Mr. Chairman, when the debate was adjourned yesterday afternoon, I had remarked that in reality the body politic, and also that in our own fatherland rests on four power bases, viz. the economic, the military, the political and the ideological. I also indicated that it was essential that when we look at South Africa in the times in which we are living, there should be the necessary co-ordination and interdependence in all these fields. Hon. members will appreciate that as it is generally accepted that the threats confronting South Africa—unlike those of the past—are described by everyone as a total onslaught which may affect our way of life or even our survival, I have the responsibility, on the one hand—as far as it affects my own departments—to inform the House in connection with the threats, and likewise to inform the House in connection with the steps which are being taken to ward off the threats, or at least to diminish their intensity. On the other hand, hon. members will also appreciate that I have another responsibility. It is this: In discharging my obligation of informing hon. members, I have to guard against perhaps destroying, by way of the information which I furnish, the powers of resistance of the country by also furnishing its enemies with information.

Hon. members will therefore understand that I am, to some extent, limited in the degree to which I can give them information—not that I want to indicate by that the hon. members are not worthy of the confidence, but because in this particular connection I am subject to certain limitations. The tone of yesterday’s debate made me feel grateful. I believe that yesterday’s debate was worthy of this House, especially in view of the circumstances in which our country finds itself.

That brings me to a few basic points which I should like to make. When we talk about a total onslaught on our country, I think it is essential that we should dwell for a moment—however briefly—on the nature of the onslaught, that we should consider its extent, that we should note the methods which are being employed by those who are waging the onslaught. I think it would be just as well for us, in considering the motivation for this onslaught, to analyse their methods and take a clinical look at our ability to find the answer to those methods. When we do that, we shall appreciate that although those who are launching an onslaught on South Africa may differ from one another in their reasons for doing so, it is clear that, apart from the source of the threat and apart from the methods employed, the effect on South Africa remains basically the same. I do not wish to make derogative references to the Western countries of the world, except to say that we should realize that, if we were to satisfy the demands which are being made on us from those quarters, we might as well satisfy the demands of the Marxist world. For that reason, I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be misled in connection with the consequences but should take a realistic view of these consequences. I submit that the struggle against South Africa in its totality manifests itself in the political, the economic and the military spheres, that it starts with a process of isolating South Africa, and that in my view the mistake could be we making in these particular circumstances is to participate in this process of isolation. I think it would be a mistake if we were to try to isolate South Africa from the rest of the world. I think it would be a mistake if we were to try to isolate ourselves from world opinion. I believe it is essential that we should remain fully conversant with world opinion, as well as with the magnitude of the struggle.

When we look at it in that light, it appears to me as though we must admit that there are factors at work which are weakening and diminishing our ability to apply freedom of action in our own country, our ability to control our own future and ourselves to determine the destiny of this country ourselves. In my view, these factors are situated in the fact that there is an increase in violence, that there is an increase in terrorism on our borders that—as the hon. member for Parktown said—there is a lack of confidence, that we are faced with economic and financial problems and that internal and external pressure is being brought to bear on us. It is therefore essential that we should make an evaluation of our ability to defend ourselves. We must make an evaluation of our economic, financial, military and political capabilities. If we do that, we come to the indisputable conclusion that there can be no question of isolated or fragmented action in the light of this total onslaught We must realize that in the light of this struggle there must be a synchronization of our actions in these fields. Let me say today that, without relative prosperity in this country, without the population of this country being contented and without participation of the people in the prosperity or the political dispensation of this country, I do not think it is possible to manifest or demonstrate a total ability to withstand the onslaught.

If we look for a moment at the efforts which are being made in connection with Rhodesia and South West Africa, which are part of the total diplomatic démarche which is in progress, I want to say that all the action is in reality directed at South Africa itself. It is all directed at our own country. Consequently the solutions to the problems cannot be found anywhere but within the borders of this country. That is why it is essential that we should understand that unless we ensure a political dispensation which can give meaning to the aspirations of all the nations who live here, we could be forfeiting the condition precedent for survival.

It is true that in our country with its population structure there are differences and that these differences are differences of race, culture, language, aspirations and traditions, but the fact remains that it is not possible to find a solution to this in terms of the prejudices of yesterday. When I say that, I do not deny the existence of racism or racial prejudice, but I do say that the highest priority in this country should be a change of attitude between nations and population groups. The question then arises: Have we the ability and the capacity to understand that our survival depends upon our ability to reconcile these divergent aspirations? We will have to realize that the economic ability of the country is determined by its political stability and by the confidence which we and others have in the country. We will also have to learn that our physical ability to defend ourselves is similarly determined by our economic abilities. We will have to appreciate that our ability to carry out our political policy in all its consequences in this country, will depend upon our economic means. To me, that adds a new meaning and a new complexion to our obligations in this specific connection.

†Mr. Chairman, it is true that discussion on the economic events in this country have recently to a very large extent been dominated by a short term view and a short term perspective. In view of the difficult and immediate problems which we have faced in the public management of the economy and which private enterprise has experienced in the management of its businesses, this is understandable. If we should, just for one moment, consider the unpredictable shocks to which the economy of this country has been exposed, especially because of political events in Southern Africa, we would understand that this contributed to the short-term approach adopted by many people.

While this is understandable, I would nevertheless like to sound this word of warning. In the difficult times we are experiencing, it is essential and obligatory for us to keep in mind the resources that we have at our disposal and for us to make an assessment of the potential markets that are available to us in the future. On the basis of this information, we should then form a realistic assessment of our weaknesses and our strengths. I believe that only by doing so shall we, in the first place, be in a position to ensure that the policy measures that we adopt, in the short-term, do not detract or deviate us from the long-term objectives which we must adopt from an economic point of view.

I think these longer-term objectives are the following: the creation of job opportunities for our growing population, improving the conditions of all the peoples who live here, reducing the vulnerability of South Africa to economic and other onslaughts and ensuring a fair participation of our people in governing themselves and governing this country.

*There is recognition today—at home and abroad—for the fact that the course of the economy in our country has been and is still being influenced to a great extent by events outside the borders of our country, and that those events are not necessarily of an economic but are in fact of a political nature. In addition, there is no-one who can quantify the influence of the various steps taken against our country on the course of the economy. But it remains a fact that South Africa—this is generally admitted—has been able to make the short term adaptations which were necessary in the light of the energy crisis of 1973, the conditions of recession in the economies of our principal trading partners over a period of years, the fall in the gold price, the rise in the oil price, the enhanced expenditure on defence, and the enormous amount which is necessary for the stock piling of strategic supplies. Let us admit one thing to one another. The most dramatic testimonial to the success we have achieved in this particular connection, is to be found in the improvement in the current account of the balance of payments. Let us also admit something else to one another. This adaptation was not painless. It could never have been painless. It has indeed had a detrimental effect, which has been manifested in increasing unemployment, in the lowering of standards of living, and in the increasing unutilized capacity in our economy. It has also had a detrimental effect on our total ability to defend ourselves—something to which I have already referred. What is very important, however, is that in spite of these painful consequences and all the criticism, we have been able, and have had the courage, to apply the restrictive measures—measures which other countries were unable to apply. In spite of this negative and painful effect, we were prepared to discipline our actions, and in this connection I have great appreciation for the way the general public have conducted themselves. I do not think there is another country in which there was a greater awareness among the population of the circumstances of their country than was the case in South Africa itself. I do not believe that there is another country which—as we did—with the experience which we have, even here in the House, did not elevate its economic problems into principles but devoted attention to the improvement of those conditions and did not make use of them to hurl accusations at one another.

It is true that these adaptations would have been easier to us if it had not been for the political developments in Southern Africa. Let us frankly admit that the fact that the condemnation of South Africa in the international set-up by questioning, if nothing else, its stability—politically, economically, and otherwise—has had an effect on our country. We were not responsible for Angola, but we cannot escape the consequences of Angola We were not responsible for Moçambique, but we cannot escape the fact that it is situated on our borders. We are not responsible for the success or failure of a solution in Rhodesia, but it nevertheless affects South Africa. We are an instrument between South West Africa and the world, but the fact that a solution is being sought but has not yet been accepted, does affect the image of South Africa—whether we like it or not. Reproaches in this regard cannot be levelled at the South African Government. On the contrary. It can perhaps, far rather, be levelled at those who are threatening South Africa—with whatever motive.

Let us look at what we have done in our own field to strengthen our ability to defend ourselves. I informed the House last year that the Government itself had initiated contingency planning to face up to these threats in the economic sphere; to co-ordinate those actions with the actions of colleagues with other responsibilities; to synchronize them with actions taken from a military and security point of view; and to synchronize them with the actions taken in the diplomatic world, so that in respect of the onslaught, we could present a total image of co-ordinated and dynamic action. In the nature of things, I cannot give hon. members all the facts in this regard this afternoon, except to say that this planning has been co-ordinated and is taking place on the level of a co-ordinating committee consisting of the departmental heads of the departments concerned and that this committee of officials is functioning under a Cabinet committee which has been constituted to attend to that. The image which I want to project, is that we understand the prevailing circumstances. Not only do we understand them, we are also able to make a realistic assessment of the nature and extent of the threats. From our point of view, we are also to find the answers to the threats.

The hon. member for Parktown addressed three requests to me. The first was that I should re-commit myself to the free enterprise system in this country; secondly, that in respect of our foreign trade, we should become more market-orientated and that we should allow the emphasis to fall on market research; and, thirdly, that we should create confidence in the economic future of the country. I want to tell him at once that in this particular connection the hon. member for Yeoville has most probably furnished the best evidence of the effectiveness of our foreign offices. I wish to thank him for his remarks in this connection. In spite of the fact that South Africa is being threatened with economic actions, and in spite of the fact that these threats have increased in intensity, we can still look with appreciation at the effectiveness of our efforts during the past year. What evidence is there? We find that the number of countries with which we trade, increased from 123 in 1975 to 140 in 1976, despite the fact that we are also being threatened in this particular direction. South Africa has offices in 37 cities, and in practice we also find tangible evidence of the efforts in this connection. The result is that during 1976-’77 our trade—gold excluded—expanded by more than 30%. Furthermore, there has been a drop of more than 7% in our imports and we were able to bring about favourable change of R2 400 million in our current account within one year. That happened in spite of the fact that the economies of our trading partners were on a far lower level than before and in spite of the fact that in many cases this was attributable to the volume of exports which had improved, and not necessarily the prices. It also testifies to the fact that we are operating effectively in the field of foreign trade. That is attributable to a few factors. Among those factors is South Africa’s record for honouring its obligations, the quality of its products, its ability to perform consistently well, and especially because South Africa does not allow political considerations to determine its trade connections. These are aspects to which hon. members, and amongst others the hon. member for Germiston District, have referred. All these things have been achieved in spite of the fact that a new form of morality applies in the world—a morality which does not consider it to be immoral if one does not honour one’s contractual obligations, and which considers it to be immoral if one is not prepared to emulate the political systems of other countries. The hon. member has asked me whether, in connection with our marketing policy, we can allow the emphasis to fall on the identification of the market and the product. I am convinced that new groupings are taking place in international trade. In spite of the fact that people are trying to ensure freer trade, to liberalize it, precisely the opposite is happening—namely the erection of protective tariff walls through formation of economic blocs. We shall therefore have to adopt a dynamic marketing policy in future— not only as far as products are concerned, but also in respect of markets and geographical regions which we seldom if ever ventured into before.

In the beginning of the year, I attended a conference of all my foreign representatives. I intend making that an annual institution and I also intend taking representatives of the private sector with me in future so that I can bring them into contact with the representatives of their own country abroad. In this connection, we must realize that the most important bargaining weapon which we have in the international world, is in fact the assets of our country and the fact that we know that interdependence in the economic sphere, also determines co-operation in the political sphere. There is no basis other than self-interest for co-operation. There is also no basis other than self-interest, which can be either economic, strategic, military, or all three. The fact of the matter is that South Africa’s raw materials are of vital importance to the continued existence of Western Europe in particular. We must keep in mind, however, that an element of the conflict of the world of today, which is described as ideological, manifests itself in a conflict for raw materials among the great powers of the world. Therefore, South Africa will remain important in this specific connection as long as we are able to convey the image that we are politically able to handle the situation in our own country—for as long as we are able to do that we shall remain important and remain in the international community. In my view, therefore, we should continue to follow the course we have adopted. South Africa should be unimpeachable in regard to the honouring of its obligations, internationally and otherwise. I commit our country to this. But in this connection, I should also like to sound a note of warning, and that is that we are not without bargaining power in the world. The other countries must realize that South Africa will, for its own sake, apply its entire capability in its own interests and not in the interests of other countries. It is ironical that the very fact that we are being threatened, is enabling us to become more independent and more self-sufficient. It is also ironical that the steps against us which are intended to weaken us, are in fact motivating us so to become more self-sufficient and, as hon. members have requested, in that way to ensure a higher growth rate, to create employment opportunities and to safeguard our country.

