is definitely an example of lack of confidence in the future of this country. By the way, the hon. member is also of the opinion that he could have won back foreign confidence in South Africa by means of a little tokenism. He mentioned in his speech that it would have been ideal for us to have had just a few Black faces in this House. The hon. member for Parktown thinks that he will be able to bluff the world and artificially restore the world’s confidence in South Africa by means of that tokenism. The hon. member for Parktown suggests that we are moving towards a collapse of our free market mechanism. By the way, he also says in his speech that the free market system will collapse should a siege economy arise.

This is the hon. member who says that it is necessary for the South African economy to generate confidence and in the same breath says that the situation in South Africa is becoming so untenable that our whole system is ultimately going to collapse. Apparently the hon. member has not yet altered the point of view he adopted at the end of last year, when he said that, looking clinically at South Africa, he would not invest here if he was a foreign investor. This is if he took a clinical look at South Africa. This is the problem of the hon. member for Parktown, and also the problem of his party. In his years as a doctor he apparently did not learn that when one takes a clinical look at someone, one can learn a great deal about his lungs and his muscles, but nothing about his spirit and his soul. That is the trouble with the hon. member and his party. They want to look at South Africa so clinically that they do not learn anything about the will and the soul of the people of this country.

The idiom says: “Confidence breeds confidence.” Confidence grows from people’s desire to overcome. The hon. member for Parktown—unfortunately he is not present now—who wants to look at South Africa so clinically, should rather turn round a little and ask the hon. member for Yeoville, two benches behind him, if Israel would be a country in which one should like to invest if one looks at it clinically. Perhaps he should ask that question of the hon. member for Johannesburg North, because I understand he wants to buy a piece of land there. That really shows confidence! [Interjections.]

Sir, the positions of South Africa and Israel are not entirely comparable, but there is one sphere in which South Africa resembles Israel, and this is that just like them, we are involved in an intense struggle for survival, if their struggle for survival is not even greater than ours. But, Sir, if one meets an Israeli and talks to him about his country and the future of that country, one is impressed by the fact that that man has a will to survive and that he has confidence in the future of his country. One does not hear the negative noises emanating an opposition party in that country which the world has to hear from our Opposition party in South Africa. Sir, I do not hold it against the Opposition if they criticise the Government and make positive suggestions. It is their task as an Opposition to do so. It is just a pity that one does not hear more positive speeches, like the one which the hon. member for Yeoville made yesterday. Even though there are aspects in his speech which one can differ with, I think that there are other hon. members who could take a leaf from his book, because he sounded a positive note on the future of South Africa. I believe we have reached a point where we must state very clearly that the systematic undermining of confidence in the future of South Africa is nothing but a form of serious sabotage. This holds good on all levels and it also holds good for politicians who do not hesitate to criticize just as they wish. I am not asking that we should close our eyes to reality. As far as the reality of South Africa is concerned, there are many things which are not right and which must be rectified. That is what the Government wants to do. The Government is not unaware of many of the things which must be rectified. But, Sir, when one makes speeches which begin to undermine the resoluteness of one’s people, one is playing with one’s own future. I think that hon. members on the other side of the House could very well take a leaf from a publication by the Nedbank group, entitled “South Africa—an appraisal: The sovereign risk criteria”. In the introduction to this book, it is stated that the report was compiled in an effort to inform those who are looking for information on South Africa. I quote from the introduction—

Perhaps the hon. member for Parktown should have read this report before he made his speech last year. Sir, this report does not try to defend the Government. It voices many criticisms, but it nevertheless tries to make an objective assessment of the South African society and the South African economy. In the chapter on the political scenario there is a full discussion of all the aspects concerning politics. On page 190, after an extensive examination of a standpoint adopted by Mr. Percy Qoboza, this publication says—

Surely this is a very positive judgment on the South African economy, which testifies to much greater confidence than one hears from that side of the House. The speech by the hon. member for Parktown, which I have already referred to, in which he refers to a “siege economy”, a kraal economy in which the free market mechanism is in danger of collapsing, is, after all, not a suggestion which will make investment in South Africa attractive to a foreigner. When, as a political frontbencher in Parliament and a director of one of the largest companies in the country, one suggests that there is a possibility of the free market system collapsing in that country, one is definitely not creating confidence in the future of that country. It is this type of irresponsible suggestion which is undermining confidence in South Africa.

Reference has often been made in the debate up to now to the lack of capital. The hon. member for Parktown even spoke about “no capital”. Indeed, the hon. the Minister asked him by way of an interjection why he says “without capital”, meaning without foreign capital. The hon. member for Parktown is suggesting that we are entering a phase in which we are not going to receive any foreign capital. Surely this is not true. We can criticize in this country, but we must just try to maintain the right perspective. No one will deny that a tremendous outflow of capital has taken place over the past few years. Although this is probably due chiefly to political factors like political pressure, this is not, however, the only reason. It is therefore unfair to say that political conditions have deteriorated to such an extent that this outflow of capital will continue until we reach a point where there will no longer be any foreign capital available.

Let us just take a look at a few arguments which will at least place the question of foreign capital in a better perspective. There are also other factors which have had an influence on the availability of foreign capital in South Africa.

In the first place, for example, it is no secret that doubt began to arise amongst the major Western countries about their loans to under-developed countries. Although South Africa cannot be classified as an under-developed country, due to our dualistic economy, nevertheless we cannot entirely escape the aura of underdeveloped countries. These doubts or misgivings entertained by Western countries in respect of their investments in underdeveloped countries definitely also had an influence upon the investments being made in Africa, and in South Africa too.

The second factor is that there was a very strong inflow of foreign capital into South Africa in the early seventies. This meant that bankers and other financial institutions were exposed to certain factors in South Africa, a state of affairs which was accentuated with time. I think any investor will concede that it is a normal pattern of investment that investments do not just continue, but that any investor also takes a break at some stage in order to see how his investments are getting on. I believe that this is the case in South Africa too.

The third aspect is that the present protracted, deep economic recession in the world has resulted in a drop in the yield on capital, that profits have dropped and that a climate has been created in which investors obviously do not act as aggressively, not only in respect of South Africa, but throughout the world.

A fourth point is that there was a very strong inflow of capital into South Africa in the early ’seventies due to the start of a number of massive capital projects which were in fact aimed at improving our infrastructure and increasing our export capacity. Most of those large projects have now been completed, and this will also be reflected in the capital position. I am starting these factors so that they may be borne in mind when the capital situation is assessed, so that we shall not be so quick to say that the present circumstances arose wholly and entirely as a result of political circumstances.

Fortunately investors who look at South Africa, do not only look at it through the politically tinted spectacles of the PFP. They also look objectively at South Africa and see the tremendous economic possibilities in this country. They also see White, Coloured and Black leaders in this country who have the will to avoid the terrible alternatives, to which our hon. Prime Minister has already referred, and to create a future which will hold prosperity and peace for all. After all, this approach by foreign investors is obvious from the fact that a man like Mr. Henry Ford could say, after an investigatory visit to South Africa, that not only was he going to live in South Africa, but he was also going to increase his capital investment here. A firm like BMW did the same, at a time in which, if one looked too clinically at South Africa, one could possibly come to the conclusion, as the hon. member for Parktown did, that it would be better not to invest. In a time like this these bodies and persons come and invest on a large scale. Let us in South Africa, including those of us here in Parliament, differ on many matters, but let us not differ on the fact that we want to remain in this country and that we must keep the morale of our people high in order to have the will to survive.

Nobody who knows anything about the economy, will deny that we are experiencing a very difficult economic phase at the moment. We are experiencing an economic downswing with problems like inflation and unemployment, which are definitely being aggravated to a certain extent by the present political climate. However, the economy is of a cyclic nature and that is why one must be careful not to have too much of a short-term view of the economy. In this regard I really want to thank the hon. the Minister for not yielding to the pressure of people who wanted him to stimulate the economy merely for the sake of cyclic advantages. There are many good reasons why it is not desirable to stimulate the economy at the moment. We are paying off our short-term debt. The hon. the Minister of Finance also referred to this. We must also accept that our exports will not earn so much foreign currency this year. This is largely due to a levelling off in demand as a result of the world recession. Furthermore, our net foreign currency is still at too low a level for any domestic stimulation. In addition, the danger of inflation is still facing us and if inflation, which is a cost-push inflation at the moment, is combined with a stimulation of demand and wage demands are made on top of that, we will have a mixture which could cause inflation to reach dangerous heights.

Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes which I still have at my disposal, I should like to come to one remedial aspect of our present situation. The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke referred to it yesterday. This is that we have a situation in South Africa where unemployment is not only a cyclical phenomenon, but where structural causes for unemployment can also be shown. For instance, one thinks of the fact that due to the limelight which fell on wages in South Africa in the early ’seventies, there were tremendous adjustments to the wage structures of Black and Coloured workers in particular. As far as the socio-political aspect is concerned, we definitely all welcome this and are grateful for it, but it also brought about a structural change in the South African economy. Wages were increased, but instead of the same number of workers being employed, the result was that wages remained constant while the number of workers slowly decreased. In other words, instead of a business employing 100 workers at a specific wage, it paid its workers more and tried to increase their productivity, and therefore employed only 75 workers. This is only one of the structural problems which causes unemployment in South Africa. The most important is perhaps that we in South Africa tend to substitute capital for labour, which has been proved over the past ten to 15 years by the way in which investment took place here. While we in South Africa in fact have a relatively ample supply of cheap labour at our disposal, it nevertheless seems that because we are so much oriented towards the major Western countries with which we have favourable ties that we have modelled ourselves upon them to too great an extent, so that we have developed on a capital-intensive basis, whereas we should really have utilized the reserves of our large number of labourers and should have adapted our economy in this way on a more labour-intensive basis.

As far as our exports, too, are concerned, it is difficult for the exporter in South Africa to compete on the world market, the international market, with countries which enjoy an abundance of capital and modern technology. Therefore, we must make better use of the means of production which we have in abundance, namely labour, so that we can compete with those countries more effectively. I believe that the time is now ripe for the private sector, in co-operation with the Government, to tackle a programme to adapt our economic development so as to overcome this structural deficiency. In this way our development will no longer be predominantly capital-intensive, but instead we shall be able to utilize the vast reserves of labour available here, and in this way stimulate labour-intensive industries.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the particular circumstances which the hon. the Minister of Finance has had to contend with, I should like to congratulate him sincerely on what has been achieved. I also wish to pay special tribute to Mr. Gerald Brown and to convey my thanks to Dr. De Loor and his colleagues.

It is a fact that the field of finance and economics is one in which one can always express a lot of criticism. But it is also true that it is very difficult to come forward with well motivated plans in order to improve on those things which such people as these have already done.

They have succeeded to a great extent in bringing our balance of payments problems under control; they have curbed inflation and they have begun to establish a pattern on which further growth, expansion and development can be based. The current account has shown an almost dramatic reversal—if the calculation is correct, to an amount of approximately R2,5 billion. Notwithstanding the large amounts which have unavoidably had to be spent on defence, the amount of money in circulation has been properly kept under control. If inflation is taken into account, then Government expenditure has hardly increased during the past two years. The fiscal and monetary measures have had their effect and imports have declined. Despite the capital inflow/outflow situation it was nevertheless possible to repay certain short-term obligations. This was no mean achievement and brought us very good publicity in very important quarters.

The appointment of the De Kock Commission and the Mostert Commission is a commendable step. It should have been done long ago.

The shift in emphasis from recessionary conditions to conditions of moderate stimulation was brought about by an injection of R250 million in respect of non-White housing, and the moderate increases in the remuneration of civil servants, which meant a further expenditure of approximately R250 million. These measures may mean the turn of the tide in our recessionary conditions, that is to say if the psychological aspects and the question of sentiment can be corrected. I should like to return to this a little later.

No matter how good it is to compare ourselves with Western countries or with countries of the Third World, the fact remains that South Africa has unique assets and that South Africa also has unique problems. On account of that, we differ from other countries in many respects. I firmly believe that we shall frequently find it necessary to make use of unorthodox methods as well to safeguard our future and to ensure maximum prosperity. We shall have to guard against adhering to rigidly to purely traditional and stereotyped methods. In this connection it is true, inter alia, that in our country, unemployment is a more explosive element than in other countries. At the present time, we ought to treat the question of unemployment as one of our top priorities.

There are few things which are mentally and physically so demoralizing and which can be so quickly conducive to crime and malpractices as unemployment. I personally believe that a large percentage of the unrest in Soweto may be ascribed to unemployment and idleness. We have a country which calls for the development of massive untapped potential. We have a large enough population or enough nations—approximately 25 million people—to ensure a vast home market and to strive to achieve a large economically active and prosperous middle-class.

The stimulation of exports is a good thing and we must continue to do so, but we can be sure that to a certain extent exports can always be a bit of a gamble for us. Exports may manifest fluctuations and vicissitudes and at times can also be used against us as a means of extortion.

Personally I would be very happy if we could rapidly develop a larger domestic market. The 25 million people to whom I have referred and who can consist of various nations, are not at all averse to the concept of decentralization or self-determination. On the contrary. We envisage the greatest measure of co-operation in South Africa.

At the same time I am in favour also of granting maximum autonomy to bodies like local authorities and provincial authorities. It has the effect of making people think creatively and to do well. It does justice to traditions and usages which one would like to maintain.

Inflation must of course be fought tooth and nail, but in our particular circumstances we should not sacrifice everything on the altar of inflation. A slightly higher rate of inflation with greater employment can sometimes, in certain circumstances, be better. Perhaps we should study a few of the methods of the South American nations to see if we cannot avail ourselves of some of their methods to counter inflation. It is better to make someone pay a high price for a loaf of bread than to give him a loaf of bread free of charge while he is sitting without a job and degenerating physically and mentally.

Incentives to hard work and achievement are very necessary in this country. I do not wish to be presumptuous, but there are a few matters which deserve closer examination. I am thinking for example of separate tax assessments for working women. There should also be consideration of a less steep tax bulge for the earner of a higher income, even if the loss of revenue from this source has to be made good by levying higher taxes on expensive and luxury articles and services. Let the people therefore rather pay a little more if, by their own choice, they want the expensive and luxury articles and services.

†Mr. Speaker, I have always had a sort of a thing about our gold industry: about gold conversion, gold refining and a goldsmith industry for South Africa—the world’s largest producer of gold. Whatever the future of gold from a monetary point of view may be, the “human animal” will always have a strange magnetic fascination for gold and articles made of gold. From a commercial point of view such a project might take time to become profitable, but there are many indirect benefits that will be available to us immediately. In this regard I am thinking of international publicity. I can become quite lyrical about ventures such as opening a gold shop or a gold shop window at Jan Smuts airport. It could become a major tourist attraction and could carry the name of South Africa and a product of South Africa into the homes of many, many people around the world. It could be a starting point really to “sell” South Africa.

Many years ago a professor at Harvard University said to me: “Give me a ship-load of gold articles and I will go out and bring back to you not $35, not $135, but several times that.”

I believe we should ponder this proposition very carefully.

I want to come back, very briefly, to the psychological and human features and aspects of our situation, to South Africa’s relations with the rest of the world and its internal relationships. I want to stress only three of the many points which I consider as very important.

