Mr. Speaker, after the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill has been disposed of, the House will turn its attention to the consideration of the Senate amendments to the South African Citizenship Amendment Bill and to the Offices of Profit under the Republic Amendment Bill. After that the Senate amendments to the Financial Relations Amendment Bill will be considered, followed by the Third Reading of the Prisons Amendment Bill, the Committee Stage of the Coordination of Housing Matters Bill, the resumption of the debate on the Second Reading of the Bantu Education Amendment Bill, the Second Reading of the University of Durban-Westville Amendment Bill, the Second Reading of the University of the Western Cape Amendment Bill, the Second Reading of the Church Square, Pretoria, Development Amendment Bill, the Second Reading of the Sale of Land on Instalments Amendment Bill and the Second Reading of the Abuse of Dependence-producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Amendment Bill.

The National Welfare Bill, the Fundraising Bill and the Social and Associated Workers Bill will only come up for discussion at a later stage of the session.

On Monday, 10 April, the hon. the Minister of Finance will reply to the debate on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill. After that the House will proceed with legislation, and will probably go on to discuss the Second Reading of the Railways and Harbours Acts Amendment Bill, the Second Reading of the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Amendment Bill, the Second Reading of the Civil Aviation Offences Amendment Bill and the Second Reading of the Merchant Shipping Amendment Bill.

†Tuesday, Wednesday, and possibly part of Thursday, will be devoted to the discussion of the Prime Minister’s Vote. After that the House will again deal with legislation for the remainder of the week.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, the debate on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill has been going on for two days now and we really have not had a contribution from the Official Opposition.

You have not been listening!

I did, in fact, listen, and I intend replying to old hackneyed arguments because the Opposition is trying to create the impression that this side of the House has no understanding of new circumstances.

That is quite true!

Before I come to that, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Vryheid on his unanimous election to this House, as well as on his maiden speech in this House. The hon. member for Vryheid has been the representative of his constituency in the Natal Provincial Council for some years. He knows his people and the needs of his constituency well. I know with what enthusiasm he serves the interests of his electorate. I wish him well for his term of service in this House.

I should like to refer to the arguments advanced by the Official Opposition. The last speaker before the adjournment last night, the hon. member for Musgrave, was a member of this House from 1953 to 1961. When he was elected in 1953, he was one of the youngest members in the country, and his memories of what happened in the House in those times are probably based on those youthful thoughts of his when he was first elected to this House. However, many changes have taken place in the country as a whole because circumstances have changed, and it seems to me that his way of thinking about the functions of this House and the implementation of the policy in this country has not developed during the time that he was not a member of this House. I have before me an unrevised copy of the speech the hon. member delivered yesterday. I intend discussing certain aspects which he mentioned here.

†One of the first matters he said was that changes that were taking place in South Africa are seen as cosmetic or superficial changes. In recent years it has become fashionable for our overseas critics to refer to changes that are taking place in South Africa as “cosmetic changes”. The question that now arises, however, is whether the use of the words “cosmetic changes” can be regarded as an original idea on the part of the Official Opposition or whether they are merely to be seen as the utterances of the puppet of an overseas ventriloquist. In other words, are they merely, like parrots, repeating the statements used by our overseas critics to try and get at the very heart of South Africa? It might be a bit harsh to say that the Official Opposition, the PFP, can in many ways be seen as the fifth columnists for overseas critics of South Africa, but at any rate I have no fear of contradiction when I say that they are acting as change-agents for those detractors of the South African situation. They are acting as change-agents and are out to try and destroy the whole fabric of South African society.

Your argument is laughable.

If, however, the question of “cosmetic” measures is to be flung at us, in view of the fact that they are the change-agents for overseas pressure against South Africa, let me ask of them whether they are of the opinion that the appointment of the present Ambassador to the United Nations by the United States of America can also been seen merely as a “cosmetic” appointment. Was it an appointment on merit, or would they say it was also merely a “cosmetic” appointment? I leave it for them to reply to that.

It is a riddle.

There was another point raised by the hon. member for Durban Musgrave. He said that he remembered his period in this House during the ’fifties. I quote—

He speaks of “shutters of discrimination being put up by this same Government”. Further on in his speech he also referred to the separation of races, separate amenities, the enforcement of notices on separate park benches, separate labels on lifts, etc. These were not, however, measures introduced by this Government. Most of these measures were in force in 1948 when this Government was elected to office. [Interjections.] It must also be remembered that the overall circumstances of Africa—and also of South Africa—were different. The development of the peoples of Africa and Asia started increasing rapidly up to the Second World War …

Why did they leave you out?

These practices were accepted as traditional practices in this country, and there were no laws enforcing separate entrances at post offices or stations or enforcing separate park benches. There are still no laws in that regard. It is merely a traditional practice that is being carried out in this country because the people of this country were used to such circumstances. To say, therefore, that the shutters of discrimination were put up by this Government is not true. [Interjections.] So if the hon. member for Durban Musgrave were honest in his evaluation of the circumstances, he would realize that and appreciate it. If, however, he is out to criticize this Government under the eyes of overseas evaluators, he will merely proceed with this type of argument indicating that this Government introduced discrimination into this country. The hon. member was in this House previously after being elected to it in 1953. Is he aware of the expressions used by Gen. J. C. Smuts, past leader of the United Party, when he was still in power, expressions which had reference to the attitude of growing hostility in the world towards South Africa? Is he aware that, even before the NP came into power, there was this feeling developing in the world? It has nothing whatsoever to do with any acts imposed by this Government. It was due to the way of life in Southern Africa at the time. If the hon. member for Musgrave wants to be honest—I accept that there are occasions when he wants to be honest, but if he wants to be honest at all times on political platforms and in making the political statements which are prepared for him by his office across the way and which are prepared for publication not only in the Opposition Press in this country but also in the Press overseas—I ask him to weigh his words responsibly and to act responsibly as a South African.

Order! Is the hon. member suggesting that there are occasions when the hon. member for Musgrave is not honest?

No, not in the House. To stress my point concerning the attitude of the rest of the world to South Africa at the present time and in the past, even before 1948, I want to ask the hon. member whether he is aware of the attitude that has existed all along towards the other States in Southern Africa. I refer specifically to States such as Mozambique and Angola when the Portuguese were still in control there. I also refer to Rhodesia, which has never had a policy of separate development or a statutory policy of discrimination. In the former Portuguese territories, i.e. before 1974, there was in fact a deliberate policy of assimilation, of integration, and yet, because the authority there was basically a White authority, a White-orientated authority, irrespective of its policy—there was no discrimination—the outside world condemned them. The outside world also condemns Rhodesia although it has now accepted a rapid movement towards majority rule. Because certain radical elements in Rhodesia are not being accommodated, elements which fall under the direct control of Marxist influence, even the Western World is not prepared to accept majority rule in Rhodesia, even though the majority there is Black. Therefore, the statement that the policy of this Government is responsible for the hostile attitude of the outside world towards South Africa is devoid of all truth. I want to repeat: It is devoid of all truth. I should like the PFP to take note of that.

You are deluding yourself.

I am certainly not deluding myself. It is the PFP who are obviously deliberately deluding themselves because they feel they have an ear overseas and because they are acting as change-agents for overseas interests.

Another matter that was raised by the hon. member for Musgrave was the question of the citizenship of Black people. In raising that issue, he used the words: “until such time as the Government moves away from race policies which are manifestly unjust in their intent …”. This is again one of the statements which the PFP throw into the air without qualifying it or indicating what in fact they mean. They hope that these feathers which they throw into the air will be glibly picked up by our critics overseas who will then point out that it has been stated within the South African Parliament, at the seat of power, that the Government has policies that are “manifestly unjust in their intent”. I challenge him to show this House what policies of this Government are manifestly unjust in their intent. I maintain that this is … I must weigh my words, Mr. Speaker, but this is a deliberate attempt to discredit South Africa as a country, to discredit this party, to discredit the Government and therewith the whole fabric of the society of South Africa. There are no policies on this side of the House, in this party, that are manifestly unjust in their intent. I am convinced that the hon. member for Durban Musgrave and his party know this.

He referred to the question of citizenship and made the remark that the Bantu were to be given a “spurious form” of citizenship. Mr. Speaker, this is typical of the sort of paternal attitude that we have seen all along. In 1949, when the South African Citizenship Act was introduced, we had people who asked: “How dare you take away from South Africans their British citizenship? It is a sacrosanct citizenship.” It was members on the other side who said a second-class citizenship would be created if British citizenship was done away with. What right do they have now to say that the citizenship of the Xhosa in the Transkei, the citizenship of the Tswana in Bophuthatswana and the citizenship of the other Black nation States that are still to be formed in South Africa, are in any way second class or spurious?

Why do you not ask them?

Ask Kaiser Matanzima; ask Mangope if their citizenship is a spurious sort of citizenship. That hon. member will know for himself that it is not a second-class citizenship. It is typical of the sort of paternalistic attitude of the PFP and their likes.

The hon. member for Durban Musgrave spoke of this party creating a unique situation whereby South African citizens will be heavily outnumbered by people in their own country who will be foreigners. He said that this Government would be creating an unique situation. Mr. Speaker, it is not this Government that is creating an unique situation. The whole situation of Southern Africa is unique. That is why we have to find unique solutions to problems. Other countries have found their own solutions, solutions which cannot just be transplanted on to the South African scene. If the British parliamentary system is a system which was adapted over the centuries to suit the people of Britain, then that is an unique system which was adapted over the centuries for the people of that country, the United Kingdom. However, we have to find solutions to problems which are unique to Southern Africa. If we adopt unique methods, there is therefore nothing strange about it.

He also said that there has been a strange silence from Government benches on the question of the consolidation of the homelands and asked whether we still stood by the 1936 Bantu Trust and Land Act as the basis of the consolidation of homelands. It has often been officially repeated that for the purpose of the consolidation of the homelands, the 1936 Act is to be regarded as the basis. It is true that within these consolidation proposals the consolidation does not bring with it that there will be an absolute consolidation into single units. It is quite true and it is not the ideal situation. It would be ideal if we could just erase history, erase the past and say for the purpose of planning for the future we will have single nation States for the various Black nations of Southern Africa. It is not feasible or practical, however, under present-day circumstances. We have had the situation in Europe where, by laws and by force of power politics, the peoples of Europe decided what their boundaries should be. In the past, especially after the last war, there was a greater imperative need to create unified blocks of land to serve as nation States for particular people. The circumstances in South Africa, and even those in Europe, today have changed considerably. Historically people have been divided, and in this regard I refer to a country such as the previous Austrian Empire, which consisted of Germans, Czechs, Poles, Slovaks and various other peoples. History determined that this should not remain a single State. So these people were divided up, after the First World War, into nation States where the bulk of the population of a particular language group, a particular ethnic belonging, was to form the basis of the new States. That has been changed again, however, after the Second World War. Today there are many countries behind the Iron Curtain with many former citizens of other States living in them. Czechoslovakia and Poland today have many hundreds of thousands of citizens of the former German State while Germany today is spending billions of marks to repatriate ethnic Germans from Poland, and at the very moment negotiations are under foot to repatriate ethnic Germans from Czechoslovakia.

In Southern Africa today we have the situation that since the end of the Second World War there has been a historical development in the economic process of the country, a development which has brought about a greater urbanization than was previously the case. People belonging to Transkei, to Botswana, to Lesotho and for that matter also to Mozambique, have moved into South Africa to establish themselves economically and to become economically viable as part of their nation. For that reason we accept that, economically, we have within our borders a situation where people are economically dependent on an economic interaction, and because of that there is a need for economic co-operation amongst the peoples of Southern Africa. They also need to recognize the political status of countries and nations which are separate nations in all respects in the international sense, whether they are recognized or not. The Zulu people are a people separate from the Tswanas, and if Mangope were to be asked, he would say that he would rather co-operate with Botswana than with KwaZulu. The leader of the Venda would rather co-operate with Lebowa than with Gazankulu. This is so because they are different people. We must accept that we have, within the historical social concept of Southern Africa, different peoples, and therefore within this context it is vitally necessary that we should make provision for separate political entities for these people.

However, we also accept that economically there is a need for the closest co-operation between these various peoples, and because of this need we must try to formulate unique policies for the situations in Southern Africa, situations which are not in line with those in the United States, Canada, Australia and Europe as such.

We also have the situation that in Europe there are nations which fought each other bitterly 35 years ago but who are now moving closer to one another in many aspects. So there are nations which are moving together on military aspects within Nato. We have the European Common Market and we even have the concept of closer political co-operation, i.e. the Parliament of Europe, which was the Parliament of States which is now to be developed into a Parliament of Citizens with direct elections. However, even in Europe they are moving slowly on the path towards sacrificing part of their national sovereignty. There is a hesitancy on the part of most of those States to sacrifice sovereignty, and consequently the power of the Parliament of Europe will be extremely limited in so far as it affects the national sovereignty of the various individual States. If within Southern Africa we move on the same path of unscrambling the egg which has been scrambled by post-war economic development, in so far as it affects political determination, of accepting that we are economically closely inter-related and must have the closest economic co-operation, but also accepting that in the political sphere the political sovereignty must in the first instance be given to each nation to deal with at their own initiative with their own future, then we accept that within this context of Southern Africa there must obviously be the closest cooperation.

With the new dispensation that has been given notice of we are moving into the sphere of close consultation, of consulting one another, of dialogue between the separate States. This dispensation, with a separate Parliament for Whites, Coloureds and Indians which will operate on the basis of consultation and not confrontation within a single political structure, has been announced and I can envisage that within the greater Southern Africa context there will be the closest consultation, because there is a need for the closest consultation even on a political level. However, the new dispensation does not provide for a single political structure in which joint decisions that are binding on the whole structure will be taken. It is a new concept into which we are moving, a concept of having more dialogue and discussion, of having more co-operation on an informal or even, for that matter, on a formal basis, but not on the basis of having a single political structure.

The hon. member for Sea Point …

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition!

Order! The hon. member must refer to the hon. member for Sea Point as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

I beg your pardon, Sir. In his closing remarks of his contribution to the debate the hon. Leader of the Opposition said—

Then he adds—

That is where the parting of ways come, because we believe we cannot find a unity on the basis of a common citizenship in a common fatherland. The history of plural societies over the world proves that it is virtually impossible to find a cohesive unity on the basis of a common citizenship within a common fatherland, as is proposed by the PFP. [Interjections.] We also believe that within South Africa there must obviously be closer co-operation, but that co-operation must be on the basis of the recognition of separate sovereignties and peoples’ identities, and not on the basis of a federal or a unitary Parliament which might be proposed by the PFP. Their policy implies a movement toward a unitary system for all the various peoples of Southern Africa.

What about South West Africa?

We accept that whatever might have happened in South West Africa or Rhodesia, the circumstances of world pressure in the international situation at this moment make those artificial situations. The ideal solution is the one we are moving towards. It is a movement towards the acceptance and recognition of separate sovereignties, and co-operation between the people on that basis. For that reason we must say to the PFP and their hon. leader that under no circumstances can we accept a unity on the basis of a common citizenship within a common fatherland, although we also accept the need for a greater unity and greater cooperation. One of the hon. members on the other side of the House has asked how there can be development and a military alliance between the various Black and White people of Southern Africa if we accept the basis that there must be separate homelands. In the continent of Europe the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a military alliance between the peoples of western Europe on the basis of the needs of all those peoples, and it is not a federal system. So also can we in Southern Africa recognize the need for greater military co-operation between the various peoples of South Africa. It is on that basis that this party sees that we need greater co-operation, but we do not need the policies of the PFP, the agents for foreign interests who seek our downfall.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Klip River concluded his speech with a theme which actually forms an inherent part of my own speech and I therefore think that it will serve as a reply to certain arguments which he put forward. He began by telling us which were cosmetic changes and which were not. I think the important aspect for us to remember is that the nature of change, whether cosmetic or not, is not going to be determined by the eloquence of hon. members on both sides of the House, but in the long term by whether it will in each case make a contribution towards lessening conflict in South Africa.

If we look at the present political climate in South Africa and Southern Africa, as well as in the international community, we see that the present budget which was announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance is an extremely important political statement for the future development of our country. This is because the important internal political development in South Africa as well as in the Southern African situation over the past few years has not been so much a question of the gradual democratization of the majority of the indigenous population, but rather whether the majority of that population is satisfied with the free market mechanism or the capitalist system as a viable instrument in the development of that community. In brief, it means that if this tendency also manifests itself to an increasing extent in South Africa, we can finally reach the turning point between the possibility of peaceful change or revolutionary change. This, in essence, is what happened in Mozambique as well as in Angola. It is the same tension which also underlies the struggle which is now taking place in South West Africa and Rhodesia. The division between the so-called Turnhalle Alliance on the one hand and Nujoma on the other in South West Africa and between Smith and Muzorewa on the one hand and Mugabe and Nkomo on the other in Rhodesia, is ultimately concerned with the nature of the economic system which is going to apply in that community. I believe the biggest crisis and problem which is going to confront a settlement government, if such a government should be established in the near future, is whether it can prove that the free market mechanism or capitalism can be a satisfactory instrument for meaningful change for the majority of the people in the community. But we here in South Africa are being confronted with the self-same problem now. This point has been made by implication by many speakers on the opposite side of the House, including, inter alia, the hon. the Deputy Minister for Development yesterday, viz. the viability of the free market mechanism as an economic instrument. Of course, the reverse side of the argument is to point out the dangers of Marxism and the influence of communism in Southern Africa at the moment.

That is why the one question which one may ask the hon. the Minister of Finance about this budget is the following: What does it contain that can strengthen the Black man’s confidence in and the credibility of capitalism? I want to concede that it is a question which does not have to be answered by the hon. the Minister of Finance only, but by each Minister as it affects the Vote under which he spends money. The hon. the Minister of Finance is an economist by profession, I am not. But he will agree with me that the conventional capitalist policy rests on the acceptance of freedom of movement for the production factors, viz. capital, land, labour and entrepreneurial talent.

If we look at each of these factors in the South African context, the mounting indictment which we hear is that White man’s domain is writ large over each of these factors. This is the indictment one hears. Let us take capital. The issue is not only who owns capital, but also how capital can effectively be obtained. In this regard one can tick off: Is it Black or White? Let us take land. Who can obtain, alienate or sell it most easily? Once again one can tick off: White or Black. Take entrepreneurial talent. Who has greater mobility, who can turn opportunities to the greatest advantage and exploit new economic possibilities? There is a clear White/Black distinction here too. Take labour. What are the relative opportunities for an improvement in wages, the available training opportunities, the possibilities for promotion, the fringe benefits such as medical and pension funds? In this regard too, comment is practically superfluous if a White/ Black comparison is drawn. This is the important point which is being missed; I think by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations as well.

The outside world and Africa are not interested in comparisons between a homeland and other African States on this level. What they are interested in, is a White/Black comparison in South Africa, within the same economic system. This is the sphere in which they want to know what progress is being made.

That is why I believe the most serious problem—perhaps it is the only problem— which is facing the Government and, indeed, all White people, is that during the next few years the Black people in our own country, partly as a result of what happened in our neighbouring States, are going to see the free market mechanism as a system of favouring the White position of power and privilege. If this has to happen, the gradual expansion of political power, to which the hon. member for Klip River referred, is in actual fact useless, because by that time the majority will no longer be interested in forming part of an existing system, but only in rejecting the system in its entirety.

†That is why it is of vital importance that all of us must understand the nature of the reaction to the political programme of the Government, not only in terms of its merits which form the brunt of the party-political debate, but the consequences of this programme for White/Black conflict resolution in South Africa. If one of the major consequences is the massive rejection of free enterprise as an economic instrument of social change, then all of us—irrespective of our party-political affiliations—will feel the impact intimately and immediately in our personal lives.

That is why it is also vitally important to understand the nature of the Marxist alternative—or the so-called communist alternative—to this programme. Let me give some illustrations. During this session of Parliament the Government announced that in a few years’ time there would be no Black South African citizens in South Africa. Now, for those who are committed to the free enterprise economy—and the PFP has declared itself committed to that system—the logic of this is difficult to understand, for in terms of their understanding this policy of the Government pursues two contradictory goals simultaneously. Firstly, it pursues the goal of bringing about political separation while promoting increasing economic integration. This has been the brunt of our attack on the Government and its policy. However, for the Marxist opponents to the policy this makes perfect sense. What is their argument? What is their response? They argue that to announce something like this, to pursue the policy of homeland development, is simply a political manipulation on the part of the Whites—and they say “Whites”; they do not say “Government”—to preserve and keep an unstable labour force in order to monopolize the fruits of a capitalistic economy. We may all deny this, but it is a harsh reality that if the majority of Blacks are persuaded to believe this kind of explanation, their belief itself will have very real consequences for bringing about peaceful change in our country, because—as we all agree—it is impossible to negotiate with anyone who totally rejects one’s bona fides as well as one’s basic assumptions.

Let me give another example. I am sure hon. members opposite will respond to my analysis by telling me that I am completely wrong, that they are making the free enterprise system more attractive to the Blacks. They will tell me they have created the BDC, the XDC, the CDC and the IDC to stimulate entrepreneurial talent among the Blacks. They will tell me they have provided educational facilities and training institutions to increase the productivity of the Blacks, that they are bringing about more flexible labour organizations for the Blacks and that they have given them land with which they can exploit agricultural resources should they so wish. In short, all the factors of production necessary for a free enterprise economy have been put at their disposal again. However, the Marxist response to this is simply that the intention is to create a weak, non-competitive Black middle class separate from Whites to act as a buffer to Black aspirations, but that the vast majority of Blacks will still remain a captive labour force for the manipulation of the rulers’ interests.

Who says that?

The Marxists! I am sketching the position. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Worcester is a most unfortunate victim of his own limitations. He proves it every time he opens his mouth. I wish he would just keep quiet for a while. [Interjections.] The Marxists say that this is what the intention really is. This is their argument. We have to counteract that argument. We must prove to them that the consequence of the Government’s policy is not to create this vast captive labour force for the manipulation of the rulers’ interests. They make no distinction between political parties in this respect. That is the point I am trying to make.

Marxists, therefore, are not interested in whether this Government or anybody else can demonstrate that one can have two competitive forms of capitalistic economy in South Africa, a Black one separate from a White one. I want to know what the relative benefits are, within the same economic system, for everybody participating in it. That is where the crux of the problem lies. The question is then why such an ideology could become more attractive to Blacks in our country. I want to suggest two reasons. The first one is because it is so compelling in its simplicity. It explains their present situation to them quite clearly, and at the same time it promises them a future which looks very attractive. Secondly, it is because it is directly related to a fundamental aspect of Government policy, namely the assumption that there are in principle no Black South African citizens. To say to a Black man that he can never be a citizen of the country of his birth, the country where he works and dies, is to make him amenable to an Utopian ideology of any nature which promises him the contrary. [Interjections.] It provides fertile soil for dissention, and that is why I will always maintain that the Government’s policy is becoming a very important contributory factor to the attractiveness of a Marxist alternative to Blacks in Southern Africa. That is the danger which faces us all. [Interjections.]

Against this background I therefore have to repeat my initial question to the hon. the Minister of Finance: Is there in this budget something that improves the confidence and credibility of the Black man in the free enterprise system? This is the same kind of question posed to the Government in the recent publication of Prof. Jan Lombard, an economist from Pretoria. It is also the same question asked last week in the Press by Mr. Sam Motsuenyane, self-declared Black capitalist. The obverse implication of this question is clear: If free enterprise cannot demonstrate that its benefits can be shared by all in equal competition, then the system itself will become the single most important source of discontent and conflict in our society. This, I submit, is the only real problem that Whites of all party-political persuasions will have to address themselves to; not the heated political debates which, in fact, belong to the sphere of political surrealism in which we have been involved in the past. All our problems are connected with the ability of the free enterprise system to actually demonstrate to the people that it is a just instrument of social change. The cloak of responsibility in this respect falls heavily on the Government.