As far as foreign trade is concerned, I wish to thank the hon. member for Parktown, the hon. member for Yeoville, the hon. member for Germiston District, and all the other hon. members who spoke about that.

As far as the energy problem is concerned, it is true that it is probably one of the most delicate matters to discuss, in view of the threat against us and in view of our capabilities. The hon. member for Constantia put certain questions to me and wanted certain assurances from me, as did the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member for Alberton has made an interesting speech in connection with alternative sources of energy and alternative means. It is not possible for me to tell the House exactly what volumes of crude oil we are stockpiling in terms of our contingency planning. However, this stockpiling ability is far greater than many countries and many people think. In the second place, we can hold out against steps taken against us in this connection for a very long time, and in the third place, we are going ahead with the process of further stockpiling of crude oil as soon as the necessary fuel-stores are ready for that purpose.

In this particular connection we must realize, however, that what was an oil crisis in 1973 has become a world-wide energy crisis. It has brought about that the industrial countries of the world have since been seriously harmed by the political actions which the oil and energy crisis has caused. The fact that since 1973 the oil price has in general risen by a factor of four, has not only had a detrimental effect on the economies of the industrial countries of the world. For the information of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, I also want to point out that it is also the greatest single cause of inflation. Yet the hon. member blames the Government as being solely responsible for inflation.

That was a long time ago.

It is true that that was long ago, but the cost-enhancing effect remains the same because the oil price has not come down. In the nature of things, we in South Africa must ask ourselves what the Government, the State and South Africa are doing in this particular connection. We have to accept certain facts, namely that although people differ about when the demand is going to exceed the supply, we are all agreed that in respect of crude oil, this is indeed going to happen. The dates vary between 1985 and 2000. But there is consensus that it is indeed going to happen. Oil is of course a dwindling asset, and it is therefore right that the hon. members should expect me to inform the House of what we are going to do in this connection in future. The primary requisite is that we should limit wastage of the available resources to an absolute minimum. Different factors can contribute to that, but the line of approach we have been following since 1973, has been successful. I venture to state that there is no country with an equivalent problem of this nature which has been as successful as South Africa. I am not praising the Government for this but I want to convey my thanks to a nation which is able to identify the problems of its country and in the light of those problems, co-operate with the people who have to enhance and intensify its ability to defend itself. Last year’s physical volume consumption of oil was 0,5% higher than that of 1973—in spite of the fact that the number of motor vehicles increased by 45% during the same period. But I do not think that we have already done everything we have to do. There are further methods of effecting improvements.

Further action on our part has been to stockpile strategic supplies—a process with which we are continuing. We often forget that the process of stockpiling oil and other strategic supplies, has made a heavy demand on our country and its economy and that the stocks which we hold, should really be included as part of our reserves, because whether we hold the value of these supplies in the form of foreign exchange and whether we hold it in the form of crude oil, it is, in any case, an asset in our reserves.

The Government has also appointed an Energy Policy Committee, a committee consisting of the various officials concerned in the matter, and which functions under a Cabinet committee of which the Minister of Planning and the Environment is the chairman. The task entrusted to this committee is to investigate alternative replaceable resources for South Africa, to report on this and to provide the Cabinet Committee with advice. We have already made great progress, but once again we must not expect to achieve dramatic results; we must do the ordinary things with dramatic effect. Firstly, I believe that in this sunny country of ours, solar energy is one of the most important sources of energy for application in the immediate future. Secondly, the utilization of alternative sources often has an economic and strategic effect, and the timing of their utilization depends mainly on other factors. If there were to be a rapid increase in the oil price, the manufacturing of ethanol from vegetable material will obviously become a reality much sooner. There is therefore an economic consideration which applies, but there is also a strategic one. For that reason, the timing in connection with the application of alternative sources of energy is important. It must not be delayed for too long, but on the other hand it must not be tackled too soon either—because we have to remain in a competitive position in respect of prices, compared with other industrial and agricultural countries. We have done research. We have also gone further and under the guidance of the hon. the Minister of Mines and his department, we have made a start with the utilization and conservation of our coal resources. This entails the better utilization, conservation and application of those resources, inter alia by means of better stoping methods in our mines. In the long term this must be of great benefit to us. We have also decided to make use of atomic energy by building the Koeberg nuclear energy power station and utilizing the resultant nuclear power. It is not necessary for me to elucidate to hon. members our capabilities in respect of uranium and uranium enrichment because I think that they are already aware of that. We have taken all these steps to make us less vulnerable.

The hon. member for Constantia has asked me for my views in respect of crude oil and the fractions which can be manufactured from it. The hon. member is aware of the fact that there is not a great deal of leeway in respect of the white products which can be manufactured from one vat of crude oil. I should therefore like to address a word of warning to the hon. members. It would be wrong to switch over to diesel-powered vehicles if we think that by doing so we shall not have to comply with the conservation measures. If there is a clear movement away from petrol, the need for conservation measures will in turn arise in respect of diesel fuel. It is also known that diesel fuel is to a great extent being applied productively in industry and commerce. If it were to happen that we were forced to resort to rationing, the private consumer would immediately be the first target for the non-supply thereof, for we should then have to apply it for productive purposes. At the very first opportunity I had, I warned the motor industry that conservation measures would be a permanent element of the policy steps taken in South Africa in future, and that in planning and design in the motor industry, the emphasis should be placed on economy and not on power. A complete change has therefore taken place in our travelling habits and also in the manufacture of motor vehicles. Sales statistics indicate a movement away from the heavy and luxury motor cars to medium and small cars—a trend which I welcome. Even our travelling public have adjusted themselves to this specific new pattern.

In respect of energy I want to say, finally, that we owe it to the country, in spite of the fact that we differ from one another about the most effective means of conservation—we shall always differ about that—it should be realized that we should consider it to be in the interests of the country to reconcile ourselves to the existing measures and to propagate them as part of a struggle for survival, that we should in reality regard them as a reflection of a total and co-ordinated action to strengthen our country and that, as the hon. member for Smithfield has said, a waste of this product is a waste of a very scarce commodity, a scarce and expensive asset. Thus inspired, we can really act, because the elimination of unnecessary consumption is, after all, the most effective and cheapest way of lessening our country’s dependence on important sources of energy.

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. the Minister for the sake of clarity? I should be pleased if the hon. the Minister would indicate whether, apart from diesel fuel or other petroleum fractions, what fractions would be most vulnerable in the event of further restrictions on the import of petroleum, and also whether he will make it clear to the public and to industry where they should be careful about further restrictions.

Let me say immediately what the fractions are, for then we will understand one another better. The percentage of the various products which are manufactured from a vat of crude oil in South African refineries are the following: Petrol, 27,6%; diesel oil, 22,7%; paraffin, 2,9%; power paraffin, 0,6%; Avtur (aviation fuel), 3,8%; industrial diesel oil, 6,1%; liquid petroleum gas, 1,7%; naphtha, 5,8%; lubrication oil, 2,0%; marine engine fuel, 17,0%—plus other minor fractions. It is possible to change the fractions, but the possibilities are limited. What is important—and perhaps I should mention this to hon. members at this stage— is that hon. members are aware of the fact that we stockpile our strategic supplies which are stockpiled in crude form. There are indications that, by means of the removal of the heaviest fractions, there is a possibility of extending the duration of the capability. Research in this connection is taking place. It is possible to change the ratios in the white products. My information is that we shall try to do this in respect of Sasol 2. I trust that I have now supplied the information for which the hon. member has asked. It is very clear that the vulnerability lies with the white products, namely with petrol and diesel oil. For that reason I should like to issue the warning that an imbalance in one or the other will create problems for us.

I want to thank the hon. member for Paarl for a very interesting speech. Besides his request to me he emphasized one important thing, and that was that we must learn in this country that the various sectors in the economy should not be in conflict with one another, but should in fact be interdependent and should complement one another. For that reason, trade, commerce and industry are not mutual enemies—or ought not to be—and we should at least ensure that we are not the cause or reason for tension between these different sectors, nor between them and the consumers either. The hon. member has made one very important statement, namely that without the availability of the agricultural chemicals in terms of fertilizers, spraying compounds, etc., agricultural production may be adversely affected to the extent of R1 000 million per annum. In my view that emphasizes one of the most important facets of our economic life. I am not going to dwell on this for long. All I want to say, is that I agree with the standpoint of the hon. member that our responsibility does not merely consist of our having to stockpile our strategic supplies, but also of our having to enhance and improve our expertise. The hon. member will know that in this specific case, I have received representations for the expansion of our means of production of agricultural chemicals to which he referred, in the first place, in order to make us less dependent on the outside world as far as this important facet is concerned. In the nature of things, I am interested in the envisaged project, which also has the support of the department, of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, and I have requested the Board of Trade and Industry, in assessing the applications for protection by local industries, to consider in the first place that these products—unlike many other products—have a strategic value and that this is a new factor which the board ought to consider in the assessment of such applications. Our strategic stockpiling programme is also being reviewed on the basis of what the hon. member said in order to cover our essential requirements and with a view to manufacture of those products which can be manufactured relatively economically.

In conclusion I want to say that I agree with the hon. member when he says that we ought to effect a far greater degree of standardization in the country. That, of course, applies in all fields. But the hon. member will also appreciate that in this particular connection I have to use persuasion rather than coercion, otherwise I would be accused of meddling in the private sector.

I want to make it quite clear that in principle, I am in favour of the hon. member’s proposal in connection with the acquisition of expertise as a security measure. I shall therefore definitely consider this specific proposal, as well as other proposals of the same nature.

The hon. member for Yeoville touched on a number of matters. I should prefer to discuss the subjects and not reply to all his questions at the same time. I should just like to repeat that I thank the hon. member for the comments which he made in connection with my foreign staff. I believe they are people who, frequently with their backs to the wall, have to face up to the cold winds of hostility. I intend circulating remarks of this nature to all my foreign officers. It is a fact that people are often not judged according to their successes, but are instead condemned on the grounds of their failures—even though these might be negligible. In the first place, the hon. member said that when we talk about the free market economy we must understand that it can only function when the bargaining powers are equal.

However, this dictum does not only apply in the economy of a country. It also applies in the political institutions of a country, because if people try to make unequal things equal, the inequality becomes greater and more dangerous.

I should like to add at once that it has always been our standpoint—and I shall come back to that later on when I reply to the speeches by the hon. members for Germiston District, the hon. member for Parktown, the hon. member for Newcastle, and other hon. members—that the economy of the country can only be as free as is possible. We should all realize that.

The hon. member has requested me that we should do more for the small businessman. If the hon. member does not mind, I want to give him the assurance that I shall reply fully to this question later on.

The hon. member for Constantia as well as the hon. member for Middelburg, discussed Iscor with me, and dealt with different facets of Iscor.

†The hon. member for Constantia put three questions to me. The first is related to the fact that we are voting R100 million in respect of increased share capital for Iscor. He wanted to know from me, firstly, why there was not a prospectus available since a company, when it wants to increase its share capital, normally presents such a prospectus.

I wanted a verbal one in the House.

The hon. member will know that the activities of Iscor, like those of any other public company, must comply with the Companies Act, and that the essence of the requirements is disclosure. The second question which the hon. member put to me, was whether this money was intended to cover operating losses. Let me say this at once. When one looks at Iscor, one cannot look at it from an ordinary business point of view as the hon. member wants us to do. Iscor was in fact established as a Government undertaking because it was not possible to establish it as a private sector enterprise. Secondly, the requirements which we expect of Iscor in respect of what it has to manufacture and what it has to do, differ from those which we can expect of any of its competitors. Iscor is expected to satisfy the primary steel requirements of the country. Therefore the hon. member will understand that the capital assets, and hence the capital requirements, of Iscor have changed materially during the past year. Let me illustrate this with one figure, so that the hon. member can understand it. The total assets of Iscor, at cost, amounted to R794 million in 1971. On 30 June last year, these amounted to R3 150 million. That is an increase of R2 356 million. As against that—and this is important—the share capital of Iscor increased from R125,2 million in 1971 to R635,2 million in 1977. That represents an increase of R510 million. Now the hon. member will understand that this implies that the debt ratio has gradually changed. That is attributable to different factors. The first is the responsibility of Iscor to meet the long-term steel requirements of the country, and the second is that for its financing it is dependent upon three sources, namely loans, share capital and its own reserves from profits. It was our policy—and I do not want to express any criticism in this regard—to keep steel prices as low as possible. Secondly, we requested Iscor to an increasing degree to satisfy its capital requirements from loans—as these figures indicate—to such an extent that at present its burden of interest payments is R104 million for one year. I want to say at once that the capital which I am now seeking, does not represent Iscor’s total capital requirements. I would have been dishonest if I had said that. Secondly, Sir, it is intended to finance this expansion by means of loan repayments. Hon. members are aware of the fact that I said last year that Iscor, in co-operation with me, has requested a team of economists under the guidance of Professor Pistorius, to investigate Iscor. The primary objectives of such an investigation were to look at its financing policy, its price policy and its efficiency.