The factual position is that South Africa is fighting a major psychological war and has been fighting this war for a long time. It is a total, all-inclusive war in the political, social, economic and financial fields. All these fields are related and interrelated: One cannot isolate them in watertight compartments.

It is also obvious that this constant psychological war places a tremendous responsibility on every single member of every single Opposition Party and on every single member on the Government side, because every form of criticism and self-criticism is exploited against us. So, how can we go on the offensive? How can we call their bluff and turn the tables on them? We shall also have to make use of psychological methods to counter these attacks.

In waging this war against us there is an incredible degree of hypocrisy and the practice of double standards. We all know this and we are all sick and tired of repeating it. But at the same time we must not make the mistake of not realizing that our enemies want us to get sick and tired of attacking their hypocrisy and the double standards they apply. They want to silence us on this particular issue. This is their basic strategy, the method they employ. If this strategy should be exploded and the truth be exposed to the masses of the world, to the common man, to the decent people, these enemies will be discredited and so they must avoid that.

In this regard the time has come for us to get through to the masses, to the ordinary people of the various countries in the world. It is no longer enough to concentrate only on the leaders, because most of them dance to the tune of the masses in any case. This is one of the strengths of Israel. The moment something is done to Israel there is an outcry practically around the world—telegrams, letters and telephone calls to the Press, to congressmen and senators and people like that. Israel is a nation widely dispersed and distributed over the face of the earth, but a nation which do fight for their country and for each other, united in a common cause. We must follow their example.

An important part of the tactics and the strategy of our enemies is therefore to avoid comparisons. They tell us, and of course it is quite correct, that two wrongs do not make one right and that we have legislated discrimination which the other countries do not have. According to them this makes us different and is for them worse than communism. Just the other night I spent hours with the editor-in-chief of a very important London newspaper and for hours he tried to shy away from comparisons. Ultimately, when we really started delving into comparisons—the good ones and the bad ones—he had to admit that on balance and in true perspective South Africa compares very well indeed.

In South Africa we have had in the past, sometimes with great success, national and other campaigns, spontaneously supported by many members of the public. We have had a “Buy South African” campaign, a “Drink meer Melk” campaign and many others. This brings me to the three basic recommendations I wish to put forward most humbly. To hit our enemies in the most sensitive spot and to call their bluff we should launch “a campaign of comparison” such as never before. This campaign must be on an ongoing basis and should regularly be updated. Comparison is basic to human nature. We have baby competitions, school competitions, sports competitions, beauty competitions, quality competitions, etc. The late Dr. Van Rhyn once said that the degree of a nation’s civilization is measured by the way it treats its animals. This is very true indeed.

I know we tried many comparisons from time to time in the form of brochures and articles comparing our mineral wealth, our economic achievements, our people in prison and the number of policemen as a percentage of our nation with the situation in other countries. However, I suggest something much more comprehensive, something which will show the good and the bad in a very attractive form, for example in the form of a colourful chart or a schedule. We must place this in the hands of and obtain the co-operation of every true South African, from school-children to senior citizens to assist with the distribution. We must enlist people belonging to all kinds of worthwhile organizations, overseas and right here. The media should also play their part. Active steps should be taken to involve organizations like the S.A. Foundation, the Freedom Foundation, Association International, Rotary, Round Table, Lions, the Sakekamers and Chambers of Commerce and Industry in this project. My experience is that they are only too happy to help when one approaches them in the right manner.

What results can we expect? First of all we shall have more country-proud South Africans, because many South Africans just do not know what a good life they lead compared with that of so many others. They will be able to talk with authority and they themselves will be instrumental in creating a climate of confidence and prosperous thinking. We can go on the offensive and stay there and we can all be better ambassadors for South Africa. We must admit the “bad spots” which have been highlighted so often.

I have often started my talks on overseas platforms by saying to the people that if they think that we in South Africa are perfect, that we do not have problems, that we do not have weaknesses or that we are not sinners, they are making a mistake, because the fact of the matter is that we do have all these imperfections. However, I also point out that I have never been to a country in the world where they do not have many imperfections. We certainly do not have a monopoly of these things; we do not even have a controlling interest in them. Such a chart or a schedule will also serve as “ammunition” for the many friends we have around the world. They will have it readily available in a comparative form and that will help them tremendously. We do not realize how many friends we have in other countries. There is for example one organization which is now doing marvellous work for us, called “Americans Concerned about South Africa”. I wish I could give every South African a copy of their newsletter every month. It will open the eyes of many South Africans.

I believe this chart or schedule will also promote the very sound idea put forward by the hon. member for Yeoville, viz. that the West must understand the long-term plan for change in South Africa and that they must enter into some long-term understanding with us.

Secondly we should also launch a “campaign of communication”. We should get together more often with the decent, honest and respected members of our Coloured, Asian and Black communities. We should win their confidence and we should not allow the communists and the agitators to do the work of “communicating and building relationships” for us.

When we quarrel with other countries we must be very careful not to generalize, because, as I have said, we have many friends in other countries. We must not judge them by their governments or agitators in their countries.

We must thank the good Lord that we are different from Canada and Belgium where the major language groups are moving apart. In this country we are growing closer together and we are closing the gap, which is a wonderful thing in this country of ours and something which should be promoted in every possible way. Our two major language groups should also become more proportionately represented in our national life, for example in the Government, in the Civil Service, in State and semi-State corporations and in all kinds of other institutions and organizations.

My third recommendation is that we should also launch “a campaign to promote correctness, sober common sense and the reflection or projection of a true perspective and balanced viewpoint on all levels of our national life”. It should be a campaign to avoid and eliminate over-accentuation, distortion, emotionalism, sensationalism, looking instead at a situation from both sides or from all sides and avoiding issues like extreme reporting. It should be a campaign for a balanced viewpoint, which today is perhaps the world’s scarcest commodity. Mr. Edward Thomson, the editor of Reader’s Digest, who is now visiting this country, is right when he says that media in South Africa and the media of other countries, such as America, should start to build friendships for us across the oceans.

Let us all in South Africa, like a good, old traditional family, fight among ourselves, but let us close up like an oyster when it comes to others wanting to stick their noses into our business. What we must aim at is a climate of confidence and prosperous thinking, of boldness, of self-assuredness, of fearless self-analysis, yes, of highlighting our immense potential and also coming to grips with our problems.

I believe that this can be the beginning of a new upsurge of confidence in this country and its future, in new economic growth, new inflow of capital, development, fuller employment and prosperity. When truthfully compared with any part of the rest of the world, South Africa is right there at the top among nations.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to convey to the hon. member for Pinetown the traditional congratulations on his maiden speech. I think all of us who have listened to him see him as a man who has some passing knowledge of the subject with which he started, viz. that of finance, perhaps more than a passing knowledge! We welcome him to the ranks in this House and we welcome the knowledge and experience which he brings. I am sure the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Information, who listened attentively to him, will also welcome his suggestions and contribution. We wish him well during his stay in this House. I am particularly glad to see that he supports some of the ideas which have been debated before in this House, such as separate taxation for husband and wife and a lower marginal rate of income tax, all matters which I am sure the hon. the Minister of Finance will look at in another light since the support which the hon. member for Pinetown has given to the views which we have often expressed on these subjects.

Mr. Speaker, we have come to a stage in this debate where I think it is possible to gauge the atmosphere and the attitudes which have emerged. What worries me is not only that we face a serious economic situation in South Africa. What is worse to me is that the Government does not appear to care about the effect of this situation, particularly on the lower income, the fixed income groups and the pensioner. We have had from the hon. member for Johannesburg West and from all the other speakers on that side of the House, the same refrain over and over: “Things are not really so bad, let us have confidence; let us build up morale; it is all going to be better soon; everything is coming right; things are not so bad; it is getting better. ” Except for the farmers. I make this exception. On Friday, we had a good debate where the situation of the farmers was frankly analysed and we were all promised higher prices for foodstuffs. But, except for the farmers, the Government speakers throughout this debate have treated the problem as one of statistics. This is not just a problem of statistics and percentages; it is a problem of people, of human beings. It is not just the number of bankruptcies that is important as a statistic; it is the thousands of human beings who lose their jobs when that factory or those works go bankrupt. It is the human beings, the people, who walk the streets looking for a job. When an old-established firm crashes people who have worked there for 20 or 30 years, people who have given their lives to the firm, suddenly find themselves on the street looking for a job.

I have not heard from one single member on the Government benches—not one of them—even a passing reference to the human tragedy which we are facing in South Africa through the existing economic situation. They have treated the problem as one of statistics. Over one million Black people are unemployed. However, that is regarded as only 12,5%—a mere statistic. The same with White, Coloured and Asian unemployment. Today those working in factories on short time are the fortunate ones—apart from the fears of uncertainty, they still have jobs. The people who have jobs are the very fortunate ones. It is these human problems which, I believe, demand more attention from Parliament. What has been said? What has been done? What has been done during this first session of Parliament at which the opportunity occurs? We have had an Unemployment Insurance Bill, simply increasing the levels. However, we have done nothing for those thousands who are unemployed, whose credit with the Unemployment Fund is running out, whose 26 weeks are dwindling and who face the stark prospect of the end of that protection to which they have contributed throughout their working lives.

There is no sign that the Government is aware of these problems, let alone caring about them. The party machine says: “Get up and praise the Minister and say that it is not our fault and everything will come right.” And that has been the tenor of the speeches throughout this debate. Only one hon. member, the hon. member for Florida, has referred realistically to one of the real dangers of our present situation—the threat to the security of South Africa.

Russian leaders have said that they can conquer the world without a shot being fired, and the force that will do it for them will be inflation. Here, we are particularly sensitive to this situation and to this threat. Our population is particularly vulnerable. Therefore the economic situation in South Africa today is one which is crucial to our survival as a nation, as a country and as a free people.

*Mr. Speaker, how the wheel has come full circle! The hon. the Minister of Defence will remember. He is about the only person in the House today who can remember how this Government came to power 30 years ago. Those were the days of white bread and mutton. [Interjections.] Where is the white bread and mutton now? Where are the promises, the “Louw-col”, the recipe “in the bag”? The hon. members forget those days, Sir. I just want to remind them that the white bread and the mutton which they used to come to power, are today the privilege of the rich, only the very rich. I now understand why the hon. the Minister of Finance does not want to stand in Vryheid. He does not want to have a constituency with voters to whom he will be accountable. He does not want to meet those people personally, because then he will have to explain why we have to have such a hard time.

Furthermore, I want to point out, Sir, that we have not yet heard in this debate that this state of affairs has been caused by imported inflation. “Imported inflation” was the story with which the Government members tried to drum up votes as candidates. But what are the facts? What do the latest available figures show? If we take the wholesale index, we find that the increase in respect of South African goods was 11,3%, as opposed to 9,8% in the case of imported goods. In the industrial sector the increase in respect of South African goods was 11,1% as opposed to 10,3% in the case of imported goods. I am referring here to the increases between November 1976 and November 1977. Therefore the Government can no longer fall back on its cry of “imported inflation”. They now have to accept responsibility for what is going on here. It is the Government and Government bodies who bear the greatest responsibility.

Let us look at the position of petrol, for instance. After 11 increases in the price of petrol over a period of seven years, the consumer in South Africa today pays 47,4% tax on that petrol. Nearly half the price goes to the Government. In America the figure is 20%. This is, therefore, not only a question of imported inflation. It is the Government which is directly responsible for a great deal of that inflation. In the case of coal, the index rose from 127 to 398 between 1973 and 1977. It therefore increased by more than 300%. Let us take the increases in the case of steel. Do hon. members realize what these increases mean? The Government set aside R250 million for the provision of housing. The increase in the price of steel alone means that the number of houses that can be built will be reduced by 250. This is the result of such a price increase. Then, Sir, I am not even talking about the increases in the case of electricity, railway tariffs, etc. for which the Government bears direct responsibility. The reply which we receive, is “wait for better days”. That is not good enough, Sir.

What is your solution?

The solution which we offer, is contained in the amendment to the motion which was moved yesterday. In that amendment reference is made to unnecessary Government interference which impedes economic development and restricts the principles of a free enterprise economy. In our amendment we also call for equal participation in the national economy and equal pay for equal work and responsibility. That is the direction in which we should seek a solution. If our entire population participates in the production in the country, they will also create a market for the products which are produced in that way. That, Sir, is one aspect of the problem, but there is another aspect as well.

†I want to deal with that second facet of the problem facing the hon. the Minister of Finance and the Government. Here I am referring to the political facet, because politics and the political situation have a direct and major effect on the economic situation. After two and a half weeks of this session, the glitter is already fading, the glitter of the victory, the glitter of the great majority. The champagne has started to go flat and the glitter is turning to gilt, because the Government is starting to face reality. [Interjections.] It appears as equally insensitive to the political problems as it does to the human tragedies which its economic shambles and maladministration have brought about. It is totally obdurate. It is as obstinate and stubborn as a mule, and all we have had out of this session—these two and a half weeks of parliamentary debate—has been the mixture as before, with just a few trimmings added, a little more sugar-coating round the pill.

Let us look at the stark evidence of that. The first bit of evidence relates to the Cabinet reshuffle, one of those delicate balancing acts for which the hon. the Prime Minister is renowned. He is renowned for trying to keep the fine balance between the realists in his party who want to move and those who are chained to the past and say: “In hemelsnaam moet nie vorentoe beweeg nie want die kiesers sal ons dan verlaat omdat hulle bang word.” [Interjections.] So the hon. the Prime Minister is trying to maintain the delicate balance, but in trying to maintain that balance he has shown his hand because he has put, into the most sensitive department of all, one of the old traditionalists. What else have we had? We have had the stark statement that there will, in the future, be no Black South Africans.

Nonsense!

Yes, that was said. Is a South African not a South African citizen? He said that no Black man would be a citizen of South Africa in the future. That is the vision this Government has given South Africa—that in the future no Black South African would be a citizen of South Africa.

White South Africa.

He has said that there will be no confederation, no linking mechanism of confederation to bind the homelands to White S.A.

When did he say that?

He said it here, from his bench in this House in the no-confidence debate. He rejected confederation. I am not surprised that those hon. members say: “When did he say that?” I am not surprised that they are surprised. This was one of the stark realities that has emerged—the fact that the Government rejects confederation to link together the various homelands with the rest of South Africa. It rejects any future South African citizenship for any Black man.

Nonsense!

It is not nonsense. It is on record in Hansard. Then the Government expects those non-citizens to help us defend South Africa. The hon. the Minister of Defence has said that all races must contribute to our defence. Is our defence then to rest in the hands of non-South Africans, in the hands of foreigners with no loyalty even to a confederal centre?

You are talking nonsense and you know it.

If I am talking nonsense, I am simply saying what the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said. I am quoting what he said in this House. I am quoting two statements which that hon. Minister made and which are on record. The end of the Government road is that no Black man will be a South African citizen and that there will be no confederation. This is on record unrepudiated and in fact confirmed by the hon. the Prime Minister, who has made it clear that there will be no change in direction.

So much for the cooing noises we heard in the election. So much for all the high hopes which it engendered. It has all gone up in smoke. The Government have a few showpieces, but they are already muzzled, already told to toe the line. At the opening of the House the hon. the Prime Minister told the hon. member for Pinetown where he got off.

He never used those words.

He said it blatantly. He said: “Ek het alreeds met hom gepraat.” What did he mean by that?