That is why I find it ironic that Government members from time to time, as it happened yesterday again, insinuate that this party endeavours to destroy or subvert the free enterprise system. It is not only ironic, but it also displays an ignorance so profound and a stupidity so limitless that the ignorance and stupidity become part of the problem which confronts us. I think that the contribution of particularly the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development and the hon. member for Lydenburg distinguish themselves in this respect.

*I want to conclude by referring to another facet of the problem. Repeated reference has been made to the inability of the West to assist South Africa in its present crisis. People are amazed that the West should ostensibly look on cheerfully while Southern Africa, and by implication South Africa, falls into the hands of the Marxists or communists. People ask: “How can America, for example, the stronghold of capitalism, simply sit with folded hands and allow this to happen?” I want to suggest that two processes are responsible for this. The one is a process of racial polarization in South Africa itself which began after the riots of 16 June 1976. There are several hon. members on that side who admitted that we must try to guard against the dangers of polarization. This is clearly the problem with which South Africa is confronted. The result of this process of racial polarization is simply that the outside world, the West in particular, saw the White rulers in the south of Africa as the chief antagonists, and on the basis of their own interests in Africa and elsewhere, they dared not choose sides in this respect. This is why they could do nothing.

The other process is one of ideological polarization which has expanded in South Africa, especially since the decolonization of Mozambique and Angola. This polarization is the one of which I have just been speaking: A Marxist alternative to free enterprise and capitalism. When these two processes, racial and ideological polarization, occur simultaneously, as is beginning to happen in South Africa now, the West finds itself in an impossible situation, for if they try to counteract racial polarization, they are accused of wanting to preserve capitalism for the White man in South Africa. If they try to fight Marxism, they are seen as the supporters of racial polarization. That is why it seems to me as if we simply cannot expect much assistance from that source.

What is the position in Rhodesia and Angola?

Precisely the same.

You are generalizing now.

The responsibility of opposing these processes will not be simplified for us from outside; it is going to rest on the shoulders of the Whites here in South Africa. It means that we shall have to find a solution here for counteracting the processes. That duty rests on the Government in particular.

What are your proposals?

I am coming to the proposals now. I say there is going to be increasing pressure on the Exchequer for things like housing, employment opportunities, improve of productivity, salaries and the welfare of all our inhabitants. This pressure is going to surpass all other political considerations within the next five years. That is why I say the Government still has a chance—this is the point which I am making—to say: We accept that we are all citizens of South Africa and no matter how great the risks may be, we will try to give everyone full and equal economic, social and political civil rights. The Government still has the choice to tell everyone clearly that South Africa is our common fatherland and that there is no first and second class citizenship and that we are working within the same economic structure. The Government has the chance of inviting everyone to co-operate and enjoy the advantages of, and if necessary, to fight for South Africa. Today there is still a chance; I think that tomorrow could be too late.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked at the commencement of his speech what there was in this budget that could instill confidence in the Black man. It is clear to me that he did not read this budget, because if he had read it, he would have seen what funds had been budgeted for the development of the homelands, for Black education and for the development of the Black cities. If he had also listened to the news very recently, he would have heard that the hon. the Prime Minister recently told the Black leaders of Soweto that they could in future obtain the right to house-ownership in Soweto. There is something else, too, which I can say to that hon. member. Last year—not this year—this Government granted R841 million for the development of Black territories. We just want to tell those hon. members who always hold the world and the UNO in such high esteem, that this amount of R841 million which South Africa spent on its Black territories, is much more than the UNO spends in underdeveloped countries throughout the world. There is something else I should like to say to that hon. member and his party. The difference between us and them is that they believe, as Read and Van der Kemp had believed since the earliest years—and it seems to me we shall always have people like that with us—in mixing, in a mixed society, whilst we believe in development for each, co-equal in his own area. The living space which the White man has in the White area, the Black man also has proportionally in his own homelands, his own territories. Furthermore, I want to tell that hon. member and his party that we are not ashamed to be White. Just as the Black man is proud to be Black, we are also proud of being White. The White man in South Africa has come a long way and has worked hard to obtain what he has. He did not steal it. One cannot force the ripening process of a nation, and that applies to the economy and many other things as well. It is a lengthy process, and as far as the economy is concerned, the Black nations of South Africa, too, still have a long way to go. After all, it is the best to follow that road by learning from experience. One must crawl before one can walk.

How much time do we have?

But I would not like to be led into temptation by devoting too much time to that hon. member. I want to deal with the budget.

It has been my privilege since 1967, i.e., for the past 12 years, to be able to take my place in this House. South Africa is a part of the world—an important part of the world— and, seen in the light of the difficult financial and economic conditions throughout the world, this is undoubtedly, in the present circumstances, the best budget which I have heard since I took my seat in this House 12 years ago. Seldom in my life have I seen people with so many conflicting emotions as the hon. members of the Opposition when they heard this budget—conflicting emotions because in their inner selves they felt convinced that they, their friends and wealthy voters would benefit by that budget. But then the conflicting emotions came to the fore— and I understand their problem—because outwardly they had to pretend that this was not a good budget and that they were not satisfied with it. Then they came up, inter alia, with their main slogan, namely that justice is not done to the poor man in this budget. I want to ask the hon. members on the opposite side who, among them, represent poor constituencies. The contrary is true. They are the representatives of the capitalists in South Africa. It is clear to me that their capitalists were so satisfied with this budget, that not one of their financial friends had anything to say to them. That is why they could not sound that note. If they had nevertheless done so, they would have had their wealthy friends against them.

This budget is proof of masterly expertise in the field of finance and economics. Everyone gets his portion from this budget. To mention but a few of them, I want to say that this applies to the drawers of pensions, social and civil, the lower income groups and the higher income groups. The hon. members opposite talked about the extent to which the lower income groups would be affected by the turnover tax (or the sales tax as I prefer to call it). I just want to ask the hon. members whether they have lost sight of the fact that the lower income groups in the Republic of South Africa enjoy many services and benefits for which they do not pay. They enjoy the benefit of free education, of roads, of hospitalization, etc. That for which the higher income groups pay and for which the lower income groups do not pay, those people enjoy with us. I further want to tell the hon. members opposite that I can say without hesitation to the lower income groups: “See, now you also contribute to the financing, the development and the building up of South Africa. You are doing so by way of these indirect taxes which you are paying. ”

Since South Africa has become a Republic, our budget has grown at a terrific rate. I have noticed the extent to which South Africa has developed over the past 18 years. It is good, wonderful, for a country and its people to be able to develop and grow like that. It is well for South Africa that we have such economic might. It is, however, not only a good thing for the Republic of South Africa and its people, but also for the other states of Southern Africa and their people and for the whole of Africa.

That brings me to the subject to which I should briefly like to devote some attention, namely Southern Africa’s and Africa’s need for the Republic of South Africa. As it is, and with what it has, and what it has to offer, the Republic of South Africa is at present an enormous asset to Africa. One thinks for example of the scientific, technical and financial expertise, the economic expertise, the expertise in the field of agriculture, of medicine, and veterinary science available in the Republic of South Africa. We do not keep this expertise and the benefits thereof to ourselves alone. We are prepared to share our assets with Africa. It is a pity that certain Western countries labour under the delusion that if they were to present certain of our enemies, certain States in Africa with the head of the Republic of South Africa on a plate, they would thereby gain the favour of Africa. I can tell them that they will not succeed in getting the South Africa’s head on a plate. It will not happen. If that day of confrontation were to come—we hope and pray that this will not happen—then I want to tell them that they will come up against one of the best prepared defence forces in the world. We can tell them that they will be up against men, women and children in the houses in the Republic of South Africa—I am tempted to say: In every comer of South Africa—we shall find people who will be prepared to defend their country to the last. In other words, if the assets of South Africa were to be lost, Southern Africa and Africa as a whole would suffer, just as South Africa itself would suffer.

Overseas countries are applying sanctions against South Africa. I want to refer very briefly to what an expert in the field of economics and industry recently said in this connection. Under the heading “Sanksies teen Suid-Afrika: Bure sou meer ly”, he said—

Another speaker at this gathering said that the sanctions applied against Rhodesia, had hurt Rhodesia, but that they had hurt Zambia just as much. That is why I say that the presence of the Republic of South Africa is of the utmost importance to the welfare of Southern Africa and of Africa. What we have, we are prepared to share and also to offer to these people.

Dr. Anton Rupert recently said the following at the conference in Lesotho—

Mr. Speaker, please note: 528 specialists!—

This report appeared in the Sunday Times. That is what the Republic of South Africa is prepared to do and is busy doing for its neighbouring States in Southern Africa.

I have further evidence. The report concerned reads: “Suid-Afrika snel bure te hulp”—

Mr. Speaker, these are the proofs which we can furnish to the world to show to what extent we are helping our neighbours in South Africa. Last year, the Republic of South Africa produced 29% of all agricultural products in Africa. South Africa produced 29% of all the food.

There are 50 countries in Africa, and fewer than ten of these are self-supporting as far as food production is concerned. That is further proof to us that the presence of the Republic of South Africa as the larder and granary in Africa is essential and will become more and more essential in the future. It has been learned from authoritative sources that 500 million people in the world are in the deadly grip of famine and are doomed ultimately to die of starvation. Ten per cent of this 500 million, i.e., 50 million, are in Africa. While the 50 million are calling for food, Russia is busy expanding her military interests in Africa at an unprecedented rate. Someone said recently that Russia was at present spending R6 million per day on military aid and equipment for Africa. America and the West should realize that the longer Russia is allowed to spend this money in Africa, the more difficult it is going to be at a later stage to loosen the grip of Russia on Africa. We therefore want to say to those people who labour under the delusion that they are helping Africa, we want to point out to them in all seriousness that the best and easiest way of helping Africa, is to do so via the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very good budget except that the hon. the Minister could perhaps have done a little bit more for the farmer. But this is not what I want to speak about this afternoon. I want to say a few words about the death of Mr. Biko and the hoax perpetrated by Mr. Donald Woods on the world and the role of a section the Press in this whole affair. I want to start off by quoting extracts from a periodical in England, The Spectator of November 1977. The article concerns the death of Mr. Steve Biko in detention. Mr. Richard West, who wrote the article, says—

The article continues, quoting Mr. Woods—

Further on in the article Mr. West states—

Here we have it right from the horse’s mouth, not from a NP Cabinet Minister or a Robin Wiley, but from a person no less than Mr. West from England, that Woods could voice his opinions through South Africa’s leading newspaper and thus through the world Press. This is the same channel of communication so often used by the hon. members for Houghton, Pinelands and others on that side of the House when they wish, as they so often do, to dirty their own nest here in South Africa. Mr. West goes on to say—

He is here referring to last year’s election—

How true! This falsity, this myth of the cruel Boers was started in 1837 by one or two twisted and distorted missionary minds and, through their powerful friends and the Press overseas, they have been able to maintain this image of South Africa. It always has been and always will be popular to grab a stick and join the mob in the beating of a dog. Nothing has changed. The Press overseas is still as antagonistic as ever; the local Press, willing as ever, to feed the world with untruths, half-truths and innuendos, and we also still have with us the people, like the Official Opposition in this House, who are ever willing to provide fodder for the Press with which to besmirch South Africa. Such a person is Mr. Donald Woods, a dear and very highly regarded personal friend of some of the hon. members on the other side.

[Inaudible.]

I am sorry that I could not hear the hon. member for Houghton’s interjection.

She always cackles like that!

I want to state here and now that I am extremely sorry about the death of Mr. Steve Biko, as are all right-minded people in South Africa.

It leaves the Minister cold!

She is cackling again.

Mr. Speaker, in mythology there was supposed to be a box called Pandora’s box. The belief was that if this box should be opened all the evils of the world would come out of it. The hon. member for Houghton reminds me of that box. Every time she opens her beautiful mouth … [Interjections.] … evil comes out and that evil about South Africa is spread all over the world.

*The death of Steve Biko was a tragedy for South Africa. We in this country would much rather have kept him alive. His death did South Africa inestimable harm, not because of what he was, but because of what Mr. Donald Woods made of him through the medium of the Press: a human wonder and a leader. It had no connection whatsoever with the reality of his life, because Mr. Biko was a Black activist who did not even make room for Mr. Woods in his new proposed dispensation. He rejected Mr. Woods’ sickly White liberalism, but the more he rejected it, the more Mr. Woods became devoted to him.

Why do you attack a man who cannot reply to you?

I am not attacking him, I am telling you the truth about him.

*The more Mr. Woods was rejected, the more he wanted to prove that he, Woods, could play a major role and was indispensable to Biko and his ideals. Biko was satisfied to use Woods himself, as well as his house, his liquor, his inflammatory pen and his newspaper to incite revolution in this country.

†Mr. Donald Woods’ common theme song was—

This is what he fed his Black readers on; a concentrated diet for sedition. Mr. Donald Woods started off by being an old-fashioned liberal. He was a friendly and very likeable personality with a keen brain and a theatrical trait which served him well as a journalist. I personally knew him quite well and even once defended him in the provincial council. One day over lunch he told me categorically that he did not care two hoots for the Black masses in South Africa or anywhere else in the world. For all he cared, they could die in misery by the millions. All that concerned him was that a few educated Black friends should have full equality to vote, live, eat and drink where they liked. The rights of one individual Black man meant more to him than the existence of millions of other Blacks. This is the Donald Woods I knew. The more Black Consciousness rejected him, the more bitter and twisted he became. It became an obsession with him to be accepted by the Blacks, even to the extent of becoming a martyr so that he could prove to the Black man how indispensable he was to their cause. He became more and more vitriolic and hateful in his outbursts against the Government as his frustration mounted for not being gaoled and failing to become a martyr in this country.

You banned him …

Our friendship broke up after one of his filthy leading articles about the Minister of Defence. When he eventually succeeded in getting himself banned, he licked his chops with glee and immediately started planning the second phase of his campaign. He had already started to build up Biko as a hero, a Messiah and the greatest leader of all times. He, Donald Woods, Biko’s close and brave friend, was risking his life and his safety through championing the cause of the late Mr. Biko. As he himself said, the hook had been baited. He would make Kruger and the whole of South Africa pay for his frustrations. Where there was no risk or danger, it had to be created. The whole system in South Africa had to be put under a cloud, blackened and, if possible, destroyed. His friends, the news media and their financial resources were marshalled against South Africa, while he himself had to retain the leadership and the limelight. He personally had to be the hero as well as the martyr in this carefully planned drama.

The Daily Dispatch was playing its part with front-page headlines day after day, publishing whatever could be fabricated by Woods and his friends. The Rand Daily Mail was distributing it all over the world, as far as it could. This Woods’ saga was the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the Western World since the Second World War 30 years ago. Not only had Woods’ life to be seen to be in danger, but also that of his family. They had to be threatened by no less a force than the Security Police themselves. It has to be a total war on South Africa.

One morning we awoke to the news of the T-shirt incident. The little Woods girl screamed in agony after putting on a T-shirt which had been sent through the post. Woods and his crony, the so-called private detective, Mr. Donald Card, knew that Woods’ letters were being opened by the Security Police. Herein they saw their chance to cast suspicion on the Security Police and to foster their own objectives. They said the Police could not be trusted to bring the culprit to book and so Mr. Donald Card would launch his own investigation into the matter.

Innuendo number one was made when the Daily Dispatch wrote on its front page—

Innuendo number two then followed when the Daily Dispatch wrote of Mr. Card—

We must remember these words “circumstantial probability”, because most of their case was built on circumstantial probability. It goes further—

Then we come to the third innuendo—all on the front page—where Col. Fourie of the S.A. Police was interviewed. The question put to him was—

As I said, Mr. Woods knew that his letters were being opened by the Security Police, and this fact had to be turned, and used, against them. He had to stage an attack on his own daughter: Call it an acid attack that could have been fatal; publish photos of the servant, the dog, the cat and the canary, all wild-eyed with shock and fear, and once the psychosis of danger to his family had been created all over the world, slowly, by innuendo, he could pin the blame on the “stupid” Security Police in South Africa. What a cunning scheme they thought it was, one that would never be found out, at least not whilst Mr. Woods was still in South Africa.

We then come to the fourth innuendo on January 3, again on the front page of the Daily Despatch. The Managing Director of the Daily Despatch, Mr. Bryceland, said—

Mr. Woods’ nature had, in fact, been changed long before that. The fifth innuendo was again by Mr. Card. He said—

By that time Donald Woods had fled the country. As he had planned, his trap had sprung. The bait had been taken—hook, line and sinker by a gullible and duped world public.

And by Helen!

Helen has always been duped! All the aid of the Press was so conveniently at his disposal. Woods held the world stage and the moment had arrived for which he so long planned—to take his vengeance on South Africa.

He is making money out of it.

Not only was he painted as a martyr in South Africa, but like a hero he had also outwitted the stupid police and escaped over the border and, like a Churchill, swam a raging, swollen and flooded river to freedom. The world was agog and everyone was willing to pay homage to this superman. What a hoax! Woods never swam one stroke nor walked one yard. But his moment had come. He had the world at his feet. They had swallowed his bluff. They believed his T-shirt hoax. So they would believe anything he told them. It only remained for him to dictate to them how to attack and harm South Africa. This is what he said—

This is what he had to say about South Africa, our Prime Minister and our Minister of Justice. He said further—

The only bit of truth that was spoken at that conference was the bit where Mrs. Woods said that her husband had not asked for an exit visa because he would have found it demeaning to do so.

That was the only truthful statement made during the whole affair at the Gatwick Airport. Further, I accuse Donald Woods of having planned the whole plot, even to the extent of shamelessly using the name of a deceased friend in order to further his own ends. I accuse Donald Woods of fabricating evidence based on circumstantial probabilities, of using the news media and, perhaps, even some innocent colleagues of his to further his own selfish craving for glory in his vendetta against South Africa. Although Donald Woods is now overseas the Press is still relentlessly pursuing his vendetta against South Africa.

I want to refer to the death of Dr. Rick Turner. Again we find examples of innuendo in the Daily Dispatch, where it is said—

This front page article goes on to say—

Later in the same report he stated—

There is also a picture of Dr. Rick Turner, as well as—in black headlines—a statement by Dr. Turner’s mother saying—

This was obviously another effort to link the death of Dr. Rick Turner with the T-shirt incident and the Security Police and to the attack perpetrated on Donald Woods’ daughter. Again, when the hon. the Minister gave certain information in this House in reply to a question put to him by the hon. member for Houghton, the Daily Dispatch tried to fight another rearguard action against the truth. Again using innuendo, that paper casts doubt on the credibility of the information given by the hon. the Minister of Justice. This is what the paper had to say, and I quote—

I have tried to prove that we do not have factual reporting by a certain section of the Press in this country. We have reporting by innuendo, by suspicion mongery and making use of circumstantial probability dished up to the world as facts. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how much longer can we condone this vendetta against us by institutions within the country?

In conclusion I want to state that a vendetta of innuendo, of misrepresentation, of false deductions, of hypocrisy and of stupid statements, such as that made yesterday by the hon. member of East London North, is being launched against South Africa from within. Even the hon. member for East London North yesterday allowed himself to be used by the forces who like to add fuel to the flames burning against South Africa. He said that South Africa was the polecat of the world because of apartheid.

Die Burger said so as well.

Yesterday he was too scared to answer a question of mine. He would not even allow me to ask him the question. I want to ask him that same question now, and I want to put it to him as an honourable gentleman, because he is addressed as an honourable gentleman in this House. I expect him to live up to that form of address by giving me an honest answer, as a gentleman of honour should. He must not be devious in his reply, like a second class political hack. He must tell me whether he is in favour of beach apartheid in East London. I do not want an answer now; I want to give him a fair chance to think about this. I want to remind him of the fact that he won the election in East London North through the votes of members of the NRP and the NP because his opponent wanted to throw open all the beaches. At the time the voters considered him, the hon. member for East London North, to be the lesser of the two evils as against his opponent, Mr. Yazbek, the Prog candidate. I want to remind him that his NRP running mate for the provincial council, Mr. Robin Hobbs, is dead against the opening of the beaches. He wants apartheid.

That is local option.

Mr. Speaker, let us not play with words. We will keep to the word “apartheid”, which was used by the hon. member yesterday. I want to remind the hon. member for East London North that the Daily Dispatch reporter is sitting up there in the Gallery, and that he will publish the reply of the hon. member for East London North on the front page of the Dispatch in big black letters.

I have my answer ready, if you will just give me a moment to give it to you.

I am trying to give the hon. member as much time as possible. Now the moment of truth has come, Sir. I would like to put a very simple question to the hon. member. Does he or does he not want the two beaches in East London, Orient Beach and Nahoon Beach, to be opened to all races? Does he want apartheid on those beaches or does he not?

I believe that is for the people of East London to decide. [Interjections.]

What is your view?

My view is not important. What is important is that the people of East London must be given the right to decide … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I can only come to the conclusion that the hon. member is politically false towards his voters in East London North, because the policies the hon. member was propagating there were the complete opposite of what he is saying here. That can only mean, as far as I am concerned, that he is a Prog at heart but that he does not have the guts to admit it in this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the economic position of our country, not through the eyes of a typical party politician, but through the eyes of a concerned South African, a family man, a former businessman and now a farmer. I should like to look at the entire economic and political picture that stares every South African squarely in the face today. Mr. Speaker, please excuse a few minutes of introduction and preparation before I get to an actual political and economic discussion. As no doubt many hon. members know, I was for the past 30 years and until quite recently, considered to be a Nationalist.

Were you a member?

No, I only voted Nat; I was not a member.

What went wrong?

I shall tell you. Until the last election I had always voted Nat. By way of introduction I shall now spell out exactly why I always voted Nat. Then I shall illustrate why I ceased to be a Nat. I intend to use myself as an example of what has happened and will happen more and more to thousands of average South Africans. [Interjections.] My unorthodox method and the example, and possibly the spectacle, I am presently going to make of myself, is purely to illustrate what is happening in the minds of thousands of other perturbed South Africans who are not completely blinded by newspaper reports or party indoctrination. [Interjections.] Just listen.

Order!

I hope I can get my sincere message across this floor before it is too late. I am going to take my personal history back to the war years when I was still a teenager. I was then attending the Afrikaans Hoërskool in Pretoria where my father was a civil servant. During that period a minor incident occurred, an incident which I think is really of little importance but which nevertheless left an indelible mark on me for 20 years thereafter.

Is this your maiden speech?

Let me be. The incident took place during 1942, and I was only 13 years old at the time. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, these chaps are trying to rile me because they know I get cross easily. [Interjections.] Most of the older members here can still remember that at the end of a film shown in a cinema there always appeared the photograph of the King and Queen of England, together with the Union Jack flying in the breeze. All cinemagoers, naturally, had to stand while “God save the King” was played. I am now going to be very honest and very candid. Many Afrikaners, including my family, strongly resented this, and we always walked out prior to the end. I was unfortunately on my own one Saturday morning watching the local “skop, skiet en donder” at the Capital Theatre. I did manage to slip out a few minutes before the end, but a small group of vigilantes from a rival school were waiting for the Afrikaans Hoër boys who would not wait for their King. To cut a long story short, I was beaten up but good, and I went home with a bloody nose and a couple of black eyes. If hon. members think that endeared me to the Government of that time, they really must be joking. In fact, it was only a few years later, in 1948 when I was at Tukkies, that being a baseball pitcher assisted me enormously in developing the accuracy and speed with which I could deliver rotten eggs and tomatoes at political meetings. Maybe the hon. the Minister of Community Development can attest to what happened at the time. Yes, we rejoiced at Tukkies, in 1948, when we finally beat the Government and the “Sappe”. It was a great day. Our country could now move forward towards our dream of a Republic, completely free from any foreign power, and when our Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, cut us free and we truly became an independent Republic of South Africa, I rejoiced again. I believed that we had finally achieved our goal and that the next step would surely be to completely unite all the citizens of this country to make it one of the greatest in the world.

The years that followed, the ’50s and ’60s, were great years. We, as individuals, are all surely very fortunate to have lived in and to have experienced this unbelievably exhilarating and moving quarter of a century. What worries me, however, is what lies in store for our children during the next quarter of a century, or quite frankly during the next 10 years. Will our children be able to enjoy the fruits of prosperity and the unlimited field of opportunity in this country that we enjoyed? There can be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the Angolan war shook this country wide awake as no other single event had ever done before. [Interjections.]