The report is available and I shall discuss the recommendations of the investigating team with Iscor and with the Government within the next few weeks. I should like, however, just to make one observation. The hon. member said that he had warned us against the Sishen/Saldanha railway line. But the scheme was not a loss. The hon. member knows, however, that as a result of the state of the economies of the industrial countries, the demand for steel and steel products has diminished to such an extent that countries have had to curtail their production capacities. The hon. member should also know that the demand for and the price of iron ore have declined.

If one contrasts this with the earnings in terms of foreign exchange through Saldanha last year, and bear in mind that one of the chronic problems which we have to cope with is that of the balance of payments, one can appreciate the relative benefits of the scheme. It is true that there is only a 66% utilization of the capacity of this line. But according to the encouraging information at my disposal, there are indications of an increase in the price of steel and ore, not necessarily because of a greater demand but because certain countries have stopped or have almost stopped producing.

The hon. member for Walmer, like a good Eastern Cape patriot, made a plea for an Iscor or a major Government undertaking to stimulate industrial development there. The hon. member will of course appreciate that I have problems. On the one hand I am being asked not to meddle in the private sector. On the other hand, he is requesting me to give that area a boost with Government action and funds. But I should not like to argue with him about that. I want to say at once that we have already determined our priorities in this particular connection. I shall discuss that again at a later stage.

I now want to return to the hon. member for Constantia. Does he accept the undertaking which I am giving him in this particular connection? I shall come back to the House immediately and give hon. members the information about decisions of the investigation team to which I have referred. However, I just want to stress one thing now. We must realize that the price policy which we have followed, has had two detrimental results. The first was that it had a detrimental effect on the ratio of capital to debts, and has increased the operating costs. It has also necessitated a drastic increase in prices as a result of the unpredictable capital shortages which have since arisen.

The hon. member for Yeoville spoke to me about seals.

†I should like to assure the hon. member that he should …

That is an after-dinner speech.

If the parson tells me that his was an after-dinner speech, I shall leave the matter at that.

No, your’s is.

I should like to club you as well.

Ah, that was not a nice thing to say.

How could you club Harry!

The hon. member quoted a letter that was written by the Secretary for Industries to a news editor. I did not know he was the carrier in this particular regard. In all fairness to the Secretary I want to quote this letter fully—

This is important—

The point here is that it was not a question of the withholding of information but that the officials judged—and I agreed with them— that it would be discussed here because the hon. member for Yeoville gave me an indication that he was going to discuss it here. I do not want to steal his thunder. I want to give him every opportunity to make his speech.

Let us be practical. The hon. member will appreciate that, although I have nature conservation at heart and share his sentiments in equal measure in this regard, I also have to have regard for the economic consequences of any conservation measures. I talk with some experience because I have been in charge of nature conservation in the Cape Province. I can say that the people who conserve the assets of nature in the Cape Province have been the farmers. I want to laud them for that. They did it because of their philosophy that the usage of wild animals can be paired with conservation.

*We must realize that while, on the one hand, considerations of nature conservation prevail, there are, on the other hand, also commercial considerations. Therefore I want to say that the decision to cull some of the cubs and bulls is fully in accordance with the three disciplines, viz. the scientific, the conservation, and the commercial facets thereof. No one can allege that I can evade the responsibility of taking the different considerations into account in this particular connection.

Let us look for just a moment at the commercial aspect of this. Let me just sound a note of warning—we must not confuse the commercial considerations with the commercial method of catching, because these are two different components. It is estimated that the seal population of our waters varies between 880 000 and a million. It is also estimated that each of them consumes approximately four kilogrammes of fish per day. That means that they consume a total of one million tons of fish per year. Now I want to ask the hon. member: What about the poor fishes?

What about beef?

Well, I have to kill the cattle as well and apparently I should not do that either. In all fairness I want to say that I appreciate that there may be different points of view on this matter. I can appreciate that many people will place more emphasis on the conservation facet than on the commercial facet. Therefore there will always be a difference of opinion on such a sensitive and emotional subject. But I cannot allow that to be a determining factor in my policy action. Precisely because I realize that it is a delicate matter, I issued a detailed document containing my policy statement to explain all the circumstances. Nobody has complained about the culling of the seals on the west coast—as though the culling of seals in False Bay was more sensitive than culling them along the rest of the coast!

I object to that culling, too.

Yes, but I am not now talking about the hon. member. I am speaking in general. Let me say at once that I have no quarrel with the people who differ with me on the decision which I have taken. All I want to say is that, in spite of those differences, it is still my responsibility to take a decision. I must make decisions on the basis of more considerations than merely the considerations which motivate the conservation-conscious people.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether I understood him correctly when he said that a seal consumes 4 kg of fish per day? Is it not perhaps closer to 40 kg of fish which this pest consumes? [Interjections.]

It is the seals of Seal Island and False Bay which are under discussion here. It is calculated that the number of seals on this island are at present 50 000, while the island can barely accommodate half this number. It is alleged that the seals become entangled in the fishermen’s nets and eat up the fish and that the fishermen kill them by means of the most cruel and inhuman methods. That is how these seals are washed up on the beaches. It is calculated that the seals in this area consume considerable quantities of commercially exploitable fish. No one will deny that we also have to conserve our fish resources, because that is also a commercial asset.

You can kill more seals if you like.

Although I understand this sentiment, I nevertheless want to ask whether we should also be guided by other considerations. The hon. member for Smithfield …

Mr. Chairman, before the hon. the Minister discusses another issue, may I point out that The Argus has asked ten specific questions of the hon. the Minister through the Secretary of the department and that the Secretary indicated that he would not reply to them for the reasons that the hon. the Minister gave. Will the hon. the Minister answer these ten questions? I think it is fair that they should be given an answer. I can ask them now, but if the hon. the Minister would prefer to answer them directly …

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I really do not know what the ten questions are which The Argus asked. I think the hon. member should rather send them to me later on, because I do not have the time now to reply to further questions. In the course of the hon. member’s speech of ten minutes he asked many questions to which I now have to reply in detail, and that makes it somewhat difficult for me.

I now come to the hon. member for Smithfield and I want to compliment him on his contribution. In my view, he has discussed one of the most important themes which we can discuss under this Vote, namely conservation, effectiveness, increased productivity, and the utilization, with the optimum effect, of the scarce means of our country, so that we may be able to face up to the economic problems and ensure a greater measure of self-sufficiency. It is true that productivity in our country is probably among the lowest of all the industrial countries of the world, and that there is much room for improvement. The studies undertaken by the National Productivity Institute, indicate that the level of productivity is in many cases only 50% or even less, of the potential. There is a negative flow of capital to South Africa—we must accept that as one of the long-term problems—due to political and economic reasons in the countries of origin and, in our case, also the country of origin. If we want increased economic growth, then, apart from other considerations it is essential that we should effect greater economies. And this does not involve merely the saving of money. On the one hand, it involves the conservation of scarce commodities and on the other hand, the importance of a better utilization of scarce commodities. My department, through the institute, quotes examples, and I ask industrialists to make use of these. In connection with the measuring productivity, South Africa has devised a method which is so effective that we have received a request to second one of the officials of the institute to the American centre for productivity for a long period. That is, in my view, one of the fine testimonials for the work which is being done in this connection. We can effect greater economies in the country, and accordingly have more money for investment, by the introduction of fiscal and monetary measures. The fact is, however, that the basic elements—the hon. member has also referred to those—are effective utilization, and the stopping of wastage. The hon. member for Parktown has referred to the available capital for investment. Our record of saving in this country is high, because if one were to look at the savings percentage as a percentage of the gross fixed investment during the years 1972-’73, one finds that the rate was more than 78%. It has since declined, but then rose again. If one looks at what the capital obligations were in connection with the establishment of the infrastructure during the years after 1972, one finds that during those years, we had to expend large sums of money which were not of a non-recurrent nature. I am not implying by that that we do not want overseas capital. What I do say is that if foreign capital is completely cut off, it will not mean the end of our strength and of our capabilities. Through our own capabilities, we are able to maintain a reasonable growth rate in spite of the fact that capital may not be available.

†The hon. member for Constantia referred to the mailships and I would like to explain to him that the decision has already been taken long ago to stop the regular mail service.

*The information which I have in this particular connection, is to the effect that the service has become totally uneconomical and that air freight is being used to an increasing extent for the transportation of mail to Europe and to other countries. I have further been informed that in the place of the regular old mailships, there are now container ships and that these will, it is hoped, be fully commissioned by the beginning of next year. There will then be a regular weekly mail service. I trust that that satisfies the hon. member.

Is this being done by way of contract.

It is being done by way of contract between the Post Office and the shipping lines. The hon. member for Park-town and the hon. member for Germiston District referred to the economy of our country and to the confidence in our economic system. I agree that if there is one factor which we must identify, because it is an impediment to the recovery of our economic growth, it is probably the factor of confidence. The hon. member for Germiston District has placed his finger on the right spot, i.e. that if we want the outside world to have confidence in us, we must ourselves have confidence in our own country and its capabilities. We should then also furnish tangible proof of that. I believe that in the past, South Africa could attribute much of its economic development to foreign capital and in particular, too, to foreign expertise which accompanied that foreign capital. I have not the slightest doubt that the time has arrived that the position will recover. On the other hand, I do not doubt that in the medium term, we are entering a difficult phase. Why is South Africa being questioned as a field of investment? In this respect, I differ from the hon. member for Parktown—in a good spirit. The negative influence on the flow of capital originates, in the first place, in the political events within South Africa—events over which we had no control. In the second place, the hon. member knows that Africa is the focal point of the struggle between the super powers. Apart from their goals and their motivations, they are intent on bringing about a change in South Africa, changes which do not take the realities of our country into account. They are intent on political philosophies which cannot be reconciled with the society which exists in South Africa. Let us differ from one another about the answers and the methods, but let us be agreed on one thing, namely that South Africa has an identifiably different type of society to those of many other countries in the world. Let us further agree on the second thing, namely that no example exists of a unitary State on the basis of “one man, one vote”, for a society such as ours. Let us agree, in the third place, that our State structure should reflect our plural society and that for that reason the answer to our dispensation—whether we like it or not—is to be found in a multiplicity of institutions according to the number of the peoples who live here. That is the answer— regardless of what the world is prescribing to us.

The hon. members can differ from my philosophy, but they must not sympathize with the enemies of South Africa by accusing this Government of being oppressors of people. That is surely not true. The philosophy of my party is surely not founded on superiority. The philosophy of the NP is surely one of separate development; the philosophy of the NP is to maintain a Christian and Western civilization. The hon. members must go and look at the NP’s programme of principles. In the first paragraph thereof, they will find that the NP submits to supreme authority of its Creator, and in the second paragraph it undertakes to endeavour to achieve an equitable dispensation for all the nations and people who live here. The NP has sought an instrument to give content and meaning to this aspiration and philosophy. This instrument is separate development—an instrument which takes into account multiplicity and diversity of our society, but it is based on fairness.

There are four foundations on which the policy of separate development is based. The first foundation is that it wants to eliminate the domination of one nation over another— also of White domination over Brown, Indian or Black. The second foundation is that it separates where contact causes conflict, and a third foundation is that it wants to eliminate unjust discrimination. Diversity and the recognition thereof is not unjust; it is an admission of the reality of life. The fourth foundation of this policy is that it wants to create development opportunities for all the people who live here. I do not want to deliberate on that for long.

Tell that to the Black people!

All changes in this country—political or otherwise—have taken place under the National Party Government. Let us not quarrel about this. We may have differences of opinion. The hon. members must compare the educational standards and living standards, and also the way of living of the people—all the people—then, and now.

And even of the United Party!

I admit that there are injustices in our society. There are of course injustices, but in what society are there no injustices? But we must not accuse one another within the presence of our foes that our motives are questionable. Can we not at least admit to one another that all of us want to ensure security, order and development in this country? Why must we sympathize with people who do not know the nature of the country? I want to ask hon. members to point out a single country to me in which the Government itself makes people free of its own accord. What countries have been freed by any of the countries which are today moralizing against us, except by the withdrawal of their troops from those countries? What did they leave in their place?

The attack is directed at our country; we must repel it and not become part of it. I shall reply to the speeches of other hon. members at a later stage.