Sir, the dreams that one could change the NP Government from within have been shattered in two short weeks.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Stilfontein, of course, does not want to change it, neither does the hon. member for Klip River. I am talking of those who nursed the dream that from within they could change the Nationalist Party and bring a new vision.

You have changed and there is nothing left of you.

That hon. member does not want to change it either. They are quite content. Look at the smiles on the faces on some of them at the thought of how they have put their foot on the neck of those who do seek change.

I remember and the hon. members will remember the lyrical editorials, the pages of glorification by the columnists in all the Nat supporting newspapers: “This is a victory mandate, a breakthrough to the future. This is the Parliament of all parliaments. This will be the session where with this vast mandate at last the Government will be able to tackle the real problems of South Africa. This is the Parliament where we will get a new deal.” Now, 2½ weeks later, what do we have left? We have a few whimpering apologists plaintively saying: “Well, we did not get what we thought we would, but we have got something.” What have they in fact got? They have a promise of more consultation on the three parliaments, something which should have been done before the proposal was announced and before the election. Now we are going to get consultation! We find that the urban councils may get new names and a few more powers, but they are going to be appendages of homelands in which they have no interest and with which they have no connection. We have Soweto going to be the most beautiful city in Africa for Black people. However, when the banks offered money to electrify Soweto, what did the Government do? They refused it. They refused the first requirement of making Soweto a beautiful city …

You are talking nonsense.

… the electrification of Soweto, which would have brought security to the streets so that men and women could not be robbed and raped in the darkness, and which would have enabled them to have modern amenities such as an electric stove, a refrigerator and a deep freeze if they wanted it and they could afford it. But no, the Government talks of beautiful Soweto while it consciously …

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

No, that hon. member refused to answer questions while he was making his speech. Therefore, I am not prepared to waste my time on him. Mr. Speaker, these are the basic essentials.

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

No, I do not have the time, my time has nearly expired. Mr. Speaker, these are basic essentials, and yet we hear from them pious promises of beautifying Soweto.

There is one other stark reality, and that is that the Official Opposition has been a floundering flop this session. It has learnt nothing. It can criticize, it can stir and it can exploit—all negative acts and negative abilities. It has worn out dictionaries looking for more extravagant adjectives to use. It is effective unless one asks it: “What is your alternative policy?” Then it is as shy as a blushing maiden. It then comes out with platitudes such as “mother love is good” or “do not beat your wife in public”. Those are things everybody agrees with. They cannot do otherwise, Mr. Speaker, because they have divided opinions within their own ranks. However, there was one positive indication and that came from the hon. member for Parktown. That hon. member for Parktown. That hon. member said: “If only we had a couple of dark faces in this House …” What arrogance! What an admission of bluff, an admission that after all their talk all they would like to see is a gesture. They want an empty gesture of a couple of Black faces, the crumbs from the rich man’s table. This then will save South Africa.

They are even floundering to the extent that their main speaker on finance was not even allowed or was not ready to introduce an amendment in this debate. This effective Opposition had to trail along behind the NRP, behind the SAP, and move what they called a “further amendment”. This is the sort of effective opposition that they offer. We therefore have a Government stalled in a dead-end and we have an Opposition which, as a realistic alternative, is a joke.

It is ironic that at the very moment of the Government’s greatest triumph it has encountered the moment of its greatest impotence. It is powerless as a Government to save South Africa from the tragedy which faces us. It is crippled by its own wings and by its own dissension. The hon. the Prime Minister rejected the one chance he had in August 1976. One would have seen a different situation if he had been a statesman and not a party boss, if he had called a moratorium on ideological obsessions and excesses, if he had created a National Government and not a National Party one and, finally, if he had created machinery for formal consultations. However, that chance is gone. If he had 100% of the Whites backing him today, it would still be too late. The image of the Nationalist Government is gone. Its credibility has gone one way and nothing can restore or rebuild it.

The other irony of the situation is that this little party is the only party that has produced new ideas in this debate. Ignored as we are, belittled and played down, we have produced new thinking and new ideas. [Interjections.] I do not have time to deal with this but we have offered pluralism, federal/confederal linking mechanisms and local choice. This meets the needs of all South Africans; the need to be accepted, to have opportunity, security, identity, safeguards against domination and practical machinery for participation in decision making. [Interjections.]

Order!

We have now reached the situation where this small, minor party is expressing the real needs and the real hopes of the people of South Africa, and provides the only real answer. It is given different names by some but there are hon. members on that side of the House who know that ultimately it is the only road for South Africa. They realize that it is the only answer. Mr. Speaker, I issue a challenge to those members, the dozen or so with the latent courage to give leadership on those benches. There are another 30 or 40—and perhaps more— members who are looking for that leadership, who are prepared to face the facts of life and are able to break the hypnotic spell of power. I call upon them to stop avoiding the moment of decision and stop pretending that there can never be another answer or that the answer can only be achieved through the NP. I ask them to stop looking for excuses and to stop stalling. I challenge them to break out of their laager. They must realize, however unfair it may seem, that nothing they do within the NP can give credibility to the present Government. The labels are too firmly and irrevocably attached. All I ask, is for them to have the courage and the patriotism to break the spell of power and privilege which hypnotizes them today. They would be amazed at the reaction from the people of South Africa. They would then have embarked on a road that would give real hope to our country. There is a future, and there are people outside, and hon. members in the House, who are prepared to help to build that future, but they are afraid to take a course which will mean breaking out of the comfort and the security of belonging to a massive, powerful government. I challenge them to prove their patriotism, to show their courage and their willingness to break that logjam. We have done it. We abandoned our own party and formed a new one … [Interjections.] Hon. members may laugh, but we are paying the penalty of our love for South Africa. We are paying the price of breaking the logjam. I want to see, in the party to my right and in the Government, whether there are others who are prepared to face penalties, sanctions and political blows. I say this because the goal—the prize—is greater than the comfort and privileges of a government following outmoded and unrealistic policies for South Africa. Therefore I issue this challenge, knowing that it will be laughed at now, but believing that the time is not far when that challenge will find the answer which South Africa deserves.

Mr. Speaker, it would be a pleasure for me to reply to the very likeable hon. member for Durban Point, but in terms of the rules of a maiden speech, that is not possible. I welcome the opportunity of again being able to deliver a maiden speech. Speaking in this House, as everybody here knows, is not an easy experience. One feels a certain apprehension since one is speaking to experienced politicians, “gesoute politici” and there is obviously a certain nervousness in the situation. One appreciates, however, the tolerance of hon. members and the latitude which you, Mr. Speaker, allow on occasions such as this.

The price of a maiden speech is, of course, that it should be non-contentious. In this regard I am reminded of Winston Churchill’s reaction once when a young Labour Party spokesman, who was supposed to deliver a maiden speech, spoke very contentiously of the Opposition. Churchill responded: “That’s no maiden that, that’s a brassy hussy of a speech.” I intend obeying the rules, I intend delivering essentially a maiden speech and I intend taking advantage of the latitude you allow, Sir. Before I move on to my main subject, there is one other little matter which I wish to deal with.

*I was a nominated senator and I wish to express my gratitude to the hon. the Prime Minister and my provincial leader for the opportunity they afforded me to enter the political sphere by way of the Other Place. I believe that nominated members in all the parliaments which will exist in terms of the new constitutional principle, will be used for this specific purpose. By nominating such people, a broader democracy can be obtained. At the same time I should express my gratitude to the hon. member for Caledon who stepped down in such a fine way in 1974 to create an opening for me. He did it in a gracious manner which is so characteristic of an old Bolander.

†A great deal has been said in this debate about confidence in our economy. The hon. member for Florida spelt this out very clearly and the importance of confidence was also spelt out by other hon. members. There is little question that confidence is a fundamentally important aspect in any economy, and particularly in an economy such as we have in South Africa. There is also no question about it that the political element in that confidence is extremely important in the case of South Africa. In fact, it is more true of the economy of South Africa than the economies of other countries for the simple reason that the challenge which we face is so much greater, for the simple reason that we face an historical challenge in South Africa. I am not using the word “challenge” in a loose sense, but in the sense that Sir Arnold Toynbee used it when he spoke of response and challenges in the case of great civilizations. He said that in history great civilizations have faced enormous challenges and if they were to overcome and beat those challenges they were required to respond with a response of an historical order, with a response of the same scale. I believe we in South Africa are faced with the need to respond on a historical scale if we are to meet that historical challenge. I believe that challenge can be very clearly defined. That challenge is nothing less than the fact that we in South Africa are faced with meeting the consequences of what will probably be regarded by historians as the single most important event of the 20th century, viz. the coming to independence of the peoples of Asia and Africa at a time when democracy and democratic norms are accepted throughout the world. That is the challenge which faces us. That event has had an enormous impact throughout the world. It has changed the international order; it has changed the United Nations and it has changed the priorities of nations and international organizations throughout the world. It has also changed the face of the continent on which we live. However, no communities have been more profoundly or deeply affected by that great event and its consequences than the non-indigenous minorities of Southern Africa, the peoples in particular of Rhodesia and of South Africa. At the heart of the challenge we face is the fact that we cannot escape its consequences, we must meet them. At the heart of the challenge is the fact that we must accommodate the political aspirations of all the peoples of our country. This is a particularly difficult thing to do, precisely because of the multi-ethnic character and nature of our society.

My background is that of a political scientist and I want to say something about that challenge in political science terms. This also explains to a large extent why I am where I am, why I sit in these benches and not in other benches. The problem of achieving democratic government in diverse societies is not a particularly new one. As early as 1885 the constitutional writer Bryce recognized that in any society there are two kinds of forces. There are the centripetal forces which create unity and a strong community, like a common language, a common history and a common sense of tradition, and on the other hand the centrifugal forces which are divisive in their effect, like different languages and different historical traditions. The problem is thus not a new one. In fact, constitutional lawyers in the 19th century and the early 20th century were devising ways whereby these forces could be balanced in multi-ethnic societies. The most common form which was thought of was federalism. However, the fact is that what is new today is the scale on which the problems of multi-ethnicity are being experienced and the extent of the problem of democracy in the multi-ethnic society. This is no longer only a problem in the new countries of Africa and Asia. It is also a problem in the older established countries like Spain, France, Italy and the United Kingdom. Indeed, one leading American scholar has said: “Ethnicity must now be placed at the very centre of our concern for the human condition.” Not only is the problem being experienced on a scale which is unprecedented. The fact is that the old approaches are discredited. Federalism is no longer taken seriously as an answer to the problem of democracy in a multi-ethnic society. A very good and topical example of this is what is happening in Canada at present. The reason why I am sitting in these benches is that at a ripe age in my life I studied political developments in Nigeria as a graduate student. I obtained a scholarship from an American university and went to Nigeria to do research for a doctoral dissertation on federalism in that country. I returned from Nigeria believing that federalism was not the answer in the South African situation and that we had to go much further. I believed that we needed to acknowledge the diversity of the society and that we had to devolve political power to its absolute maximum. I believe that that is the course this Government is taking. I believe that that is the essence of the answer this Government is giving to the problem of the diversity of our situation. And with regard to constitutions, contemporary political scientists elsewhere are telling us that political methods are critical in the response to the problem of government in the multi-ethnic situation. Political leadership, political organization and the role of the élite are extremely important and are all, I believe, built into the constitutional proposals which the Government has evolved for the White, the Coloured and the Asian peoples.

I briefly want to say something to South African political scientists, because I believe they face a very exciting situation and task. What happens in South Africa, the question whether our policies work, is critically important, not just for South Africa as such and for all its peoples, but is also very relevant for other similar societies elsewhere in the world. The situation is indeed a challenge to South African political scientists, to whatever universities they belong, whatever language they speak or of whatever colour they may be. I want to suggest to them that there are three particular areas in which they can assist the politicians and in which they can direct their energy and attention, both from a theoretical and a research point of view.

The first deals very specifically with this whole question of whether in fact government, democratic government in particular, is possible in the kind of society in which we live, whether majoritarianism can work and whether one needs to acknowledge diversity and decentralize political power. I believe that what is missing and which has been missing from political science in this country, is a genuine theory of politics which correspond with and explains the plural society.

The second area in which I believe our political scientists and more generally our social scientists have a great deal of work to do, concerns the relationship between the community and the individual. That great American, Patrick Moynihan, whom we admired so much when he was a representative at the United Nations, wrote a book called Beyond the Melting Pot, one of the most devastating critiques of integration in the USA. In that book Moynihan wrote that the great task in the ethnically diverse society is to balance on the one hand the recognition of group needs with, on the other hand, the right of the individual to choose. We in this country are already moving into that kind of situation. It seems that here is an area in which our political scientists have a great deal of work to do for us in sketching out the problems and suggesting possible answers.

The third area in which political scientists can direct their energy and attention in this country itself is in giving content to the concept of regionalism. We are in Southern Africa a group of States which are interlinked. We are interlinked in a variety of fields, such as trade, labour, commerce, finance, power, communications, transport and defence interests. We are related and interconnected in all these fields. That is true not just of the independent countries, but also of the homelands. The fact is that we need to give content to that concept. We need to stress the fact that we in Southern Africa have a single destiny, that we in Southern Africa are united, are linked in the historical situation in which we find ourselves. And I would suggest to my erstwhile political science colleagues that here are areas—no doubt there are others—where there is urgent scope for research, for thought and for understanding. I believe this is a challenging situation which they have not really taken advantage of up till now. The fact is, and this is evident from the attitude and the general position which by constitutional lawyers and political scientists have adopted towards the Government’s constitutional proposals, their attitude has been a negative one. They have been destructive whereas they could have come forward with alternatives or with suggestions within the broad framework of those proposals, proposals which they should have been prepared to debate. The fact is that their contribution has been a sterile one.

I wish to conclude with a short reference to English-speaking South Africans. I am an English-speaking South African in every respect and I believe that English-speaking South Africans have made a major contribution to the development of this country. We have made a major contribution to the development of commerce and industry. We have played an important role in the development of the professions, in education and in technology. We have played an important role also, and play an important role, in the armed forces, and English speakers represent this country at our embassies and diplomatic missions abroad. I believe that given the change which has taken place in our politics, given the demise of the old United Party and the tradition which was associated with that political party, English speakers now have a chance to come in and play their role, because we are a practical people; we are a common-sense people and we have an important contribution to make. I believe that we as a practical community realize that there is no real viable alternative to Government policy. The only alternative that there is is an improved Government policy, a Government policy which is implemented more quickly, a Government policy which is implemented with greater imagination, and the fact is that that is the mandate which the NP in Gardens got in the 1977 general election.

I wish to conclude by thanking the House for its tolerance—and by thanking you, Mr. Speaker, for your latitude. I trust that in my conduct in this House I shall always be worthy of the dignity of the Chair and the dignity of this House.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens has already shown his capability outside this House as well as in the Other Place. He has shown it once again this afternoon. Therefore he is not really a newcomer. However, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate him on his entry into this House and on the quality of his speech. I also want to wish him everything of the best for the future.