You got a fright!

It certainly made me wake up and start thinking, though it is pretty difficult to say that those hon. members have started thinking. [Interjections.] Let me tell them that as an average South African I have never considered anything but a rosy future for our country, for myself and my children. I believe that far too many of us have been too involved in our own businesses and professional lives to have really sat down and asked: What is happening to this Republic of ours? My initial “gut” reaction to the Angolan crisis was to join the commando army, and thousands of us immediately became fully involved in our own respective areas. I can assure hon. members that the English speakers in Natal are in the Army and that they will be there. The very reason for these commando units being formed, namely to defend our homes and farms, served to make of them an efficient, enthusiastic, strong and a formidable force to be reckoned with. But, Mr. Speaker, coupled with the dramatic experience of this external threat which caused concern for our country’s safety, an even more traumatic explosion rocked the country. That explosion was Soweto and the riots that followed throughout South Africa. Here was an entirely different threat from within the very heart of the Republic itself.

Then you got even more of a fright!

It became even more apparent to me that I had for 20 years been reading only the financial pages of the newspapers and the articles in the Landbouweekblad.

Surely you are not going to become a Prog, are you?

Never mind, you will not get me angry today. I really had not realized at all what was actually happening in South Africa.

Are you going to become a Prog?

I took it upon myself to go and have a good look at all types of Bantu townships—I suggest you do the same—on the Reef in order to ascertain for myself what was really amiss there and why all Black South Africans were so upset that they were prepared to kill and bum, and even to die themselves.

Not all. Only a small group.

Yes, I withdraw “all”. I shall use the word “many” instead. Mr. Speaker, I was shaken to the core. I was thoroughly disgusted with myself and the country that we had allowed a festering sore like this to develop.

Fright was the reason!

For the first time and at a ripe old age I started thinking of politics. I had endless political discussions with friends.

Fright was the reason!

I would not vote for you in Waterkloof.

I do not want your vote! I do not need it!

I started only then to make a study of what had happened until then to the Black, Coloured and Indian people and what each political party had to offer for the future. [Interjections.] I did not do it for myself, as is the case with so many of you, but for the whole of South Africa.

Order! The hon. member must not get into the habit of referring to hon. members in any other than the correct way.

My apologies, Sir. However, hon. members are trying to make me very angry. Mr. Speaker, it is very easy for me to lose my temper. The easiest way out for myself would certainly have been to accept an offer from the NP to which I belonged and then to try to change rapidly, from within the party caucus, the wrongs that have been committed by the Government during the preceding decades. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. members are interrupting the hon. member too much.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I discussed this course of action with my Nationalist and non-Nationalist friends alike, and I was warned by both that one just cannot go against the stream of the monolithic NP caucus’s thinking. This theme was further spelt out to me loud and clear in a newspaper report on last year’s NP congress in the Transvaal. The article I am referring to appeared in The Star of 14 September. I have that article with me.

Don’t believe what you read in The Star.

It was quoted by the hon. the Prime Minister, so I am in good company. The article stated that—

The reaction to Mr. De Villiers’s speech was immediate. One of the delegates claimed that what he had just heard made him think that he had come to the wrong congress. A little further on in the same clipping I found this—

Why was this? It seems unreal that anyone who states “Let us think again” can be accused of treason. I want to say loud and clear: “Let us seek a new formula. Let us think again.” I dare anyone now to accuse me of treason. Mr. Speaker, that did it for me. With a completely open mind, it was easy to arrive at the answer. The NRP offered to me by far the most logical and most honest set of aims and principles for the future of this country.

Mr. Speaker, rather than delve into any of the minor details of this budget that was delivered to us by the hon. the Minister of Finance, I want to turn my mind to the root causes as to why we in South Africa are so uncertain about our future, not only economically, but politically as well. I want to delve into the reasons why it is that only a few years ago there was such a tremendous demand from overseas investors wanting to invest in our country. I want to consider why today a foreign investor is now able to purchase R100 worth of South African “blue chip” stock at a discount of more than 40%. What is the grave danger that this foreign investor sees to such an extent that he can only be induced to buy South African gilt-edged stock if he is offered a 40% discount on its real value?

I wish to clearly state that I personally think the hon. the Minister and his department have done an admirable job when one looks at the budget purely as a fiscal policy during this exceptionally difficult time. My quarrel, Mr. Speaker, is not with them as much as it is with the policies of this Government that have placed them in this unenviable and impossible situation.

The three crucial problem areas that I want to tackle are, firstly, the fragmentation policy of this Government, secondly, the explosive urban Black position and, thirdly, the agricultural position of South Africa. I want to start with number one.

I agree with the hon. member for Johannesburg West that this “lappieskomberskaart” of South Africa must be reconsidered. I had hoped to be able to take the liberty to hand out copies of this unbelievable map to hon. members so that they can visualize and see the financial and political implications of such a geographical abortion. However, I have copies here if any hon. member should wish to see it. Let us deal with the numerous questions that immediately come to mind when one looks at this map. I suggest that hon. members look at the map in the kwaZulu booklet that was issued to us. The map indicates in detail which areas will be kwaZulu and which will be South Africa. Can this fragmentation of our Republic be considered as a logical solution? What has now happened to our ex unitate vires, which hon. members will understand means “Unity is strength”, which we once held so dear? Surely even a moron can see that this map is the most illogical and stupid plan ever devised by man. [Interjections.] Truly, never before has man arrived at a more impractical solution when one considers the non-viability of most of these mini-States. Mr. Speaker, in the light of what is happening throughout the world today with terrorism and border clashes everywhere in Africa and elsewhere, just take a look at the nightmare which this map creates for a military commander of South Africa. Take a close look at Natal with not a single town that is further than the range of artillery or rocket attack from over the border. I am not trying to stir up “Swart gevaar”.

Are you in the HNP?

No I am not. I am merely pointing out a realistic fact. I and the NRP are ready to accept the Zulu as a South African citizen. It is this Government that wishes him to be a foreign citizen. I am not bringing out the “Swart gevaar”. Who can deny that?

Whom are you quoting, by the way?

Mr. Speaker, how do you think the military command sees the defence of towns such as Pietersburg, Louis Trichardt, Rustenburg, Potgietersrus, Pretoria and every other Natal town or all the farming communities? Just think of the escalation of stock thefts across foreign borders that our police will just not be able to follow up.

I challenge you to prove that.

A Pandora’s Box is being opened here. An hon. member over there mentioned a Pandora’s Box, but it is being opened right here and once opened, who on God’s earth will ever be able to close it again? Just look at the extra thousands of miles of foreign boundaries we are now planning for ourselves. I suggest hon. members ask the military strategists for their view of this map. I hold up here but one cutting from a newspaper of three weeks ago, the Natal Witness of 15 March. It contains two separate articles and the headlines read: “Buthelezi supports radical change in South Africa.”

The other one, on the same page, reads: “Matanzima slams South Africa on land and race issues”. Here is another article which appeared three days later, quoting Buthelezi from London: “Give me arms, not tears, Buthelezi tells the West.” What next? Think! “Swart gevaar”? I wonder if this hon. House realizes that the most important rail link in South Africa, the one between Durban and Johannesburg, as well as the Vryheid-Richards Bay line goes right through KwaZulu, which is going to become a foreign country. What could South Africa do if KwaZulu, after becoming a sovereign State, decided to close its borders for some or other reason as Zambia did to Rhodesia? What happens to our rail network then? What do we do when the United Nations decides to assist one of these independent States to erect a powerful TV station and broadcast to our people from within the heart of South Africa?

You will regret that speech.

I may regret it, but I am at least honest, which a lot of hon. members here are not. [Interjections.] Passport control also takes on nightmarish proportions when one considers that, in most cases, more Black citizens of these States reside elsewhere than in their own homeland or new foreign country. How difficult will it be for our and their courts of law to deal with cases when different laws become applicable?

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance whether our Republic can really afford to implement this unbelievably costly, naïve and stupid solution. How does he visualize an economy which, in the future, will be based on and manned by a work force that will be completely dominated by foreigners? How can anyone possibly count on the loyalty of a foreign work force? The NRP’s policy in this regard is very well known. We fully accept that all these people that I am talking about are, first and foremost, South Africans, that they always will be and still are.

One man, one vote?

They can easily be accommodated in a political system of federation and confederation … [Interjections.] Hon. members should listen to me and not interrupt so much. We in the NRP in contrast to the Government—and I say in contrast to the Government, because this is where we differ—would promote and insist on one common loyalty to South Africa. What really upsets me while looking at the map, is that this Republic, which we so looked forward to in 1948, is now being chopped up into minute, illogical, non-viable fragments and placed into the hands of people whom we are now turning into foreigners. Again I have to ask: What has happened to ex unitate vires, “eendrag maak mag”?

The second dilemma the Government faces, is that this country desperately and urgently requires peace and tranquility within the Bantu townships. Without a lasting solution here, this country has not got a proverbial snowball’s hope in hell of achieving …

Order! I do not think that is parliamentary language.

I withdraw it, Sir. The country has no hope of achieving a meaningful breakthrough or, for that matter, of improving our image overseas; a factor so essential to the foreign investor and to our future economic growth and prosperity. Please consider that I am well aware of the communistic propaganda as well as the professional agitators that influenced and directed the Soweto riots, but they certainly had available to them the most well-prepared and well-fertilized soil in the world in which to work. All that the “commies” needed, was to sow the seeds. It is only when one considers what it would be like if one of one’s family were housed like that, and then remembers the daily insults inflicted by the discriminatory laws of this country, that one starts to understand why it would be so easy for one’s teenage son to start throwing rocks at the authorities. I believe it is a lot easier for them to throw rocks than it was even for me to throw tomatoes and eggs at the Government of the day of 1948. I rebelled only because I did not wish to be forced to stand up for “God Save the King”. Consider the mud when it rains, the dust when it is dry, the poor facilities and services, the smog and the high crime rate due to unemployment in these townships. [Interjections.] Maybe I have a heart; maybe the gentlemen over there do not. Think what it would be like to live in a drab, unreal monotony of thousands of identical small homes, each hopelessly overcrowded.

We need to realize that in most families living in these townships both the wife and the head of the family rise long before sunup—most hon. members do not—in order to catch the train or bus to work, and return long after dark, enduring unbelievably crowded transport. On each day they face the possibility of being assaulted or mugged. Just imagine how ripe these people must be for communist indoctrination.

This is the main area in which I believe the budget is at fault. It is completely out of touch with the political reality. I do not see the bogy of inflation as our number one enemy. Our number one enemy is unemployment, the unemployment of more than 600 000 Blacks coupled with insufficient and inadequate housing. The explosive possibility created by all these people living in conditions similar to those I have just described, is unquestionably the major causative factor as to why we cannot generate confidence and enthusiasm for investment in our future.

Did Helen write your speech?

I wrote it myself.

†I wish to point out further to the hon. the Minister that in order to improve the lot of the urban Black, the Coloured and the Indian, and to break the back of the housing shortage, he will have to find an additional R500 million in the next three to four years. If he can do that he will achieve the following points: Firstly, the generation of tremendous employment potential …

Then you complain about taxes.

I am coming to that. The hon. the Minister will, secondly, be able to provide the urgently needed housing for the underprivileged in this country. Thirdly, he will be able to defuse the explosive township situation. Fourthly, he will give a tremendous boost to the presently very sick building industry and, fifthly, he will create a new hope for peace and confidence in South Africa. I realize that R500 million is an incredibly large amount to find. It certainly cannot easily be found from the taxpayers, as we all know. I believe this amount could, however, be borrowed expressly for this purpose, not only from overseas, but locally as well. It would be the best investment which we in South Africa could ever make in our own future. It would certainly be my number one priority on the list.

Let me point out to you, Sir, that I do not expect this money to be a gift to anyone as I would like to see every Black, Coloured and Indian actually be allowed to buy …

Whom are you quoting?

… and fully own his own residence instead of him hiding his savings under his mattress or spending it on luxuries he can ill afford. Let us encourage every citizen to buy a stake in South Africa, i.e. his own home. What I am spelling out is that a Ministry of Housing should develop schemes to assist home ownership with the basic principle that the capital should be repaid by the new home owner over a period of time. I would go further and say that I personally believe that it is just as important to invest this money as it is to be militarily prepared. In fact, I believe that after we have achieved stability in the townships we will be able to drastically prune our military commitment. The saving in money for defence alone could be more than the R500 million I am pleading for. We have too much at stake in this country to lose all the goodwill of our urban Black citizens. Coupled with what I just said, I believe that full title and home ownership for the Black urban dweller is an additional prerequisite for a peaceful future. There is no one in the House who can deny that it is a wonderful feeling to own one’s own piece of land, a piece of land one can improve, plant a tree on, love and above all fight for if necessary.

Can anyone in the House please enlighten to me as to why it has taken the Government so long to realize this fact? Why was it necessary for us to suspend the Black urban dweller’s right to home ownership in 1967, only to bring it back again in a half-baked form of a 30-year lease in 1976 only when Soweto was burning? The hon. member for Mooi River said: “It is an advance in reverse.”

Are you quoting him now?

Yes, I quote what he said yesterday. Where was the basic logic of this Government that they could not see that the value of individual home ownership always has been and always will be the cardinal key to a stable society? Does the Government not understand that if Blacks had had home ownership during the ’sixties and ’seventies, Soweto would not have burned at all? [Interjections.]

Nonsense! That is not correct!

What is still in the back of their immature minds that even today, after a Cabinet announcement, they still cannot perceive that there is no moral or practical justification to now decide that Black citizens may only purchase their homes, but are not able to purchase the title rights to this land, as is the right of any other citizen in South Africa? [Interjections.] It is stupid!

Mr. Speaker, would it be in order for me to request the hon. member to lay his “State of the Union” message on the Table instead of giving it us now? [Interjections.]

Truth hurts!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Pretoria Central allowed to … [Interjections.]

The problem is loud and clear, that what I am saying, hurts. That is why there are interjections. It is clear that this feature I have been talking about is still blatant discrimination based on the colour of a man’s skin.

My third serious reservation about our present economic situation is that of deep concern with what is happening in this present financial climate to the entire base of our economy, part, present and future, namely the farming industry. Our farmers, even after a run of three good years, have never faced so bleak a future. We are daily getting reports of farmers who are either going bankrupt or who are forced to sell out in order to pay their ever increasing debts. The increased spiralling costs to this section of our community without corresponding increases in returns are crippling, to say the least. I know of very few agricultural crops which can at present be grown for even a fair return on investment. I find it very sad when I think that we have in our hands one of the most powerful weapons of all in Africa, namely an ability to produce tremendous quantities of food. Our farmers are not eager to increase production because the margin of profit is far too low. I realize that the entire agricultural picture is an extremely complicated and complex one. Easy solutions do not exist. I can think of a number of minor improvements, but they certainly will not solve the basic problem, namely that general unemployment and inflation do not allow the average family unit to pay more for agricultural products.

I am glad you have said that there are no easy solutions.

I accept that. The farmer is now stuck with this problem. To conclude, I want to make some simple and short suggestions to the Government. Firstly, they must scrap the present fragmentation policy and concentrate more on consolidating these fragments into viable provinces which can be linked together in some federal scheme with a common loyalty to South Africa. Secondly, they must immediately embark on the largest urban housing scheme that the world has ever seen, improve all aspects and the quality of life for our urban people and generate private home ownership for all. Thirdly, they must urgently and critically examine our agricultural industry which is presently headed for disaster and provide the necessary extraordinary funds and the expertise which may be necessary to avert this looming disaster of wholesale bankruptcies and farmers who are leaving their lands fallow.

I believe there is still a great deal of goodwill left in South Africa and if we are honest in our endeavour to create a better quality of life for all our people, we can and must achieve this harmony. No other country in the world can touch ours for its beauty, inherent wealth, ability and future potential. South Africa could surely still be the best place in the world to live. [Time expired.]

Order! Before I call upon the hon. member for Virginia to speak, I want to remind hon. members of Standing Order No. 123.

Mr. Speaker, with all respect to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South I think it would take the wisdom of Solomon to react meaningfully to what he has just delivered himself of in this House today. I say this with all respect to the hon. member, and I am convinced that any hon. member who had listened to him, if he wanted to be honest, would agree with me. The hon. member began by creating the impression that he was now going to make a very major statement about the fact that he had once been in the NP but then eventually joined the party to which he now belongs. But that mountain brought forth a mouse. In fact, the thought occurred to me: To what extent was that hon. member actively Nationalist when he was with the National Party and subscribed to the principles of the NP?

Never.

I ask myself whether that hon. member was ever an enrolled member of the NP. He is shaking his head. I should also like to hear from the hon. member whether he has ever given a cent to the NP.

Definitely not.

Good. [Interjections.] Surely, then, it borders on the totally ridiculous that a man should want to state in this House why he resigned from the NP and joined the NRP. [Interjections.] I am informed that that hon. member also considered perhaps joining the PFP where he was, in Pretoria, if it had been at all possible, and that the hon. member might have voted Progressive if he had been able to vote. Is that correct, yes or no?

Make up your mind. Just now you labelled him HNP.

I ask the hon. member very distinctly whether my information is correct, viz. whether he said that if he had been able to vote in Waterkloof, he would have voted Progressive.

No.

Is that not true? I think I shall now leave the hon. member at that. This matter will be discussed again in this House.

I said that I would vote for the man, not the party.

As far as I am concerned, this hon. member’s showing was that of a real political coward, if he could tell us that he resigned from the NP for this specific reason—although he had never been a member—and joined the NRP viz. because he was concerned about the fruits his children would have to reap in the future. If that is true then this hon. member ran away from a party which he had never really supported because he has never been Nationalist at heart and will therefore never be able to be a Nationalist in the future either. However I want to leave the hon. member at that. I think that after the recent election, everyone of us in this country had to decide what dispensation we were going to have from 1978 onwards. I think that any right-thinking person would have to decide on that question. When I myself had to decide on these questions, viz., in what phase we now find ourselves, I was clear on the point that what we now had were two conflicting ideologies confronting each other in all their naked reality. On the one hand we had the traditional policy of the NP with its Christian character, with the exceptionally high premium it places on sovereignty, with the exceptionally high premium it places on the preservation of identity—ever since 1948— and then, as against that, the policy of the Official Opposition, which is characterized by the manifestations of modern liberalism, namely one open society irrespective of race or colour or cultural differences. In the time at my disposal I shall attempt to motivate this standpoint. To be able to do so I must refer briefly to what I mean when I refer to liberalism. I want to state clearly at once that I have no fault to find with antique liberalism. Indeed, it is maintained by various researchers that a person like Calvin was a liberal; however, a liberal within the confines of the Faith and in conformity with the laws of God. I quote Prof. Kuyper who said in this connection—

I think that the policy of the NP may be measured and weighed against this statement of Prof. Kuyper and that it will indeed be found that the NP is not stagnant either, that the NP also moves, although within the confines laid down in this quotation from Prof. Kuyper. That is what I wish to say about antique liberalism.

On the other hand we have today modern liberalism which is really nothing but a deceptive imitation of freedom, a total glorification of freedom, something which, in contrast to antique liberalism, seeks to place the highest value on the individual. The individual must be liberated from all bonds of nation, estate or class. The individual must be liberated from the coercive power of the state and the church, from any national context and from any cultural context. All people must be equal, irrespective of whether they be man or woman, or nations, or White, Coloured or Black. In essence, the liberalism of today is a totally negative and destructive force. It is a liberation from all authority, but also a liberation from what is one’s own. That is why true patriotism is not of the nature of the liberal. It is for that reason that the liberal no longer wishes to regard himself as part of a nation, but rather as part of humanity. According to modern liberalism all people are one and the same.

Having given this brief exposition of modern liberalism, it is also necessary that I should try to indicate how this liberalism manifests itself in the institutions of the people. I want to refer to only three. The first example I want to mention is the liberal view of the people. To the liberal, only one philosophy of the people applies, viz. the philosophy of the broadminded person. To give to preference to what is one’s own, is narrow minded and rigid. World citizenship is always the best. That, too, is why one’s cultural possessions, one’s own traditions, one’s own language is so easily negotiable for universal humanity. That is also why the liberal is not one to venerate his history much and as a result he also wants to see the peoples’ links with their history being broken. He must simply forgive and forget. No national pride, no patriotism, no colour bar has any place in the thinking of the modern liberal. A people is comprised merely of separate individuals, unbound by any anchors, whether religious, cultural, traditional or historic.

I began by saying that we now have the traditional policy of the NP on the one hand and the policy of the PFP on the other. The policy of the PFP is one which is manifested in the thinking of the modern liberal. That too is why it is necessary for me to link the policy of the Official Opposition to that. Let us evaluate the policy of the PFP with regard to the people. The PFP advocates an open society. This we have on the authority of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who advocated in this House on 25 February last year an approach which would link all South Africans—Black, Brown and White—in a united South African people. I think the hon. Leader followed this up with a standpoint he adopted in this House as long ago as 1960. I quote from the Hansard of 1960, Vol. 103, col. 2817, in which he states—

In contrast to this we have the philosophy and the policy of the NP: The steadfast recognition of the principle of the diversity of peoples, the right of every people to be itself, the right of every people to maintain itself, to maintain its identity, to preserve and to promote its own culture, to develop and uphold its traditions and spiritual assets. Separation and homeland development as we have had them since 1948 are a logical consequence of this concept of the policy of the NP.

If, then, we have the concept of separation, it is not for some sinister reason but because we want the other peoples too, to have these things which we demand for ourselves as a White people, and together with that, recognition of the Brown and the Black people’s right to be and to remain themselves.

When one adopts this standpoint it is most annoying to have to listen to the hon. member for East London North using the word “apartheid” as he did yesterday. Anyone can play with words. Anyone can play with the best or most important meaning attached to a word in such a way that it acquires a bad meaning. We are all aware that the word “apartheid” is being used and has been used over the past years against us as the hon. member, being a South African, used it to indicate that we were suppressing certain people.

Since the creation of the concept, apartheid has certainly embodied the recognition of the same to the other groups that exist separately. Indeed, we have the concept of apartheid specifically to afford those different population groups the right and the ability and the opportunity to develop and remain themselves. That, too, is why we eventually derived the term “separate development” from the concept “apartheid” although it, too, is embodied in the concept of apartheid.

I want to point out to the hon. members of the Opposition—not only the members of the Official Opposition, but all of them—that in my opinion the time has come for us not to join the chorus of people abroad who do not mean well towards the Afrikaner people and want to distort words so as to give them an unfavourable connotation, to our detriment.

Those same members of the Opposition certainly form part of this people. Those people undoubtedly want the best for this nation. That is why we appeal to them not to join the chorus when the meaning of a word is changed to our detriment.

In this regard, with reference to the recognition of the national heritage, I want to quote none other than the Chief Minister of the Ciskei, Chief Minister Sebe, who condemns the inverted racism which ignores ethnic differences. He puts it as follows—

There we have it from a Black leader.