Mr. Chairman. I think I am speaking on behalf of all hon. members if I thank the hon. the Minister for his customary, clear exposition of matters affecting South Africa very seriously at this moment. Strangely enough, I also want to congratulate the hon. member for Parktown— the hon. member for Pinelands may appreciate this—on his speech and the contribution which he made last night. I am quite convinced that if all the members of the PFP were to put matters into perspective as the hon. member for Parktown did last night, it could get us much further, because what the hon. member for Parktown said about the economy was in essence that there is no perfect solution to anything, that nothing is absolute and that there are two sides to every question. If one considers the economy as a whole, one sees that every advantage in reality contains a disadvantage and every disadvantage an advantage.

I do not want to have words with the PFP as usual this afternoon.

Oh, come on.

I should like to talk to everyone about this, from the hon. members for Pinelands and Parktown to the hon. member for Klip River on our side of the House.

I want to talk about one component of the economy which is of real and vital importance to me at this stage. We must accept—I think we must say it openly too, because it is true after all—that we in Southern Africa have an integrated economy between the various States and White South Africa, as we call it. That economy has a diversity of geographic components, but in its totality it is integrated. At the moment this economy has its weak points in many respects, but in many other respects it has strong possibilities. This afternoon I want to talk about one of the strong possibilities of our economy in South Africa.

I want to talk about what is the tap-root of the economic tree in South Africa in many respects; viz. the small businessman in the South African economy. In the economy of Southern Africa the significance and role of the small businessman is far more important than in any other economy in any country in the world, because, despite any activities of upliftment and development which we engage in, we in South Africa have a diversity of nations and ethnic structures and people with a developmental backlog, a situation which makes it quite essential for us to undertake this economic development in future, with the small businessman, the small industrialist, the small trader and small entrepreneur as an inherent basis of our economy.

If we look at the tremendous economy of a country like America, we can ask where the power of their economy lies. It lies, inter alia, in the tremendous power that the small businessman has had over the years. If we consider the great development in South Africa and the tremendous part which small people have played in it, we see that it is essential for us continually to take a close look at the role and position of the small businessman in the Southern African economy.

Here behind me we have the hon. member for Pinetown and I do not think he or other hon. members in the House will hold it against me if I say that, in terms of the American example, he is a South African example par excellance of a man who established a huge organization with a mere R20 000.

After all, we are always talking to one another. If I walk through the lobby here and ask my colleagues: “What is your son doing? What is your son going to be one day?” Then in 90% to 95% of the cases, the son is studying in some or other professional direction. The basis of our thinking is the security which I sought for myself and also want to ensure for my son in future, that is why we choose professions and the security they offer. The greatest security for all of our sons, and for their children, ultimately lies in a flourishing economy. One of the greatest components of that flourishing economy lies in the fact that all our children will become active partners in the economy.

Where is there a better, more challenging place than in the sphere of the small businessman, whether the commercial sphere, the industrial world, the construction industry, the transport sector or in any other facet of the economy? My request to the hon. the Minister is that we on the Government side should make an in-depth inquiry into the position of the small businessman in the Southern African economy. And with his position I also mean the role which the small businessman plays in the Southern African economy and the problems which he has to face under the present economic circumstances. In the course of the investigation it must also be determined whether, in view of the present problematical conditions of the economy, there are other ways and means by which the Government can assist the small businessman, apart from what is already being done especially in the industrial sphere.

In the light of what has already been done, I think it befits all of us in this House to pay tribute to the Small Businesses Advisory Bureau, a bureau at the Potchefstroomse Universiteit which was also supported by the Government in this budget to an amount of R200 000. They play a very active role in the promotion of productivity and management affairs in particular in the small business world. Since 1970, more than 3 000 small business undertakings have received advice from this Bureau. Since that period, courses in management training have been offered to more than 8 000 businessmen.

I am absolutely convinced that at the moment, as far as the small businessman is concerned, we are faced with the problem that we do not know precisely what the position of these people is. In the first place we must clearly define for ourselves what we consider to be a small businessman and how many of them there are. The advisory bureau is chiefly involved with people in the commercial sphere. A census was carried out in 1971—this was the last census—and at that time the premise was adopted that the small businessman is chiefly the private entrepreneur, the private businessman, i.e. the private company or partnership and the one man business. My request to the hon. the Minister is that in this possible investigation we should also take an in-depth look at who the small businessman is in the first place. Secondly, what is the problem with which he has to contend? Thirdly, should we look further than the commercial world only in this investigation, because we are dealing with a host of small businessmen in the industrial sector, the construction industry sector, the service sector as well as the manufacturing industry.

In the ’sixties it was discovered in an investigation by the department that the problems of these people are basically management problems.

A tremendous positive role is being played in this respect and tremendous contributions are being made by the hon. the Minister’s department in this regard. I am sorry that time does not allow me to quote figures in order to indicate what role is played by the small businessman. I do not even want to talk about the sociological role of these people in the rural areas. At the moment, at the present economic juncture, these people are faced with many problems. Our banks have liquidity at their disposal.

Yesterday, the hon. member for Parktown said “the name of the game is confidence”. I believe that in this integrated Southern African economy, we not only need spending confidence and investment confidence as a large contributing component for foreign capital, but we also need consumer confidence from within. With the available liquidity of the banks, and with the excessive unutilized capacity of our factories, I believe that we can give our economy a very good boost in future. We can also do so by stimulating the small businessman, as well as by stimulating the other facets of his activity to which I have already referred.

If we in fact direct that such an investigation be instituted and put these matters under the searchlight, and ask ourselves who the businessman is and what his problems are, I feel it is necessary for us to determine whether we ought not ultimately grant some of them financial aid. My request is that we should adopt a programme of action, a programme of action of which one of the elements should be an immediate census, in order to determine who the small businessman is who deserves assistance and in what way such assistance can be granted. In the second place, I believe that we should commence at once with a comprehensive education action. I am sorry that time does not allow me to elaborate further on this. I want to say, however, that I am completely convinced that one of the essential problems in our economy is the phenomenon—and this is what I referred to at the outset—that too many of our people still show a resistance, a negative attitude and a kind of antagonism to the business world. If there is one sphere in which there are many opportunities for everyone, it is in the economic sphere of the small businessman. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a plea this afternoon for an entirely new strategy for the processing of minerals. In this plea I should like to touch on three facets and put forward three proposals for consideration by the hon. the Minister. However, I shall motivate them too. My first argument is that South Africa should not market its minerals in an unrefined state, but that we should to an increasing extent change over to a system of marketing our minerals in an internationally usable, refined and marketable form. One of the reasons for this is that it is a means for us to circumvent the formation of economic blocs in the world. In the second place, enterprises that refine minerals, ought to obtain minerals for refinement at a concession rate, a rate which may perhaps be lower than the world market price. In the third place, I want to suggest that the capital for such enterprises should not be financed by means of foreign loans, but by way of foreign shareholding. This will result in perpetuating the expertise as well as the continued foreign interest in the industry in South Africa.

After all, it is generally accepted that the economic set-up in any country cannot be divorced from the political policy of the Government of the day in the country concerned. This is the case in South Africa in particular, where the NP has already been governing this country for 30 years with a great deal of success. At the moment, the South African economy is faced with two particular problems. In the first place, our economy is being forced into a tight spot, due to international political pressure, international political pressure which, in the first place, is finding expression in the Marxist and terrorist onslaughts on South Africa In combating these onslaughts, extraordinary demands are being made on the South African economy. We can almost call them economic shocks. In the second place, the political pressure on South Africa is finding expression in certain financing and trade sanctions which are being instituted against us and which in turn make other types of demand on our economy. These sanctions affect the international economic sphere.

After all, it is well known that world economy is an interdependent economic system. It is integrated to such an extent that no country can exist and develop in economic isolation. As proof of this, all we have to do is to look at the balance of payments of various countries, at the activities of the IMF and the special drawing rights regulations, at GATT, etc. It is therefore absolutely ridiculous for any country to think that it can be economically self-sufficient in isolation and that sanctions will therefore not be detrimental to the total international economy. I want to say that despite the maze of international political pressure on South Africa, South Africa would certainly be the last country to endorse the practice of economic isolation and sanctions. In such an interdependent economic structure, every country has its characteristic economic composition and activities by means of which it makes its contribution to the international economy. The question now arises: Where does South Africa fit into this international economic jigsaw, and if we have a contribution to make, how important is that contribution?

Sir, South Africa has the most important mineral reserves in the Western world. In the case of gold, the figure is 72%. South Africa is the largest producer and has the largest reserves. In the case of chrome the figure is 75%. Once again South Africa is the largest producer and has the largest reserves. In the case of platinum the figure is 70%, and similarly in this case South Africa is the largest producer and has the largest reserves. In the case of manganese, the figure is 72%, while it is 73% in the case of vanadium. I could continue to mention more minerals and figures. According to this, South Africa is actually the mineral storehouse of the Western world, and it is prepared and able to make its contribution to the international economy and commerce of the world in this way.

Sir, let us take a look at the sales value of our minerals in 1977 in comparison with the position in 1976. The total value of minerals increased by 30%, to R5 530 million. In the case of base metals it increased by 29%, to R2 445 million. In the case of non-metals the increase was 30%, while the increase for platinum and uranium was 13%. One could continue to refer to these figures in this way. If we consider this aspect, we come to the conclusion that, as a result of this constant growth and stability in our mineral industry, the highest priority in our domestic and foreign economic strategy should in fact be the mineral industry.

In this regard I should like to make two statements. In the first place, South Africa’s mineral industry must form the primary basis of its contribution to the international economy. Secondly, the mineral industry is South Africa’s primary industry for creating more employment opportunities for all its people. This is also the motivation for the three requests which I addressed to the hon. the Minister. Despite world recession and despite national recession, our mineral industry in South Africa has shown stable growth and progress and created stable employment opportunities. We can take a look at the employment opportunities. In the industrial sector, the figure for employment opportunities for the Bantu alone was 705 000 in 1975. In 1977 the figure was 684 000. Therefore there was a decline. If we look at mineral activities, we find that the figure for employment opportunities for the Bantu was 568 000 as against 635 333 in 1977. We have therefore had constant growth there. Sir, I want to mention an example, and I am going to refer to gold as my example. The world demand for gold was almost 1 378 metric tons in 1975. Of this, 70 metric tons was used for money. A total of 936 metric tons was used for jewellery and 142 metric tons were used for the electronic industry. I want to ask how much of this processing is done by South African undertakings. My answer is: Practically none! I think Jan Smuts ought to be the showcase of South Africa’s gold jewellery industry. This is the first point. In 1968, to my knowledge, South Africa received an offer to establish here the only industry in the world which processes gold for electronic industrial purposes, on condition that the industry should receive the gold on a 10% concession basis. This was not possible at that time and the industry was lost to South Africa. If we had had that industry at our disposal today, we would have had the powerful control of the electronic industry of the entire world established in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. member for Wonderboom for reminding the hon. the Minister of the potential we have in South Africa, of our mineral wealth and of our wealth in our labour resources. There is no doubt, after having listened to the hon. member who has just sat down, that in considering this we should find that South Africa is potentially one of the most productive nations in the world, one which should offer our people tremendous job opportunities. I am also very grateful to him for having drawn to the hon. the Minister’s attention the fact however, that in recent years the number of job opportunities has, in fact, decreased in South Africa That is what he said and his facts are correct. Today there is unemployment in South Africa despite our potential, and that is what we, in these benches, have tried to point out to the hon. the Minister and his colleagues time and time again.

When one hears the hon. member for Innesdal speaking, one wonders whether he belongs in that particular party because that hon. member is now starting to sound like the hon. member for Mooi River. The hon. member for Mooi River is the one who has, for years, appealed for the opening up of opportunities for young people and the small businessmen. These are the thoughts of the hon. members in these benches. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Innesdal said that our young folk should feel that there is security here in South Africa for the future and that they should be part of the economic development of South Africa. We agree wholeheartedly with these sentiments. However, if young men are going to feel that they want to go to their bank managers and ask them to lend them so many tens of thousands of rand to invest in a particular business, then there has to be this feeling of security. Today, however, there is not this feeling of security. That is why the money is sitting in the banks.

Mr. Chairman, why is there not this feeling of security? [Interjections.] There are two reasons. Firstly, people are worried about the political future because of the policies that this Government adopts, and secondly there is no adequate return on capital invested in many businesses today. The reason for that, of course, is inflation.

I am rather disappointed that the hon. the Minister did not…

I am going to reply to you in detail.

He is going to reply in detail. I asked him specifically, when I spoke yesterday, to reply to me before I spoke again today so that I could put my case to him.

But I will reply to you today.

Yes, but then I will not have a chance to reply to what the hon. the Minister has had to say.

He left me out too.