When the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs left for New York last week, we hoped that the three-cornered talks which were going to take place there would at least bring us close to the result which all of us should like to see, i.e. that South West Africa may cease to be a problem and start to be a free and independent state which can live in peace with itself and with us in the Republic of South Africa. Unfortunately the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs soon found himself in the position where he had to return. All he has been able to divulge until now is that there was a deadlock between the five Western countries and us and that the situation that developed was “very serious” for us. It is obvious that the hon. the Minister needs time to consult with the hon. the Prime Minister and his colleagues. We understand that and I do not demand hasty answers from him or from the hon. the Prime Minister. However, what we may ask in all fairness is whether the time has not come for Parliament to be informed in detail about the nature of the demands made on us, about the Government’s attitude towards them and about the Government’s intention for the future. In my opinion the time has come for Parliament to be given the opportunity to express an opinion on the various issues.

South West Africa creates a problem which may lead—I say, may lead—to our country being involved in a protracted Vietnam-type situation in Africa, with the difference that we shall not have the advantage of being a super power with the potential of America, and that South West Africa is not thousands of miles away from our borders, but has become an integrated part of the entire South African political nervous system. That means that our fate will be drastically affected by the fate of South West Africa. I should like to say a few words about this.

†I do not want to anticipate what, I hope, will turn out to be a fuller debate at a later stage. I therefore wish to confine myself to a few relevant remarks on the question of South West Africa. I do not believe that there is a South African who has a sense of feeling for his country who is not disappointed because South West Africa has not become a part of the political body of South Africa. If we had had a choice, I believe all of us would have liked to see South West Africa end up as part of a greater South Africa. Every Government, every Prime Minister since the 1920s made his own best efforts in that direction. However, they all ultimately had to concede failure, because South West Africa was destined to become a country as fully independent as the Republic, and no political side-steps could stop this development in the kind of political world in which we find ourselves today. We have arrived at a point where the present Government, confronted by the stark realities of the situation, finally had to adopt certain realistic policies. They are briefly as follows. South West Africa, a multinational country of many peoples—the same as the Republic—is to remain one united country. Secondly, South West Africa is to be led to independence as a sovereign State in the full international meaning of the term. Thirdly, the final independence constitution is to be drawn up by a constituent assembly to be chosen in a free election on a basis of one man one vote.

There will be full citizenship for all and full political participation for all in the Government of the territory. I know that the Government pleads that what is being achieved in South West Africa, is what the peoples of South West Africa, through the Turnhalle, have themselves and in their own interests chosen to support. That includes the NP of South West Africa of which the hon. the Prime Minister of South Africa was the “hoofleier”, the leader, until a few months ago. We are prepared to accept this plea. I knew all along, and said so many times in this House, that the old policies would collapse sooner or later as they now have. We knew that the conservative, predominantly Afrikaans-speaking voter of South West Africa would ultimately see for himself that his future peace, security and identity could not lie in a continuation of “baasskap” or in the maintenance of the system of colour apartheid or of political exclusiveness, but in the acceptance of change in the direction which we advocate on this side of the House. It is very significant that the predominantly Afrikaans-speaking voting public in South West Africa, a predominantly NP voting public, until recently part and parcel of the NP of South Africa, have come to the conclusion that their only safety and maintenance of identity lies in a complete abolition of apartheid and all discrimination based on race and colour. They have realized that if they want to survive and safeguard their identity, they will have to co-exist and co-operate with the other race groups in the territory in a political system which provides for full citizenship for all and full participation by all in the Government of the country.

This brings me to the fascinating role of the Government and of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Two nights ago I listened with great attention to his interview in New York on television. He did well and I enjoyed his performance. I hope the hon. members on the other side enjoyed it too and agree that he was good. Twice he emphasized that there would be free elections in the territory on the basis of “one man, one vote”. He was proud to announce that and it gave him confidence. His whole performance boiled down to the fact that the following principles, viz. free elections, “one man, one vote” and the full participation of all in Government were fully acceptable to the Government of South Africa and posed no problems for a future independent South West Africa. He said that those principles contained no threat to the security and identity of the Whites and other people in South West Africa. The only aspects of the Western proposals which he saw as totally unacceptable were those which, as he put it, created the danger that the territory would be “overrun by a Marxist terrorist organization without any hope ever of ‘one man, one vote’ or freedom of expression or security of person”. In other words, the danger for South West Africa, according to the Government, is not the demand for “one man, one vote”—that has been conceded—but that a victorious Swapo could abolish “one man, one vote” and freedom of expression and individual security. This is quite a remarkable admission.

I do not want to argue in the very limited time at my disposal about the monumental inconsistency in the Government’s arguments as to what would constitute safety and identity for the peoples of South Africa vis-á-vis what they are proud to announce for South West Africa. There is a deep inconsistency which the Government will have to clear up. I want to come to the basic dilemma which faces the Government and all of us.

There can be no doubt that a Swapo Government in South West Africa would introduce radical economic changes. In my opinion the word “Marxist” is often used too loosely, but we would certainly see—and we are against it—a drastic redistribution of wealth and the introduction, at least, of a system of African socialism if Swapo were to become the Government of South West Africa. South Africa’s control of Walvis Bay would immediately become a major source of national and international contention and the next main target of attack upon our country. Our dilemma is that if the talks between us and the Western Five finally break down and we cannot get any further, we shall be at the beginning of what can be called a Vietnam situation with all its consequences for us and for South West Africa.

On the other hand, if the talks succeed and Swapo is brought into a free election, it would be foolish of us not to reckon with the possibility of Swapo winning that election and introducing constitutionally what they now seek to introduce by force. Of course, no one can say for certain what the outcome of free elections in South West Africa would be. I just want to issue the warning that we should not underestimate Swapo and its political potential in a free election. Not long ago I visited South West Africa and had the opportunity of speaking to all the leaders of the Turnhalle, most of whom I know. I also had a long interview with the Swapo leaders in South West Africa. I looked at their propaganda. There is great emotional power—which hon. members on that side will probably understand very well—in their slogan: Share the wealth of South West Africa. There is also emotional power in their arguments that Walvis Bay should be given to South West Africa because it belongs to South West Africa. That is the kind of material with which they will go to the country. Let us make no mistake about it. This kind of propaganda brings an immediate response from thousands of non-Swapo supporters, Black and Brown leaders whom I have spoken to and other people who support these ideas. What is more, the NP’s unfortunate record of apartheid is bound to count heavily against Black and Brown leaders who associate themselves with the old Establishment.

Let us not forget that the elections in South West Africa will have to be free in the full sense of the term, and there will, for instance, be no one party in control of the radio services in South West Africa. Already the political parties in the Territory are demanding that the control of radio services in South West Africa be transferred to South West Africa and that all political parties receive equal time and equal treatment on the air during the elections.

Just like here.

In other words, this channel of communication would also be available to Swapo in a free election. I want to reiterate that there is a dilemma: if we fail to reach agreement with the five Western powers, and they want Swapo, there will be an escalation of war. If, on the other hand, we succeed and Swapo does participate in free elections, nobody can be certain that Swapo will not win.

You are an utter pessimist.

I am a very realistic man and I know ten times more about South West Africa than that hon. member does. My limited time in this debate will not allow me to discuss the remedies that I believe are available to us. I believe that there are remedies, and I am therefore not a pessimist. It is all a matter of how one is going to tackle these dilemmas and problems. Those are the matters we should settle openly and sincerely here in this House. I hope that we shall soon have the opportunity of going into the matter more fully. All I have time to add, at this stage, are the following words to the Government for them to consider.

Firstly, I hope they will not rush the elections unnecessarily. The removal of discrimination in South West Africa is not yet complete. Drastic steps are necessary to open up economic and other opportunities to Black and Brown Namibians, and the White Establishment needs more time to prove its bona fides and to change its image. I believe that the best help that we in the Republic— because we also have a duty to help South West Africa to get the right things done—can give South West Africa is the following. Everywhere in Southern Africa the White man has the same image in the eyes of the Black people of the subcontinent. The Whites in South West Africa are seen as an extension of the Whites in the Republic of South Africa. The best favour we could do ourselves and the political forces opposing Swapo in South West Africa would be to proceed here as fast as we can to change the image of the Whites in Southern Africa by visible and dramatic moves to abolish discrimination, to abolish apartheid, and to establish free economic opportunities for all people without delay.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with surprise to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout who came to the House with a majority of fewer than 51 votes. I wish to add, by the way, that I believe that he is a temporary member for Bezuidenhout until the next general election.

I challenge you to stand against me in the next general election.

The hon. member’s reaction to what I have just said, does not surprise me.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has spoken here on the question of South West Africa. I just want to say that as we all know and as all responsible politicians in the House realize, the South West Africa question is a very, very sensitive one.

All our problems are.

I believe that for the sake of the people of South West Africa, we should weigh the words which we use in these times. The hon. member has come and told us here what must be done in South West Africa, and immediately linked that with the political situation in South Africa and told us what should be done here. The hon. member could not resist the temptation to try and make political capital for his party here in South Africa by attempting to play off the South African Government against what the people of South West have just decided. He wants to indicate thereby that what is happening in South West Africa, constitutes a renunciation of the policy of the NP. The hon. member is speaking in terms of “what are we in South Africa now going to say to the people? How far will South Africa go in its negotiations with the five Western powers?” Mr. Speaker, we are not going to tell the Western powers what must be done and how far we will go. We believe in the right of self-determination of the people of South West Africa. We shall consult them and convey their wishes to the five Western nations. We believe in the right of self-determination as a sacrosanct right in the world. We believe in that right and will not deny South West Africa the right to decide for itself. We are really merely the mouthpiece of the people of South West Africa.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout went on to say that it has been decided in South West Africa that the territory will become independent as an entity, that there will be an election on the basis of “one man, one vote” and that there will not be separate independent territories. I do not know why the hon. member is arguing with us about that, because that is what the people of South West Africa have decided for themselves. We have not decided that for them nor did we prescribe it to them. We merely gave the people of South West Africa the opportunity of deciding for themselves. Those are not the decisions of this Government. That hon. member wants to link South West Africa with South Africa within the context of international acceptability and recognition. They are surely two totally different matters. The problem of South West Africa has been internationalized. It is an international problem. South Africa is not the boss of South West Africa. The territory does not belong to us. We merely have a mandate to govern that territory. On the other hand, South Africa is a sovereign and independent State and our position is in no way comparable to the position of South West Africa, not even by implication. We are a sovereign, recognized, independent State in the family of nations.

Our domestic position is exactly the same.

That hon. member must not try to link our position with the position in South West Africa where the position is vastly different from ours in regard to international recognition.

The domestic position is exactly the same.

Furthermore the hon. member has addressed a warning to us in connection with Swapo. Surely it is on record that we have said that all who wanted to, could take part in the election in a proper, fair, just and constitutional manner.

Swapo too.

Swapo too. In fact, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is also free to go there and take part in the election. But perhaps his majority will then be less than 50 votes. But he is free to take part in the election. The fact of the matter is, however, that South West Africa has rejected him politically. He now sits in Bezuidenhout with a majority of 51 votes.

South West has never rejected me.

This hon. member has said we must be careful with Swapo. I could not quite follow his argument. We are not preventing Swapo from taking part in the elections. On the contrary. We invite that organization and say: “Please come and take part and elect a Government.” What does the hon. member want us to say to Swapo? Must we go and fawn on them before the election in case they win it? To us it is irrelevant who wins the election, because the people of South West Africa elect their own Government and we shall try to co-operate with that Government to their benefit and to ours. We do not want to tell them whom to elect nor do we want to start pulling strings in advance. Let the people of South West choose. Then we shall negotiate with the legally elected Government.

The hon. member has referred to Walvis Bay and has indicated by implication that that territory might be a serious stumbling block. Will the hon. member tell me what their party’s standpoint is in respect of Walvis Bay? Must we retain the area or must we abandon it?

We are prepared to discuss it, and we will discuss it.

Do you want to abandon the area or do you want to retain it? That is evidently another of the matters about which a national convention will have to be held. The hon. member says we must not be in a hurry with the election in South West Africa and that we must give the people time. How long must we now still wait, Mr. Speaker? How long does the hon. member want us to wait before we have elections in South West Africa? Must we keep on waiting ad infinitum? I should like to hear from the hon. member what date he has in mind on which an election must be held in South West Africa. I have nothing further to say to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

I should like to express a few thoughts about views which the hon. member for Parktown expressed here during a previous debate. These statements are in my view fairly topical. I am sorry that the hon. member is not present now.

Shall I go fetch him?

The hon. member for Parktown has made a very interesting statement. He has said that economic interdependence—in places he called it economic integration—was not reconcilable with the aims of separate political development.

That is the truth.

I want to quote what the hon. member said (Hansard, 1 February 1978, col. 283)—

Further on in the same column, the hon. member says—

The hon. member goes on to say the following in column 285—

That is the reality of multiracialism. The hon. member goes further and then refers to “centrifugal forces” and “centripetal forces”. The hon. member further maintains that the economy of a country forms an entity and that the economy represents the greatest centripetal force and that it works in the direction of centralization, i.e., central control of the unitary state idea. According to him the centripetal force therefore runs counter to the idea of decentralization. The hon. member also says, however, that as a result of differences which exist where people insist on the right to make decisions at a local level, centrifugal forces can also be detected. Centrifugal forces run counter to the economic forces and represent the political forces of decentralization and separation. The hon. member further maintains that the economic forces, the centripetal forces, are predominant and that they are too strong for the centrifugal forces. The policy of separate political institutions cannot prevail against the suction power of the centripetal forces. The hon. member goes on to maintain that in the end, the economic realities in South Africa will prevail and that the policy of separate development will then collapse, precisely because it cannot survive the centripetal forces of the economy. If one examines the philosophy of the PFP policy, one finds that it has a primary object, i.e., maximum economic business efficiency without taking into account the political realities or the basic principles of democracy. I found the speech by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens very interesting and there is in my view a correlation between his speech and mine. I would define the policy of the PFP as: Not the economy for the individual, but the individual for the sake of the economy. As against that I should like to elucidate the objectives of the policy of the NP. I am going to refer to three main objectives. Our first objective is to maintain law and order in the country, because that is a prerequisite for stability. I do not think there is any dispute on this score between the two parties. Our second objective is to bring about maximum democracy in the country and to be able to bring about maximum freedom.

When did you discover that?

We discovered that at the time when the hon.member’s ancestors came and imperialized us here. We need not quarrel about the freedom idea, because everybody agrees that there must be freedom here. We are now concerned with the methods whereby peace can be brought about in South Africa. I think it is perhaps very difficult for the hon. member to rise to a level at which he can argue sensibly. The third objective of the Government’s policy is to ensure maximum prosperity for all the inhabitants of the country. Those, then, are our three main objectives.

The great question about which we must reflect, talk, think and plan in South Africa is how we can have maximum democracy in the community in which we live. A truth from which we cannot escape, is what political scientists tell us, namely that the more homogeneous a population is, the greater the homogeneity of the values and needs of the people, the easier one can realize full democracy by transferring all authority and decision-making power to one central body. When the population is homogeneous, all are content to accept one central authority which can enforce decisions, because everyone feels that he is duly represented in that central authority. In such a homogeneous society, the economic power as well as the political power is centripetal. In such a case one has the ideal state and the most perfect form of democracy.

You won’t need democracy then. There are no conflicting interests.

I do not even consider it worthwhile to reply to the hon. member. In such a homogeneous population there is no conflict of group interests, because all forces work together to accomplish centralization.