However, let us consider how this liberalism manifests itself in the State as well. For the modern liberal Parliament must merely interpret the voice of the people, the voice of the total number of equal, sovereign individual citizens as I have just defined the people. Consequently—

Let us apply this to the policy of the Official Opposition, the PFP. However, let us mention only four lines of thought. There is the idea of a multiracial Government, the idea of “one man, one vote”, the idea of Black majority Government, with the consequent downfall of the Whites, and the idea of the common voters’ roll. Let us begin with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. In this connection I want to quote from a speech made a long time ago. However, I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will still stand by it because I have never heard him dissociate himself from it. I quote from Hansard of 1960 (Vol. 103, col. 2818)—

In a report in Die Volksblad on 20.10.77, the following is added—

I think that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also confirmed this recently in his latest speech in this House. On the other hand, however, we have the well-known statements by the hon. members for Houghton and Groote Schuur. Let me refer briefly to last year’s debate when the hon. the Minister of Mines said, inter alia, the following about the hon. member for Houghton. He said that that hon. member had stated very clearly during a television interview in Australia that she did not want to cause the existing system to change overnight as a result of immediate Black majority Government, but that she did acknowledge that a multiracial Government was being aimed at and that this would eventually, after a period of transition, result in there being more Black people in the Government than Whites. In fact she said that it was totally inevitable that there would be more Blacks. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition often maintains that the idea of “one man, one vote” is not the policy of that party. However, I want to refer to the same television interview which the hon. member for Houghton conducted in Australia in 1975. The following question was put to her, and I quote—

The hon. member for Houghton then replied—

After all, that is clear. I also want to refer back to what the hon. member for Groote Schuur said in a speech he made in the Other Place in 1976. He very clearly admitted that this was in fact the policy of the Progressive Party of that time and I take it that this is still the case because I have not yet heard anything to the contrary. He admitted that they wanted a common voters’ roll, that they wanted it to be possible for a Black person to become the Prime Minister of South Africa, and that they wanted a Black majority Government to be possible. However, since the founding of the PFP I have never heard a statement to the contrary from any of its leaders. In fact, at a meeting in the Green Point constituency on 31 October 1977, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition refused to repudiate his two party colleagues. How is one to reconcile what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says with the statements by two of his senior members? When is the Leader of the Opposition, of the Official Opposition, going to spell out to us his ideas on the new constitution which is to be drafted together with the leaders of the various population groups in the country? We are still waiting for that. An election was fought without the hon. member telling the nation what he envisaged with his constitution.

In contrast, we have the policy of the NP with its cornerstones, as I have already stated them, of the retention of sovereignty; the development of homelands with the recognition of the people there, homelands where they can develop and where we can assist them to develop; and the idea of “one man, one vote” which we want to implement for them in their own territories in accordance with the new constitutional dispensation which will give them the right to vote. This cannot then be taken out of context as the hon. members of the Opposition so often do, both here and abroad, by maintaining that we do not advocate “one man, one vote”. The various population groups will in fact have that right but on the basis of the concept as I have stated it.

Once again, what do the Black leaders think in this regard? I want to quote what Chief Lennox Sebe of the Ciskei said recently in Potchefstroom at the end of last year—

He went on to say—

I want to bring in the schools, too. We know that the liberal must open the school to all races and national groups. According to him there must be no interference by church or State. He rejects the idea that culture should be introduced in the schools and that tradition and identity should be maintained and promoted in the school context. The child must be taught that he, too, must be free from national links. World citizenship would be the best for him. That is the idea of the liberal. When I consider the policy of the Official Opposition it is very clear to me that their policy in respect of education is also founded on that very basis. We find in reports on the congress they held in 1976 at which the policy of the then Progressive Party in respect of education was spelled out, that they wish to stress integration within the schools and universities, and not only integration but enforced race integration. When the motion on education was discussed earlier this year, the hon. member for Johannesburg North also discussed the idea that the various cultural backgrounds should be given to the children. We have nothing against the cultural background of any other people, but to bring people from various cultural groups together within the school context is, from a purely educational point of view, not in the interests of education. I want to quote what the Chief Minister of Qwaqwa, Mr. Mopeli, has to say in this connection—

I also want to quote what Prof. Kgware said last year, namely—

I want to conclude by telling you that when I consider the policy of the PFP, it is clear to me that they are putting forward a policy which will separate the people of South Africa from its tradition and that it will by no means promote or maintain any patriotism, that patriotism which is vital for the continued existence of any people. I think the time has come for the Official Opposition to make it their task to spell out very clearly to the public at large, not only the verbal pictures they paint, but what their policy really entails, particularly with regard to the future of the Whites in the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure to listen to the hon. member for Virginia, especially when he spoke about liberalism. We know for a fact that once a nation is steeped in present-day liberalism, it naturally inclines towards communism. Liberalism is only the first step, and if there is anybody who will agree with me, it is surely the hon. member for Pinelands. He knows that once one has liberalized a nation, and that once a nation has accepted liberalism as a creed, one is breaking down all its standards and then it is easy to lead them on the road to communism.

You know more about it than I do.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member that this budget is welcomed by virtually all right-minded people, because it makes provision for one of the most pressing problems, namely the provision of housing for all population groups in the country. It even makes provision for salary increases for teachers. The hon. the Minister of National Education is not here now but I should like to say, in all respect and affection, that this budget relieves him of his nickname “Piet Promise”. They call him “Piet Manna” now and I think that this is a praiseworthy achievement on the part of the hon. the Minister.

I want to thank the hon. the Minister of Finance for the improvement in respect of social and civil pensions. I just want to ask him whether it would be possible, when we increase the pensions of our aged in future, not to make them wait until October. This does not have the right psychological effect on our old people, because it is a long time to wait. I feel that we would do well to make the increases effective from the first month of the second half of the year, namely in July. That would be a very sound step, and I want to ask the hon. Minister whether he will not consider that.

I have sat here during this debate and have watched members of the Official Opposition. Mr. Speaker, do you know what a paralysing influence the budget has had on the Opposition? Watching them argue and debate, I was convinced that they had contracted lame-sickness. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, we sheep farmers call lame-sickness the “stupid sickness” and, do you know, those hon. members become more stupid by the day.

You know all about that.

They go in different directions; one goes left, the other goes right; one group goes down this abyss and the other group goes down that abyss. The hon. member for Yeoville can no longer keep them together and from time to time he really has to fight to keep the Official Opposition together. He is the only one who pulls the Opposition wagon. We even saw that during the election. During the election in November we saw that the PFP was heading for the precipice. We saw that the NP would brush aside the PFP, as well as the NRP and the SAP. The hon. member for Yeoville, however, saw, where the Official Opposition was heading and then he displayed a degree of patriotism. By doing so he saved the Official Opposition, so that today they are the Official Opposition. But I want to warn them today that he will not be able to continue saving them. He cannot pull the wagon of the Official Opposition on his own, and they will therefore have to come to their senses. The hon. member for Pinelands sits there looking at me, but when he sits next to his grandmother, I do not know whether it is he or she, because their hair looks alike. He said here that he has a high regard for Donald Woods. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, this man has respect for Donald Woods. What was Donald Woods but a traitor? Can a person have respect for a traitor? He was an unashamed liar. Look at the lies he has spread. He said that he had swum through flooded rivers. He had swum through among crocodiles while there was in reality not even a little stream of water and he had crossed the bridge by car. [Interjections.] Look at the political role he has played in South Africa. He was not a man to admire. He was a political scoundrel and a filthy communist. That is what he was, and hon. members surely know that.

He was Boraine’s friend.

There was no justification for his flight from the country. He had no need to flee. We would have given him a visa to leave the country freely. In fact, we would even have given him pocket money. Then he alleged that the police had applied chemicals on his daughter’s clothes. Surely hon. members know that that was a confounded lie. He himself had applied the chemicals onto the washing lines to keep thieves away from his clothes. That was an absolute communist trick on his part to smear South Africa. He alleged that we had applied chemicals to his children’s clothes, but I think communistic fleas had bitten those children. Today, Donald Woods is the external wing of the PFP.

That brings me a step further, namely to the hon. member for Orange Grove. [Interjections.] This hon. member recently said the following about the Kruger National Park—

Since when, then, has Paul Kruger been the ancestor of that hon. member? [Interjections.] Two years ago I had the privilege of visiting the house in Clarens where Paul Kruger died. Tears rolled down my cheeks to think that such a great Afrikaner had to die in a strange country. I then turned through the pages of history and do hon. members know what I saw there? I saw that the Youngs, the Woods and the Lorimers were the people who had shot Paul Kruger out of the country, and now the hon. member talks about Kruger as his ancestor! If the hon. member for Orange Grove is concerned about our ancestors and wants to pay tribute to them, he must not be concerned about giraffes, elephants, lions, tigers, brindled gnu and buffaloes. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture will take care of them. The hon. member should rather be concerned about the descendants of Paul Kruger and our descendants. The hon. member ought to do something positive in South Africa and make a contribution to create a happy country for the descendants of Paul Kruger and of our own forefathers here in South Africa.

The Opposition Press in South Africa has been busy for the past 30 years besmirching South Africa’s name and spreading false and despicable reports about South Africa abroad. Why does that hon. member, who refers so proudly to his ancestors, not help the descendants of those proud ancestors to wring the neck of the Opposition Press for its belittling and libelling of the country during the past 30 years? When those hon. members ought to take action against that type of practice, they are as silent as the grave, just as they sit there now. That, then, is the service they render South Africa. I am sorry that the hon. member for Houghton is not here this afternoon, because I should so much like to say something about her. [Interjections.] We all read in the Press of the great funeral which took place at Graaff-Reinet recently—Sobukwe’s funeral, where they played soccer with stones. The hon. member for Houghton was also there, and there she reaped the fruits of the seed which she had sown among the Black people, so that one Black man wanted to murder and destroy another. None other than Buthelezi, Sonny Leon and the Rev. Hendrickse had to flee for their lives there. Why did they have to flee? Where did that hatred and enmity come from? The hon. member for Houghton had to go and deliver a speech there. While her allies had to flee, she was protected by the militant group against those people who were throwing stones and who wanted to stab with knives … Until today she has not delivered that speech. If she was not able to deliver her speech there, she could surely have had it published in the newspapers.

It was probably an inflammatory speech.

There she comes now!

The hon. member for Houghton got away from that funeral far more easily than Donald Woods fled the country. She flew from here to Port Elizabeth and from there she travelled on a tarmac road. I would have liked her to have published the speech for which she specially travelled to Graaff-Reinet, so that we could read what she wanted to say.

But it does not end there. A few days later, one of her wonderful friends whom she lauds to the skies, one of Steve Biko’s friends, walked in Port Elizabeth with a bomb with which he wanted to blow up the Constantia Centre. The Constantia Centre is the shopping place of hundreds of thousands of Black and Brown people. He was on his way to the centre, when he blew himself up with the bomb. The hon. member had such an admiration for Biko and Sobukwe and I therefore want to ask her why she did not also deliver a speech at the funeral of the pieces of bone which they picked up there. That was surely the occasion for it. The victim was a close friend of Biko. They picked up the pieces of flesh which remained of him around the crater the bomb had made. The hon. member for Houghton is a friend of those people, and although I can understand why she did not deliver her speech there, she could at least have laid a wreath over the crater caused by the explosion. To the Bantu woman who lost her life in the explosion, she could at least have sent a wreath and a letter of sympathy. I want to quote what a news paper wrote about the event. (Die Burger, 17.3.78)—

These people belonged to the same organization. These are the people whom the hon. member for Houghton lauds to the skies and lovingly embraces and worships as the wonderful freedom fighters in South Africa. The report reads further—

These are the people whom the hon. member for Houghton has such fulsome praise. I could continue in this vein and suggest that the hon. member could at least have delivered the speech which she could not make at Port Elizabeth, at this man’s funeral. [Interjections.]

Yesterday the hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition referred to the Turnhalle Conference and suggested that we in South Africa should have the same kind of discussions as those in South West. I wonder if the hon. Leader of the Opposition does not know, that South West is a mandated territory. In contrast, South Africa is a free and independent Republic with its own constitution. Surely South West Africa does not have a constitution yet. They can ask for one. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not know, then, that in 1926 the Union of South Africa obtained independence from the British Parliament? Now he wants us to have a sort of Turnhalle Conference. Has he no sense in his head, or is his head stuffed with peanuts?

While listening to the speeches of the hon. members of the Official Opposition during the past few days, I became convinced that they are not only the most rotten Opposition which has ever sat in this Parliament, but they are also the most rotten Opposition of which the world has ever heard. I would take a bet for R1 000 with anybody who can show me a more rotten Opposition in the world. I can give the assurance that the time is near when the Sunday Times will publish 20 reasons “Why Eglin must go”. There is internal division among them as they sit there. Two hon. members sit there with aspirations. There sits grandpa Japie, pushed aside, and then also the hon. member for Yeoville. They are queuing for the leadership. They are internally divided and that is why they sit there so paralysed that they cannot engaged in a fight in Parliament. They no longer have any ideal to fight for. We on this side of the House at least still have ideals. One of the greatest ideals which Dr. Malan strove to achieve for so many years, was to bring together what belongs together. During the latest election we succeeded in that, not by way of party or coalition agreements, but on a common basis, a basis with the slogan “South Africa first and no foreign intervention”. The result was that Afrikaans- and English-speaking voters spontaneously elected the Government which sits here today, without any political agreements being entered into. As examples I can refer to Maitland, Cape Town Gardens and East London City. If we had put up a candidate in East London North, that constituency would also have been National. Look at Natal. One constituency after the other fell in Port Elizabeth. The words spoken by Dr. Malan over the years have come true, namely that we should bring together what belongs together from inner conviction. The hon. the Minister of Defence, the leader of the NP in the Cape Province, said to me in 1949 when we stood together on a platform in Port Elizabeth, that it should be our ideal to consolidate the English-speaking people in this country with us, within the ranks of the NP, so that we could act as one man, one family, in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, in his budget speech the hon. the Minister of Finance has stated that we are “in the midst of a process of comprehensive socio-political adjustment”. As I understand it, it means that more changes are to be expected in the Government’s social policy. Unfortunately the hon. the Minister did not say anything more about it. No other speakers for the Government have used their considerable speaking time to take a positive line and to prove to the country and the world that meaningful changes are, in fact, taking place or are planned to take place. This is a pity, and I regard it as a neglect of duty on the part of Government members, because they ought to regard it as their duty to state precisely not only what Government policy is, but also what changes are likely to take place. As South Africans we ought to be concerned enough about the mounting threat to our security from outside to try to do something more about it than what the Government is doing at present. Almost every day brings a fresh quota of setbacks. Yesterday, regretfully, Israel joined the list of countries complying with the Security Council’s resolution imposing a mandatory arms embargo against our country.

Last night it was reported that the Russians are entering Angola directly, alongside their Cuban and East German allies. One may be wrong, but I do not believe for one moment that all of them are there, and are still coming in, merely to help the Angolans against Unita. I believe that they are there in order to establish themselves in the southern parts of Angola, because they have their eyes on South West Africa and Walvis Bay. South West Africa and Walvis Bay are on their list of targets for aggression. Now I want to tell hon. members opposite that they and Mr. Carter and others may enjoy themselves shouting at each other for their own form of political gain, but nothing will be solved in this way and none of it serves the interests of either South Africa or of the West.

*Mr. Speaker, if we want to succeed in successfully withstanding the growing threat against us in the long run, we shall have to take two steps within a reasonably short time. In the first place we shall have to consolidate the various population groups of our country into a united force, a united South African opposition. In the second place, no matter how difficult it may be—and it is becoming more difficult by the day, and hon. members on that side are helping to compound the difficulty—we shall have to come to some agreement with the majority of the leaders of the West. We must realize, however, that we shall be able to manage this only if we give every citizen of this country, regardless of his colour or to what cultural group he belongs, equal freedom, equal economic opportunities and equal opportunities for full citizenship. We shall have more time in debates to come to give our attention to foreign threats.

On this occasion I should like to point out that big as the dangers are which are threatening us from the outside, we should be making a fatal mistake if we were to underestimate the dangers threatening us from the inside as well. When it comes to the history of a nation or a people the fact of the matter is that if it feels and believes, for whatever reason, that it is being wronged and does not succeed in getting that wrong eliminated peacefully or by constitutional means, it tends to resort to politics of violence and to turn to anyone, even the devil, who is prepared to assist it. The history of the Afrikaner nation is an example of this. There was more than one occasion in the struggle-ridden history of the Afrikaner on which at least a portion of the people resorted to armed revolt. At one stage in our own time there was so much bitterness amongst a section of the Afrikaner people about the inferior economic position of the Afrikaner that they started calling for a State-controlled redistribution of wealth. They wanted the economy to be socialized and the mines and banks to be nationalized. In fact, the comprehensive economic manifesto which the NP presented to the electorate in 1948, was to a very large extent a socialist plan. I am mentioning this merely as an historical fact and to point out what the reactions of people are when they feel that they are being wronged either economically or politically. In the end the more radical elements of the said economic manifesto were not carried into effect as the majority of the Afrikaners realized that they were as a group, not subject or as individuals to any restrictive measures inhibiting their economic freedom. The Afrikaner was free to live, work, buy and sell and trade wherever it was to his advantage, and he was free to associate with whom he wished. Consequently it was possible for him to improve and advance his inferior economic position as well as his social position through his own strength and within the framework of the system of capitalism and of economic merit. The difficulty we are faced with in this country is that these same circumstances, unfortunately, do not prevail as regards the inferior economic position of people of colour. [Interjections.]

That is not true.

Surely you know it is not true.

Of course it is.

It is not.

It is. One need only walk down Adderley Street, through the business centre of Cape Town. Is it possible for a Coloured to open a shop there? No. However, similar bans were never imposed upon the Afrikaner in his attempt to effect his own economic upliftment. [Interjections.] Economically, the Black man and the Coloured man are caught up in a network of oppressive restrictions imposed on them by the Government, and if we do not free them from this soon and give them their full economic freedom, an internal class conflict is awaiting us which may have more serious consequences than those of the racial conflict in which the country is already involved.

†Like many other hon. members, I watched Sam Nujoma on television the other night, when the full interview with him was screened by SABC-TV. Nothing Nujoma said surprised me. As some hon. members will remember, I said in this House, weeks before he spoke, that the Swapo leader would not give up his army and would not participate in a peaceful election settlement in South West Africa. Thus I was not surprised because I knew that was the line taken by him. The TV interview with him confirmed that. [Interjections.]

What was significant, however, was where he placed the emphasis in that interview.

On revolution.

Yes, I will be coming to that. Sam Nujoma said, and I quote him—

He knew that racial discrimination was in any case on its way out. Certainly, in South West Africa racial discrimination is on its way out. He said further—

His attitude was one of taking majority rule for granted. [Interjections.] The Turnhalle Alliance and all the major political parties in South West Africa have all already accepted the principle of majority rule. That includes members of the NP who sat in this very House. [Interjections.] In fact, they all further agreed to a “one man, one vote” election for a constitution drafting assembly. Surely, hon. members on the Government side are not going to tell me they are leaving the Afrikaners in the lurch in South West Africa? However, this is what is happening. Hon. members on the Government side support a “one man, one vote” election for all in South West Africa.

This I am saying just by the way. Nujoma finally reached his point and said—

The meaning of this cannot be mistaken. It is the language of a man and a movement that have become contemptuous of the race struggle and who see their chance in revolutionary class struggle. That is where the internal forces of Swapo also place the emphasis. That is the danger which we must face today. We must know about these things. What they are exploiting to the full is mass poverty in the face of plenty and the past lack of economic opportunity. One of the main slogans of Swapo in South West Africa is: “Support Swapo for the right to share the wealth of Namibia.” [Interjections.] I mention this because I believe one should know one’s adversaries. We would be foolish—here in this House, in South Africa and in South West Africa—to ignore the powerful appeal emanating from this kind of politics.

Whether Swapo is eventually going to participate in the elections in South West Africa or not, we should face the fact that both there, and eventually here in South Africa as well, this is what politics is going to be about in future. As far as South West Africa is concerned, I am pleased that the Administrator-General, Mr. Justice Steyn, is making haste to create a situation where there will be complete economic freedom for all people, to bring Black and Brown people into the decision-making machinery, and to establish advisory boards representative of all peoples in the territory to supervise the territory’s economic development. I am pleased also that important companies in the private sector are today changing their previous discriminatory basis and are opening their boards of directors also to people who are Black or Brown.

I want to say one word about Mr. Justice Steyn. To an important extent he has become a one-man Government in South West Africa with the specific and unimpeded task of dismantling all race and colour discrimination and to prepare the field for a new country where politically all people will get the opportunity to participate and co-operate in the general control of the country. If that is “handing over”, then this Government is as much responsible for it as anybody else. Mr. Justice Steyn has done remarkable work so far, and one can only hope that his efforts will not come too late and that the drift to extremism and to support for Swapo’s revolutionary class struggle has not spread too widely.

*This brings me to ourselves and to what we should be engaged in here. There are people who will not want to realize this but, a disturbing mood is arising amongst the Black, Coloured and Indian communities. What happened to a leader like Buthelezi at Sobukwe’s funeral ought to disturb us as Whites a great deal more than it disturbs Buthelezi, because the young Black and Coloured people are moving more and more in the direction of politics of revolt against everything which is White, including the economic system of capitalism. [Interjections.] This struck me recently when a respected leader—I do not want to use the word “moderate”, because when one speaks of a moderate leader, one is doing him harm and one should rather speak of a democratic leader—like Mr. Sam Motsuenyane, who is known to most hon. members, announced his resignation from the S.A. Foundation and gave the following as his reason—

This is the pressure under which people are whom we regard as moderate leaders today. Prior to this he had repeatedly said to White audiences that if we wanted the Black and the Coloured people to help defend the system of free enterprise, we shall have to make them part of it and give them their full economic freedom. What worries me most of all today, is that while we are debating the question of racial conflict and the removal of discrimination, which by now ought to have been a matter of course—the session ought to have borne the stamp of a sweeping removal of discrimination on the basis of colour …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member, in view of the point that we should grant non-Whites greater participation, how many Coloureds and Black people are serving on the boards of directors of Anglo-American and its subsidiaries?

I am speaking of all bodies. This has nothing to do with one party or another. I am putting my case in this regard to those companies as well. Years ago I told subsidiaries of Canadian and American companies operating in South West Africa that they ought to appoint non-Whites to their boards of directors. This ought to hold good for Anglo-American as well. I am not making any exceptions in this regard. [Interjections.] Unfortunately my time has expired, but I do want to point out that we should not concern ourselves only with the question of the racial struggle; we are already at a stage where the debate amongst Blacks and Coloureds has reached the question of class conflict and the distribution of wealth. This is happening in Europe as well. We all know that apartheid is dying. We are standing at its deathbed, although everyone will not admit it immediately. Nothing is going to remain; we do not even have to argue about it any longer. [Interjections.] In future we shall have only one way to take in the constitutional sphere, viz. to obtain through negotiation a new political and social grouping in which all population groups can co-operate without any damage to the cultural personality of anyone.

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

No, unfortunately my time has virtually expired. I have been given only 16 minutes to speak. I wish I had half an hour. [Interjections.]

Order!

There is one thing more I should like to say in conclusion, particularly to the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. I want to refer to the most important priority I can think of. Those hon. Ministers must use their influence to throw open all industrial and business areas so as to afford everyone equal economic freedom and equal opportunities to live their lives according to merit. We hear a great deal about patriotism.

Tell that to Zac de Beer.

I am always suspicious of people who tell one what good Christians and patriots they are. True patriotism, on the political front, demands of each one of us at this moment to do everything in his power to prevent our country from being overtaken by global conflict from without and racial as well as class conflict from within.

Mr. Speaker, we in this House have been accustomed to the type of speech we had during the past 16 minutes from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I would be glad if the hon. member for Houghton would allow the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to listen to what I have to say.

Oh, get on with it!

We have become accustomed to the type of speech that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has just made. We hear phrases like “the politics of revolution”, “the politics of confrontation”, “class conflict”, etc., thrown across the floor of this House with a few platitudinous observations.

You are going to lift it, of course, to a high level of intellectualism!

What worries me however, at this particular point in time, is the consistent line the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has taken in this House throughout this session in persistently putting Swapo’s line before us and before South Africa. This is now the second occasion on which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has attempted to justify the politics of Swapo, or let me rather say the policies of Swapo. [Interjections.] What is more, the hon. member, by his own admission on a previous occasion, said he has had the closest association with Swapo and has conducted conversations with them. May we ask what the purpose of that was? Having told the House that on a previous occasion, however, he now repeats exactly what he has said previously during this session. What is the object of that? I have become acquainted with the background of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout over a number of years, and I know of his interest in matters of foreign affairs. I also know particularly well, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout knows I know, of his very wide-ranging contacts in other embassies and foreign capitals of the world.

Jealousy will get you nowhere!

I want to ask the hon. member a question. With all the contacts he has had, with all his stamping around the Congress of the USA and his visits to the Senate of that country and the other lobbies in the Western world, when will he afford us the opportunity of knowing what he told the leaders of those countries? On none of those occasions have I ever seen any published statement from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout on where he has defended his country. On no single occasion have I seen such a statement. [Interjections.]