His hon. colleague the Minister of Finance has done a darned good job of trying to bring down the inflation rate for South Africa. In fact, as I said yesterday, the inflation rate for March—on an annual basis—had dropped to 5,8%. Am I not correct? This is indicative of the action his hon. colleague took in that regard. There are serious doubts, however, about this continuing into the future. Why? Because last month we had the new rail tariffs applied throughout the country, and already we have had an increase in the price of coal and an increase in the price of fuel, and in the next two or three months we are going to see maize prices and dairy prices go up. Now what is the reason for this? The reason for most of these increases in consumer prices is the increases in the tariffs which fall under the hon. the Minister’s jurisdiction, the main ones being in respect of Escom and the Railways, although the latter falls under the Minister of Transport. These two Ministers hold the key to an economic revival in South Africa.

I asked the hon. the Minister whether the rate of development of our infrastructure has not been mistimed in the light of the general economic circumstances not only in South Africa but also overseas. I asked this because the fact is that, as the hon. the Minister of Transport admitted during the Transport debate, the Railways are already over capacity when it comes to transport potential and transport capacity. In other words, the Railways are under-utilized since there is over-capacity.

I have here Escom’s annual report. On page five of the report one sees that last year Escom had 22,6% surplus capacity, i.e. generating capacity above demand, which represented an increase over the figure of 13,6% for 1976. In other words, last year Escom almost doubled its surplus capacity.

That is a shocking state of affairs!

In spite of this, Escom is embarking on one of the largest expansion programmes it has ever undertaken. Last year the revenue of Escom increased by 57% up to R1 030 million. The tariff increase last year was 48,1%.

First tell us what the reasons are for that.

The reasons are that an amount of R365 million was taken by means of tariff increases to finance capital development. Last year an amount of R365 million was made available in this manner and this year a further R365 million or more is to be made available. I question whether it is economically wise, at this time in our history when the private sector is being starved of consumer demand, for an amount as large as R365 million to have been taken out of the pockets of the consumers of electricity, last year, and another R365 million this year. The increase, out of a total capital expenditure by Escom last year of nearly R1 000 million, amounted to R340 million, almost the entire additional revenue gained through increasing the tariffs on the Railways. This almost equals the amount of money the hon. the Minister of Finance has tried to re-inject into the consumers’ pockets in his latest budget. Here we have the Minister of Finance trying to stimulate the economy by pumping in approximately R400 million by reducing taxes, repaying loan levies earlier than usual and drawing on the Stabilization Fund, and then Escom comes and creams off exactly that amount to finance its capital expenditure.

The same thing is happening on the S.A. Railways. I have fought the S.A. Railways budget for quite a number of years now. Last year, because there was no loan capital available for the Railways or because their capital expenditure programme was having an unfavourable effect on their balance sheet, the Select Committee increased the rate of depreciation by 20%. That brought R50 million into the Railways’ pocket. That money came out of the pockets of the consumers. This year we have increased it by a further 20% and this is taking an additional R68 million out of the consumers’ pockets. Here we have two State corporations bleeding the private sector to the extent of approximately R400 million to R500 million in potential consumer purchasing power per annum. Mr. Chairman, why do you think our factories are now standing idle? Why do we have such a surplus manufacturing capacity in factories? The reason is that there is no consumer demand. Why is there no consumer demand? Because the people just do not have the money.

This is just one side of it. What happens to the private sector that is dependent on this hon. Minister? I am going to mention one industry on which I am well informed and I want to ask the hon. the Minister what he is going to do about it. The price of sugar will have to go up to meet rising costs or is this hon. Minister going to allow an industry which employs some 134 000 people, which has some R1 150 million invested in it and which earns this country some R400 million per year to go bankrupt? The hon. the Minister will have to put up the price of sugar in order to meet this year’s estimated deficit of approximately R47 million. Why? Because there is a cost push inflation occurring in South Africa today. The reasons for this are to a large extent due to the escalating tariffs which fall under this hon. Minister and the hon. the Minister of Transport. I must admit the hon. the Minister of Finance and the civil service in general have done fairly well in the last year in their attempts to curb their expenditure, but tariff increases in the public corporations sector of our economy are bleeding off far too much money from our hardworking people.

Young people, like the hon. member for Innesdal has said, want to get involved in the economy.

What about labour costs?

The hon. member for Innesdal must have a private chat with the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs if he really wants to make his young son feel that he wants to get into business. What does the average person with surplus cash do today? He invests his money in a building society or some other financial institution. Why? Because there is no profit to be had in business in the private sector at the present time in South Africa. The only growth sector in the South African economy today is the State corporations which fall under the jurisdiction of this hon. Minister.

Nonsense.

Nonsense? Look at the figures. Look at the graph which appears on page 34 of Escoms Annual Report which shows that about 51,4% of Escom’s revenue is either going into capital expenditure, the financing of previous loans or redeeming loans. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, judging by the debate that took place yesterday, we have had a very fruitful and positive discussion of this Vote so far. Moreover, the hon. the Minister propounded a very sound economic philosophy a few minutes ago. However, the exception was the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, who has just resumed his seat, because, as usual, he was very negative. Everyone said that our country’s economy could not exist in isolation from any other economy in the world. Apparently that hon. member, just like Rip van Winkle, thinks that we are the only country in the world with unemployment and that we are also the only country in the world with a high rate of inflation and everything associated therewith. He should, however, also take a look at the rest of the world.

In the light of what other hon. members have said in this debate, I want to talk about a completely different matter because it may be just as important to us, economically speaking. It concerns the economic bloc in Southern Africa which we have already discussed in the past and about which ideas have already been exchanged. If one thinks of an economic bloc of this nature in Southern Africa, it can only be to the good and advantage of the countries in Southern Africa We all realize that there are a number of problems attached to this. We do not want to be blind to these problems, but as things are in the economy, one must have problems for solving such problems. I think some of these problems may be solved in due course. In the first place I want to refer to the problem of the lack of economic development, economic growth and economic progress. We know what the reason for this is, especially here in Southern Africa. The reason for this is, of course, the political unrest and the political instability that still prevails in some of these countries. We shall probably not be able to achieve this economic development and growth before such unrest has been eliminated. In the second place, there are still too many of the States in Southern Africa that are too dependent on the economies of the biggest powers in the world, like the USA, Europe and other countries. I believe that if these countries could detach themselves from those big economies and become more dependent on one another, we should be able to make some progress with this economic bloc in Southern Africa. Another problem is that too much of the wealth of these countries has gone to other countries abroad instead of being reinvested in those countries themselves. I believe that this problem dates back to the old colonial days, but this may be a problem which one can readily overcome. Another problem is that the natives of some of these countries have not yet learned or been encouraged to be more self-sufficient and to see to their own strength and development. The final problem is possibly to be found in the fact that there is still too much distrust in South Africa, distrust which, in my opinion, can be eliminated through economy in the future. One asks oneself who is to take the initiative in overcoming these problems. I personally believe that our hon. Minister and his departments are the ones who can take the initiative in the economic sphere to overcome some of those problems.

It will be very advantageous to us and to the countries in Southern Africa if we can succeed in forming an economic bloc.

Just consider what a valuable joint asset a step like this would create for these countries. In the first place there is the sea route around Southern Africa along which goods, oil and everything else one can imagine is shipped from the East to the West and from the West to the East. This is a tremendous asset which we have. During 1965 3,5 million barrels of oil were transported daily through the Suez Canal and today the number has dropped to 2,5 million barrels per day. In contrast to this, the number transported around the Cape has increased from 0,8 million barrels per day to 18 million barrels per day. Therefore, this sea route is a tremendous asset which can be utilized by all of us. At the moment an average of 70 oil tankers round the Cape per day.

Another major asset—I shall have to mention them rapidly now, because there is not much time left—is the wealth of raw materials which we and several of these African States possess. The hon. member for Wonder-boom mentioned a number of these raw materials of which South Africa has the largest quantities in the world, for instance, gold, uranium, platinum and raw materials of that kind. The other States in Southern Africa have these raw materials as well, consequently we can supplement one another admirably in this regard so that these raw materials and assets may be utilized to the advantage of all of us.

A third major asset which I want to mention, is our food resources. Southern Africa, in my opinion, can become the larder not only of Africa, but also of a very large part of the world. I am saying this particularly in the light of the large quantities of unutilized land which are still to be found in Central and Southern Africa. One realizes that there is tremendous potential here which can also serve towards uniting these States. At the moment there are 3,9 billion people on earth and by the end of the century their numbers are going to increase to 6,5 billion. Where is the food for these people going to come from? At the moment there are 52 million people in Africa alone who are starving. If we in Southern Africa could unite to start establishing a larder for Africa here, then in my opinion, we would already have achieved a great deal.

A fourth major asset is the industrial development which can take place in these States of Southern Africa. South Africa on its own is, of course, the economic giant in Southern Africa at the moment, but with out knowledge, expertise and experience we can also assist our neighbouring States to make vast progress in the industrial sphere.

A fifth major asset which we have here in Southern Africa, is our communications network. I have already referred to the shipping traffic around the coast of Southern Africa, but we also have very good roads and railways. South Africa is leading the field in this regard, as well, especially if one has regard to the fact that 74% of the electrified train traffic in Africa, is found in South Africa In the light of this one begins to realize how far we have already progressed in this field and to what extent we can also assist other countries to progress in this field.

To summarize: There are about 15 countries in Southern Africa that can participate in an economic bloc of this kind to the advantage of all. Before this can be done, one would first have to get around the matter of politics and this could be done through the economy alone. I believe that the spade-work for this will have to come from South Africa, since we are the leading country in this bloc as things are and since we can help these people a great deal. I want to repeat that political motives and conditions must not be attached to an economic bloc of this kind if it is to be successful. If we proceed from this premise, we can achieve a great deal here in Southern Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Potgietersrus on his very good speech; I found it very interesting. I want to come to a very important point which the hon. the Minister mentioned. He said that we should identify our problems.

†It was Churchill who said: “A problem well defined is a problem half solved.” I want to talk about a problem which links up what the hon. member for Parktown said in his very good and balanced speech of yesterday. I am concerned about the steady decline in the confidence of our people in the market economy, and in our business leaders. This is really a worldwide tendency. In the US. News and World Report of 1976 reference is made to a thorough survey which was done in America. That survey confirmed what I am afraid is increasingly becoming the position in South Africa. I should like to quote an extract from this particular survey—

A recent Gallup poll showed that 23% of Americans now actually look upon big business as an actual threat to their freedom and general well-being. This is an alarming fact especially when one realizes that a Gallup poll which was undertaken nine years ago showed a percentage of 12%. This means that the percentage has almost doubled.

I should also like to link up with what the hon. member for Germiston District said yesterday when he spoke about the freedom which business gives us. When private ownership in the market economy disappears, human freedom disappears with it. The fundamental crisis of our time is a crisis of the spirit. It is our belief in our own beliefs and in our system which are at issue right through the Western World. We shall have to sell (I am not for a moment suggesting that we should propagandize our people) but we shall have to sell the image of government and business to the people. I say “image” because facts and figures about the free enterprise system speak for themselves, but the image of the free enterprise system is becoming increasingly poor. It is the ideas and not the facts which are important in this instance. We all know, for example, that cigarette smoking, the abuse of alcohol and fast driving are wrong, and yet these things are increasing. So, I say that the image of government and business will have to be changed.

People talk about Governments controlling economies; they talk about controlled economies or a move towards socialization. But Governments do not control economies; they control people, and therefore greater moves towards socialism or controlled economies erode and destroy the freedom within a society. I am afraid that we will have to teach our people to understand our system better. Often one gets people misconstruing, e.g. profits. When a company makes big profits people often tend to react that there is something wrong with it. The fact that they share in these profits by way of pension funds, life insurance policies or perhaps increased salaries, which is directly related to them, seems to escape them. I do not know what South Africa’s statistics are, but in America 51 million workers alone have a share in the profits of big corporations while 318 million people are life insurance policyholders. We are engaged in an ideological war. The hon. the Minister has told us it is a total war, and he is correct in that. This ideological war is destroying our economy, because it is by destroying our economy that people can best destroy us. It is, of course, the economy which helps us to guarantee peace and to fulfil our calling in Africa.

It is, as far as our business image is concerned, what the people of colour think of our economic system that will largely dictate the pattern of our society in the coming generations. Governments and business will have to teach our people the benefits of our economic system in the spirit of a crusade. We shall have to sell it and show that our system is efficient. We shall have to show people what we know to be true. We shall have to show that our system makes of us all the arbiters of the standards of our society as it makes of us all producers, because it is in Selecting that we dictate the standards and it is in consuming that we produce.