Another set-up is that of a heterogeneous population, a plural society or a meaningful plurality of societies. This is the case in South Africa. The approach is still to obtain maximum democracy in such a plural society. How does one accomplish that? In a plural population one can only accomplish maximum democracy if one gives separate political institutions to each nation, because the more homogeneous the population group to which one grants these institutions, the higher the form of democracy, and the more heterogeneous the group is, the greater the possibility that the majority group may dominate the minority groups in the population. Then there arises a dictatorship of the majority with the “one man, one vote” principle, and this is not the highest form of democracy.

Each nation or ethnic group ought to have its own institutions. I want to repeat that political integration in a plural society will lead to dictatorship of the majority group over the minority group in that society. For this reason that model cannot work in South Africa, for it does not comply with the requirements of democracy. But even if each separate group in a plural society has separate political structures of its own, then there is still the dilemma that there are common interests between the different societies. These common interests can only be handled in one way, namely by co-operation, coordination and dialogue instead of integration, political integration, which implies the centralization of decision-making. The only manner in which democratic principles can be maintained in a plural society, is through the decentralization of the political power and the Government. Purely from the point of view of business-economical convenience and efficiency, the alternative of centralization or political integration appears very attractive, but it is not business efficiency which is at issue, but the political principles of democracy.

In the Government’s policy for this plural society, the emphasis falls on decentralization of decision-making. That is what is envisaged with this policy. The emphasis falls on co-operation and co-ordination among the different entities. This is in contrast to a policy of political integration, which will lead to the destruction of real democratic principles.

We can test the philosophy of the PFP by this. The hon. member for Parktown has put it briefly and well, i.e. that the centripetal forces of economic unity and integration are so strong that they must necessarily lead to political integration. This philosophy is, in the second place, a denial of pluralism.

If the PFP’s philosophy is correct, then surely they must be able to quote examples of places in the world where the centripetal forces of the economy are stronger than all these other political forces. In other words, that plan or model of theirs must then surely work.

I can quote Britain as an example. I do not think there is any need to argue about the unity of the economy in Britain. Theirs is a unitary economy. In other words, the centripetal forces of their economy are strong. But what do we encounter in Britain? If that thesis of the PFP is correct, it follows that there should be total political unity and centralization in Britain. Why, then, do separatist movements arise in Britain? Why is there the awakening of the Scottish, the Welsh and the Northern Irish nationalism?

They have always been different.

The hon. member does not even grasp the argument. It is not clear to him. In fact, it is practically impossible to make him understand it. The fact remains that if the thesis is true that the centripetal forces of the economy are so strong that they predominate over the political forces, those separatist movements would not have arisen in Britain.

One can also refer to Canada as an example. Canada has a strong central economy with strong centripetal forces. But what happens there? There are centrifugal forces at work in politics, but the economic force is not strong enough to dominate the ethnic force, the centrifugal force. That shows why their policy cannot succeed, because it rests on an unscientific basis.

One can also refer to Spain as an example. Spain has one, central economy. But what has happened in the case of the Basques in Spain? The centripetal forces of the Spanish economy are not strong enough to involve the Basque ethnic identity in a central structure of authority. The centrifugal forces of ethnic identity are stronger than the centripetal force of the economy. [Interjections.] I should appreciate it if hon. members would allow me to continue with my speech. One fool at a time please!

I also want to refer to France as an example. France has a unitary economy, but the fact that there are separatist movements in Corsica and Brittany, proves that the centrifugal force of ethnic identity cannot be eliminated by the centripetal force of the economy.

We can also refer to the EEC countries as an example and ascertain whether the choice succeeded there. In the Treaty of Rome it was an explicit objective that the EEC should ultimately develop into a political unity. This fact is on record. Political integration was envisaged when this objective was framed. Political integration was to have been brought about by the economic integration of the six countries. But in spite of the fact that political integration was the principal objective and economic integration functionally the instrument whereby to achieve it, it did not succeed. What happened? In the EEC there do not exist the same cultural differences and the same differences in the stages of development that exist in South Africa. The six member countries have more or less the same stage of development. There are no very radical cultural differences. But in spite of all the given favourable conditions, they were unable to perfect political integration. While all the economic forces work towards a central point, they are not strong enough to prevail against the forces of nationalism, of ethnic identity. In the EEC countries today, the stress is no longer on the striving after political unity, because the people have learned that one can form an economic unity and handle it politically through co-operation and through harmonising of policy, instead of establishing a supernational political authority which is going to break up. It cannot work. The centrifugal forces of ethnic identity, of sovereignty, of self-determination, of nationalism, win out in the end against the centripetal forces of economic benefits. That is a hard fact; it is a scientific fact; it is an indisputable fact, and the final proof why the policy of that party will never work in a plural society such as we have in South Africa. One cannot accommodate the basic democratic principles in a plural society with a policy like that. Viewed scientifically, and the thinkers of the world—the philosophers and the political scientists—are accepting our model more and more throughout the world. Those hon. gentlemen opposite are still some years behind the times. They will also accept it in due course.

I want to go further. If it were true that economic integration must lead to political integration, let us look at the international world. In the international world, international economic integration is a feature of the century. There is free trade, free movement of goods, services, etc. According to the logic of the hon. member for Parktown, this must now lead to a super world government. This must now lead to integration of all the Governments, because the economic forces are dominant. This should ultimately string the whole world together under one Government. I want to tell the hon. member that that standpoint is the standpoint of the extreme socialists in the United Nations. He is therefore on very dangerous ground. If one looks at examples in Africa, one can ask: What has happened to economic integration in Africa? What has it led to? Has it led to political unity? I quote a very eminent authority, namely Prof. Hazelwood, a man who enjoys great international recognition. He made a study of economic integration in Africa and has found—

It does not work. What is more, the Commission for Africa in the UN recognizes and condones this view expressed by Prof. Hazelwood. I can quote different examples of that. There was the East African economic community of Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika. This disintegrated. There was the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. This also disintegrated.

So did the co-operation between Zambia and Malawi, and also the West African Federation of Togo, Dahomey and the Ivory Coast. In other words, the centripetal forces of the economy could not prevail against the centrifugal forces of self-determination and ethnic identity. Those are the facts. The fact is that in the final instance, political forces are the dominant forces, regardless of the direction in which the economic forces work. What those hon. members must bear in mind is that if one wants freedom in a country, one must maintain order. If one wants prosperity in a country, one must maintain stability. Their policy cannot guarantee order and stability for us here in South Africa, but will destroy the principle of prosperity and freedom. The hon. member for Parktown made an interesting statement the other day. In view of the circles in which the hon. member moves, I was surprised to hear that statement from him. I quote what the hon. member said (Hansard, 1978, col. 283)—

The hon. member is posing a very interesting question here—

Then the hon. member answers his own question and says—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, it is great privilege for me to make my first contribution in the House on behalf of the Beaufort West constituency this afternoon. During the past four decades already, Beaufort West has had the reputation of being a very special constituency. During that period Beaufort West has sent to this House representatives who have made their mark, not only in the constituency itself, but also in our country as well as abroad. The representatives of Beaufort West during the period I have referred to, are regarded as pioneers in our foreign relations, and accordingly also in our internal stability. After Dr. Eric Louw had spent a number of years abroad, he was elected for the second time as member of Parliament for Beaufort West in 1938. That was more or less at the time when I became aware of politics. Dr. Eric Louw made a great contribution towards my political awareness. Dr. Hilgard Muller succeeded him in 1964. It was my personal privilege—a very special privilege—to have worked with him for 12 years in my capacity as MPC. He was well liked in his constituency on account of his humaneness and the sympathy he showed for the problems of every person, despite his manifold activities.

Our co-operation during that period of 12 years was one of cordiality and mutual confidence. Beaufort West was indeed fortunate in having representatives of such stature, representatives who served their country with distinction in this House and abroad. My intentions are modest. With my limited abilities I want to serve my constituency and also my country.

Since Beaufort West is regarded as the heart of the Karoo, I thought it would be advisable to express a few thoughts in connection with the economic vitality and the contribution of that vast area to our country’s economy. I may add that the Karoo consists more or less of the constituencies Beaufort West, De Aar, Graaff-Reinet and large parts of the adjoining constituencies. If one travels through those regions by train or by car, it looks as if there is not much going on there. If one travels by plane, it looks as if nothing at all is happening there.

In the past much has been said about the depopulation of the rural areas. I do not intend going into that today. In 1973, Prof. Smit of the University of South Africa delivered a long discourse on the depopulation of the rural areas and the increasing extent to which they are becoming Black. I do not intend enlarging on that today. It did happen—and those were critical times—during the prolonged periods of drought during the ’sixties and the early ’seventies, that those regions, to a great extent as a result of uneconomic farming units, lost good human material. The fact that so many farmers moved away as a result of their uneconomic farming units, had a very adverse effect on business undertakings and the social services in those regions. I think, however, that today I can state with confidence—and this is indeed my considered opinion—that experience and observation have shown me that the process of depopulation has to a great extent been completed. It has in fact already reached a culminating point. There are now fewer uneconomic farming units and in their place one now finds sound, consolidated units which yield a higher production. The small business undertakings have either vanished or have amalgamated with bigger ones. Today we have financially sound undertakings with competitive strength. But this makes high demands on the business acumen of the Karoo businessmen in those vast areas. Owing to the better lines of communication, we now have the situation that local business undertakings have to compete with similar undertakings in the larger centres and in the cities.

A very good proof for the statement that the depopulation of the country has spent itself, can be found when one examines the number of pupils enrolling at the schools. I took the trouble to investigate the enrolment figures in that vast area by means of random sampling. I have found that during the last year or two it has remained virtually static, but in a few cases I also found that there were tremendous increases. This makes one think that the process of depopulation has come to an end.

The economic activities of that area centre mainly around agriculture. Since the income from agriculture in that vast area is mainly dependent on climatic conditions, there can be serious fluctuations. The latest figures I was able to obtain were those of the 1975 agricultural census. Since agricultural revenue in the Karoo is mainly derived from livestock products and livestock as such, I compared the figures with those of the Cape Province as a whole and also with those of the Republic as a whole. From the comparison it appears that the revenue from livestock and livestock products in the Karoo is 24% of that for the Cape Province and 9,9% of that for the Republic. But if one takes the total revenue from agriculture—in that I include field husbandry—one finds that the Karoo contributes 3,8% of the total agricultural revenue of the Republic.

In the commercial sphere the picture is not so favourable. There is not so much business activity in the Karoo. Retail profits of the Karoo in 1975 amounted to only 1,6% of that for the Republic as a whole.

In the field of mining there has been tremendous activity during the past few years. Prospecting centred mainly around uranium. Options are still being taken; perhaps to an increasing extent. Various options have in the meantime been exercised, with the result that farms have been bought out. During 1977 a start was made with the exploitation of uranium at Beaufort West. Judging by the activities of various large mining companies—we see such activities daily—the prospects for extensive mining operations are favourable.

The contribution of an area cannot be measured only in terms of financial, economic and other material standards. One of the most important contributions which any area, province or country can make, is surely the spiritual, cultural and physical resilience of the people who live there; those men and women who have to produce the citizens who have to ensure the future of our country. I can give the assurance that in this respect the Karoo is second to none. Some of the best human material in our country received their background, their daring and drive, their strength and steadfastness of character in this vast area, an area with its own enchantment to those who were born and bred there and were hardened for their life task in the highest positions of our national economy.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very great pleasure for me to be in a position to offer the traditional message of congratulation to the hon. member for Beaufort West for a very neat maiden speech. As the hon. member himself has said, he has had distinguished predecessors in the Beaufort West seat, and I can only extend to him the hope that one day he might also attain the heights that his predecessors in that seat attained.

I now want to come very briefly to the speech of the hon. member for Lydenburg, although with the very limited time at my disposal I shall not be spending very much time on it. I wish to make clear to him, however, one point which seems to have escaped him. He spoke about other countries in the world, alleging that the Scots cannot get on with the English and that the Basques cannot get on with the Spanish. He omits to mention, however, that they are not living in the same area. Here in South Africa, in any city, town, village or agricultural area, we have Blacks, Whites, Coloureds and Indians all living side by side and working side by side.

All citizens of the same country!

That comparisons are odious has been said so often in the past that I hardly need say it again. In this instance that hon. member’s argument is totally invalid because there is no real comparison at all, even if one accepted that some of the cranky movements that do show themselves in other countries necessarily have the strength to be of any real significance.

I want to change the tenor of this debate somewhat and get back to financial matters. I want to look at the pattern of Government expenditure, and I am going to address my remarks, in particular, to the hon. the Minister of Finance who appears to be otherwise occupied at the moment. I want to examine how the Government spends its money and look at the priorities which appear to exist when public expenditure is involved. I also want to look at the realities of what could be termed ideological expenditure.

Let me deal firstly, with the question of priorities. It has long been my belief that some of our priorities are very extraordinary. We spend money on things that are not really necessary to the well-being of South Africa, whilst other areas of vital importance—sometimes so important that they affect our very survival in this country—are left totally untouched. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance just how these priorities are worked out. Who decides, for example, whether the Hendrik Verwoerd dam should have priority over Richards Bay? What is the machinery in the decision-making process which deals with the relative urgency of infrastructure items? Obviously the Cabinet itself has final responsibility, and when this hon. Minister presents his budget to the House it is presumably the result of Cabinet decisions on priorities. I know that there is an interdepartmental committee—and a senior one at that—which must advise the Cabinet, but I understand that its meetings are very infrequent and I sometimes wonder, when it comes to priorities, if it is not just a case of those who shout loudest getting the most money.

At a time when South Africa is critically short of capital, when every rand is needed to build up our economy and provide better living standards for all our people, what do we choose as our priorities? At a time when Black people in South Africa are demonstrating their dissatisfaction with their quality of life, what do we do to use our available resources to improve this quality of life and the lot of the Black man in South Africa? The answer is that we spend, for example, an amount of R47 million on an opera house which, to add insult to injury, is going to be almost exclusively for Whites. We do this when urgent questions such as the electrification of Soweto or the improvement of Black educational facilities are matters which must, in all conscience, enjoy the very highest priority. White South Africa, however, decides that an opera house in Pretoria, our nation’s capital city, must come first. I want to ask hon. members on the other side: If they were Black, how would they feel about this opera house? Would they not feel bitter? Would they not feel resentful, particularly when it is exclusively for White use?

What are you trying to do now?

I say they could not be blamed. Just think what could have been done with that R47 million in terms of productive expenditure …

Why do you buy a car?

… expenditure that could assist in building infrastructure, expenditure that could have been used to encourage industry to provide job opportunities for some of the hundreds of thousands of people who are unemployed in South Africa at the moment. As an opera lover myself, I would be the first to state categorically that the arts must be encouraged, but then within the framework of our national resources. At a time of national emergency, should this have been a priority? I want to quote to the House from Rapport of 12 February a short comment headed “Daardie Opera”. It reads as follows—

A true white elephant.

Sir, I do not feel sorry for the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It is South Africa itself I feel sorry for. I am aware of the fact that this was a provincial responsibility of the Transvaal, but the hon. the Minister of Finance is the man who controls the purse-strings and it is his responsibility to see that discipline is exerted by the Treasury. I must say that, if I were a Black man in South Africa today, I might well be considering war-dances. [Interjections.] If this were an isolated case of the misdirection of public expenditure, one would not feel so bad about it, but we see it every day. I must say that our priorities are all wrong.