I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout should take the earliest opportunity, which is next week under the Prime Minister’s Vote, of standing up in the House and telling us what he tells the embassies and the leaders of foreign countries which he has visited in the past or recently.

If one analyses the hon. member for Bezuidenhout’s political background, one has to turn to certain references. His speech today, like other speeches he has made, I think typifies very well a description given of the hon. member by one of his present colleagues, the hon. member for Sandton, viz. that he is the hatchet man of politics in South Africa. That is how he was described by the hon. member for Sandton. I think that is a very fitting description of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout as far as the politics of South Africa and his attitude in the House are concerned.

I should like to give the views of a few others who were also associated with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in the past or who are associated with him at present. Let us take the opinion of Mr. Donald Woods as a fitting example. He said that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout…

Tell us what the Nats said about you.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has to take it now. Mr. Woods described the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in these terms—

And how many times have we not heard that expression from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout?

He goes on to say—

I think it is well for me to quote one other example to indicate the extent to which he is held in esteem by his present colleagues. He is described like this—

In other words, it was recognized in the past by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that what he is presently associated with has, as a political organization, no substance and no worth. He has merely used the expediency of the situation in the manner in which he did throughout his whole political past during which he belonged to five different political parties—or is it four? In the light of this, I would say that his time in the present party is very limited indeed. It will not be long, judging by the views the hon. member expressed, before he will be looking for another political home.

I want to come back to one or two other members of the Opposition and their approach to this budget. Let me say firstly, that my attention was attracted to a survey of the budget—selectively distributed, I can assure the hon. Minister of Finance—by one of the major stock-broking firms in Johannesburg in which the observation was made that budgets often tend to be labelled “the most important for many years”. However, they go on to say in their observations that as far as this budget of the hon. the Minister is concerned, the words “that it is the most important for years”, have never been more true. In so far as our economy is concerned where the problem of obtaining foreign capital has been the overriding constraint and where business and consumer confidence was in serious need of a boost, the manner of this budget’s presentation altered the picture overnight. It showed that the holding operation of the hon. the Minister of Finance in the previous two budgets, and the application of a policy of strict financial discipline, have paid dividends, so much so that the tax concessions made in this budget and the ability to raise a large portion of our capital needs internally, have boosted confidence on the money markets of the world. It has displayed in no uncertain terms to investment entrepreneurs the inherent soundness of the South African economy. It has granted the necessary impetus for a great deal more of endeavour in the private sector. More than that, it is more than probable that with the increased confidence of overseas investors we will see an economic growth even greater than that anticipated by the hon. the Minister.

Several quotations have been bandied about during the course of this debate. Perhaps I can add one from a somewhat discredited source. Nevertheless, I think it is a quotation which is very pertinent. I quote—

This budget opens the door to enterprise so that we can wake up and get on with the job. It is against this background, Mr. Speaker, that the approach of the Official Opposition to this debate and to this budget must be judged. I think I can only say, if one takes the sum total of the observations of members of the Official Opposition, that they have embarked in this debate on what I can only describe as a campaign of economic sabotage against South Africa. The speeches they have made are prepared by their backroom boys. They have had one objective only, and that has been to destroy overseas investment confidence in the soundness of South Africa’s economy which the hon. the Minister’s budget was specifically designed to re-establish.

I thought we were lackeys for Anglo American.

They have clearly calculated their strategy this way: Lack of overseas confidence will lead to a further reduction of foreign investment which, in turn, will lead to a lower GDP. This in turn will result in further stagnation of industrial activity and greater unemployment, creating conditions of urban unrest. It is in such conditions that they see their only hope for political advantage. This has been clearly indicated by the speech made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

Your brilliance is staggering!

In the first instance the pattern was set by the hon. member for Yeoville. What impression did he wish to create in the outside world? He said that the hon. the Minister was fighting a losing battle against what could be called the high cost of the apartheid policy. Therefore, he argued, we are living in a fool’s paradise because there can be no confidence in South Africa as to our stability as a country. Therefore, the overseas investor must not fool himself, in spite of the budget, about retaining any confidence in the South African economy. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that that is a fair summary of the speech delivered by the hon. member for Yeoville. He went further to refer to the political situation and to what he called “the liberation struggle in South Africa for full citizenship rights by Blacks”. The Black level of tax, he said, was much higher than that of the Whites, and in these circumstances no overseas investor could look at South Africa with any confidence. That was a further argument presented by the hon. member for Yeoville to destroy overseas confidence. In this campaign of economic sabotage, as evidenced in this House by those hon. members, we had the contribution of the hon. member for Constantia. He told overseas investors of capital not to invest in South Africa, because we had, as a result of the race factor, a low productivity rate. He pointed out that it was not getting better, but that it was declining.

When did he say that?

I have known the hon. member for Constantia for a long time. What I cannot understand about him, considering his background and the service that he has rendered in other fields to South Africa, is that he can stand up in this House and make statements of that nature. I shall come back to that hon. member in a moment.

Then we had the hon. lady from Houghton who told us on these benches and the hon. the Minister to stop baying at the moon. I remember that I told the hon. member for Houghton, quite a few years ago, that she was the greatest example of a henpecker that I had ever known. She can nag at South Africa in a manner which is completely unbelievable.

What, no laughter?

In all the years I have never known the hon. lady to open her heart and give one loving kiss to the bosom of South Africa or utter one loving word. I think it is perhaps the tragedy of our public life in South Africa that the hon. lady from Houghton has never used her natural assets of femininme attractiveness and high intellect to help build South Africa … [Interjections.] … but rather, as in this debate, to destroy. The hon. member for Houghton looks slightly embarrassed to have such compliments thrown at her; she need not be. The hon. member’s speech had one objective, i.e. to destroy any confidence American investors might have entertained in South Africa as a field of investment. Unashamedly the hon. member used the public forum of this hon. House to propagate the so-called campus campaign in the USA for American investors to disinvest from South Africa. Then, the ground having been laid by these three hon. members in their campaign of economic sabotage against South Africa, we had what was supposed to be the big-gun fire, but which turned out to be a machine-gun delivery with blank cartridges. I am referring to the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

He clearly had two alternatives in what he had to say. In the first place he considered that the hon. member for Yeoville had made such a bad job of commenting on the budget and setting the economic sabotage campaign on the go that he had to try to do it himself. In other words, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition lost all confidence in his chief financial spokesman. If that is not true, the second alternative is that he made a poor attempt to widen the confidence issue to embrace Southern Africa in a speech full of platitudinous nothings which even his Press found difficulty in reporting.

If any expression of opinion indicates how un-South African these gentlemen are, it is the view expressed by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in the course of his speech. He said that the Government’s policy should be determined by the opinions expressed abroad.

You are talking absolute nonsense!

It is no use the hon. gentleman looking uncomfortable. It stands in his Hansard. It was the basis and theme of his argument.

Read it out.

In other words, by implication the hon. the Leader of the Opposition suggests that we must take note, in developing our own policy considerations, of the views of the Andrew Youngs and Dr. Owens of the world. [Interjections.] That was the sure implication of what the hon. gentleman had to say. He concluded his machinegun tirade with a statement that Government policies are based on a myth. It is no myth that we in the Government benches have an enduring belief in our right of existence as a White nation in Africa, and we shall defend this right whatever it may cost. In claiming this right for ourselves we do not deny any rights to any other national group in South Africa. All our policies and all our actions are aimed at helping other national groups to attain for themselves what we wish for ourselves. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his fellow hon. members wish to surrender and submerge their birthright in a common citizenship—with all it implies— which he has so strongly advocated now again in the House, then there is a dividing line between us which cannot be bridged and which will end in the total rejection of him and his followers by White South Africa.

In conclusion I want to turn to two further points made by the hon. member for Constantia because I think they were valid points. The hon. member made a plea for the necessity of increased productivity. I agree with him. In his budget speech the hon. the Minister made the point that economic stability and growth are as much part of the defence of our country as being in a state of military preparedness. A sound economy is part and parcel of our military preparedness. This budget has created the financial machinery and it has shown sound management techniques. However, I believe that its eventual success will depend on the human endeavour of our workers at all levels of economic endeavour in our country. No matter whether we are in mining, industry, banking, transport, Government service or any other field of economic activity and human endeavour in South Africa, there is the opportunity, through the endeavour of all our citizens, no matter their occupation, no matter whether they are Black or White, to play a role in the defence of our country.

In our work we should realize that we do not only work to feed, house and clothe ourselves and earn time to play, and let me add also, to pay the taxes of the hon. the Minister. We do not only work to pay for the administration and defence of our country. Particularly in the history of our country at this present time, we should do all we can to contribute to its wealth and one of the surest ways—I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me—to combat inflation is to have a higher productivity level. Apart from our own trade union agreements and other arrangements determining our work hours to earn our daily living, I think the time has arrived for consideration to be given to contributing time for South Africa. I know of no trade union or wage agreement which prevents any worker freely giving an hour of his time every day for South Africa. I know of no management equally involved which will not share the results of such extra endeavour with his fellow workers. We know that such motivation already exists in certain of our defence industries. I should like to see such motivation nationally accepted and that every worker gives an hour of his working day to South Africa. With such motivation nationally accepted, we as a nation can show the world that with our skills, know-how and ability, we can contribute to the welfare of South Africa, not work for our own welfare, but for the welfare of our country. With such motivation the success of what this budget sets out to achieve for our economic security, will be secured beyond all doubt.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself whole-heartedly with the sentiments expressed here by the hon. member for Von Brandis. As a new member in the House—this is the first major debate in which I am taking part—I have, in the very nature of things, listened more than I have spoken. I have listened with interest and attention. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will forgive me if I say that some of the remarks which have emanated from the Opposition benches over the past two days have become curiouser and curiouser as time went by.

To begin with I want to refer to the hon. member for Houghton. In her speech yesterday, a speech which was really one of the most amazing performances I heard this session, she dished up all the old left-overs, the dregs, of the censure debate, a debate which even the PFP Press admitted was not exactly a startling performance by that party. She dished up these dregs again and as an ex-newsman I kept on wondering why we had to hear again all the old arguments about Biko and the detention of Donald Woods. All this has been thrashed out before. The only reasonable explanation I could come up with was that it was a matter of timing to coincide with the visit of her ally, Pres. Carter, to Lagos and Monrovia in West Africa, an ally she admitted in the debate she had sought to help bring about her peculiar perception of change in South Africa. She dished up all these old things, things which can only harm us, because it was just the kind of ammunition he needed in his anti-South African tirades in Lagos and Monrovia.

From this bench I sat and watched—not only listened—and one of the most amazing sights was the forced, embarrassed and sheepish grins of hon. members of the Opposition when the truth is told.

We are very pleased you are not on TV any more.

That is as old as the hills. The Sunday Times said that two years ago. They first asked to get me off television. It was your party’s main election campaign slogan during the election in Benoni. Then, after having given this ammunition to Mr. Jimmy Carter—one wonders whether the hon. member for Houghton did this voluntarily for her ally or whether she actually had a ’phone call from Washington, Monrovia or Lagos. Thereafter, we had in the guise of a warning to South Africa a catalogue of prophecies of doom about what church organizations were going to do and what certain corporations were going to do to bring about pressure and economic sanctions, etc., against this country. Is this not exactly what the hon. member for Houghton asked for when she appealed to the United States to become her ally in bringing about what she saw a change in this country? Is that not exactly what she asked for on Australian television? Let us look at this ally which the hon. member for Houghton has sought in her cause. This ally is an ally whose ambassador to the United Nations has said openly, and on several occasions, that, if the whole of Southern Africa, including South Africa, would become Marxist, it would be a minor and a temporary setback, because even a Marxist South Africa would have to sell its minerals to the United States and so would return to the Western sphere of influence. I heard this with my own ears in Johannesburg. I had the very dubious privilege, a very unedifying experience, of following Mr. Andrew Young around for three days in Johannesburg while he was the guest of the PFP Establishment there. I had the unedifying experience to attend a banquet in the Carlton Hotel where I heard him, amongst other things, make this statement. There I heard him urge Blacks in South Africa to embark upon a campaign of civil disobedience, of boycotting White businesses to bring about a situation of “one man, one vote” and I, in my indignation, returned to the television studios and said that in my view this was a gross interference in the internal affairs of another country. But, at this dinner, that was not the general view that was expressed there. Mr. Harry Oppenheimer got up and he lauded Mr. Young for his “reasonable remarks”. The next day The Star had an editorial in which it said it was pleasant to hear the realities for a change. Honestly, is that somebody whom one would want as an ally to bring about orderly change in this country, an ally who sees no threat in Marxism to this country? One is rendered speechless when one hears these things.

I was also somewhat surprised to hear again the old, old argument about the distribution of land in this country. One can expect to hear it from people like Jimmy Carter. One can expect to hear it from foreigners who have no knowledge of South Africa. But to hear it from the hon. member for Musgrave, is a very strange experience indeed. Does he not know that both the Transkei and Bophuthatswana are in area roughly the size of Switzerland? Does he not know that according to the Benbo report, which nobody has disputed, the Transkei has the potential to feed 40 million people, which Switzerland with its over-crowded valleys and snowcapped mountains certainly has not? Does he not know that the Transkei has a de facto population of 1¼ million and a de jure population of some 4 million, compared with six million in Switzerland? Does he not know that Bophuthatswana has minerals which Switzerland has not? Does he not know that it has the largest platinum mine in the world, the largest vanadium mine in the world and one of the few crocidolite mines in the world, and that mining contributed R360 million to the GDP of Bophuthatswana last year alone? Then we hear from the hon. member for Musgrave that these countries are fragmented and unviable, when it is a known fact that both the Transkei and Bophuthatswana are economically more viable than 31 other members of the United Nations and that they have a higher per capita income than 33 members of the United Nations? What does it profit the PFP to denigrate the Transkei and Bophuthatswana when they should be deserving of their encouragement?

Whilst I might not have agreed with the detail of the speech by the hon. member for Durban Point, at least that was a speech to which I could listen with appreciation and sympathy. However, by contrast, after listening to that speech it was with some incredulity, with some dismay, even with some sadness, that I had to hear from the hon. member for East London North that the situation in which we find ourselves—that the list of prophecies of doom read out to us by the hon. member for Houghton—was all of our own making, the fault of this Government; that the outside world had, in fact, no blame in this at all, that it was the policies of this Government that had caused all this.

Now, I would like to remind the hon. member for East London North that the international vendetta against South Africa was started by India and that it began under a series of Governments headed by the predecessors of the NRP. Mahatma Gandhi started his campaign of passive resistance and civil disobedience, which eventually led to the emancipation of India, under Louis Botha’s Government here in South Africa between 1910 and 1914. I would further remind the hon. member for East London North that India ruptured diplomatic relations with South Africa and withdrew her last High Commissioner, Sir Sha’afat Khan, in 1944, when Gen. Smuts was the Prime Minister of this country. Further, I should like to remind the hon. member for East London North that, being unable to reach any accommodation with the Smuts Government, the Indian Government began its vendetta, internationalized the situation by complaining to the United Nations in 1947, soon after the latter body was founded at Lake Success.

However, let us look at more recent times. It is common cause that our very promising developing relations with our neighbours in Africa suffered during the Angolan war. However, I utterly dispute that that was our fault, and I think that I am in a better position to judge this, than the hon. member for East London North because I was privileged, in 1975—the year of the Angolan war—to be a visitor in several Central and West African countries where I spoke to presidents, Prime Ministers, Foreign Ministers, presidential commissioners and commissars, and was able to judge at first hand the climate prevailing in those countries. It is common cause also that we were in Angola, first only to protect our interests in the Ruacana and Calueque water schemes, but later, when we penetrated deeper, it was at least with the tacit approval of several Black African leaders and of the West. That was at a time when our credit-worthiness, our stakes were high in Africa. It was at a time—in August 1975—when the hon. the Prime Minister was still attending the Bridge Conference at Victoria Falls. That was only 2½ months before Angola became independent. There the hon. the Prime Minister was hailed by the African Press, from Nairobi to Lusaka, as a statesman and diplomat of world repute, of world standing. We saw the television pictures taken on the Victoria Falls bridge and captioned: “Vorster becomes great today.” It is not because of our dealings that we are in a difficult situation today.

I lay the blame fully, fairly and squarely at the door of the Carter Administration, which the hon. member for Houghton sees as her ally. Hon. members will recall that against the advice of Dr. Kissinger and President Ford the Congress of the USA cut off aid to the anti-communist forces in Angola on 19 December 1975. The reason for that was that people such as Prof. Z. Brzezinski, Senator Dick Clark, Senator C. Case and other members of the present Carter Administration saw our presence in Angola as evidence that the real struggle in Africa was not one between East and West, but one between White and Black, and they withdrew their aid because they did not want to be seen, overtly or covertly, in the company of what they perceived as a minority White regime.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Subsequent to that there has been a flood of refugees from Angola which continues to this day, all of them Black. Subsequent to that we have had the debacle in the Horn of Africa. There are no Whites involved there, with the possible exception of those Cuban officers who are White and the Soviet and East German advisers who are Whites. We have had the Libyan/Egyptian border dispute and the same situation obtained there. We have had the Kenyan/Somalian border dispute, where the same situation obtains. We have had the Polisario Front activities against Morocco where the same situation obtains. What Whites were involved in the invasion of Shaba from Angola, except Cuban officers and again East German advisers?

After the American Congress had cut off American aid on 19 December 1975, two weeks later, on 9 January 1976, the OAU held its special session on Angola and on that occasion Africa was divided in exactly two: 22 States were prepared to condemn Soviet aggression in Angola and 22 States would not condemn South Africa. A month later, when the Soviet Union tried to put us into the dock as the result of a motion tabled by the Marxist Republic of Benin on the strength of our alleged aggression in Angola, they found themselves in the dock when the Republic of Zaire tabled an amendment which was supported at that time by Mr. Daniel Moynihan of the USA and thus the big lie against South Africa was for once exposed. But having indulged in the unpopular international exercise of once having told the truth, Mr. Moynihan was forced to resign a month later. Therefore, this business is not our fault. Our international relations were high.

President Kaunda at that time referred to the Soviet/Cuban intervention in Angola as the act of a hungry tiger with its deadly cubs clawing a festering wound into the side of Africa. President Mobutu of Zaire said that whatever one might say about South Africa’s internal problems, the fact of the matter is that when her neighbour’s house is on fire, she comes to his aid. That is how our rating was at that time. However, when it became clear to moderate Black Africa (which was still hoping at the OAU meeting in January and at the UN in February that the West would pull up its socks and halt the Soviet aggression) that they could not get any assistance from the West and because they feared Shaba-type invasions, because Kaunda feared them, naturally they backed away from us again, and away from the West towards the militants. Those are facts; they are indisputable facts. Therefore, how then can one say that our difficult situation today is our fault when the facts deny it?

There is something else which astonishes me. It astonishes me every time hon. members of this House, people who have been born and bred in a multinational, poly-ethnic society, get up and advocate power-sharing formulae in this day and age. Power-sharing formulae have been tried throughout history. In every part of the world they have been tried, tested in the fire and found wanting.

What about Switzerland?

Switzerland does not have a power-sharing formula. I shall still deal with Switzerland if I have time. I maintain that power-sharing formulae in the 20th century are antiquated, outdated, impracticable and verkramp, and I shall tell hon. members why. They have failed in India. More than a million people died on the Indian subcontinent before India and Pakistan decided to abandon power-sharing and to go their separate ways, and the process did not stop until the East Bengali’s hived off from West Pakistan to form Bangladesh.

Let us look at Cyprus. Today that Mediterranean island is divided in two by fortifications as impregnable as the Berlin wall. Why? Because that island houses two incompatible communities, and yet, when it was granted independence in 1960, a power-sharing formula was devised for it because it was realized that in a “one man, one vote” situation the Turkish minority would be swamped. It was ingenious. Nothing fairer or more ingenious could have been devised on paper than that constitution. They would have a Greek president and a Turkish vice-president, an independent constitutional court, with 70% of the members in Parliament being Greek and 30% being Turkish, with all kinds of other safeguards for minorities and so forth. What good, however, is 30% of the votes in a unicameral house that takes its decision by majority vote? What good is 40%, 45% or 49% in that situation?

Are you writing off Rhodesia?

I hold a brief only for my own country. Naturally all of us hope and pray that the settlement which has now been negotiated in Rhodesia will succeed and will receive the international recognition that it deserves, but nonetheless nobody can deny that the situation in Rhodesia is a tragic history. Why? Because ever since 1929 it has adopted the same power-sharing formula that was adopted in Cyprus. The end result was that there were 50 Whites and 16 Blacks in Parliament, with the 16 Blacks again having no say at all. That is exactly what some of the hon. members of the Official Opposition advocate here. I remember very well the night session before the recess, when the hon. member for Parktown stood up and pointed to the benches where I am standing and said that the ideal, of course, would be a few dark faces in these benches over here. The ideal! What good is it to the 15 or 16 people who, however reasonable they may be, are outvoted on ethnic lines?

The only thing that has ever worked, anywhere in the world, is national self-determination. The subcontinent of Europe was united artificially by imperial powers through the Caesars, Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire, but always it reverted again to its constituent parts so that the French have French self-determination and the Germans the same. Where this process has not yet been completed, one still has the seeds of conflict. And we are doing the same. This subcontinent, which was artificially united by the British Empire, is now naturally reverting to its constituent parts. National self-determination is the only thing that has ever worked throughout history. If one offers people no say at all, it leads to White baasskap or Black baasskap and in my view that is verkramp. Any form of domination or baasskap is, in my language, verkramp and therefore I maintain that the hon. Official Opposition is the party that is the most verkramp in this country, with the possible exception of one small party which is not represented in this House and which is the only party which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had not yet joined, but since the end-result is the same, that is still within the realms of possibility. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind members who would denigrate our policy of self-determination, who would denigrate our policy of granting to others what we would have for ourselves, namely the protection of our own identity as we grant them theirs, that every single country that has gained its emancipation in Africa from colonial powers started off with “one man, one vote”, with a power-sharing formula or with a federal formula. But what is the result today? There are 19 military dictatorships and 26 one-party States. Is that what we would have for South Africa?

It is often said that our problem is unique. It is unique, yes, but not because we are different from other peoples in the world. We behave in exactly the same way. It is only unique in the sense that it is more complex. Where other multi-ethnic societies, poly-ethnic societies, have to deal with two ethnic groups, as in Cyprus, or possibly three, as in the United Kingdom, we have to deal with almost a dozen. In that sense we are unique, but the human being in the present stage of his development has demonstrated quite clearly through history that he is morally incapable of sharing power fairly. That is why the only thing to do is to grant unto each nation full self-determination, preferably in his own territory where possible.

We in South Africa are very much in the position of Galileo when he discovered the earth to be round. At that time the equivalent of what is the Western World today, namely the Roman Catholic hierarchy, wanted to bum him at the stake for that. However, that did not alter the fact that the earth is round. Therefore I maintain that our policy of national self-determination for every nation is the right one throughout the world, and that those who would deny it are favouring those who pay no attention to the fact that the other formulae, which have been tried and failed, did not prevent 5½ million people being killed in this continent alone over the past 15 years in some of the worst ethnic struggles in history. It is no good saying, like the hon. member for Houghton did, that one cannot compare us to those people because they do not have civilized Governments. Is the fact that Idi Amin has not a civilized Government an excuse for him having bumped off 300 000 people? Are those 300 000 lives worth less than any other lives because they don’t have a civilized Government?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Benoni gave a hysterical—I beg your pardon, I mean historical—political commentary on various developments in various parts of the world. He ended on a note which certainly appears, from the reaction he received from Government benches, not to augur well for the new constitutional proposals of the Government if one takes into account the role to be played in those proposals by Coloured and Indian people. The hon. member for Benoni emphatically rejects any form of power-sharing whatsoever as he believes this will lead to bloodshed and loss of lives. Surely, since we are living in one geographical area, the Republic of South Africa, and since we are living there with other people whom the Government describe, in their own terminology, as different nations, such as the Coloured nation and the Indian nation, we must then find a formula to live in that same geographical area in peace, coexisting. That is why it is surprising to find a member of the House expressing a view in regard to the sharing of power in such emphatic terms that one wonders what the future of this country is to be. We must also bear in mind that the Government by means of very careful and delicate negotiations, is endeavouring to find a settlement in South West Africa. There too surely the formula has been to find ways and means of power sharing for the future of that territory. This, I believe, is an essential part of bringing about a happy and peaceful settlement in any country where there are people belonging to so-called different nations living in the same area.