On a more regional basis I just want to talk about the western, northern and southern Cape regions and point out what wonderful work is being done by the Coloured Development Corporation at the moment to bring our Coloured people into the main stream of our commercial life. This process of development is a rapid one and the results will be profound. Our political life, of course, must be in step with this new economic order. I think this is evidenced by the fact that our new constitutional plan will not only bring the White and Brown people closer together, closer than they have ever been, but will also act as the instrument of bringing about full citizenship for the Coloured people. We must not allow this development to be hampered by eroding the employment opportunities of the Coloured people, particularly in the western Cape, by placing additional, enormous stresses on the still fragile, social and economic order through the importation of an abnormal number of Black people into what is a Coloured priority region. I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that in this region we should favour the establishment of Brown businesses and strengthen those already existing. Let us, the White and the Brown people in this part of the world, together create wealth. Governments and politicians cannot create wealth. They can only create the illusion of wealth. They can create money, but they cannot create wealth. We shall have to be careful what part politics play in the economy. That is why I was glad to hear what the hon. the Minister said today. We must not make of politics the problem rather than the solution to our problems. I shall leave the matter there.

I am satisfied that the Government favours a mixed economy. The hon. member for Parktown spoke about it. I am also satisfied that the Government is maintaining a reasonable balance and does not want to become over-involved in the economy as it realizes that it can harm the economy if it does become over-involved. It makes me think of Gladstone, that great Christian stateman, who held the view that the State should encourage the moral life of the nation, but should not take upon itself the hopeless task of becoming a secular church. In exactly the same way I feel that we on the Government side have that sense of balance. All our people will have to play a role. After all the wealth of our society depends on the collective effort of all our people. It was Edmund Burke who said—

Since politics reflect the character and the aspirations of the people, we must, in order to improve the politics, elevate the character of a significant number of people. This is, of course, is the task of religion, ethics and education. In all of this the economy is the engine of society. I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for what he has done in this field. At all costs we must keep this engine of ours healthy.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday, during the discussion on the hon. the Minister of Information’s Vote, I urged the hon. that Minister to inform the Cabinet that his efforts, through his Department of Information, to sell South Africa externally and internally—even if his whole department was restructured—would be of now avail because of the monopoly which exists in the English-language Press in South Africa. In this morning’s Citizen there are detailed reports, covering about four pages on the current situation as The Citizen sees it, on a state of affairs that has existed for some time, but which in the last few years has grown into a sort of galloping take-over of Saan by the Argus group, to the extent that the combine of the Saan and the Argus newspaper groups now control 90% of the English-language newspapers in South Africa. All of these newspapers, as I said yesterday, push the same leftist liberal line to the exclusion of all other views and objective news of any kind. I asked the hon. the Minister to urge the Cabinet to appoint a Select Committee, or a commission, to investigate this combine, because of the effect it has on the work of his department and on the Republic’s own fight for its survival.

I raised the matter under the Information Vote because I thought that that was the appropriate occasion to do so, but I did cover myself by saying that while I thought the hon. the Minister of Information was the right person to urge the Cabinet to appoint such a Select Committee or commission, I thought that as he is in charge of the investigation of monopolies, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs was the right person to whom the hon. the Minister should make representations. I feel that as I raised the matter yesterday, I should now take it a stage further and direct my remarks to him and ask the hon. the Minister whether he would be kind enough to read my Hansard of what I said yesterday. The present situation cannot be allowed to continue in South Africa. It is a Trojan horse situation. It is not a case of wishing to interfere with Press freedom to ask for an investigation into a monopoly because a monopoly itself is the very negation of Press freedom. Therefore, in the light of what has appeared in a responsible newspaper this morning, where the full shareholdings are set out in detail and in the light of three previous speeches that I have made here going into great detail of the shareholdings in the Argus and Saan groups, I make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to institute an investigation into my allegation of there being a monopoly, a monopoly in the sense that the Argus group has taken over control of the Saan group in South Africa. I shall refresh the hon. the Minister’s memory when I tell him that some years ago—if my memory serves correctly, about 1968—there was an overt attempt at a merger between Argus and Saan, and the then Minister of Economic Affairs stopped it If the allegations made in The Citizen, as a result of their research, are correct, if the allegations and disclosures of shareholdings that I have made in the previous speeches are correct, then there is no doubt about it but that Argus controls Saan, and that in my opinion constitutes a monopoly. The Government, and South Africa, cannot afford a Press monopoly such as this at this stage of our particular history. Therefore I say that it is the Government’s responsibility—a responsibility which it can no longer avoid—to look into the matters which have been brought to its attention and which in my opinion are harmful to the Republic. It is this hon. Minister’s duty, as part of his function, to investigate the allegations that have been made publicly, as well as in this House of an English Press monopoly in South Africa.

What about the Afrikaans Press monopoly?

I must inform the hon. the Minister that owing to a previous engagement I shall not be able to be present when he replies to the debate and I hope that he will forgive me for being absent.

I now wish to deal with two other matters. The first one concerns a matter about which many of us in this House feel very strongly, namely the trawling of fish by west coast boats in False Bay. I do not want the hon. the Minister to reply to the representations I am going to make to him now. What I am going to ask him to do is to consider these representations and to consider seeing a deputation of responsible people who would like to make further representations to him before he makes any decision in this matter. I want to motivate the case after saying that the hon. the Minister has already received the annual report of the False Bay Conservation Society. In this annual report is a detailed article of about 10 pages, written by a man who was for many, many years the harbourmaster at Gordon’s Bay. His name is Major Van Riet. It is, I think, an authoritative article. At any rate, it comes from a man who, as far as I know, has been personally concerned with the operations of the department for a number of years; I think probably since the end of World War II.

In this article Major Van Riet refers to what has happened in the bay since the beginning of this year, and more particularly, since the beginning of February this year, when boats coming from the West Coast, from Hout Bay, from Saldanha Bay, Stompneus, Sandy Point, West Point, Velddrif and Lambert’s Bay—all places with the exception of Hout Bay, the best part of 200 miles away—enter the waters of False Bay at night to trawl fish by means of a method of netting, known as purse seine netting. These nets are being used by these West Coast boats in, what I can only describe as, a natural fish trap. That is, of course, what False Bay is.

False Bay is only some 28 miles across from Cape Point to Cape Hangklip. I cannot describe it better than by calling it a natural fish trap. These boats are capable of netting at a time anything between 100 tons and 300 tons of fish. One can imagine, therefore, how much they take from False Bay, bearing in mind that it is a sheltered bay of confined space. One can only imagine what quantity of fish can be taken from this bay by boats using nets of this description.

I want to remind the hon. the Minister that since at least 1966, when the False Bay Conservation Society was established, support has been given to its efforts to close the bay by drawing a demarcation line from Cape Point to Cape Hangklip. Support from every single municipality in the coastal areas of the bay and by all other public authorities, for example, the Stellenbosch divisional council, the Cape divisional council, every single sporting club that I know of and every single other organization that has any interest in the preservation of False Bay. All these bodies feel very strongly that the bay should be closed to this form of netting or trawling. In all the years that I have made representations in this regard, no single public body has every objected to my representations or seen any sense in allowing boats from the West Coast to come into the bay to take fish which they can equally easily take out outside of the bay, except the fishing industry.

What has the Government’s answer to this been? The Government’s answer has been— in 1970—to erect a number of demarcation buoys well inside the bay. These demarcation buoys—I asked questions about them the other day—were erected in 1970. So far the cost of maintaining them has amounted to nearly R145 000. There were two patrol boats which were stationed at Gordon’s Bay. They were the Protector and the Wagter. They were stationed at Gordon’s Bay until 1976 when the Wagter packed up. The expense of the remaining control boat, in 1977, was R28 200, and the amount of repairs to both of those boats amounted to R76 155 quite apart from ordinary running costs.

Not long ago I asked the hon. the Minister whether there were any complaints received by his department about illegal netting activities in False Bay, in other words activities which were taking place in contravention of the demarcation lines within which netting is not allowed to take place. The hon. the Minister then said that only one boat had been observed netting inside the demarcation line, and that that was on 10 February 1975. I asked whether any other reports had not been made of the demarcation buoys being disregarded, and his reply was “not to his knowledge’’. In other words, according to him this was not the case. Sir, I can mention dozens and dozens of people to whom he can speak, who see these boats coming in night after night, particularly in January, February and March each year. I myself counted up to 55 the other night. And, Sir, they are within hundreds of yards of the shore. They are well within the demarcation buoys.

Now, Sir, let me deal with the effectiveness of the patrol boat system. There were two patrol boats, but I shall deal only with the remaining one, the Protector. During the period 1 January to 31 December last year the Protector was out of commission for 168 days. It was on the slipway, I think at Gordons Bay undergoing repairs. In other words, for 168 out of 365 days it was not available. Its working costs in 1977 were R16 800. I then queried the effectiveness of this patrol boat system. In answer to the last of the series of questions I put to the hon. the Minister, I was told that there has not been one single prosecution during the seven years these patrol boats have been in operation. To begin with, there were, as I have said, two patrol boats, but during the last two years only one boat, the Protector, has been in operation. The reason why there have not been any prosecutions is not because there have not been contraventions. It is because it is thought by the department and the police that prosecutions will not stand up in a court of law. Contraventions take place year after year and month after month, particularly at the beginning of the fishing year, with impugnity.

The system is therefore not working. It is expensive to the country, and I want to ask the Minister seriously to consider the representations I am making as well as representations from other important bodies who would like to send a deputation to see him. I do not want a reply from him today, but I should like him to give serious consideration to a motivated case that we will bring to him.

Sir, I want to conclude my remarks about the bay by saying that the bay is grossly overexploited. There are rock anglers, there are the line-fishing communities of Simonstown, Kalk Bay, the Strand and Gordons Bay. There are ski-boat anglers. There is, for example, a very active ski-boat club just beyond Simonstown. There are trek netters, the traditional trek netters plus many others who have been given licences by the department to net in the bay over the last 10 years. I think there were at the last count something like 110 of them. Then, Sir, there are the seals. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon. member an opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon. member. Reference has been made today to the fact that there are no less than 60 000 seals in the bay. There are countless, tens of thousands, of sea birds. There are sharks. Then, of course, there are the skin-divers. This is a fairly new but popular sport. Then there are the ordinary pleasure craft which are not registered. Hundreds of other people take their craft down to the shores and let them into the water at weekends. The bay just cannot withstand this combined assault.

My arguments are, I think, stronger today than ever before because the fishing limits have now been extended to 200 miles. If the counter argument was before, especially from those on the west coast, that the area of sea along the coast in which they could operate, bearing in mind the then six-mile fishing limit, was not wide enough to afford them sufficient space where they could be protected from foreigners, then that argument has now fallen away. There is now a 200-mile fishing limit within which they can catch exactly the same types of fish they take out of False Bay. There is no reason for them to come into False Bay, except that it is obviously an easier place to catch the fish than the open sea. But, Sir, we have a coastal area from the Orange River mouth to Durban 200 miles wide where they can take pelagic fish. They only go for pilchards, anchovies, mackerel and maasbankers. There was a suggestion some years ago—and it was even put into practice—that the bay should be closed for an experimental period. I think it was during the mid-fifties that it was to have been closed for an experimental period of something like a year. The fishing industry, the only people who want the bay to stay open, made such strong representations to the department that it was re-opened within three or four months! I think the hon. the Minister must give consideration to protests of all those responsible people who allege that there is over-exploitation and that the resources of the bay cannot stand this over-exploitation. At least he should give consideration to closing the bay for a trial period of, say, five years. Let us then see whether marine stocks in the bay improve as the result of the fishing industry being denied its present right to take the pelagic fish resources out of the bay.

I now want to move on to the third item I should like to discuss with the hon. the Minister, and that is the question of the 33rd annual report of Viskor. By way of an introductory paragraph there is reference made to the condition of our fishing resources. Reference is made to the relevant period having been a “bruising year”. It also says—

The hope is also expressed that the extension of the fishing zone to 200 miles will improve the situation and that the local industry would benefit as stocks recover from the gross overfishing to which they have been subjected. There is one thing I want to make clear. The fish that have been taken from our waters and from the waters of South West Africa by foreigners, have, up to the last year or two, been exclusively the white fish stocks, not the pelagic fish. It is only in the last year or two that the pelagic fishing industry off South West Africa has been subjected to an assault by foreign vessels. So, this is misleading in the extreme.

The people who are responsible for the over-exploitation of the pelagic fishing industry are none other than those in the South African pelagic fishing industry itself. There has been greed and over-exploitation. This matter was previously canvassed for months even years in this House, and the Government in fact agreed that there was over-exploitation and, quite rightly I think, cut back very substantially. But once again we are seeing the signs, in the pelagic industry, of over-exploitation and the Government disregards those signs at its peril.

I now come to the rock lobster industry. Reference is made to the filling of quotas in the western Cape, and there is an improvement in Luderitz which I welcome. However, in regard to the South Coast rock lobster fishery there are developments which must be viewed with considerable concern.

The report concludes with a reference to the white fish industry, and the hope is expressed that the 200 mile extension will result in the industry being able to buy better trawlers and itself be able to improve its own catches because there will be less competition from foreigners. May I say here to the hon. the Minister that I agree that some of the foreigners who have traditionally caught fish off our shores should be given limited rights of exploitation, but it should always be remembered that our own fishing industry should be given the prior right of exploitation.