Let me give an example of what can only be termed sterile, unproductive and ideological expenditure. This concerns the Department of Community Development. For many decades there existed in the suburb of Vrededorp in Johannesburg a trading area called “14th Street”. Indian traders have traded in 14th Street for generations. It was a lively, happy, prosperous trading area. Whites living in the area were not resentful that Indians were trading nearby. They had been there so long that they were an accepted fact. What do the Government then do in their wisdom? For ideological reasons they decide that these people have to be moved and a huge Indian bazaar called the Oriental Plaza is built at a cost of approximately R18 million. Then the traders from 14th Street and other traders from so-called White areas are forced to move there. So we have the situation where, against their will, Indian traders are forced to vacate 14th Street. The World Press takes advantage of such a situation. They feed on pictures of Indian traders being thrown out into the street with all their goods, being physically removed, manhandled out of their shops. This is the sort of thing that damages our name overseas.

That is a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

That is not a misrepresentation of the facts. It is the absolute truth. There are photographs to prove it. One can see any day what exactly happened in 14th Street. It was even seen on television. Traders had to undergo difficulties, such as those of settling into new premises. For many of them this involved bankruptcy or, at the very least, severe financial hardship. They did not want to go and Johannesburgers did not want them to go, but the Government spend R18 million, plus removal costs, to achieve what? What has been achieved at a time when there are hundreds of premises standing empty all over Johannesburg? Does this make economic sense? Has it helped towards a solution of our problems in South Africa? Have a few hundred embittered Indian traders contributed towards the improvement of race relations in South Africa?

When one looks at what could have been done with that R18 million in terms of improvements in Soweto, the provision of better educational facilities for Black people, more and better amenities which would have improved the quality of life of Black people, one realizes that perhaps it would then have meant something. However, I must ask hon. members on the other side whether they consider R18 million spent in this way, to be priority spending. This sort of thing is happening all the time. Only last Sunday “the end of the Ladysmith saga” was reported in the Sunday Tribune—

This was against the wishes of the local Whites. Again, is this a priority for our wellbeing? Is it a priority for our survival in South Africa?

The hon. the Minister of Community Development, in answer to a question, replied last year that, over a period, over R23 million had been spent in 21 platteland towns to resettle Indian traders, usually a few hundred yards up the street. I would like to say to that hon. Minister that what he is doing should not have priority on Government expenditure. It is, in fact, a waste of very scarce capital resources. He should redirect the money being used for this purpose to a project that really should enjoy priority and that is housing. This sort of resettlement takes place every day. Thousands of Black tribesmen are being moved from one side of the country to the other. White farmers whose families have been established in a particular area for generations, are being bought out, many of them against their will. All this is costing South Africa hundreds of millions of rand. In the end, what have we achieved? Are race relations any better? Manifestly they are not. Are there fewer Black people in the so-called White areas? Exactly the opposite is the case. What then do we achieve apart from what can only be termed a harvest of bitterness and resentment in the field of race relations? I think it is time that we had a good hard look at the cost, in terms of money even if we do not measure it in human terms, of homeland consolidation. In the Benbo publication Black development in South Africa published in 1976 an estimated total cost of homeland consolidation as at 1975 was given. At that stage the cost of land purchases was estimated at R417 million whereas the cost of population movement amounted to R380 million. To this, of course, must be added the cost of development of the minimal essential services which are required for any independent country. I think it is not unreasonable to suggest that an estimate, at 1975 money value, of R800 million would not have been a bad guess. To this must be added the inevitable escalation costs. I think it would be quite fair to project this estimate forward and to say that the total cost will eventually amount to something like R1 500 million. This is illustrated by a publication issued by the Africa Institute called Black homelands in South Africa. It was written by Mr. T. Malan and Mr. P. S. Hattingh. I quote—

That means we still have 12 years to go—

These are very important words, Mr. Speaker. The present financial climate has made this impossible. What does this mean to us? It means that we cannot afford to carry out our land consolidation programme for the homelands. It is as simple as that, Mr. Speaker.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister one or two questions about this. I believe that his answers to this will be very important indeed. They will be very important to many people who are very involved. Provision was made during the 1977–’78 budget for an amount of R50 million for the purchase of land for the consolidation of Bantu areas. Has the hon. the Minister spent the R50 million this year? In fact, does he have the R50 million to spend? Can he tell us just how much has been made available by the Treasury this year for consolidation purposes? Even if this money has been made available, at this rate it would take something like 10 to 15 years before the consolidation process is completed, and that is without taking escalation into consideration. I do not believe that it will ever be completed, because we simply do not have the money. The 1977–’78 Estimates set aside R4 million for purchasing properties in independent former self-governing territories such as Transkei. At that stage only the Transkei was independent. Could the hon. Minister tell me what the value of the land is that still has to be purchased in the independent Transkei? Does R4 million go a long way towards setting this or do we still have to pay out R60 million or R70 million for land in Transkei? The majority of farmers who are scheduled to lose their land because of consolidation are going to have to whistle for their money for two or three decades, that is if they ever get paid at all. In the light of the gloomy financial position at the moment, no promise can be held out at all that we will ever again be in the financial position to carry out proper consolidation. Round the world the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of the Interior show pretty pictures of the shape of the homelands as they are, but those pictures do not display them as they are. Those pictures do not reflect the shape of the future independent Bantustans as they are at present. Those pictures and maps are nonsense, because they do not reveal the picture as it is at present. Hundreds of thousands of hectares of land which are shown as being part of the homelands, are still in White hands. Those maps are a lie and until the money is found, if it is ever found, to pay for consolidation, they will remain a lie.

The grand plan of separate development is a pipe dream, because we cannot afford it. It is a cloud-cuckoo-land, it will never be, and the sooner the Government realizes this, the better it will be for South Africa. We are facing financial stringency, a falling standard of living, a negative per capita growth and deteriorating race relations because the Government are too blind to see just how impractical their ideologies are and until they do see this, South Africans will feel it in their pockets. We will all suffer because they are blind to the realities.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Orange Grove, but since it is not the first time that I have listened to him, I am not terribly shocked. Every time this hon. member rises to his feet, negativism about South Africa flows from his mouth. What did the hon. member actually say? The hon. member said that he would have done a war dance. I thought that this could possibly be incitement, but then I formed a picture in my mind of how the hon. member would look if he had to do a war dance. In my mind I see him in a grove, Orange Grove, “with an orange on his head, dancing a war dance”. I really am sorry for the hon. member. What did the hon. member actually say? The hon. member said it was wrong to build an opera house; it was wrong to build business complexes for Indians. The hon. member simply said that everything was wrong.

He did not say that.

Yes, all he did was criticize. The hon. member went further and told the hon. the Minister of Finance that he should tell us now how much he was going to set aside for certain items in the budget. Surely this is a ludicrous request. Surely the hon. member can wait until the budget speech is delivered; he should know better than that. I want to ask the hon. member: If a complex were to be built for Indians to do business in, in consultation with the Johannesburg City Council, would it be wrong if it was situated in such a way that it would fit in with planning for further development of the area? Does he begrudge the Indians this? Does he begrudge them everything? Situating Indian business in the rural areas is really to their advantage, because the rural areas are the best possible place for one to situate an emergent business centre. It fits in with the overall guide plans for the area. The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. The time has come, and it has come very quickly, for hon. members on that side of the House to take note of what is good in South Africa too. I did not hear a single word about what we have done to establish Black universities. I heard nothing about the colleges which we are establishing. Nor did I hear anything about the medicines and health services which we provide. The remarks of those hon. members are destructive, in fact masochistic. They enjoy hurting themselves. It is reflected in the present economic climate that the hon. members of the PFP are hurting South Africa with their “death wish”.

I want to talk about South West Africa with a great deal of caution. I want to tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that he attributes a fear to the people of South West which does not exist. The hon. member said that the people of South West were so afraid that in order to save their own skins they were doing certain things and were falling in with certain proposals. [Interjections.]

You are talking nonsense!

The hon. member does not credit these people with the strength and conviction of the desire for continued existence and self-assertion.

You are distorting!

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “distorting”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

The hon. member may proceed.

Does the hon. member think that it will promote the negotiations which are taking place at the moment if someone states that the people of South West Africa are petrified about their future? I shall leave the matter at that, but I regard it in a serious light.

I should like to talk about the climate of terror, violence and fear which exists in the world today. I want to refer to a report in yesterday’s Citizen under the heading “Terror on three continents”. With reference to Belfast it was reported that “killer squads of terrorists trained in the use of sophisticated automatic weapons and sabotage techniques” were mowing people down there. The report also referred to Bogota in Colombia where Western-German terrorists were sowing terror and fear. The report also referred to Bangkok where terrorism was rampant. It is therefore clear that there is terror on three continents. This climate of terror has gained a degree of international acceptance, in the sense that it is used as a political instrument to ensnare the political soul of the world. The political soul of the world is being ensnared and freedom of spirit is being restricted by this terror. There are also other countries which, although they do not resort to terror, are nevertheless trying to regain their lost glory in international politics. These were once great countries but have retrogressed, and now wish to re-enter the political power game in the world. These countries cannot always take violent action, but nevertheless take deliberate action to promote their interests.

Against whom are they taking action? They are taking action against the middle-ranking powers in order to prove that they also have political influence, that they also have a share of the political pie of the world. I make so bold as to say that Israel and South Africa are at present suffering under this onslaught from certain nations who are trying to regain political prestige. The theme of my speech is in fact that we must not underestimate this serious onslaught. I believe it explains the double standards which are being applied to us and many other circumstances which we are suffering from today. These people are succeeding in their policy because the world media has in fact been misled. The world media is playing the Marxist game. The Western nations are falling into the trap and are not aware of it.

How is this onslaught being launched against us? I should like to digress on this. We are told that we cannot argue against world opinion. We often hear this from that side of the House. Furthermore we are told that we must accept the morality of the world and that at the same time we should have guilt feelings about our own morality which is supposedly not of as high an order. The way in which we assess our human values is wrong in the eyes of the world. This is the first onslaught which is being directed at us. I should like to quote the reply which Dr. Verwoerd gave to this in 1963—

Then he spoke about morality—

These words are almost timeless and are just as applicable today.

The second onslaught is the attempt to generate self-criticism and self-destruction among us to cause us to lose our self-confidence. Man’s imperfection must be investigated in great detail. The investigation must always show where one fails and where one does not come up to expectations. There will be no answer to that question in a Utopia, but in a mundane world there must be and indeed there are faults. In the mere posing of the question of what is wrong lies the answer. No questions are ever asked about in what respects we must develop the good aspects of a policy. We must always take cognizance of the shortcomings and strive towards full perfection. However, the good things which should be developed are never pointed out. Criticism is levelled and the guilt feeling of the country are concentrated on, while the country is never compared with other countries in order to determine whether our country is not perhaps better than other countries. We are being “razzle-dazzled” by the communists in this respect, if I may put it like that. We are being deceived. We do not look where the faults lie, because we are too busy examining ourselves and determining whether we cannot find that 5% fault.

I want to put it this way. When a country like South Africa complies 90% with all requirements of human rights, that 10% where an improvement may perhaps be made, is concentrated on. However, as far as the 90% is concerned, we never hear a good word from that side nor do they tell us how we can improve. This is the fault of the West too. I say this with all fondness and with respect. They are so busy pursuing perfection that they never realize that Russia with all its imperfection is slowly ensnaring the world. The idea is that we will concentrate so much on those minor matters which must be rectified that we will go the same way by eventually losing our freedom precisely because we were concentrating so much on 100% freedom.

I want to sound a warning in this regard. The position is that, in my opinion, the hon. members of the PFP do not always realize the effect of what they say. For instance let us take their standpoint on terrorism. I now want to quote something from a newspaper. It is not they themselves who are stating their standpoint, but someone else who wrote this. I am quoting from it because it reflects their viewpoint exactly. The article reads—

The article then goes on to say—

I think hon. members must take a look and see if what they say, always achieves the goal which they want to achieve. [Interjections.]

What do you mean by that?

Hon. members of the official Opposition are often guilty of double talk. They speak with uncertainty, they speak unclearly and they raise expectations; for example the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that they do not have a policy of “one man, one vote”. Did I understand him correctly? That is not their policy. However, what they do not say is that their policy makes it possible for one man to have two votes. He does not say that. What he does not say, is that his party’s policy will ultimately lead to Black majority rule. They create the impression that they stand for basic human rights, as if their policy will be a means for solving the problems of South Africa. [Interjections.]

You are leading to revolution and Black majority.

Order! The hon. member for Bezuidenhout may not say that the Government is leading to revolution.

No, Sir. I say the policy is leading to revolution.

You did not use the word “Government”?

No, I say the policy of the governing party.

The point which I was making, is that the qualification which they place on franchise—this is what they stand for; they do not deny it—will never be accepted by the outside world. It is not a basic human right. Every person should be entitled to the same franchise. I read what Brzezinski of America says—

Therefore, although these hon. gentlemen kick up a great fuss about our NP policy, the fact is nevertheless that their policy has no hope at all of being accepted as long as they have educational qualifications as a requirement for the franchise.

I conclude. I wish I had more time at my disposal. The fact of the matter is that I only have one desire as far as the policy of the NP is concerned. If I may express one wish, it will be for hon. members of the Opposition to understand once and for all that the NP does not have a colour policy. The NP does not have a colour or a race policy. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is apparently still living in 1950. At that time, it may have been a suitable term to use in South West Africa. Today, however, the Government has no race policy. The Government has an ethnic policy, a policy on the strength of which all freedoms are being granted to all nations, on an ethnic foundation, according to their desire.

What about the opera building?

I could talk about the opera building if I had more time at my disposal. [Interjections.] I shall make my own speech on it. The fact is that the Government is striving towards absolute political freedom. The momentum which arose as a result of the policy of the Government which involves Coloureds and Indians more closely with the Whites, is definite proof of the fact that colour does not play a role in the NP. Where possible, the Coloureds and Indians are involved with the Whites.

What about all the public colour bar signs?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is talking without thinking. If he were to think more, perhaps his brain would get a little exercise. [Interjections.] The fact is that the momentum with which each separate population group is being led towards political and economic independence—regardless of colour, what is more—does not register on the minds of those hon. members on the opposite side. Nor is it something which they proclaim to the outside world. To a certain extent I blame our news media for this. I often get the impression that our news media cannot understand Afrikaans. What I am saying now is nothing new. It has been said hundreds of times already. All hon. members on the Government side realize it. We are only asking that the momentum and the direction in which we are moving should receive recognition, that the direction should be noted as being a good one and that recommendations for its improvement should not be lacking. In this way alone can the end result be achieved more rapidly.

Mr. Speaker, in the short while that I have been in this House, I have often been surprised by the fact that hon. members address one another here as “honourable members” while one cannot help getting the impression that they do not always mean it. I was also surprised that you, Mr. Speaker, are addressed only by your designation, without referring to you as honourable. I have solved the problem for myself and the answer is that when someone is really regarded with respect, it is not necessary to address him as such. In my opinion the old saying: “Good wine needs no bush” applies here.