The hon. member for Benoni covered a very wide field indeed on various international matters. A good deal of his speech was directed at the Official Opposition, the PFP, and no doubt a member of that party will reply to some of the points that were made by him. It is quite evident from the various figures and facts quoted by the hon. member for Benoni, which he obviously found during research while he was in the employ of the SABC as a television commentator, that his service in this capacity was useful to him. As I have said, a good deal of his speech was directed to the Official Opposition. Perhaps we may even find the hon. member for Benoni and the hon. member for Houghton appearing on Stephen Grenfell’s “Chat Show” at some time in the future. I am quite sure we will have a very entertaining evening as far as that show is concerned.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned I was replying to the hon. member for Benoni in regard to certain observations that he had made. I do not intend continuing along those lines although I am glad to see that he has now returned to the House. As the hon. member is a new member, his Whips will perhaps inform him of the customary practice and courtesy of listening to the following speaker after having made a speech. I do not, however, intend repeating the points I made before the adjournment. I wish to deal with certain aspects with the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions.

It is quite obvious that this budget is going to have an inflationary effect and that it will mean that additional amounts are going to have to be paid in the light of the general sales tax of 4% as from 1 July. There is no doubt that this is going to affect the poorer man and there is no doubt that those living on fixed incomes are going to be hard hit by this additional expenditure. They will therefore either have to reduce their standards of living or receive some form of assistance. It also means that those who are unable to increase their incomes are going to decrease their standards of living. This means considerable hardship to a number of people. The hon. the Minister of Finance has indicated in his Second Reading speech that he is aware of the situation. Indeed, he made certain observations in this regard, and I agree entirely with him. He is offering some form of relief to those persons who are going to find the increased expenditure a hardship. The hon. the Minister said that the realization that the aged and the needy will also henceforth be liable for the payment of the general sales tax has made him grant a special amount of R10 million over and above the normal allocation of funds for social welfare and pensions. He says that the Government feels a special need for assistance to this group. I agree entirely with the hon. the Minister’s observations, but I believe that a greater effort should be made to render that assistance.

First and foremost, assistance to various pensioners, which will take effect from 1 April, in many cases, will be granted to civil pensioners, military pensioners and Railway pensioners. The increased subsidies for homes for the aged—those increases are welcomed—the increased subsidies for adult handicapped persons, for children’s homes, foster care, places of safety and subsidies for welfare organizations all take effect as from 1 July, whereas the lowest rates of pension, paid to perhaps the poorest section of the community, are the social pensions and allowances paid to all the various race groups. We know that the ratio of pensions has been slightly improved with the increase, but it remains hopelessly small and inadequate to meet increased living costs. It is therefore hoped that the hon. the Minister of Finance can give some consideration to paying this amount, if not from 1 April, which we would welcome, then at least from 1 July to that group who have to wait until 1 October. It only stands to reason, if the hon. the Minister of Finance is logical in his reasoning, that these people are going to be called upon to pay an amount henceforth which they have not paid before. If the general sales tax comes into operation on 1 July, surely we should not wait until the end of October before these people can obtain some financial relief. I therefore hope that the hon. the Minister will give serious consideration to increasing the special allocation for assisting these people and for ensuring that they will receive the increase as from 1 July so as to meet the increased cost that is going to be placed upon them through the imposition of the general sales tax. I believe it is a reasonable request to expect these people to pay an additional amount, but for the pensioners receiving pensions at the lowest rate to have to wait the longest, is quite illogical and the hon. the Minister of Finance should see his way clear to at least granting them that increase with effect from 1 July.

There is another matter to which the hon. the Minister could perhaps have given some consideration. I realize that the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions is actually the responsible Minister in this regard, and I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the hon. Minister on his appointment as the new Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. We have become accustomed to him as being an efficient and conscientious member of this House and I am quite sure that he will be an efficient and conscientious Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. I am also fully confident that he has the necessary compassion to grant assistance particularly to the people in need. We wish him well in this new post. I do hope that the new hon. Minister will use his influence on the hon. the Minister of Finance, because obviously his hands are tied and he cannot achieve many things unless the additional finance is made available to him by the hon. the Minister of Finance. It is therefore on this basis that I ask the hon. the Minister of Finance to grant further relief particularly in regard to the means test. In 1968 the inflation rate was only 2,1%. In 1975 it was 13,5% and now it is approximately 11%. With this inflation rate we find that the situation in regard to the means test has remained unaltered since 1 October 1972. The value of money has altered tremendously since 1972 and yet the means test’s limits have remained the same. What is even more disturbing, is that the old racial ratio of 4:2:1 in terms of which the means test is applied, is still in existence.

The Government has expressed the view that it wishes to move away from all forms of discrimination. If one wants to call it differentiation one can do so, but the point is that a difference is made on a racial basis as far as the means test is concerned. Let me give an example. The free income allowed for a White social pensioner is R42 per month. For a Coloured or Indian social pensioner it is R21 per month. For a Black the amount which is allowed is R10,50 per month. Similarly, as far as assets are concerned, R9 800 is allowed for Whites in the form of what is termed a free asset, while the amount is R4 900 for Coloureds and Indians and R2 450 for Blacks. So, the ratio of awarding a pension so far as the means test is concerned has remained unaltered since 1972. This is a period of six years and by the time there is any further relief it will possibly be seven years. I believe it is only fair and just that if the Government wish to implement their policy, they should also give serious consideration along these lines. I welcome the fact that the proposed increases will bring about an improvement as far as the ratio is concerned, but I believe that that improvement should also be passed on as far as the means test is concerned. This is a matter which required the urgent attention of the Government.

With the means test remaining unaltered one is going to have further problems and anomalies in existence, one of the anomalies being related to the fact that the minimum pension is increased. In his budget speech the hon. the Minister indicated that this extra R9 on the minimum basic pension of R39 represented something like a 23% increase. That is so, but as the means test remains unaltered one is going to have a widening gap with an increased amount being paid as a minimum pension whilst the means test remains pegged. With the figures as they now stand it means there is a tremendous gap between those who just qualify and those who just fail to qualify. More important than that is that a person who is just qualifying for a pension and who is, for instance, getting R82 per month as a pension from another source, will find that if that pension is increased by R1 he could lose the old-age pension, made up of the basic R39, plus the extra R9, which amounts to R48, plus an extra R11 which a person who is, for instance, a widow over 64 years of age receives, plus perhaps an attendant’s allowance of R10 per month, amounting to a total of R69 per month. I hope that the new hon. Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions will fully investigate this whole question of the means test. Perhaps next year when the budget is presented the hon. the Minister of Finance will then be able to make available the necessary funds to see that the means test is relaxed so as to eliminate some of these anomalies which exist at the present time.

I would also like to come to the question of other increases which have been granted. The question of subsidies for various homes for the aged and children’s homes is a matter of great urgency and the subsidies are indeed welcome. We hope that the welfare organizations will now be able to extend their services. Up to now many of these welfare organizations have had to curtail services due to financial restrictions, etc.

There are also other aspects to which, I believe, the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions can give attention. The additional amount of R10 per month granted to a war veteran, for instance, has remained unaltered since its inception. This reward which we give to those people who have answered the call to serve their country has remained as an extra R10 per month over and above the old-age pension. Similarly, the attendant’s allowance of R10 per month for Whites has also remained unaltered since 1966. To grant various concessions along these lines to people as far as the means test is concerned, we realize costs money. We know this is one of the limiting factors and, therefore, we believe that the hon. the Minister of Finance could perhaps consider other ways and means whereby additional funds could become available to the State, for instance, by the issue of welfare bonds. We have seen the successful launching of the defence bonus bonds and perhaps the hon. the Minister could at a later stage give attention to the possibility of welfare bonus bonds, which would then assist welfare organizations.

As regards the whole question of the provision, in a modern State, for the needy and for those who require assistance, the Government appointed a committee of inquiry to investigate the feasibility of a contributory pension scheme. This committee made various recommendations. We in these benches think that those are important recommendations and it is hoped that the Government will come to a decision in this regard. Although it will not answer all the problems and necessarily provide the solution, it will certainly provide additional funds with which improved pension benefits could be paid. It could lead to the abolition of the means test. As I have mentioned, there are anomalies which exist. Above all, it would also bring about a situation in which the pension benefits could be related to income, thereby obviating the difficulties we have in trying to narrow the gap and eventually closing the gap between the various race groups as far as the social benefits are concerned. If all race groups were included in such a scheme, this would obviate the difficulty we now have of paying different rates of pensions to various race groups. If the Government has not yet come to a decision in this regard perhaps the hon. the Minister of Finance could give an indication as to what steps he intends taking regarding private pension funds. We know that in 1966 the Cilliers Commission of Inquiry—I think it was officially appointed in 1964—in its report made considerable important recommendations concerning the transferability of pension rights, and the preservation of pension benefits, and indicated the shortcomings in our present system of private pension funds. This vitally affects the hon. the Minister of Finance as it falls under his jurisdiction. It is hoped that he will not do what his predecessor did, and not act on these recommendations. I do hope that the hon. the Minister of Finance will give some indication as to whether he intends accepting any of those recommendations to bring about a better situation as far as our private pension schemes are concerned.

I should like to deal with another matter affecting also the aged section in the community. I hope the hon. the Minister of Finance will not think that I have a pecuniary interest in this matter! I now wish to discuss the position of the abatements to the taxpayers over 60 years of age. The abatement which has been granted in the past has been adjusted from time to time. In the 1975 budget, for instance, that special abatement to the over 60-year-old taxpayer was increased from R400 to R600. In the 1976 budget that special abatement was raised from R600 to R700. However, in the 1977 budget there was no adjustment to that special abatement and as far as I can ascertain, the 1978 budget does also not make provision for an adjustment to this abatement.

This comes at a very important time. I have just mentioned the fact that pensioners are to receive various increases, which we, of course, welcome. If we look at the question of the income tax which has to be paid, quite an interesting situation is revealed. The hon. the Minister has indicated that he wishes to give relief where he can. However, I think there is an important aspect which has perhaps been overlooked by the hon. the Minister of Finance. If we take into account the abatement of R700, it means that an over 60-year-old taxpayer only becomes liable for income tax when his taxable income exceeds R1 900 p.a. if he is married, and R1 400 if he is single. One must bear in mind that the increases to be granted on old-age pensions are taxable. We know that all pensions are taxable apart from war veterans’ and war disability pensions and certain miners’ diseases pensions. Let us take the situation of a married couple who both receive a maximum pension of R79 per month. In terms of the means test it means that they receive very little and may therefore be fully dependent on that maximum pension of R79 per month. This means that they will get R948 per annum each and R1 896 per annum together, which is below that figure of R1 900 per annum. From 1 October 1978 the pension is to be increased by R9 per month, making the basic pension R88 per month, and this will mean that they will each get R1 056 per annum, which means that together they will receive R2 112 per annum. This now places them over that R1 900 p.a. ceiling, which means that some of those persons who were not previously paying any income tax at all will now become liable for income tax, as well as the general sales tax. They will now again fall under the aegis of the Department of Inland Revenue and become liable for income tax. I believe this is an important aspect and I hope the hon. the Minister will reconsider the position as far as that abatement for taxpayers over 60 years of age is concerned. I think it is going to come as a shock to some to some of these old folk, who for many years have not been liable for tax, to discover that by the grant of this extra R9 a month it is going to place some of them within the taxable group, which will mean that they will now have to start paying income tax as from next year. This is a matter to which I believe the hon. the Minister of Finance should give serious consideration, because obviously these older people are the hardest hit when it comes to inflation. In many cases they have had to live on their savings. They realize that they are living in inflationary times and that they have to try to curtail expenditure wherever they can.

I know that from time to time we have quoted in this House, particularly from the ministerial benches, the rate of inflation and the cost of living index in relation to the percentage increase which has been granted in pensions. I submit that that is not a fair comparison, because there are large numbers of these people who are so dependent on their pensions that they spend a far greater proportion of their pensions on foodstuffs and the necessities of life. That means that they have to spend over and above the normal cost of living index, when one takes into account that the increase in the cost of food over the last few years has sometimes been over 20%. That means that because a larger proportion of their pension is spent on foodstuffs their actual cost of living has increased far more than the cost of living index shown, of 11%. As a result I think that every hon. member of this House during the past few years has been inundated with requests from old people who are finding it extremely difficult to exist in present-day circumstances. This general sales tax is going to impose another burden on these people. Therefore, while welcoming this additional R10 million which the hon. the Minister of Finance has made available to try to assist these people, he should endeavour to find a little more than that R10 million so as to give them a greater degree of assistance where it is most needed.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that I may confidently leave it to the hon. the Minister of Finance to deal with the matters alluded to by the hon. member for Umbilo. In fact, the hon. member himself implied and admitted that some of the matters he had alluded to were actually addressed to the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions.

In my opinion the course of this debate so far has not produced much to which the hon. the Minister of Finance will have to reply. At any rate it ought to be very easy for him to reply to the criticism levelled at this budget. Earlier on there were suggestions of a tax holiday, and it seems to me the hon. the Minister has been given a “debate holiday” as far as this budget debate is concerned. We have heard an enormous number of speeches, a spate of words and long amendments, but I do not think that anything of any substance has been raised which could be regarded as valid criticism of the budget. I think this in itself is eloquent testimony to the unquestionable success of this budget. I do not want to contribute very much to the “debate holiday” of the hon. the Minister, and consequently I do at least want to deal briefly with a few of the budget proposals. After that I shall also join those hon. members who have already taken the Opposition to task for a diversity of errors and follies, and I shall do so primarily in pursuance of one particular aspect of one of the many and verbose amendments which were moved here.

The first budget proposal on which I should like to state my view to the hon. the Minister is the proposal in regard to a reduction in transfer duties. This is a proposal which we can understand—and it is understandable that it has been generally welcomed—but it is also appreciated that there are certain deficiencies and anomalies in this provision, as well as a measure of uncertainty over its interpretation. That is why I feel myself at liberty to raise the matter here, even if it is only so that the hon. the Minister can clarify it for us. Briefly, the position prior to the commencement of this amendment, i.e. until the end of last month, was that ordinary individuals had to pay transfer duties of 1% on property transactions up to R20 000, and 3% above that. Purchasers other than natural persons paid estate duties of 5% throughout. As I understand it, the position which has applied since the beginning of April, is such that no transfer duties are payable on property transactions up to R20 000. R20 000 is the amount for a house and R8 000 the amount for a plot on which exemption from transfer duties is being granted. Houses which cost more than R20 000 will be subject to transfer duties of 1% on the first R20 000 and 3% above that.

In the situation that obtained prior to the end of March we had a proportionately rising curve as far as transfer duties were concerned. The only exception was that on amounts immediately above R20 000 a sudden increase in transfer duties occurred. In that case it suddenly rose from 1% to 3%. After that the increase was again a gradual one. If I understand it correctly, the new proposal means that we will have a very sudden increase. No transfer duties will be payable on a property transaction up to and including R20 000. Immediately after that, if a house costs R21 000 for example, the amount of transfer duties payable is R230. This is a very drastic and rapid increase. Thus a very sharp distinction is drawn between those who receive the alleviation and those who do not. This means a dramatic alleviation for transactions in certain categories, whereas for the rest no alleviation is offered. I think that the hon. the Minister may safely direct his attention to this discrepancy.

One important implication that it has—and this is simply the way people are—is that all kinds of attempts will inevitably be made to circumvent the provisions. We can therefore imagine that ingenious methods will be applied to keep the stated purchase price—if it is anywhere in the region of R20 000—just below the price on which the transfer duties will become payable. Another result that this will have is that a greater benefit will inevitably be brought about in rural and peri-urban areas, owing of course to the general price patterns. It is also the case now that bona fide home-ownership will no longer, as it previously was, be a criterion. This was in fact one of the recommendations of the Fouché Commission, but I understand that a considerable number of problems cropped up in regard to its practical application. Therefore I do not wish to advocate an amendment in this regard.

What we should also realize is that, in terms of the proposal as it reads at present, there will be no impediment to speculation. In other words, a speculator will receive the same benefits as the bona fide owner of a property. I found it very interesting to note that the hon. the Minister calculated the loss in revenue here at R3 million, while the Fouché Commission calculated it at R0,5 million. I do not know where the difference in that calculation came in. I should like to request the hon. the Minister to reconsider the matter, particularly as far as its practical application is concerned. The principle is wonderful, but I wonder whether it is not possible to ensure that, as far as its application is concerned, there can be a gradual increase, instead of the sudden jump from a complete exemption to the application of normal transfer duties.

The second tax proposal on which I should also like to dwell for just a moment, is the one in regard to personal income tax. The proposal benefits all taxpayers. It is calculated that it will bring about a saving equal to approximately one month’s tax deductions according to the old tariff. This is an appreciable alleviation, and I am certain that we are all grateful that it was possible for the hon. the Minister to grant such an alleviation at this juncture. It has tremendous inherent benefits. The motivation of the hon. the Minister for this is quite correctly that he seeks to stimulate and ensure greater productivity and growth in this way. It is definitely the case that it is particularly those who fall into the higher categories whom we hope to spur to greater productivity, those people who are capable of producing more. There are various reasons why they are not producing more. The concession of the hon. the Minister will enable those who are capable of producing more to do so. The concession of the hon. the Minister is, as far as they are concerned, a stimulus or incentive to produce more. The concession will have the very salutary result that manpower will be better utilized than was the case under the old dispensation.

One finds these categories in all sectors of our economy, but it is well known that there is one particular category of taxpayers in which the phenomenon to which the hon. the Minister referred in his budget speech, generally occurs. That group would rather engage in leisure activities than work, owing to the fact that when one falls in the higher category one is to a great extent working only for the State, and not for oneself. I am thinking in particular of one group of people, the professional men—advocates, attorneys, medical practitioners (particularly specialists), engineers, quantity surveyors and architects. In these categories one consequently finds the most useful people, the people with the greatest potential. It is they who in fact need this incentive. Consequently it is intended for them. They are the people who are at present not producing their full potential.

I am broaching the question of professional men because there is an important difference. While other people, for example businessmen and farmers, have other methods of allowing the benefit which company formation entails to accrue to themselves, this is in practice beyond the reach of the professional men. Although that advantage is theoretically available to certain professional men, it is not available at all to others. Advocates, medical practitioners and dentists find the very general phenomenon of company formation beyond their reach. Under the system of partnership with limited liability, a system for which provision is made in terms of the Company Act, it is in fact theoretically possible for engineers, architects and attorneys to enjoy the benefits of company formation, but in practice we find that it is a system which is not in general use. Practical experience has shown that there are various considerations. One of these is that the Receiver of Revenue insists on knowing what the motive for the establishment of such a company is. The result is that there are practical impediments which prevent full use being made of the system.

Since this is the case, I am asking the hon. the Minister to look at the position again and consider the possibility of finding a method for this group of people in particular, specifically the professional men, in terms of which they can be given additional incentives or stimuli to work more and apply their topclass manpower to the benefit of South Africa. We must remember—and it is also clear that this was the hon. the Minister’s motivation for this proposal—that the survival and expansion of the capitalist system are dependent on capital formation, and more specifically of course, in the private sector. The people in the lower income groups also make a contribution, even if it is in a more modest way, but the potential sources for capital formation on an appreciable scale are limited, and I think the limited sources for potential capital formation should be cosseted. We should do everything we can do to encourage them. I shall not try to suggest a solution today, but I do want to ask the hon. the Minister and his department to take these facts into consideration and perhaps in future—probably not during the present year—reconsider whether something cannot be done to utilize this potential source of productivity and capital formation to better effect.

I now want to refer very briefly to a third tax proposal. This is not really a proposal, but it is mentioned in the budget speech. I am referring to the matter of the tax on married women. The principle of joint taxation is generally accepted. I do not think there are any knowledgeable persons who object to it. As the hon. the Minister said in his budget speech, what is now being done in respect of personal income tax is also a step in the right direction to deal with this problem. The interested parties as far as this matter is concerned believe that the hon. the Minister should think of further steps. There is gratitude and recognition for the one step in that direction, but they feel that further steps in that general direction should be taken. The obvious and fair solution would probably be to assess the full income of the wife at what is called the marginal rate of the husband’s income. Mention is being made of a so-called “rating amount”, which is established on the marginal rate of the husband’s salary, and the full income of the wife is assessed at that tariff and not progressively in accordance with the joint income of the husband and wife.

I just want to refer briefly now to the amendment moved by one of the opposition parties. I am referring to that subdivision of the amendment which refers to realistic steps which the Government should ostensibly take to achieve a settlement of outstanding differences with the Black population of South Africa. It is clear that our Opposition has not really learnt anything in 30 years. Apparently they do not want to or are not able to learn anything. They have so frequently been proved wrong in respect of matters of this nature, but every time they are simply taken in again. It has been proved so many times, as this amendment also illustrates, that opposition to the national aspirations of a people are in the long run doomed to failure. As far as this matter is concerned, there is definitely not going to be any exception either. We know how clever the enemies of the national regime are at the outset, how they have all the arguments and answers and we know what clever things they have to say, but in the end their hopes are always dashed. This is what happened in respect of each matter of cardinal importance throughout South Africa’s recent history. We can go back to 1912. There was the theme of South Africa first, the establishment of a Republic, economic emancipation and independent homelands. In respect of each of these matters the Opposition and our enemies are always very clever. They always know better, but in the end they are proved wrong. They are masters at knowing better. They are very good at sowing suspicion and fostering mistrust. But every time they are nevertheless ground to pieces by the realities of our country and our circumstances. The matter which is broached is this amendment is also very real. It is concerned with the Government’s new constitutional proposals, and here, too, we see the Opposition taking a delight in its belief that these are going to be a failure and that we will not be able to achieve the necessary understanding with the other groups. We realize that the key to the success of this plan is that there will at least have to be a reasonable degree of co-operation on the part of the other groups. The Opposition believes that it can prevent this. It believes that it has enough influence on the non-Whites to prevent any co-operation which is necessary and desirable on the part of the non-Whites. However, I want to predict that in this case as well time will prove them wrong. Time will prove that they miscalculated in this respect as well.

The Opposition does two things: It underestimates and it overestimates. Certain things they underestimate, while they overestimate other things. They overestimate the so-called outstanding differences between the Government and the other ethnic groups. They overestimate their own ability to mar relations in this respect and to cause the good work the Government is trying to do to miscarry. On the other hand in fact they underestimate the inherent acceptability of these proposals. They underestimate the forces which are at work to cause the Government’s measures to succeed, particularly in respect of this specific matter. They underestimate the forces at work to improve relations between White and non-White in South Africa; the strength of understanding which is slowly but surely growing in our midst; the strength of mutual goodwill which is slowly increasing; they underestimate the realization of a mutual dependence and the realization that our interests do not clash, but are the same or are mutually complementary; and the forces of reconciliation which are ousting mistrust and suspicion to make way for trust and co-operation. In so far as there may have been an alienation between us and some of the other groups, it is my observation, and I want to state categorically, that that alienation is visibly diminishing. We believe that there is sufficient probity among the Whites and non-Whites, that there is sufficient responsibility on both sides and also that there is a sufficient realization on both sides of how much is at stake for all of us, to ensure that the necessary co-operation and consensus for a modus vivendi will develop. The Official Opposition and other enemies of the Government will not be able, despite their redoubtable ability for obstruction and mischief—we appreciate this—to prevent this modus vivendi from being found. They can try to shoot down the plan in flames and to make it out to be ridiculous and absurd, they may take as much pleasure in doing that as they like, but sooner or later, at some time or another, and perhaps quite soon it will be an accomplished fact and then they will once more have to reconcile themselves to it. Perhaps they may even find that they can live with it. What is more we may perhaps even find that, once it is an accomplished fact and is acceptable, they will want to lay claim to having contributed to it.