The rock lobster situation I referred to last year or the year before. The hon. the Minister knows, as well as I do, that black market operations continue with impunity. He knows that contraventions of existing regulations take place with impunity and he knows that when people are brought to court they are given a ridiculously low fine, of a few hundred rand, whereas the lobster that they have illegally caught might be valued at anything up to R20 000 to R40 000. The patrol system is not working and the administration in the rock lobster industry is parlous. I do not want to go into details. I think the hon. the Minister is aware of them. His department is certainly aware of the situation.

In the perlemoen industry too there is a flourishing black market trade. In the light of all these facts, I therefore think that the hon. the Minister has to restructure the whole of the Fisheries Division. My own view is that it is quite wrong for the department to have its headquarters in Pretoria. The Du Plessis Commission report—I think it was tabled here in 1972—made a good suggestion by recommending that the headquarters of the fishing industry should be here in Cape Town and that there should be a clear division between the research activities of the Division of Sea Fisheries and the control aspect of the department. I think that is a good suggestion. Shortly after that report was tabled, the hon. the Minister introduced a new Sea Fisheries Act. I think it was a good attempt to right things that were obviously wrong. I think it has been helpful, but I do not think it is working as well as it should have worked. I do not think it is working because of the reasons so ably set out in that very detailed report which took five years to draw up. The people who worked on that report were people who know what they were about. I think the hon. the Minister must now look again at the Act itself and must be prepared to consider withdrawing that Act and replacing it with a more effective Act The Act, I think, should be based substantially on the provisions of the report he has in his possession. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively to the remarks by the hon. member for Simonstown. I am not surprised that, with some jealousy in his heart, he requests that protective steps be taken in the False Bay region against the activities of the West Coast fishing boats. That is quite understandable. I saw that he issued a statement to the Press recently in which he said that the Minister was going to keep the West Coast boats out of False Bay.

I made no such statement.

Well, a very definite statement of his appeared in the Press. I approached the hon. the Minister and put to him the case of the West Coast people, and hon. members know the stand the hon. the Minister has taken towards this matter in advance.

He is on your side.

Yes, he is on my side. We live in a democratic country and I have no objection to the hon. member taking the matter further in order to get the bay protected. As far as I am concerned, I have to join battle with the hon. member because, of necessity, I have to take the side of my people and the fishing industry off our West Coast.

I want to use the few minutes at my disposal to supplement what I regard as a very neat speech made last night by the hon. member for Tygervallei. He spoke of the growth momentum and the economic development of the Western Cape, the oldest civilized part of our country. Without repeating them, I want to say that I agree wholeheartedly with every argument he advanced last night. In fact, about 12 years ago we in the Western Cape started a very serious discussion in which we said to the Government: Look, we are still lagging. We today are harbouring three quarters of our country’s Brown population. There is Black intrusion into the Western Cape and the PFP, the party of the greatest evil, opposes us when we resist it We brought these problems to the attention of the Government. We pointed out that if one looks at the situation as a whole, we are actually lagging.

Now that quite a few years have gone by, I want to say today that I want to take my hat off to what this Government has done over the past few years with regard to the overall growth momentum in the Western Cape. Let me just briefly give a few examples without motivating them. There is the fine, imaginative water plan for the Boland which is under construction and progressing well. Just the other day you had the opportunity of accompanying us and the hon. the Minister to look at the giant plan being implemented there. Then there are the housing schemes for our Coloureds. If one has a look at Mitchell’s Plain, or at Atlantis on the other side, one sees all the things that are being done with regard to housing for Brown people in this area. I can continue in this way showing how the Government has done its share by initiating projects so as to stimulate this part of the world again and to provide a stimulus for growth.

Now, at last, we have eventually come to a region with regard to which the Government said: Look, here at Saldanha, somewhat removed from the Cape metropolitan area, we want to create a specific growth point. We have made great progress in that respect. A guide plan for this region has been completed. The water project for this area has also been completed. At this stage the cost of that project is already R42 million. By the time it has been finished, it will cost R56 million. A guide plan has been drawn up for the development and planning of this specific area Today it is a fact that some of the longest trains in the world come from Sishen to Saldanha to offload their ore there. Already some of the biggest ore-carriers in the world are coming to load the ore there. Therefore, we have succeeded in causing this growth momentum. However, it is also true that this whole process in the Saldanha region was coupled with the idea of the construction of a semis works in this specific region. When these economic bottlenecks appeared, the foreign group which was prepared to help us, did not see their way clear to helping us any more. For our part, we asked the Government whether we could not form a consortium of South African combines that could set up such a project at Saldanha. Here again—I stand to be corrected by the hon. the Minister—it seems to me that in fact we are not going to succeed. Therefore, we have done everything in the complex to create the atmosphere for the growth and establishment of a whole new world in that region. Now we are up against the situation that the semis works of Iscor cannot be continued with.

I want to make two suggestions to the hon. the Minister this afternoon. In view of the overall pattern in the Western Cape, I want to ask him whether it is not possible to find a formula which will enable us to muster our own capital power, with the Government standing security, to start such a processing unit on a more limited and modest scale?

We are not going to do it on a large scale, but we can start at a certain point in consultation with the department. Then I think we shall be able to take the situation further. Therefore I want to ask him: Can we not see whether we cannot take this plan further? If this cannot happen, cannot the IDC take a special look at this situation? Can the hon. the Minister not instruct that body which falls under his department to ascertain what the situation is at the moment at the growth point which we have created, because it would now seem that in fact the project is fizzling out as a result of circumstances. Can we not do something about this situation?

There is one aspect in particular which causes me serious concern; The question of the use of Coloured labour in this region. There are fine examples in the Western Cape today of bodies that have come forward and made use of this Coloured labour. I want to quote the case of Escom because I think that organization is an outstanding example. In April 1977 Escom had approximately 1 000 Black labourers under contract. The number of non-Black labourers under contract came to 520 and the grand total was therefore 1 516 compared with 820 Coloureds. Today this organization is changing this picture dramatically. At the moment the number of Blacks who are working for the organization, but not under contract, is only 414 compared with 1 765 Coloureds. What is most important, however, is that Escom opened a small office at Oakdale where work-seekers can apply. The number of Coloureds who have reported to this office over the past 10 to 12 months—not to the Cape Town regional office of the Department of Labour—comes to 9 142. I mention this at the same time as the position of the Saldanha complex because that project was mainly built with a view to White and Brown complementing each other there. It is possible and it is a situation which we should consider seriously. The figures already indicate that the Western Cape will have a total of 1,5 million Coloureds and 526 000 Whites in 1980. If 39% of the Coloureds are economically active, the region will have a Coloured labour force of 480 000 by 1980. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I just want to reply very briefly to hon. members who have taken part in the debate since I last spoke. I want to begin by referring to the requests of four hon. members who made specific representations with regard to the regions in which they live or which they represent.

The hon. member for Tygervallei drew my attention to a problem relating to the situation in the Western Cape, as did the hon. member for Moorreesburg. I agree with the principle that the Government should endeavour to ensure that geographically balanced economic development takes place. In fact, I think that this is apparent from the fact that we have a decentralization programme which has been introduced at great cost for the very purpose of reducing the negative factors, if it is not possible to eliminate them. In the second place, there is the acceptance of the principle that an over-concentration at certain places has many disadvantages. Thirdly, we should rather bring the job opportunities to the labour force than the other way round. I fully appreciate all the negative factors mentioned by the hon. member. I have already ordered an investigation of the power tariffs, and I understand that this investigation has made good progress. The hon. member also referred to two other factors which ought, I believe, to be thoroughly investigated, i.e. the cost of transporting raw materials and the cost of transporting products to the market. I agree with the hon. member that this part of the country naturally has a great potential for growth and that steps will probably have to be taken by the State in the meantime in order to initiate and stimulate the process. I now want to read to hon. members a request which was addressed to the Registrar of the University of Stellenbosch by my department as a result of representations. For the sake of completeness I shall read the request. The reply to the hon. member’s request is therefore positive. I quote the request—

In response to what the hon. member for Moorreesburg said in this connection, I want to point out that the hon. member has been personally involved in a great deal of the development in the Western Cape. I want to compliment the hon. member on his undisguised enthusiasm for the development of this particular area. I believe it is necessary— not only from a purely economic point of view, but also in terms of the political philosophy subscribed to by this party—that Lebensraum and opportunities should be created for the Coloured people in the Western Cape and that they should enjoy priority in this particular connection. I have already spoken about this in public and I should like to reaffirm it this afternoon. I do not want to adopt too pessimistic an attitude with regard to the delayed development at Saldanha Bay. As a result of the general economic climate in the country, there has been a deceleration in the total economic growth and development of the country. However, I trust that in the long-term, after we have overcome these short-term problems, we shall have balanced development in the future.

As far as the semis factory is concerned, I must be honest at the moment and say that I am quite prepared to leave its construction in the hands of the private sector. In fact, negotiations were initially entered into with private sector capital from abroad. However, there is no reason why it cannot be done with internal capital. We must be realistic, though, and I want to point out that because of the present industrial and economic situation, there is a general decline in the market of the manufacturers of steel products and the market of the ore itself and there is actually a surplus capacity. I should think it would be more realistic to wait until there is a revival in economic activity and then to look at these things again. I undertake to do that.

The hon. member for East London North made a special plea for that specific area During an investigation which took place recently, an investigation at which the hon. member for East London North, the hon. member for Albany and their colleagues were present, it was put to me that there were special factors obtaining in East London and the surrounding border area. These factors relate to certain disadvantages—I do not want to go into them now—in the light of which the concessions in terms of the decentralization policy in this particular case and region should be reconsidered with a view to bringing it about on higher levels or in other forms. After the discussion we had, I took steps which I consider to have been the right ones. I requested the University of Port Elizabeth to make a survey of these factors for me, and when I receive the report, the position in that particular area will receive attention.

The other areas whose interests were propagated by the hon. member for Walmer are the Port Elizabeth area and the Eastern Cape. The hon. member asked me for a lot of things, including concessions. He specifically referred to the possibility of exchange cover in respect of exchange rates for import financing. This is a matter for the Department of Finance, but I want to tell him that an investigation which includes this particular subject is being conducted at the moment under the leadership of Dr. De Kock of the Reserve Bank, and we are just waiting for that report. The Eastern Cape has also requested the status of an export process area. Dr. McCarthy’s report in this connection is nearing completion, and when I have received the report and the Government is able to take a stand on matters of principle, the claims of East London will be considered.

Mr.

Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he can give us any idea when that report, in fact, will be finalized and when the Cabinet will have had a chance to consider it?

All I can say at this stage is that I am expecting the report within a few weeks and not months.

The hon. member for Walmer also asked me whether the Government would not be prepared, considering the numbers of Black people who live in the Eastern Cape and more specifically in the Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage complex, to comply with the request made especially by the businessmen of the area concerned not to declare the area a Coloured labour preference area I have discussed this matter with my hon. colleague, the Minister of Planning and the Environment, and I now want to announce that he has indicated that he is prepared to consider the request favourably. In fact, the Government has decided that the preference in respect of the Coloured people there is going to fall away. The Minister of Planning and the Environment will issue a statement about this within the next day or two and there will also be a proclamation in this connection.

The hon. member for Alberton drew my attention to certain problems in connection with energy and asked me to give attention to the possible processing or manufacture of etanol from wood. Of course, we must give preference at this stage to the specific products which can be utilized in the most economic way at the moment. However, if and when we have dealt with these products, we shall be able to look at these representations as well.

The hon. member for Albany made a very interesting contribution about the fishing industry. I want to discuss the hon. member’s second request first. He pointed out that a great deal of work was being done at Rhodes University in respect of fish science. I am aware of this. In fact, the general manager of Fishcor is a member of the board of control of the institute of Rhodes University and we have great appreciation for the work which is being done there. Secondly, bursaries are also made available to students who want to study marine biology or other disciplines relating to the fishing industry. I think it might be too ambitious to think of a chair in fish science at this stage. However, I want to tell the hon. member that I appreciate his co-operation. We shall gladly provide any assistance we are able to in this connection.

The hon. member made a plea for the fresh water fishing industry, an industry which is gaining in importance. The hon. member will know that the Sea Fisheries Division of my own department is primarily responsible for undertaking sea fishery research and control and for investigating harbour works and facilities with the aid of Fishcor. Fishcor is responsible for the harbour works, facilities, loans for boats, housing for fishermen, etc. Up to now, it has been the department’s task to do research about the factors determining the extent and availability of the fish resources and to advise us about the exploitable quotas, etc. There is merit in the idea of developing our fresh water fisheries. In this particular connection, great commercial development has already taken place, especially in the Transvaal. I know that the Transvaal as well as the Cape Provincial Administrations are conducting research and furnishing information to farmers. If the department is to be involved in the fresh water fishing industry, I think it should only handle the commercial part of it. I am quite prepared to discuss this matter with other parties in order to see whether we can accede to the representations of the hon. member.