I would always like to mean what I say in this House. I shall also try to live and act accordingly. Under the circumstances, you and hon. members will probably understand if I do not take the opportunity to praise my predecessor. I did not know him personally in any case.

He was not worthwhile, anyway! [Interjections.]

I would rather proceed to use this opportunity to break a lance for local government. Local government has found a very soft spot in my heart in a very short time. I want to address the hon. House specifically with regard to the inadequate sources of revenue of our municipalities. I do not want to do this as an expert. I do not pretend to be an expert either. However, I want to suggest that I do have a certain degree of insight. For that reason I say what I do have to say with my whole heart.

There are tremendous demands being made on the revenue funds of local authorities. There have been very great cost escalations recently, which were probably caused for the most part by the inflation rate and the attendant price that had to be paid. In addition, there have been exceptional demands from the public in recent times for higher standards in the services that must be provided, for wider roads, for more efficient infrastructure and even for bigger plots. They have insisted on everything which is better and more beautiful. One can understand this, because lately people have had much more leisure as well as a much higher income, of course. There has been pressure on local authorities to provide recreational facilities in the form of parks and community centres. Requests have also been made for the provision of facilities for indoor and outdoor sport, for libraries, for art galleries and heaven knows what else. It is of course impossible to provide these facilities at an economic price.

There has been further pressure in the sense that universities and other educational institutions, welfare organizations and sport and cultural organizations have requested more and more financial aid from municipalities and other local authorities. A case can be made out for this, because these bodies do serve the communities of which they form part. It has also been felt that if the local authorities do support such requests, the whole community contributes and for that reason it would not only be a few individuals who have to contribute to the funds of such institutions.

What is the rest of the history underlying these shortages? I do not want to dig into the decade that is past, but I nevertheless want to refer briefly to the report of the Borckenhagen Commission and the Government’s White Paper, which was published in 1971. I really want to refer to only one important finding. It was found that the main source of revenue of the local authorities, viz. property rates, had not been exhausted. I find it somewhat ironical that the finding only took into account the circumstances as they were at that stage and that future planning was not considered. The few recommendations which were published in the interim reports and which were implemented in due course concern the levying of licence fees by local authorities instead of by provincial authorities, but this has had an insignificant effect in supplying the deficit. The fact that the burden was merely placed on the shoulders of the land-owner or house-owner in the municipal area has led to the phenomenon of the so-called inability to pay. The salaried man can simply not afford the taxes and the pensioners find it totally impossible to pay.

I do not want to lecture the House, nor do I want to bore it with too many statistics. I am also aware of the commission of inquiry under the chairmanship of the previous Secretary for Finance, and in anticipation of the report I want to highlight a few statistical data to this House. According to figures of the Department of Statistics, the total liabilities in the Transvaal—I refer to the consolidated liabilities of all local authorities in the Transvaal—increased by more than R500 million in the period 30 June 1974 to 30 June 1976. The growth rate of those liabilities was 12% per annum over a period of 12 years. If one also takes into account that interest rates increased considerably during this period and that all capital expenditure had to be financed out of revenue, one realizes what a great burden that places on the revenue account. Property rates, expressed as a percentage of the net national revenue of the Republic, increased from 1,08 to 1,21 in the nine years between 1965 and 1974—an increase of 11%. The real revenue, with a corresponding burden on the tax-payer, increased in the same period of nine years from R69 million to R222 million per annum—an increase of 220% for this period. It is further estimated that no more than 30% of the people living in the whole of the Transvaal contribute to the rates fund. According to estimates by the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants, only 10% of the inhabitants of the bigger cities and towns actually contribute to the property tax fund. One might argue that the owners or occupants of flats and private hotels contribute indirectly to this income by means of rent, but if one looks at the valuations of the general residential premises compared to those of the special residential premises with a similar comparison of the number of occupants per unit, this is negligible. Efforts have been made to recover a greater amount from the businessman and the industrialist with the discriminating rates, the reductions which are allowed, but in practice this has only caused those people to pass their taxes on to the consumer, and there is in fact so much competition between local authorities that they cannot afford to discourage development in their areas by pricing themselves out of the market as far as the businessman is concerned. However, what is more important is what is going to happen during the next 25 years.

Hon. members have referred several times during this debate to the fact that we shall have to provide as much housing by the end of this century as has been provided in the past 300 years. Can hon. members imagine the cost with regard to the provision of the infrastructure? Can they imagine, too, the additional burden of maintaining the existing structure?

I want to suggest that the resources as far as future planning is concerned are insufficient. It may be said that local authorities should play their part and should save, but I want to assure hon. members that local authorities have become more and more productive. Capital expenditure and personnel have been cut, and in real terms more services have been rendered. I want to quote what Sir Edmund Burke said—

†Mr. Speaker, there is an old English country saying that there is no profit in going to bed early to save candles if the result is twins. I believe that this great expense is now necessary to provide for the infrastructure for the expansion of our towns and cities which will no doubt come. I believe that the only solution lies in radical thinking on the financing of the development to the year 2000. It is not possible to increase the income of local authorities drastically from the present main source, i.e. assessment rates. The lower income groups pay more towards assessment rates than they pay in income tax. Pensioners are forced to sell their properties because of their inability to meet their obligations in respect of a continually inclining burden of assessment rates. Adjustments to ancillary sources, such as licence fees and tariffs for services, will have little effect, if any. It is obvious that a broadening of the base of assessment is necessary. To my view there is only one of two main lines along which a solution can be found.

Firstly, in addition to the present system of assessment rates, further assessments can be levied on all occupants of the community, thus extending assessment rates to include occupational rates. In doing so the additional burden will be distributed amongst all the inhabitants, and those at present not contributing to the revenue fund of local government will also be able—and liable, of course—to contribute to the costs of providing and maintaining the facilities which they, to a no lesser extent than the ratepayer, make use of. Likewise it is obvious that such occupational rates are not easily collectable by the local authorities, the local authorities not having the securing measures of clearance certificates on transfer of property and the preferent claims on insolvency in those instances. Such rates, therefore, should be collected by the central Government and paid over to the local authority either as a grant from the revenue funds or as a surcharge. Many of the existing problems can be solved through such a system. Not only does it lighten the burden on the ratepayer, but the built-in discrimination in the income tax structure will take into account the ability to pay and so bring relief to the pensioner and the lower income group member.

Secondly, and as an alternative, or even as an ancillary measure, a capital gain assessment on land can be introduced. The principle has been established that local authorities are entitled to betterment fees on the enhanced value of land following a rezoning or an amendment scheme. A good argument can be made out for a local government to share in the enhanced value of property per se. After all, the local authority contributes to the environment by its acts and deeds which make such enhancement possible. A formula can be devised allowing for a rate of interest on the value of the investment at the date of purchase, say at 10% per annum, and after deducting the compound value from the sale value, a percentage of the difference could be appropriated to local authorities. I would suggest, however, that this be done in replacement of the present system of levying transfer duty on the acquisition of land. As an interim measure it may even be considered to allocate transfer duty funds to local authorities. The total income derived from transfer duties for the present financial year is estimated at R54 million or 0,7% of the estimates.

I personally and, I believe, all local authorities are looking forward with great expectation to the report of the Brown Commission. I pray that the sources of income of local authorities be given top priority in the future planning of our towns and cities in which twice our present population will have to be housed by the turn of the century.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Randburg on his maiden speech. I think he made a very good job of it. I should particularly like to thank him for bringing to the attention of the House the problems local authorities are experiencing in raising finance for capital and operating expenditure. He has made a positive contribution in this regard. What he has indicated quite clearly to us is that, while we so often aspire to great things, whether it be as individuals, city fathers of Parliamentarians, we eventually have to face the ultimate consequences of these aspirations; that is to say, we must be able to pay our way. For this reason I thank him for what he has said. I am sure he will be making many worthwhile contributions to the debates in the House.

Mr. Speaker, the answer to the problem of finance is, of course, growth in the economy. Our future stability depends upon such growth, not only stability in the economic field, but also in so far as the security of South Africa is concerned, both externally and internally. One thing which has come to the fore in this debate and which, I believe, gives cause for concern is the report by the hon. the Minister of Finance that the gross domestic product for the coming year will grow at a rate of only 1%. As responsible Parliamentarians we all bear in mind the future of our country and of our children and grandchildren. When one considers that the present growth rate of our population is 2,8% per annum, which will lead to a population in excess of 50 million at the turn of the century, and one then looks at the present growth rate of the economy, I believe we have great cause for concern. I believe that we are in a race against time as far as the economic development of South Africa is concerned. This should be one of the main considerations in the debate which is taking place in this House. South Africa has a tremendous potential. It has tremendous natural resources and human resources. It certainly has brains. We have some of the best technological and scientific brains in the world. With the manpower we have we should have been able to create, in this country, an economical and industrial miracle comparable to what has been experienced in post-war Germany and Japan. This has, however, not been the case. As I said earlier, this race against time should be exercising our minds more than it is doing at the present time. We rather spend hours and hours in this House debating basic political issues which, I believe, revolve around constitutional issues. I think it is regrettable when one considers that the Union of South Africa was formed nearly 67 years ago. It is even more regrettable when one considers that we had this party in power for some 30 years and still this basic issue has not been resolved.

There is no doubt that South Africa is, economically speaking, in trouble. The reasons are politically based although there is evidence that there has been mismanagement in the economy over the last few years. This evidence is available in the very documents produced by this Parliament and the various departments. The hon. the Prime Minister himself has an economic adviser who heads an Economic Advisory Committee. They produce an economic development programme annually, and the latest of these states that the annual growth rate in South Africa should be 5%. However, in the hon. the Minister’s own words he has failed because the growth rate is only 1% per annum. Why? I do not believe it is because we have not exploited our natural resources because our mines and our agriculture are contributing tremendously to our balance of payments and exports. Nor have our technologists and engineers failed us. I believe that many of the problems we have in South Africa have been caused by the way we have managed our financial and human resources and also by our inability to exploit the potential market which exists in South Africa. I could go into this in some detail but a great deal has already been said about this during this debate.

I do believe, however, that the failure to exploit the potential market which exists in South Africa has contributed greatly to our present financial situation. We have some 4,5 million Whites in this country who enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world. I do not think this fact is denied by anyone. On the other hand we have 20 million Blacks, many of whom are living under peasant conditions and who are contributing very little to the economy of South Africa. This Government has failed to exploit this potential market. I am not only referring to the market as it exists today. It has failed to actively develop this market by creating socio-economic conditions which would turn these Black peasants into consumers who are able to consume manufactured goods at the same rate as the Whites. Had this happened the economy of South Africa would be in a far better shape than it is today. This issue of Black consumers is, of course, a political issue and, as I have said earlier, the political issue is the main issue affecting our economy today. I believe that the Government is afraid to develop Blacks as consumers in the White South African economy. Hon. members may want to know why that is so. Purchasing power is economic power and economic power is political power, and when people have this kind of political power, they start demanding political rights which means citizenship rights. The apartheid philosophy of the Government insists on a total denial of citizenship rights to Blacks who are, in fact, operating within our economy.

Nonsense!

The hon. member says “nonsense”, but the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration stated it in the House only last week, and it is in Hansard for everybody to read.

You do not have the hang of it!

The attitude of the Government is quite easily understood if one is prepared to examine the apartheid philosophy, especially as it was propounded by Dr. Verwoerd. Dr. Verwoerd stated—and this is the apartheid policy which has brought the condemnation of the world upon us—that there should be total separation in all spheres in South Africa. I have referred to this on many occasions, and I wonder how many hon. members on those benches have gone back in their own history to study exactly what apartheid means: that it means economic segregation, geographic segregation, sociocultural segregation, biogenetic segregation, political segregation, etc. The hon. member for Pretoria West said only this afternoon that we should analyse ourselves and try to examine where we might be going wrong. They say these things, but they are not prepared to do them. I want to ask hon. members on that side of the House: Has the apartheid philosophy, which has brought the condemnation of the world upon us, succeeded and has it any chance of succeeding in South Africa?

Let us take a look at the economy. Dr. Verwoerd said—I forget his exact words— that he was not prepared to buy, for 30 pieces of silver, economic advancement if it means economic integration. His words were to that effect; I can get the exact quotation from the Library. [Interjections.] I want to ask hon. members on that side of the House: Has the apartheid philosophy in South Africa resulted in total segregation in the economic field?

Nothing but silence again!

It is a total failure, because our economy is totally integrated today. It is a fact of life, and as far as the economy is concerned, apartheid is a myth.

Let us take a look at geographic apartheid, the grand plan of separate development in the homelands. Has this been a success? We have heard from the hon. member for Orange Grove what costs are involved in separate development and the homelands. I predict that the Government will never be able to finance the separate development policy as originally envisaged by Dr. Verwoerd. To prove my point further, we simply have to look at any of our cities, towns and villages in the country to see that they are geographically integrated in that within any boundary of town, city, village or province, we have Blacks, Whites and Coloureds. So here again apartheid has failed; it is a myth.

Let us take a look at socio-cultural apartheid, the apartheid which resulted in all the embarrassment we have had to suffer in the face of the world. In this regard I can refer to instances such as the government’s stupidity in regard to the Nico Malan theatre, sport, Japanese jockeys, Rhodesian runners who could not visit the FM tower in Johannesburg, Basil D’Oliveira and hundreds of other such cases. These are the things the outside world cannot understand. This is the apartheid philosophy with which the government persists, but what has in fact taken place inside South Africa? Today we have Blacks and Whites boxing together, playing sport together, going to the Nico Malan together, and once again apartheid in the socio-cultural field is a myth. We are, however, still being condemned by the world for our apartheid policy.

Let us take the biogenetic apartheid philosophy which was debated in the House last week. We have the NP hanging on like grim death to the apartheid philosophy which has brought this total condemnation of South Africa and which could lead the country to having to face economic sanctions within the next few months and maybe even to military confrontation on our borders. What are we trying to achieve by genetic purity? If we look at the growth of the Coloured population of South Africa, we must realize that it is a fact of life and that the Coloured community is going to continue to grow. To try to create bio-genetic segregation and purity in South Africa is a myth, and proof of this are the casinos in Lesotho and Swaziland. In this respect the Government has again failed South Africa.

Let us now get to the big issue, the political apartheid in South Africa. This is the crux of it all, and I want to discuss this issue with hon. members on the other side. The other issues are myths, but when it comes to political rights we should sit down and talk. I am not in favour of the PFP’s policy of total integration in the political system. However, political segregation is a big issue. Let us look at what is developing. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration says that Blacks will never have political rights in White South Africa and Dr. Verwoerd said that Coloureds and Indians also would never have it. [Interjections.] The moment the Government decided in its new Constitutional proposals to put Coloureds and Indians into a common political system in South Africa, the apartheid philosophy of totally segregated politics disappeared; it therefore becomes a myth.

It is giving them limited citizenship.

That is correct. It is limited citizenship the Government is offering, and that is what is going to bring the condemnation of the world, the Indians, the coloureds and also moderate, enlightened Whites upon the new constitutional proposals of the Government.

What I am trying to point out is that South Africa is suffering from world condemnation of the policy of apartheid. We are suffering under the attacks of bodies like the Anti-Apartheid League, etc. However, when one looks at the facts of South Africa it is apparent that apartheid is not working, and the time has come to throw it out of the door and think of a new plan.