Mr. Speaker, I should also like to say something about the allies of the Opposition. As a matter of fact, they are more than allies—I am referring now to the allies at home as well as and particularly those abroad. Actually they are their heroes. At present their heroes and allies are the Jimmy Carters, the Andy Youngs and the Donald Woods. From this quarter they are now expecting their salvation. They believe these are the big people and the powerful people. They have the might, and if one is strong, one need not, after all, be right. After all, if one has the might one need not be right and fair. One need not then apply that criterion at all. Their hero now is Carter, a man who is obviously driven and motivated by obscure passions. His entire regime has already degenerated into a strange crusade, a crusade of personal as well as vicarious or substitutional expiation. Obviously he wants to atone for what his political unconscious mind tells him he and his fellow-Whites in America owe the Black man of America and of Africa. The Official Opposition and other enemies of ours are now trying to cause a similar guilty feeling, a guilt complex, to develop in us, to inculcate in us a similar fear with the suggestion that the non-Whites in South Africa have a terrible account to settle with us. Whether the Jimmy Carters are right, expressly or by implication, when they speak of an account which the Black man there has to settle with them, I shall leave at that for the moment. Fortunately for us our forefathers, and also our own generation, so we believe, did not do business with the other groups in South Africa in such a way that we ran up such an account against us and that we need harbour a guilty feeling or need live in anxiety or fear. Fortunately our forefather were accorded the grace and insight to do business in a sound and honourable fashion with all the population elements whose destiny it was and is to inhabit this sub-continent together with us. This tradition is being continued by the present generation, is being continued faithfully and even dramatically. In our time as well there prevails a healthy and honourable manner of doing business. There is no exploitation and no one-way traffic of rights only for the one and only deprivation for the other. These are facts which we dare not deny. Even in the other groups there is sufficient probity and honesty to admit this. That is the foundation, or part of the foundation, on which the Government is building and relies on for the success of its new constitutional proposals, in so far as their acceptance and the co-operation of the other groups in respect of those proposals is a requirement.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Algoa, as well as with many other hon. members in this House, in congratulating our hon. the Minister of Finance who, in my opinion, presented a brilliant budget. There was exceptionally little outside criticism of this budget. Practically all the statements on it which I saw, were definitely positive. To my mind a very fine barometer of the budget—I think another hon. member has already mentioned it in this debate—is the Stock Exchange. After the budget speech was delivered, the reaction on the Stock Exchange was definitely one which proved that the budget had also engendered confidence in the future of the economy of our country. In fact I feel sorry for our hon. the Minister when he has to reply to this debate on Monday because there was so little criticism, particularly criticism of any substance, from the part of the Opposition that I think he will need only five minutes to deal with the whole lot of them.

I am grateful that the hon. the Minister made mention in his budget speech of certain problems in some of our agriculture sectors. In fact, he admitted that problems existed by making certain concessions and allotting certain grants to agriculture. Mr. Speaker, we must have no illusions about this. Some agricultural activities could be irreparably damaged if solutions are not found in time. The basic requirement for an orderly, happy country is sufficient food. The basic requirement for industrial development, indeed for any development in a country, is a sound, vital agricultural industry. Over the past few years our economy has leaned very heavily on agriculture and agriculture is very proud of this. On the one hand it was not necessary for us to import expensive food, and in this way we were able to save valuable exchange. On the other hand, agriculture was able to make an extremely valuable contribution to exports and once again this, earned a considerable amount of foreign exchange. The hon. the Minister of Finance also announced in his budget speech that certain production means in agriculture would be exempt from sales tax. However, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to be particularly careful in this regard when formulating these production means and not in doing so to discriminate against certain agricultural activities. However, I have the greatest confidence in the Government, because, as far as agriculture is concerned, it has had a particularly good record throughout its entire 30-year term. The deeds of the Government prove that agriculture is very important to it.

A second aspect which I should like to raise, is in connection with defence bonds. I agree with the hon. the Minister that it is a pity that the investment in defence bonds has not come up to expectations. In this regard I want to raise a certain matter which I heard about and which I found a little disturbing. There is a story going the rounds that the moneys invested in defence bonds are not spent directly on defence, but go through other channels. I should like the hon. the Minister to deal with this in his reply so that the people outside may know precisely what the position with defence bonds is.

I should like to refer to a speech which the hon. member for Newcastle made in the House yesterday about a statement made by a member of the Executive Committee of the Natal Provincial Council. The leader of the NRP, the hon. member for Durban Point, reacted to this and I want to say at once that we are grateful that he immediately repudiated the member of the Natal Executive Committee. My question is: Is repudiation enough in this case? I am going to quote this report once again.

Read the provincial Hansard.

We shall get that Hansard. Those hon. members must not start kicking up a row now; we are going to make them suffer a great deal for this matter. According to this newspaper report, that hon. member said the following, and I quote him—

This is still part of the quote—

In this regard I want to ask the country the following question: Is repudiation enough in this case? Mr. Watterson holds an important position in the Natal Provincial Council. In fact, he is a member of the Executive Committee. He holds an executive position in which he must make decisions in the interest of Natal and in the interest of South Africa. We in South Africa have problems and we must not try to argue them away.

You are one of them.

That hon. member will get a chance to speak. We have our problems with national service, parental motivation for national service and national motivation for national service. In spite of these problems an hon. member comes along and says that he has had enough of national service. He does not want to fight for Afrikaner nationalism. He simply drags the Afrikaner in. This person is far behind the times. [Interjections.] I feel a suitable disciplinary measure would be to deprive him of his post as MEC of the Natal Provincial Council. I do not think his party will expel him, but I cannot see how an hon. member who makes statements like this in public can continue to hold a position in a body where important decisions must be taken. I shall leave the matter at that.

I am pleased that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is in the House. About a month ago a letter appeared in Die Burger. I just want to quote two passages from this letter. The letter concerns the influx of Black and Coloured people to Sea Point and Green Point. The letter writer said the following—

The letter went on to say—

The writer concluded by saying—

Bamford has already said “Yes”.

I am not going to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition what his answer is. I am going to ask the hon. member for Green Point to tell us what his answer is. Do he and his party want Sea Point and Green Point to be declared open areas? Unfortunately the hon. member is not in the House. I thought it was him sitting at the back there. [Interjections.] All that we know, is that the hon. member for Groote Schuur said that the Sea Point swimming baths must be declared open. [Interjections.]

I now want to refer to a letter which appeared in the Financial Mail at the beginning of the session. The hon. the Prime Minister also referred to this letter during the censure debate. The letter was addressed to: “Dear Mr. Eglin …” At the end of the letter we find—

The session has already reached the halfway mark and the time for the Second Reading debate of the budget has virtually expired. I have sat here and made observations, and tonight I want to say that the Official Opposition is still on the defensive. I should like the Financial Mail to address another letter to “Dear Mr. Eglin” and ask him why he is still on the defensive. He is always having to try to rectify statements made by his party and himself. In his whirlwind speech yesterday he again had to try and cover up the statements of hon. members of his party, especially those made by the hon. members for Houghton and Groote Schuur. He is always having to try to defend statements by hon. members of his party and to protect them. Indeed, some time ago he quickly had to rectify a Press report about a statement on Rhodesia which he had apparently made in Botswana. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did in fact rectify it and we believe him, but the stigma of that report will continue to cling to him. [Interjections.] I ask myself: Why do the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party remain on the defensive? I should like to give him the answer tonight. He does not have his finger on the pulse of South Africa. That is the answer. He has his finger on the wrong place. [Interjections.] The hon. member is standing with one foot in America and the other in Africa. If he had had another foot, he would have put it down in kwaZulu. In any event, he does not have a foot or a finger left to put down in South Africa. The hon. member is prepared to sell South Africa to try and win the favour of the American liberal and of Africa.

I should like to refer to a speech which, according to the Sunday Express of 5 December 1976, was made at a PFP conference by Chief Gatsha Buthelezi. He said the following—

The report goes on to say—

The reaction of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to this was that he welcomed the proposal and that he would ask his party to give it serious consideration. In other words, he wants to enlist the aid of a Black organization like Inkatha to oppose the NP and try to plough it under. The voters of South Africa have already given their verdict on this. Shortly before the election, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition appeared in a television interview during which he was asked what he would do if he should become Prime Minister.

That is untrue!

It was not a relevant question, but it was put to him nevertheless. What was his reply to this? His reply was—

This is why the voters of South Africa rejected that party. I want to ask him a question in the same context as the television interview. If he came into power, would he talk to Sam Nujoma too? I want to ask whether there was any reaction from that party after Mr. Nujoma’s outspoken statement in his television interview on South West Africa, or do they also say, as Ambassador McHenry said last night, that they have not studied the full text and therefore cannot form any opinion? This is the way in which people avoid these urgent problems of our country today, viz. by just saying that they are not conversant with the full context and therefore cannot comment on them. I want to ask once again whether there was ever any reaction from that party to the unequivocal statement by Vice-President Mondale about “Black majority rule”.

There was.

Was there? Why does that party not react to statements like the following, for example, which was made by Mr. Cyrus Vance?

What absolute nonsense! I quote further—

Why does that party say something when statements like these are made?

They agree with them.

Why does that party not tell their great friends in America, in Africa and in Western Europe that there are only three Black States north of South Africa that have constitutions which protect the rights of minorities? That there are only seven Black States that have an independent legal system?

What States are those?

In 35 Black States the Press is controlled by the Government. More than a quarter of the members of the OAU have imposed a complete ban on foreign journalists, or only allow them into their country on a few occasions under the strictest supervision and control. While Africa has 20 one-party states, 13 dictatorships and seven military dictatorships, there are only 11 countries on the continent where more than one party is allowed, and this includes South Africa, Botswana, Rhodesia, Transkei and Bophuthatswana. Why do those hon. members not tell this to the rest of the world? Is this what the Western world wants us to become too? If not, why are such unfair double standards being applied? And why does the PFP not join with us in spreading the true message of South Africa? As long as it refrains from doing this, it will remain the small, insignificant party that it is. Nor does that party have any share in the political evolution of this country. I want to agree with the hon. member for Simonstown where he says that that party has become totally irrelevant in this country. It will never make a contribution until it puts South Africa first.

I often ask myself: where does the world want to go with us? I wonder if President Carter realizes in his pronouncements what he is doing. I should just like to quote a passage from the S.A. Digest. The heading is “Embargo on South African trade: a two-edged sword”, written by Robin A. Rosenblatt in the Los Angeles Times. The article reads—

Does President Carter not realize these things? Does he not realize that if he calls for sanctions against South Africa, he will lose these very essential raw materials which are produced by South Africa and Russia alone? Is this the price they want to pay to win Africa’s favour? I think this price is too high and I think it is time they realized it.

I also want to quote from what Dimitri Manoelski of the Lenin School for Warfare said. He said—

Are the people not aware of this type of pronouncement? Do they not realize that here on the southern point of Africa there is still a nation which is prepared to fight communism with all its might? Do they not perceive this? I think the Western world has gone blind, and they are stumbling about as a result of it. The most important, effective technique with which world opinion is trying to plough the White nations of Southern Africa under, is by making them believe that what they are doing is wrong and that in the process they are and have been guilty of many misdemeanours.

In conclusion tonight I ask: What are we guilty of? Why are we being placed in the dock by practically every country in the world? My question is whether we are guilty for having brought Christianity to this continent of Africa. Are we guilty for having brought civilization to this continent of Africa? Are we guilty for having made the various peoples of this country ethnically and culturally aware? Are we guilty for helping the various peoples to protect what is their own? Are we guilty for spending millions every year to help these peoples develop themselves and their national homelands peacefully? Are we guilty for trying to safeguard them from chaos and senseless bloodshed, from a Mozambique and an Angola and from the greater part of North Africa? Are we guilty for preventing them from burning down schools, universities, churches and other facilities which have been established for their own development and welfare? Are we guilty for wanting to make them full-fledged, self-supporting and independent States?

If this is what we are in the dock for, I want to say very confidently that, on behalf of this nation, I plead not guilty.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet began his speech on a very serious note discussing with the hon. the Minister some serious problems facing the agricultural sector of our country. Unfortunately, from that first few brief minutes of seriousness he degenerated into a prototype of the kind of speeches we have had to endure all week.

The most ironic comment the hon. member made in his entire speech was that the Official Opposition was on the defensive. I have never, in the few brief years that I have been in this House, heard speech after speech in succession showing the Government to be on the defensive. Again and again, even the rhetorical questions right at the end of the hon. members speech—eloquent and moving as they may have been—indicates the defensiveness of that hon. member and of the hon. Government. They have every right to be on the defensive.

To the hon. member who will rise to follow me in this debate, I want to say that I challenge him to throw aside his many newspaper clippings and personal references and remarks and to listen carefully to specific questions that I will put to the hon. the Minister of Finance and to try to deal with them in a form of a debate, rather than simply to resort to the personal and to the general once again. [Interjections.]

To begin with I want to ask a few short, but I believe important, questions to the hon. the Minister before moving on to the major topic of my speech.

Firstly I want to ask the hon. the Minister about something to which reference has been made during the debate, but not specifically along the lines of my question. I want the hon. the Minister to consider telling the House why, once again, there was a delay until October to pay social pensions. I say this because there has been some comment and speculation in the Press and the comments of the relevant department have been quite unsatisfactory. I raised this point last year, but I got not satisfaction from the then hon. Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. I ask the hon. the Minister please to explain why it was necessary for this to happen once again.

In the second instance I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he really thinks that an increase of R9 for White pensioners will enable them to maintain their present standard of living in view of the 4% sales tax. I cannot see that happening.

In the third instance I want to say that much has been made of the fact that correspondingly larger percentage increases have been given to Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks, but the fact of the matter is that the gap in certainly one instance has actually widened in real terms. As an example I may point to the fact that from 1 October 1978 Whites will receive a monthly pension of R88 and Blacks R23,75. The previous gap was R58,50 and now it has jumped to R64,25. In these very sensitive and difficult times I ask the hon. the Minister of Finance why it was not possible to give the exact same increase of R9 to all old-age pensioners.

The last specific question I want to put to the hon. the Minister before I move on to another topic, arises from the fact that he himself in his budget speech referred to the high unemployment which is being experienced in South Africa. He made specific mention of 12,4% Black unemployment and a very significant increase of unemployment among Whites, Coloureds and Indians in South Africa. Under these circumstances I should like to know why no allowance is being made in the budget for special relief for the unemployed. This is a very serious matter. It has socio-economic and also socio-political implications and I cannot for the life of me understand why a Government, when it sees the tense situation which exists right throughout our country, does not make provision for immediate relief. Of course, some provision has been made in terms of trying to create new jobs, and that is exactly what ought to be done. We are all agreed, however, that that in itself is not enough. There are hundreds and thousands of people all over our country who are unemployed, and I believe that assistance must be given to them until such time as jobs can be created.

I want to move immediately on to a theme which I believe is very significant and important for the economy of our country. I want to discuss the role of labour and the future of Black citizens in South Africa. The utilization of labour is a key component in any nation’s economy and that of course must include South Africa. It can and it must play a major role in combating inflation, one of our most serious problems, and specifically it can and it must play a major role in increasing productivity. Against the Government’s declared policy for the future of Blacks in South Africa, I believe we must take cognizance of certain hard facts concerning our labour force in South Africa.

Why do you single out Blacks here?

I shall come to that. I shall really try to answer that in the course of my speech. The South African economy is indivisible, thus the prosperity of one group will be dependent upon the prosperity of any other group in South Africa. We can no longer pretend that there is separation in our economy.

Was the speech written for you in South Africa?

Yes, it was. It was written by my own hands right here in South Africa. [Interjections.] Actually I am quite surprised that the hon. the Minister should ask that question, because I should like to quote something to him immediately. This happened when he was sitting somewhere else. The hon. the Minister’s words were—

He has obviously become converted to that now. I quote further—

Now when did he think that up? When he was in China, Russia or South Africa?

Who wrote that for you?

Yes, who wrote that for you? [Interjections.]

But that is common cause!

Now perhaps that hon. Minister will just listen quietly because I believe we are dealing with a very serious situation facing South Africa.

Silence is golden!

That is a fact of life that must be accepted by any who seek to build up our economy and that, after all, is the hon. the Minister of Finance’s prime responsibility, although it is a responsibility which is shared by all in South Africa. Unless we take cognizance of the fact that the economy is a single, integrated economy, we shall never be able to resolve our problems.

The second important fact—and here I want to answer the question raised by the hon. the Minister a moment ago—is that a very high percentage of the labour force working in the industrial centres of South Africa happens to be Black. Let us look at the history of this. In the 1930s, that very crucial period, Black labour constituted 57% of the labour force. In 1944-’45, the period before the post-war boom, the figure was 69%. In 1954-’55 the figure had risen to 72% and in 1972 it was 75%. And today, I dare say, Blacks constitute closer to 80% of our labour force. Any labour force of such a high percentage must surely demand the attention of anyone who is seeking to build up the economy, and that is why I am specifically referring to it. The Blacks happen to be the vast majority of our labour force.

I want to refer again to the facts and figures enumerated by the Leader of the Opposition in this debate, though I do not have time to mention them all. I shall therefore just mention a couple. 71% of the de facto population of South Africa—Black! 70% of the economically active population of South Africa—Black! 56% of the work force in manufacturing industry in South Africa— Black! So I could go on and on. At that time my leader made the point that it is impossible to defend South Africa without the loyalty of all our people, which includes our Black people. I want to go on to say that it is impossible to increase and maintain economic growth without the hands and feet, the minds and the hearts and the commitment of those Black South Africans at present engaged in our labour force. I want to go further and say that South Africa will become increasingly dependent on Blacks, both in the labour and management fields of our economy. In order to maintain ourselves and develop economically, we are faced with the situation of escalating economic integration, and yet side by side with that there is the Government’s determination to continue to build a structure which compartmentalizes people on the grounds of race. One cannot have these two in one single society. The strain comes to be intolerable and the whole building begins to totter and fall. Before that time, I believe the hon. the Minister of Finance, the Cabinet, members opposite, we in these benches and South Africa, have to face up to certain harsh realities. Once we have accepted that, we can begin to build together for the future.

An integrated economy is simply irreconcilable with the political system which envisages the retention of the maximum degree of differentiation between the different ethnic groups. In a sentence, the statement of the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development that the aim of the Government was to ensure that as soon as possible there were to be no Black South Africans left is a direct threat not only to the racial harmony which is so important and vital to our country, but to the basis of our economy as well.

You arc wrenching it completely from its context.

Why then did that hon. Minister not take part in this debate? The more the Nationalist Government succeeds in its reckless objective, the sooner and the greater the extent to which our economy will be dependent on foreign Black labour. What we will have in South Africa is a situation where Whites will have control of the capital, the entrepreneurship and the property and where the majority of Blacks will be labour units. This, in the second half of the 20th century, is a most powerful example of economic feudalism. It is also a classic situation for conflict in South Africa.

The Government’s policy, in so far as it succeeds—and this is the worst thing that can happen for South Africa—will lead to an economy which will not only be vulnerable because of lack of capital or because of outside pressure and lack of confidence, but which will be the more vulnerable because of its far-reaching reliance on a massive foreign work force—and that by design: No Black citizens in South Africa.

South Africa, having safeguarded its White identity, will then be at the mercy of a foreign labour force with no commitment to the society in which our economy is contained. The foreign worker will be employed in a society which will offer him no status, recognition, housing, security or education for his children by virtue of his participation in that economy. He will have no far-reaching commitment to his employer or to the enterprise which employs him. We will have an economy in which the majority of the labour force will be defined both socially and politically as external to the society which the economy serves. This places, I believe, an intolerable strain on the economy and on the society because the rewards of participating in an economy usually include the rewards of participating in a society. However, this Government is determined to tell the Black man—and the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development has himself said this in the House recently—that whether he be skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled, whether he be part of the labour force or of management, in the final analysis he as Black man, his loyalty, his citizenship, his interest and his future belong not to South Africa but to a distant homeland. This is madness. It places in jeopardy the economic and social fabric of our society.

What about the EEC?

The fact of the matter is that this mad scheme of the Government is unworkable and unrealizable and that, to the extent that it actually does succeed, it is a direct threat to the very plans for economic growth and stability which the hon. the Minister of Finance himself declared to be absolutely essential if we are to survive as a nation.

In conclusion, let me say that the policy of separate development—no matter what term is used for it—and sustained economic growth and industrial peace are mutually exclusive. The sooner the Government has the foresight and the courage to recognize that the Black man in our society will not go away and that he is in fact indispensable to our economy as a citizen sharing in the fruits of the total enterprise, the better it will be for the future growth and security of all South Africans, Black and White alike.

Mr. Speaker, with reference to the speech just made by the hon. member for Pinelands, I should like to refer briefly to a few cardinal points, for I think that these will furnish the reasons for the mistakes made by this hon. member in his approach. In the first place, we must remember that the accepted policy of the Government rests upon two legs. In the first place, there is the political independence of the various ethnic groups of South Africa. In the second place, we accept that there is economic interdependence and that there will always be economic interdependence.

You want to separate the two.

The figures quoted by the hon. member are not unforeseen by us. These figures do not take us by surprise; they are the result of the implementation of the two principles or aspects of the Government’s policy. It is said that the proof of the pudding lies in the eating. The economies of the other countries in Africa have basically collapsed, that is to say, where there are integrated political systems. Here in South Africa, however, where we do not have such a system, we have had a growing and a stable economy. Let us also make it clear to the hon. member—and I think he knows this— that the great majority of the Black people of South Africa are loyal to the existing order of South Africa.

To South Africa.

To South Africa. They are loyal to the existing order in South Africa. That is why the spectres conjured up for us by that hon. member will never be realized. We believe this, because the functioning of the economy in South Africa is such that there is full opportunity for the people of South Africa, for the people who work here, to find fulfilment and to exercise their bargaining power. In this connection we are on the road of development.

†Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Houghton and which has been referred to previously in this House. The hon. member for Houghton made a typical speech. It was one of her typical speeches and a speech typical of the PFP. As I have said, a few of my colleagues have already referred to the speech. We must realize that we are living in difficult times in South Africa at the moment. We know that outside pressures are building up against South Africa. We know that threats are being issued against South Africa. At this particular time an eagerness has built up within the NP and in Government circles to examine closely the causes for the image South Africa has overseas and the isolation that we are suffering at the hands of overseas countries.

It is your own policies that are at fault.

It is with this in mind that hon. members on this side of the House have scrutinized the speech of the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Development and the hon. member for Lydenburg and other hon. members have clearly showed that the hon. member for Houghton has made a significant and unjustified attack on the good name and the prestige of South Africa. I do not want to repeat the points that have already been made and I am also not going to use words like communism and patriotism. However, when one has listened to that speech and one has also listened to the scrutinization which has taken place in this House one must come to the conclusion that the hon. member for Houghton is guilty of acts unbecoming a member of Parliament who loves her country. The hon. member for Houghton will remember that in an interjection yesterday she said that she hates this Government.

Yes.

She said it again. She also said she hated the hon. member for Lydenburg but I am sure that hon. member will not have sleepless nights as a result of that. One thing has become clear to us all, viz. the hatred that that hon. member has for this Government and the hatred that she has for hon. members of the NP has blinded her loyalty to South Africa and has diminished her patriotism to her fatherland, and it has in my view seriously affected her own judgment.

It is loyal to South Africa to hate the Nats.

The hon. member has seen fit to refer again in her speech to Biko. We in this House feel that Biko has been fully debated, but unfortunately the Biko incident remains a relevant one as far as the overseas Press is concerned. It is still being used in overseas countries as a clarion call to unite all our enemies and to motivate them against South Africa. It is therefore still important what is being said in the S.A. Parliament about the Biko case, also what the hon. member for Houghton says about the Biko case. I would like to quote what she had to say about the Biko case in her speech on Monday. She said the following (Hansard, 3 April 1978, col. 3821)—

The hon. member says that there was no action after the death of Steve Biko.

Why do you not read the whole sentence?

The sentence is quite clear, I have correctly quoted it. The statement of the hon. member is completely unjustified and untrue. It is very important that we should realize what the tactics of our enemies are. It is the tactics of our enemies to cultivate and to build up an image of South Africa to the effect that a man in the hands of the police died and that nothing has happened as a result of it. That is the image the outside world wants to create of South Africa in regard to the Biko case, and the hon. member for Houghton contributes to that image. By doing that she is playing into the hands of the enemies of South Africa.

I challenge you to read the whole sentence.

Read the whole sentence.

The hon. member also said—I am now referring to the rest of her argument in regard to the Biko case—that the hon. Minister of Justice should have been fired. [Interjections.] The fact that the hon. member wants the hon. Minister of Justice fired, does not remove the fact that she stated that after the Biko case nothing has happened. [Interjections.] If hon. members will be quiet for a moment, I can continue with my speech. It is very important that we shall examine for a moment what I regard as a reasonable thing for a loyal Progressive Party member of Parliament to say about the Biko case. Of course the hon. member for Houghton can say that the hon. the Minister should have been fired …

Sure, I say that.

There is nothing wrong in her saying that. The hon. member may criticize as she wishes, and nobody wants to take away her right to criticize. The hon. member should, however, have added three important facts about the Biko case. In the first place she should have added that a post mortem was held. What is important about the fact that a post mortem was held, is that it was conducted by the best doctors and the best pathologists in South Africa.

And the best magistrate.

I say you are a liar.

Apart from that, the doctors and pathologists who acted on behalf of the Biko family were invited to participate in the examination. In other words, the hon. member could have said to the Press and to the outside world that one thing is true about the Biko case and that is that it was open since the man died.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. Minister of Justice allowed to call another hon. member a liar?

Mr. Speaker, I am allowed to call the hon. member a liar because he said that the magistrate was useless.

That is not what he said.

What did he say then?

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

It is quite clear that the hon. member for Houghton should have said to the outside world that there was an openness on the part of the South African Government. She should have added, as a second fact, that there was a full police investigation followed by an official inquest. She should have said that one of the most senior magistrates in South Africa presided on that occasion and she should have said to the outside world that the magistrate called to his assistance two assessors who happen to be two eminent South African medical men. She should have said that the Biko family hired the best legal brains in the country to present their case to the magistrate. She should also have said that the police made available every person who had any contact with Mr. Biko before he died for cross-examination by the counsel of the Biko family. She should have said that these people were fully cross-examined.

There is nothing significant in that.

What is significant in that is that she should have said to the outside world that it is quite clear that there has been no cover up. What is further significant about it, is that what she said here in the House two days ago, namely that Steve Biko died and nothing has happened, is completely false and untrue. She should have refuted the claims by our enemies outside South Africa that there has been a cover-up about the Biko case. The third very important thing is that she as a loyal South African should have accepted the finding of the magistrate, but she is not prepared to do that.

Why not?

And because of that she is disloyal to South Africa in this regard. [Interjections.] It is a pity that the hon. member for Johannesburg North is not here tonight, because I would like to know whether he accepts the-findings of the magistrate.

*The image of South Africa in the outside world is being destroyed, as I have just indicated, by carefully calculated behaviour on the part of hon. members of the PFP; this is a practical way of helping the enemies of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Let me go further. One of the problems which the South African Government experiences abroad is that what is genuinely taking place and being done here in South Africa is disparaged in the outside world. Anything positive which is done in South Africa is disparaged in the outside world. Where does the outside world find assistance as far as this disparagement is concerned? The outside world finds its assistance in this connection in this House of Assembly of South Africa. We heard the hon. member for Houghton say again yesterday that the changes which had taken place in South Africa were “almost cosmetic”, that they were “superficial”. In other words, she is disparaging what is happening here. The hon. members refuse to discuss this or to place it in context; they simply want to disparage it. This is a second way in which the hon. member is undoubtedly assisting the opponents and enemies of South Africa and helping to blacken the image of South Africa in the outside world.

Let us look at the speech made by the hon. member for Rondebosch in this House this afternoon. This hon. member said that there was nothing in the budget to make capitalism attractive to the Black people of South Africa. He said that the proposals which were being and the things which were being done in the budget meant only one thing to the Black man, and that is that South Africa is the White man’s country, since the White man is the only one who is able to obtain capital, to exploit his talent as an entrepreneur and to be rewarded for his labour.

That is untrue!

The hon. member must not tell me that this is untrue. He also said that the Black people saw capitalism as a system of favouring the White people. He went on to say that the policy of the Government and the things done by the Government were easily shot down by Marxism and communism. (Hansard, 5 April 1978)—

In other words, the hon. member comes along in this House and states the standpoint and the argument of Marxism. Later on in his speech the hon. member says that Marxism is achieving success with it. A little further on in his speech he also says—

Later on he says once again that Marxism is achieving success in this regard. I want to tell the hon. member what my objection to his speech is. My objection is that he does not adduce any proof of the success of Marxism. He simply accepts it as a fact and then states it as such in this House. [Interjections.] In the second place, the hon. member does not argue the merits of the Marxist/communist statement he has quoted in this House, but he merely says that this is the allegation. He does not say that it is an unjustified and untrue allegation. [Interjections.] There is no doubt about that. If the hon. member had wanted to give a more objective indication of what was going on in South Africa, he could have examined the advantages which the present system holds for the Black people.

Let us take a look in this connection at the concept which is well known in America, the concept of “reverse discrimination”. In terms of this, “discrimination” is discrimination by White people against Black people and “reverse discrimination” is discrimination against the White people. It is interesting that this matter was highlighted in America when a student by the name of Bakke applied for admission to the medical school of the University of California. He was not admitted to the university because his academic qualification was not good enough. But 16 Blacks whose academic qualifications were inferior to his were admitted to the university. The reason for this was that there was a quota of 16 for the Black people, and if the Black people with qualifications inferior to his had not been admitted to the university, he would have been good enough to be admitted. This student then took the case to the Supreme Court of the State of California, which ruled in his favour. The case will later come before the Federal Court. The important point is that in America it is known as “reverse discrimination”, discrimination against the White man in favour of the Black man. The question arises whether we do not have this in South Africa as well. Are these not things which those hon. members could make a mental note of and could tell their friends about when they speak of the Black man who has no opportunities in South Africa?

I want to point out a few examples. Housing is available to White people—I am referring to the subeconomic class—at an interest factor of 1%. To Black people in the subeconomic class, houses are available at an interest factor of ¼%. In other words, houses are available to the subeconomic Black man at a lower interest rate than is applicable to the White man. This means an extra subsidy in favour of the Black people, which the White people do not get. The amount spent in this connection in the 1976 financial year was R31 million. If a White man wants to buy a house in South Africa from the Department of Community Development, cost price is the lowest price at which he can buy the house. If a Black man wants to buy a house, he can buy a house of which the cost prices plus services amount to R3 400 for R800. He can pay it off in instalments over 40 years. This is a facility which is not available to Whites in South Africa. In other words, this is “reverse discrimination”.

I now want to refer to transport subsidies. There are transport subsidies for Black people in respect of buses and trains. In 1976, this subsidy amounted to R34 million. There is no such transport subsidy for Whites.

The ethnic corporations are the best example of “reverse discrimination”. These are corporations such as the XDC, the Ciskei National Development Corporation and the Shangaan/Tsonga Development Corporation, etc. However, I want to say at once that these cannot be compared with the IDC. The IDC is concerned with development in the industrial sphere. For the Black people there is the EDC.

The advantages of these respective corporations are more or less the same for Blacks and Whites. The advantages offered by the ethnic corporations are available to a Black man if he wants to set up in business. He gets certain benefits which Whites do not get. If a Black man wants to begin a business, he can obtain a loan at 9½%. He needs no security for obtaining his loan. He receives free business advice and management training. If a young White man and a young Black man who have both had the same training both want to begin a business, the young Black man can obtain a loan at 9½% without security, with free business advice and management training into the bargain. As against this, the young White man must obtain a loan at 14% from an ordinary financial institution, provided that he can offer the required security. Therefore the policy of the Government is not applied to the disadvantage of the Blacks. On the contrary.

Another aspect we can be proud to tell the outside world about—I think other hon. members can also do this—is that the policy of separate development does not only have negative aspects, but also entails clear protective and positive aspects. In this respect I want to refer to the question of land ownership. All over the world, the rich people are buying out the poor and thereby becoming land barons. The poor people are losing their land. Yesterday the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development quoted figures from the Christian Science Monitor of 21 April 1977. According to those figures, the total area of land owned by Blacks in the southern part of America had shrunk by approximately 400 000 acres in the previous 10 to 15 years. In the same period, the land owned by Blacks in South Africa increased by 1,3 million hectare. In other words, this is a protective situation arising from the implementation of Government policy. However, because of the special protection given to traders, the situation is that in 1975, there were no fewer than 11 000 traders among the Black people. We do not know for sure what the figures in the USA are. America attaches great importance to these figures. But from enquiries I have made, it is clear to me that in all probability, the ratio is much less favourable for Blacks in America than for Blacks in South Africa.

The policy of separate development also means cultural protection for the minority groups among the Blacks of South Africa. It also means that mother-tongue education has reached the level where it is significantly available to minority groups. Most important of all, however, is the fact that it also means political protection for the smaller minorities through a policy of self-determination. They get an opportunity to create a separate level of bargaining for themselves, something which they have in fact done. The hon. member for Rondebosch said in his speech that the advantages of capitalism were becoming fewer and fewer for the Black people. For that reason, the alternative of Marxism is becoming more and more attractive. I am convinced that when the matter is seen in its entirety, and when the position of the Black man is compared with that of Black people in other integrated communities—as should be done—it is clear that Black people have not been impoverished in any way under the policy of the present Government. While this Government has been in power, the position of the Black people has not deteriorated. On the contrary, it has improved dramatically. It has further been found that the position of the Black people, economically speaking, is going from strength to strength and becoming stronger and stronger under the implementation of Government policy. In an integrated economic situation, where we do not have the protective situation which exists under this Government’s policy, we can clearly see the disadvantages of capitalism. Then it is apparent that the one group really has so little and the other group really has so much. Under the policy of the PFP, the Blacks will only be further impoverished. I do not doubt that in the long run, as far as this matter is concerned, the implementation of that policy will make Marxism and other ideologies and economic systems more attractive to the Blacks of South Africa. Because this is so, because there are all these positive aspects to the Government’s policy, we can present our policy with pride, not only to the Blacks of South Africa, but to the outside world as well. We really have something to be proud of.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Pretoria Central on a very good speech, which he presented to us in a particularly illuminating way. I think that he gave the PFP sufficient food for thought. It is already quite late in the evening and in addition we have almost reached the end of the Second Reading debate on the Bill.

Having listened to the Official Opposition, I am deeply disappointed with what the Opposition has achieved. We have for many years, ever since their first formative years, been hearing that they would one day be a powerful Opposition in South Africa and that they would form a far better Government. But I must say that there is a very great disappointment, not only on our side of the House, but outside the House as well. I am sorry that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not here this evening, for I have a few views which I should like to exchange with him, precisely in regard to one of the hon. members of his party, viz. the hon. member for Johannesburg North who, for some reason or other, did not attend the debate today either. I hope he is not indisposed and I hope he comes back soon. I should like to tell the hon. member for Sea Point a few things about the hon. member for Johannesburg North.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Of course it is not because the hon. member for Johannesburg North is so important to me as a person, but because he reached his present position by way of what formed part of the strategy of the PFP during the past few years. In the second place I find it interesting to study the hon. member for Johannesburg North because to me he represents a specific type of person whom we find in the ranks of Afrikaner society when we study the history of this nation. The PFP believes—and I think entirely erroneously—that they have the support of the Black man in South Africa. I think that is a false belief which they entertain. All that they are doing is to make use of the Black power situation which we find throughout the world and which we should in itself examine again in general context. They make use of it and create the impression—at home and abroad—that they have the support of the Black people in Southern Africa.

They adopt the same standpoint, too, in regard to the Coloureds and the Indians. It is difficult to choose in regard to each of these three groups. I think that we shall never be able to test it in practice because we shall never be able to ask the peoples concerned to vote for or against the PFP. In addition the PFP also believes that it has the support of the English-speaking people in South Africa.

I want to state something very categorically this evening. I represent a constituency in which the majority of the people, apart from the students, are English speaking. My experience has been, with the latest election result as well, that the English speaking are to an ever increasing extent pledging their support to the NP. This is something which we could examine more closely on a subsequent occasion—a student in political science will quite probably do this—and try to indicate the reasons why the English-speaking people, after a period of 30 years, are supporting the NP to an ever-increasing extent.

However, I want to address myself once again to the PFP. The PFP erroneously believes that they have the support of the Blacks, the Coloureds, the Indians and the English-speaking people in South Africa. On 19 February 1971 the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the following in a speech. While I am quoting the hon. the Leader of the Opposition I want to add that one of the PFP newspapers contacted me in regard to a previous quotation of mine, a quotation for which I apparently did not furnish a reference. I want to give the newspaper concerned, which scrutinizes my speeches so regularly, the assurance that I shall see to it that the matter is rectified. In any case, in this publication Priorities for the Seventies, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had the following to say—

In addition the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said—

Therefore the sights of the PFP continue to be set on the so-called urban Afrikaner. But there was another group of people on whom they also set their sights. They are the students at the Afrikaans-speaking universities. There is a great deal I could say about this, but I do not have the time to do so this evening. The statement which I do want to make, is that the PFP realizes that in its strategy it has to capture the hearts and minds of the Afrikaner. In particular it has to capture the urban Afrikaner, and in particular its church leaders, writers, poets, academics, economists and also its young people. They worked on this particular strategy for a few years and caught a few fish. They caught a Van Zyl Slabbert—the honourable—and they caught a Myburgh, an hon. Myburgh, and they also caught an hon. Van der Merwe. In addition they caught an old veteran, the hon. member for Johannesburg North, and I want to devote the rest of my speech to the hon. member for Johannesburg North.

In the publication Deurbraak of April 1977—one finds in this publication a concentration of everything which is anti-Afrikaans, but I am nevertheless one of its regular readers—under the title “Afrikaner maar nie Nasionalis nie”, he had quite a few things to say. According to the title he said that he was an Afrikaner, but not a Nationalist. He did not say that he was not a member of the NP. He said he was not a Nationalist. He began his little article in Deurbraak with the following words—

In other words, early in 1976—

Very well. He has every right to do so. It is deeply to be regretted though that a man should drag in his parents, who are no longer living. Very poor taste! Inter alia, he also said the following—

These are probably Nationalists. I quote further—

This is the cliché which one finds in those circles today. He went on to say—

And then—

And also—

And now hon. members must listen carefully—

In other words, the hon. member for Johannesburg North was waiting for a Statesman within Government circles. He went further—

This is the new road he is following. I quote—

Thus there are two things which the hon. member for Johannesburg North does not want to lose sight of. I quote—

Not “onherroeplik”, but “herroeplik”. I quote—

And then his last point—

This is a typical expression used by the liberal Afrikaner, their conscience. It is strange that their conscience only pricks them occasionally, and not otherwise.

That you will not understand!

With us it still counts.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North has a conscience, and he said—

I come now to what I find to be important, and I shall deal with this later—

That is, the conscience—

These are the words of the hon. member for Johannesburg North.

Now, however, I just want to present a brief curriculum vitae of that hon. member for Johannesburg North. Who and what is he? From his own mouth we hear that he came from an Afrikaner home, and for many years he supported the Afrikaners unconditionally. He was also a member of the Ossewabrandwag, so he tells us and he was a “stormjaer”. They tell me that he belongs, or belonged, to a confidential Afrikaans cultural organization, the Afrikaner-Broederbond. He was also a judge, and he is 68 years old. The point I want to make is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not dealing here with a young fish like Van der Merwe, Myburgh or poor Van Zyl Slabbert. He is dealing here with a man who has lived his life, and devoted it to a diversity of important matters. At the beginning of the year when the hon. member swore his oath of allegiance here, the question passed through my mind: How many times in his life has that hon. member promised or sworn an oath of allegiance?

The hon. member said that he had lost confidence in the principles and policy of the NP. What is more, this implies that he had lost confidence in our hon. the leader, Mr. Vorster. That is the crucial point. In Deurbraak he said—

In respect of the Sunday Times, I just want to reiterate that I am quoting from the book by John D’Oliveira, Vorster die Mens. The hon. member for Johannesburg North who lost confidence after so many years of unconditional support, was interviewed by John D’Oliveira. This was very recent, because the book appeared a year ago—

The hon. member for Johannesburg North went on to say—

This is Kowie Marais—

I quote further—

Remember now: The hon. member for Johannesburg North himself said: “Ek het hom werklik goed leer ken …”—

Then he concluded with the following words—

You must remember, Mr. Speaker, that he did not say this in 1940; he did not say this in the context of the ’forties—he said it two years ago. In other words, at that time in his life when he began to doubt the fundamental principles, the policy and the ideals not only of the Afrikaner, but also of the NP, he said: “Mnr. Vorster is waarlik een van die grootste stratege wat ek nog teëgekom het.” I find that astonishing.

I have said this before to the old UP and to the PP and I say this to the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians of this country that one can never trust an Afrikaner who has trodden this path. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that this kind of Afrikaner will bring about his downfall. If one wants to talk to a person one wants to trust in South Africa, one then talks to a person who is not ashamed of being an English-speaking person, one talks to a person who is not ashamed of being an Afrikaner, regardless of the mistakes which he, his people and his leader have made. But what does the hon. member for Johannesburg North do? He is now rejecting Mr. Vorster, he is rejecting his entire history and chooses the hon. member for Sea Point, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as his new leader. Now we have a leader of this young, dynamic and powerful party which wiped out the United Party, as well as the NRP, which is of no significance. They are now going to solve all the problems in the world. The hon. member—and here I associate myself with the hon. member for Graaff Reinet—was interviewed on television. In fact, it was not an interview, it was more of a speech that he made. I quote from the television news review broadcast on 29 November 1977. This is Colin speaking, and hon. members know Colin, when he has the floor—

What kind of leader is the hon. member for Johannesburg North choosing now? A man in South Africa who wants to lead a political party while he has neither principles nor policy. I have a newspaper cutting of a speech made by the hon. member for Rondebosch—I do not know where he is now—in 1976 when he was appointed as an expert to work out a policy for the PFP. The first step the hon. member for Sea Point would take, if he won the election, would be to phone Gatsha Buthelezi. Mr. Speaker, I am aware of almost everything Chief Buthelezi has to say. The hon. member for Johannesburg North, with his background and knowledge of the Afrikaner and his history, abandoned his people to run after the hon. member for Sea Point, who in his turn runs after Chief Gatsha Buthelezi. In that way he associates himself with the history of the Zulus, and the hon. member for Johannesburg North ends up with Dingaan. That is the historical line he wishes to pursue.

The hon. member for Von Brandis told us at the beginning of the year what the ideals of the people who went on the Great Trek were. The hon. member for Johannesburg North should examine the history of the NP. The PFP is trying to create the impression that we, as Nationalists and Afrikaners, are opposed to every Black man because he is Black and that we are also opposed to the Coloureds and the Indians. This is a misjudgment of the reality of our policy, our ideals and our principles. Although it took a long time before English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people could join forces in the NP, the day will still arrive—and I believe that I shall still live to see it, if the Lord spares me—when, in South Africa, the Whites within the NP will cooperate in harmony with the Coloureds, the Indians and with the Black nations. We shall break through the wall of prejudice, misinterpretation and false interpretation of the history which those hon. members wish to bruit abroad.

I am glad you concede that you have not yet been able to succeed in doing this.

Who is the hon. member for Johannesburg North indicting when he says these things? [Interjections.]

Order!

Who is he indicting when he says the following? I want to take the hon. member for Johannesburg North to task—he is not here this evening, but he shall sit here for a few years still—about these words. They are—

I want to ask the hon. member for Johannesburg North who the person is to whom he is referring here? Who is this person of whom he, in this publication, tells South Africa and the world that he advocates a policy which is based on deceit and domination? The hon. member is a judge and a jurist who has adjudicated upon many cases. In one of the most difficult times for my people and the people of South Africa he charges a man with being deceitful and domineering. He should have the courage of his convictions to rise to his feet and to say who that person is. If it is not an individual, he must disclose what school of thought he is referring to in which deceit is being practiced. After all, it is terrible to say that we in South Africa are practicing deceit.

It is the NP.

The hon. member says it is the NP. The hon. member who has just spoken was my opponent in 1966. Must I repeat here in this House what he said in 1966? In 1966 the hon. member told the young people of Rissik, when he was discussing a federation, that they advocated a White Government over an undivided South Africa. With such a history behind him, it would be better if the hon. member retired from public life. He jumps from the one party to the other.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North wants to arraign someone and be the prosecutor and the judge. But tonight I want to charge the hon. member for Johannesburg North with ignorance of the history of the Afrikaner. I charge him with a gross error of judgment concerning the content and the ideals of the history of the Afrikaner. Since we are assembled in a political context here, I also charge the hon. member for Johannesburg North with a disgraceful ignorance of the foundations, the fundamental principles, the policy and the ideals of the NP. The hon. member says that he was for many years an active member of the NP, but he has no basic, elementary knowledge of the NP over a period of 30 years, and then he still makes such accusations in this House!

A few years ago a funeral was held, and for the sake of the Sunday Times I quote again from page 191 of John D’Oliveira’s book. It deals with the history of Mr. Vorster. I quote—

This was part of our history in the ’forties and is over and done with. I and other members of my generation look back to those days and make observations concerning them. However, I charge the hon. member of ignorance of his own history, and he and I have to make these people, who acted as co-bearers with him, members of the jury. These people, who came a long way with him, now have to judge whether the hon. member for Johannesburg North had the right to write these things. Not only will we call upon those people to act as members of the jury, but we shall also call upon all his former colleagues, in the history of South Africa, as members of the jury to testify on the things which the hon. member for Johannesburg North said. In his career the hon. the Prime Minister has said many splendid things, and I should like to quote from his edited speeches. On one occasion he was speaking to young people, and he said—

Nationalism is not something one can destroy. Nationalism can perhaps be watered down by circumstances, but it is born again, it rises again. Hon. members of the PFP can allege a thousand times that we in South Africa are a unitary community and they can talk about the so-called integration in the economic facet of our lives; they can talk about the everyday contact points which exist, and they can raise thousands of other aspects, but one thing is a great reality and that is that there is a diversity of peoples in South Africa. This is a reality which one cannot fail to recognize.

Yes, there is a diversity.

I am pleased that hon. member admits it.

I should like to point out a few things in the few minutes I still have left. Some time ago the hon. member for Johannesburg North made a speech in this House. Do you know what he said about dividing lines, Mr. Speaker? He said—

It therefore includes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—

In contrast to this the PFP states in its programme of principles—

Nevertheless the hon. member for Johannesburg North states here that the aim of the PFP is to blur these dividing lines. Surely these two statements represent a strident contradiction. The question which hon. members of the PFP have to ask themselves is: How are they going to tell the South African community, a community containing an Afrikaner such as I, with my history, ideals and language, and my friend here who is an English-speaking person, and Mphephu from Venda, Ntsangwisi, Buthelezi of whoever it may be, that the people may retain what is their own, while the former judge, the holy of holies, the man with the conscience …

The “sheriff”!

… states that these dividing lines must become blurred.

I want to conclude by saying that the PFP, in the Southern African context, is a dwindling party. They have no future because they have no past, and they assemble in their ranks people who have no profound knowledge, who have no basic principles, and who have no ideals.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rissik has devoted almost his entire speech to attacking the hon. member for Johannesburg North. Fortunately, the hon. member for Johannesburg North was not here. [Interjections.] However, I do not intend defending the hon. member. I am quite sure those of his colleagues who will be speaking tomorrow will do so. However, with the eye on the clock and with your permission, Sir, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.