The other question I would like to ask hon. members is: Can we afford this grand apartheid. Has the Government evaluated the cost of this programme? Another question: Has the Government clearly indicated to the people of South Africa the cost of implementing the grand Verwoerdian dogma? I believe this cost can never be evaluated, neither in material or human terms. Have they ever done this? They have not. We in these benches believe the cost is too high, and history is going to prove us correct. The question is: Are we in this very House going to be wise enough, in the very near future, to avoid the disasters facing us?

It is natural that people should ask: What are the alternatives? We can point to South West Africa where people got together to try and work out a new constitution.

Ethnic multiracialism.

Yes, call it a case of ethnic multiracialism. This is where I and my colleagues in these benches differ from the PFP. We believe in group rights and a group’s right to its identity, to dignity and to freedom from political domination by other groups. The policy of the PFP will lead to Black domination.

Rubbish!

I should like to know what happened to the PFP’s negotiations with Inkatha about an alliance they were going to form.

It was a liaison.

The hon. member says it was a liaison and never an alliance. [Interjections.] I have here a cutting from The Natal Mercury of 14 January 1977 with the heading “Alliance is Offered to PFP by Inkatha”. According to the newspaper report the hon. member for Musgrave said—

I think the House should know what these ties are he is talking about. We all know the ultimate consequences of the PFP’s policy. [Interjections.] Just as I have asked that the Government should inform the people of the ultimate consequences and price of their policy, I also think it is only fair to ask the Official Opposition and their Press, to come clean with the public, and tell the public what the ultimate consequences of their policy will be.

We in the NRP believe we have an alternative, namely the philosophy of pluralism, a philosophy of pluralism as it applies to the development and evolution of a political, constitutional system which will guarantee and entrench group rights in the Constitution. These group rights concern the right of groups to their identity, their dignity and freedom from political domination. [Interjections.] The PFP is constantly harping on a constitutional convention, but when they bumped up against Inkatha and realized what Inkatha meant and what Zulu politics was all about, they skedaddled from the conference table, have not been back and are no longer talking about an alliance. [Interjections.]They are now squealing. I ask these two parties, the NP and the PFP, to put to the public of South Africa the cost of the consequences of their policies.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti spoke very well during the first two minutes of his speech, but then he lapsed into a welter of platitudes. While he was talking I got the impression that I was listening to a voice from the UN. The accusations which he levelled at his own fatherland and the people who live here, sounded like those made by a voice from the chambers of the UN. The hon. member also used a new term which his party has discovered since the demise of their ancestor the UP, viz. a “plural community”. The NP realized decades ago that South Africa has a plural community and they based their entire political philosophy upon it.

You have also got a ballet school.

I can quote many examples of foreigners who visited our country and then testified to what they discovered, found and saw. I shall come to the hon. member for Yeoville and other hon. members of the PFP later on, because it is they I want to speak to this afternoon. However, I first want to quote this example, this piece of evidence, for the edification of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. I want to quote from the bi-monthly Belgian magazine, Alternatief, of November 1977.

We all got it.

Yes, but did hon. members read it? In an article entitled “Zuid-Afrika: Geweld of Ontwikkeling” people wrote that they had gone to South Africa with certain impressions. They had been brainwashed by the charges which the outside world makes against us. I quote—

This is also the spirit in which the hon. member for Amanzimtoti spoke this afternoon. The writers of the article go on to say—

What did they find? They travelled all over the country and spoke to all the people with whom they wanted to make contact. Their finding was—

I want to add here, many English-speaking people as well—

The writers go on to talk about the high standard of living and other privileges which our people enjoy.

Did they dance in Worcester?

My stocky friend over there simply cannot forget about the ballet school in Worcester. I wish he would come and take a look at the peaceful solution which we found to the problem.

If one listens to the NRP and the PFP, one wonders who won the election.

Yes, you will really be amazed!

It also seems as if they want to create the impression that they are the only ones who know what is good for South Africa and they alone have a monopoly of knowledge on how to solve South Africa’s problems. This smacks a little of political arrogance and cheap politicking.

How about performing a little ballet dance?

I shall refer to the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville in a moment. He must just be quiet for a while. I question their bona fides and I wonder whether they have any loyal thoughts at all. A very famous author once said, and this is also my new year wish to the Opposition—

I quote this for the sake of those hon. members who have so much to say about morality. Hon. members of the Opposition tell us that we exploit economic and social patriotism for political purposes.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition “charged the Government with attempting to exploit the patriotism of South Africans in the coming election for party-political purposes”. He accuses us of exploiting our voters politically by making patriotic appeals to them.

I should like to read out two quotations. I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville which one of the two he agrees with. The one quotation refers to the so-called interference of the Government in the economy of the country. I quote from a speech which was made by a very famous person in America—

Now follows the important idea—

There is also interference in ballet classes in Worcester.

This is an important man who says that the Government interfered in the private sector in order to keep political enemies of the Government out of the private sector.

I also want to quote the words of another very well-known man. The hon. member for Yeoville must tell me just now which of the standpoints of the two men he accepts as being correct.

Name the two men.

I quote from the Afrikaans translation of the speech which was made by the second man—

Then we have this very significant sentence—

Hon. members have now heard the opinions of two people. I consider the hon. member for Yeoville to be a patriot—I want to talk to him about another matter in a moment—and I want to ask him which of the two opinions he supports. Two principles are involved here.

You must mention the people’s names.

These two opinions show a basic difference in emphasis.

You do not want to mention names, do you?

I shall mention their names.

Order! Hon. members cannot converse back and forth like this.

If I mention their names, I know who the hon. member for Yeoville will accept as correct even though he is not completely convinced. The first quotation was from a speech by Mr. Harry Oppenheimer.

He disagrees with him.

I think so too. The second quotation was from a speech by the former American Minister of Finance, Mr. W. E. Simon. The Government is accused of exploiting patriotism for political purposes. These two statements were made by an American and a prominent South African. Arising out of what the hon. member for Amanzimtoti said, I want to accuse the PFP, and the NRP to a certain extent too, of often being unpatriotic in many things which affect South Africa deeply. I want to refer to an example. [Interjections.] I do not want to pay attention to the question of State corporations at this stage, because I do not have the time to do so. However, I promise hon. members that during the discussion of the “Economic Affairs” Vote here, I shall analyse the statement of Mr. Harry Oppenheimer and in that way prove him wrong.

The hon. member for Bryanston was the secretary of a conference which was held in 1976. This conference was attended by members of the PRP—the hon. member for Yeoville was at that stage still one of their responsible leaders—the UP and Inkatha. According to Die Burger of 6 December 1976, Mr. Horace van Rensburg put forward a proposal at that conference. I quote—

This is the organization which was to be established—

I think you are wrong. He has never advocated a political front with non-Whites.

I quoted this report from Die Burger of 6 December 1976. The caption to that newspaper article reads: “Formidabele front beoog” and it was written by their political editor. I quote from the article again—

[Inaudible.]

I object to the hon. member for Groote Schuur saying such insulting things about a newspaper which is not here to defend itself. I think that the people of Die Burger will still have something to say to him. I think nothing of his political integrity.

A “common cause” is referred to in this article. Who was called together for this “common cause” and what are their aims? Who would form part of this Black/White front organization? I also want to ask at whom this “common cause” was aimed. I have already mentioned the names of the members of this “common cause” organization. I want to say at whom this “common cause” was aimed. It was aimed at all Afrikaans and English-speaking Government supporters, who voted for the NP, all balanced positive-thinking Coloured, Black and Indian leaders and at the hon. member for Yeoville as well. Why do I say this? The hon. member for Yeoville wrote an article with the heading: “I’m in the PRP. I will tell you how partition could work …” I quote from it—

The article goes on to say—

Then he says—

Do you agree?

Of course I agree! He goes on to say—

Self-determination is the policy of the NP and the hon. member for Yeoville says that he agrees. That is why he must tell me now … [Interjections.]

Order! I have allowed the hon. member for Yeoville a great deal of latitude. He must not abuse the privilege of making interjections. He must stop it now.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We do not mind the hon. member interrupting because it livens up the debate. I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville whether he agrees with what was envisaged by the hon. member for Bryanston, viz. to make “common cause” against these people who ask for self-determination, for what did the hon. member for Yeoville go on to say? He said—

Surely this is the NP policy. Self-determination is NP policy. I thought the hon. member for Yeoville would rise to his feet because I consider him a patriot. He has many opportunities.

He is a Nationalist.

I thought that he would rise to his feet and say that he does not agree with the “common cause” of the hon. member for Bryanston. I thought he would say: But I do not agree with what Mr. Oppenheimer said, viz. that the National Party Government is suppressing the private sector and not giving it, or the people who do not agree with it politically, any opportunities.

Harry, come and sit here on this seat.

I shall leave him at that. Perhaps he will sleep badly tonight.

To conclude. A great deal has been said here and will still be said about separate beaches and the Sea Point swimming baths. It is a minor subject, but to me it is important. The PFP must please give me one answer. It is a very important answer. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition suggested a wonderful solution in theory, especially when this beach problem cropped up. He said we should divide the Peninsula into geographic regions which each represents a community and that those inhabitants should then use a specific beach. But what does his MPC, Mr. Hirsch, say? He says—

Now I shall ask my simple question, and we have already put this question of the hon. member for Sea Point many times. He refuses or he is afraid to give us an answer.

How can he answer? He is not here at the moment.

Will he tell me this afternoon, or will the hon. member for Groote Schuur who is making so many interjections tell me, whether, if his party comes into power, they will open the Sea Point swimming baths to all population groups? A simple “yes” or “no”. Can the hon. member for Groote Schuur give us the answer? I want the answer, but now he is as quiet as a mouse. It is a minor matter, but it is an important question because his whole idea revolves around this. Will we become an open society or not? Will they eliminate all segregation? I am asking a simple question. The hon. member for Houghton can answer me. Will you open the Sea Point swimming baths to all population groups if you come into power?

The answer is “yes”.

Thank you. They are going to open the swimming baths to all races if they come into power. My time has expired. We shall go further into this matter on another occasion.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens referred to our constitutional development and the coming constitutional changes in our country. I am grateful to him for drawing our attention specifically to these very important coming developments. I do not want to talk about that specific aspect any further. There will probably be a lot of discussion of that matter and it will certainly be a contentious subject. I should like to say however that I am grateful for the fact that I have come to this House on the eve of these great constitutional changes in our country because, inter alia, it has been one of my great interests. I was fortunate enough to have made a thorough study of the evolution of the Westminster system during my post-graduate studies. Since we have now seen, since Union, a gradual evolution of our constitutional process and we have seen how our sovereignty, our national symbols and our national way of life have been taken up in our constitution, in our whole constitutional setup, the question arises whether the time has not come to reflect a little on our regional, provincial and local Governments.

I am grateful to the hon. member for Randburg for scrutinizing local governments in particular, because I should like to concentrate my observations on our provincial system of government. This is the so-called central level of our three levels of government. The fact of the matter is that our provincial form of government is, to a large extent, still the same one we inherited from our colonial past. When the founders of Union drew up the constitution of the erstwhile Union, they decided, very wisely, in my opinion, to incorporate a certain measure of decentralization in our constitutional setup. This was probably one of the most sensible decisions in our constitutional history. But in the distribution of provincial powers we see reflected the colonial disputes, colonial tensions and colonial jealousies of the time. May in his South African Constitution, refers specifically to the delegation of education to the provincial administrations and provincial councils because of the mutual differences and fears among the old colonies and former republics. A further effect of this was that the whole concept of a central level of Government was one in which precedents were looked for everywhere and that in certain respects the constitution of our provincial forms of government was something entirely new. May also refers to the fact that executive committees, after their election, are not accountable to the provincial councils. He says—

Then he comes to the conclusion—

So much for the provincial form of government. I should not like to elaborate on it further, however. This simply goes to show that the colonial background of our country is reflected in the constitution of, and the allocation of functions to, the provincial councils and that that is still to a large extent the position today. Because provincial powers were based on passing jealousies and fears, we have seen in the past 70 years how the provinces often obstructed constitutional development in our country. I should like to refer very briefly to a situation which we have experienced repeatedly, in which deadlocks had to be resolved from time to time, to achieve which, in the interests of efficient government in our country, the erstwhile proportional representation in the executive committees was abolished. Changes were effected in the size of the smaller provincial councils. There were also changes in their competence to hold their own elections. Not only were deadlocks resolved in this way, but in the constitutional development of our country, it was also found, to an increasing extent, that matters which were indeed of a more general nature, of national importance, should be removed from provincial jurisdiction. This was done when separate organizations were established for the education of the non-White population groups. It was also done when a national education policy was created for Whites. More recently, it was done when the power to levy taxes was taken away from provincial authorities. Consequently it was felt by some provinces, by provincial councils, and by the electorate, that the system of provincial councils was being dismantled. We see for example that after the new constitutional proposals were announced, one of the first questions to be asked, was what was going to happen to the provincial system.

Today a debate is being conducted in the Natal Provincial Council on a motion which requests the retention of the Provincial Council of Natal as such. Just to talk about dismantling, however, reveals perhaps a too simplistic view of the matter, because in certain respects the range of provincial powers has also been very substantially increased. We need only refer to the sphere of activities of local authorities and the range of powers of provincial councils since 1910. In 1910 there were only about 650 000 White residents in our urban areas, while 615 000 lived in the rural areas. That means that 53% of the White population was urbanized in 1910. I am only referring to the White population. I have the figures for the population as a whole, but it would not do to waste the time of the hon. House with too many figures. Anyway, we are talking about a body for which only Whites vote. Be that as it may, the census figures of 1911 showed that 53% of the White population were living in the urban areas. Sixty years later, in 1970, 3,27 million Whites in South Africa were resident in urban areas against less than 500 000 in rural areas. That means that 86% of a much bigger population than at the time of Union, is living in the urban areas today. Coupled to that is the fact that the scope of duties of local governments, therefore also the scope of powers of provincial councils, has increased drastically. Incidentally, the hon. member for Randburg also referred to this.

With regard to this specific power, we have the situation where the powers of provincial councils might perhaps have become too limited. And I am talking now of the years since Union up to the present time. Perhaps the time has come for us, as far as this matter is concerned, to think about extending the powers of the provincial councils.

†Mr. Speaker, this is certainly not meant to be a plea for the abolition of provincial authorities or of the provincial system. That would certainly not be uncontroversial. Moreover, our country is large and our peoples are varied. Our peoples live in a variety of circumstances, and I believe that the three-tier system of government which is operating in South Africa offers the best benefits of decentralization as referred to, among others, by the hon. member for Pinetown. This is also not an attempt to provide a blueprint for a future dispensation for provincial government. That would certainly be presumptuous in a maiden speech. I do want to plead, however, that we, standing as we do before major constitutional developments in our country, should take a long and hard look at ways and means of strengthening our second and third tiers of government by basing their powers on those characteristics which are peculiarly and permanently theirs.

Let us remove a situation in which people fear centralized control, even where it is very necessary, simply because they fear that their own say in local matters may be removed from them. Above all, however, if the constitutional proposals which we will debate in future will mean that a new era of coexistence among the various national groups of our country is ahead of us, let us then ensure that all the levels of government participate in this new era.