The hon. member for Innesdal endorsed the representations of the hon. member for Yeoville about the position of the small businessman. I have great sympathy for the standpoints of both hon. members. In fact, I think it can be shown that the State does take an interest in this category of businessmen. The State has shown its interest by rendering assistance to the Small Business Advisory Bureau in Potchefstroom. The hon. member will find that the contribution in this connection was drastically increased a year ago, because we realize the value of the bureau’s work, as well as the needs which exist The IDC also plays an important part in this connection.

It may interest the hon. member to know that the small manufacturing concerns form an important part of the activities of the IDC. The IDC does not only supply loan funds; it even builds factory sets, which can be offered for hire, at the growth points in rural areas, and it also advises on the planning and management of new enterprises. Since 1962, when a special division was established for small industries, until June 1977, a11 applications for assistance were approved. At the moment there are 174 factory sets in 16 different towns in our country. Since the introduction of these factory sets, 17 of them have been sold to lessees and a further six have been converted into leasehold buildings and let in the normal way. The IDC also possesses 18 factory sets at Chatsworth in Natal, which are managed by the Indian Industrial Development Corporation. This division was recently expanded by the IDC. The chairman has assured me that all applications by small businesses are handled with the greatest sympathy and understanding. They also help people who have submitted good schemes to them to come into contact with other people who have the funds available. From the nature of the case, it is undesirable for our people to operate un-economically in the business sphere.

I want to say in passing that we speak of a free market economy and then we think that the freedom of the entrepreneur is the only factor involved, forgetting about the freedom of the worker in his options. Let me state my attitude in this connection. I think we shall have to take a very good look at the position of the employee in this country, at the restrictive regulations and administrative rules applicable to him. I think that the appointment of the Wiehahn Commission by my hon. colleague and the Riekert Commission by the hon. the Prime Minister to go into these particular matters is an indication that the Government is conducting an in-depth investigation into the position of the employees as well, in order to reduce the red tape which is often one of the major problems for the small businessman who does not have the administrative machinery for bringing his business into line with all these requirements. In this connection I think we shall have to take a very good look at the restrictive regulations, policy decisions and even statutory provisions. We must simplify these. We must reduce them to an absolute minimum and encourage the mobility of labour, making it possible for people to employ these workers. I think this is extremely important.

According to the latest statistics available to me about the small businessman—a small businessman is defined, as the hon. member himself says, as a one-man concern, partnership or private company—there were 52 149 retailers and commercial institutions. Of these, 48 731 were small business enterprises. Their share of the retail turnover in the year concerned was approximately 65% of R3 715 million. I want to concede at once that these statistics are rather outdated, and an investigation, as requested by the hon. member, could be useful in showing us, too, whether we are succeeding in our other attempts.

I shall not reply in detail to the speech made by the hon. member for Wonderboom, except for saying that he touched upon one of the vital points of our future industrial strategy. This is that we have to accept, in the first place, that South Africa cannot keep on exporting capital indefinitely. Capital in the form of raw materials is something which can be exhausted and is irreplaceable, while we have one great factor which is replaceable, namely labour. Therefore it must be a policy decision and direction on the part of the Government to develop to the maximum the added value in the form of labour in respect of all our raw materials. I agree with the hon. member and I shall discuss this matter with my other colleagues. I just want to confirm that he knows that we already have a policy of division in respect of our raw materials, of our minerals. Therefore I do not think it is a question of a principle which is at stake. It is rather a question of momentum and of doing the work. I promise to take this further.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti is not here. He apologized to me for the fact that he would be absent. However, he must not furnish incorrect facts to the House. He put it to the House as a fact that there was now a surplus of 22% in power generation by Escom. Surely that is not true. It is stated quite clearly on page 5 of the Electricity Supply Commission’s annual report for 1977 that—

The report further indicates that it is the reserves which stand at 22%. Therefore the figure does not refer to a surplus, but to the reserves. The hon. member might also have a look at the projection for the future. In the second place, the hon. member accused us of having taken capital for expansions last year and again this year. But the policy decisions in respect of those power stations were not taken this year or last year; they were taken during an economic boom. In the second place, one cannot phase in a power station. This is a supply which moves on levels, after all. When the power station has been completed, it will most probably produce more than is required at that moment. After all, it is obvious that when a power station is built, it is not done with a view to a backlog, but in accordance with estimated future requirements. In the third place, the hon. member ought to know that Escom has never been financed by the State in any way, and that its sources of capital are fourfold. Escom gets its capital from foreign capital, from export credits, from internal loans and from tariffs. How many times do I have to say that we have to generate capital ourselves because of the economic climate in the trade countries we used to borrow from and because of the oil crisis. This has reduced their ability to lend money to us. There have also been political events which have had a negative effect on the flow of capital. Like other corporations, Escom did not have any means of doing this other than by way of tariffs. This was exactly the same as the Railways also had to do. If we had rather followed this policy before, thereby generating our own capital, it would not have been necessary for us in these difficult times to have recourse to such drastic increases.

They really were drastic!

Of course they were drastic. I am the first to admit that However, I want to take the matter further. The hon. member alleges that we are responsible for inflation. However, he maintains that it is a cost-push inflation. But what about wages and salaries? Have hon. members on the other side not told us to remove the wage gap? Has this not had an effect on the cost structures? Has it not had an effect for the very reason that the wage increases have not been accompanied by increased productivity? I am not condemning this, but we cannot plead for one thing in a specific field, just to argue about it when we see the result. Surely that is wrong.

Furthermore, the hon. member says that it is due to the policy of the Government that we cannot obtain any capital. However, I have explained to the hon. member what the reasons for this are. In any event, there is a surplus capacity in South Africa at the moment. This is also a situation which serves to increase costs because the fixed costs remain the same. For that reason, the cost per unit is also higher. It is therefore also possible to encourage the declining tendency in the inflation rate to which the hon. member referred by stimulating the economy, by taking up that capacity, by lowering unit prices and, naturally, by lowering the inflation rate.

The hon. member forgets that South Africa is the only country which has succeeded in obtaining a voluntary agreement between the business sector, the industrialists, the workers and the State with regard to discipline concerning prices, wages and salaries. Last but not least, the hon. member argues about the administered prices.

I want to ask him whether it is not true that the Railways transports a large volume of freight below cost Is it not necessary, therefore, for the shortfalls to be supplemented by those goods that are transported at higher cost? Or does the hon. member expect the tax-payer to subsidize the Railways? If the hon. member is in favour of that, then he has a valid argument. Until he declares his support for that, however, the hon. member’s argument is invalid.

The hon. member for Potgietersrust discussed an important theme. I want to put it to the hon. member that our commercial and economic ties with Africa are not being limited by political considerations at the moment. They are being limited by financial considerations. Therefore I want to tell the hon. member that it is true that the economic interdependence of countries, in Africa as well, cuts across the political borders. I agree with the hon. member that all the possibilities are there for the formation of blocs—economically speaking—in Southern Africa in the future, which will be comparable with the formation of regional blocs—also economically speaking—in other areas. I promise the hon. member that I shall do everything in my power to make this vision a reality. It already exists in an embryonic form in terms of our agreements with Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland, and with other countries such as Bophuthatswana and Transkei. Therefore it is a new expanding vision to which we must apply ourselves with patience and dedication, but I believe that we shall eventually solve this problem and that this dream of ours will come true.

The hon. member for Maitland endorsed the remarks made by the hon. members for Germiston District, Newcastle and others in referring to our economic system. I do not want to say much about this. We shall only be able to sell our economic system to our Brown and Black people on certain conditions. Firstly, we must strip that system of its evils. It would be dishonest of me to deny today that the image of the system is determined, in the eyes of the people of colour, by those who have to satisfy their everyday needs in shops, cafés, restaurants, etc. I want to repeat: There are those who exploit these people. I think the business community is under an obligation to help us rid the system of abuses. The people who have most to say about this are the greatest exploiters. [Interjections.] Secondly, we can do this by enabling these people to participate in the economic life of the country, not only as workers, but also as entrepreneurs. We have made progress in this connection. We have provided the instruments, such as the Coloured Development Corporation and the Indian Development Corporation, to which I have already referred, to make this possible. We have changed the legislation to remove the colour bar in industrial development and industrial areas. When we look at the progress which has already been made, we have reason to be grateful. Hon. members must understand that when we endorse a system, we must not only do so in theory. We must also take steps to make it a reality. In respect of our standpoint on this particular subject, it is quite clear that we are not only paying lip service to the particular system, but that we are taking the steps to implement it. In terms of a standing order of my department, no public corporation may expand its activities in spheres belonging to the private sector, unless it is authorized to do so by the Cabinet itself. Secondly, the mechanism has been created in terms of which aggrieved business concerns may complain if their spheres are infringed upon. That committee functions continuously and has a sound record of solving the complaints submitted to it. Thirdly, I have taken up the standpoint that in respect of the public corporations, activities which are not related to their main objectives must be transferred to the private sector if the private sector is able to undertake them. There is not the slightest doubt about my standpoint in principle in this particular connection. This applies to all the public corporations. However, hon. members will understand that this can only take place in an economic climate in which it is in fact possible for them to be taken over. Naturally, we cannot give away these assets in poor economic conditions.

I want to conclude by saying that I foresee an improvement in the general economic conditions in the year to come, although our achievements in regard to exports will fall short of what we have achieved in the past. Therefore, the contribution from that quarter is likely to be much less than it was last year. As far as the gold price is concerned, I want to say that it would be unwise to rely too much on a further sharp increase in the gold price. Therefore, I think, the economic revival will depend on internal factors. When we look at the high measure of unutilized production capacity which still exists, it appears unlikely that there will be a large measure of fixed investment, or that this will play a role, except in the case of certain public corporations and Government enterprises.

As far as the public sector is concerned, I want to be quite honest with hon. members. It is very clear that the proposed moderately stimulating effect of the budget comes from the financing side and not from the side of public spending, because we want to keep public spending within the limits of the inflation rate, as everyone asked us to do. The only remaining factors of the internal demand components which could have a stimulating effect on production are private consumer spending and stock investment. All active attempts which I think are presently being made in the private and the public sector to replace imports in terms of our import replacement policy must lend additional stimulus to this momentum which I think is going to come. As regards consumer spending by the private sector, the latest available statistics indicate that there has been a rise in retail sales transactions. This is much clearer from the figures of the motor vehicles industry. From the data in respect of our national account it is also clear that non-agricultural supplies have reached a very low level. So there are low levels of inventory, and I believe that these will be reinforced. I think, therefore, that there are reassuring circumstances.

Finally, I want to tell the hon. member for Bloemfontein North that I want to join him and other hon. members in emphasizing once again that our economic abilities depend on the proper, orderly and regulated utilization of all the assets available to us: Mineral assets, raw materials, all our labour, our expertise and our will to conquer. They are also determined by the political stability in the country and by our ability to live together in peace. Another determining factor is our ability to do justice to people’s legitimate aspirations. In the final analysis, the potential of this country is the sum total of its technical resources, its human resources, and especially its spiritual resources and power. This applies to all its people. I do not doubt for a moment that we have learnt that we cannot be guided in the sensitive arrangements in this country by the prejudices of yesterday, but that we have to be guided by a new vision of the country we live in, a country in which diversity is not destroyed, but becomes the basis of growth and development. Then we shall have the economic, spiritual, military and political stability to lead this country to the heights it ought to attain. I thank all the hon. members for their contributions.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has not reacted to what I said about the Escom charges and the differences between the eight undertakings of Escom. I want to know whether he approves of the extreme differences in the Escom charges and whether he intends doing anything to rectify and equalize this charging system.

Mr. Chairman, I have explained to the hon. member, and all other hon. members, that in terms of the existing Act every undertaking has to be self-sufficient. In other words, everyone has to balance out. Because of that, and because of the historical pattern of development in the supply of power in South Africa, we have found that there are disparities between the power charges in the various undertakings. Last year I announced an inquiry by the Board of Trade and Industries into the whole question of a tariff structure for South Africa, one that might be applied on a national basis. Until such time as I have received that report, I can obviously not amend the Act.

Are you expecting it shortly?

Yes.

Votes agreed to.

Vote No. 26.—“Justice”:

Mr. Chairman, if you will allow me, I should like to make a few announcements at the outset. In the first place, I want to refer to the law of divorce.

The report of the South African Law Commission regarding the law of divorce and related matters was tabled in the House of Assembly on 10 May 1978. The Bill proposed by the commission was published in the Gazette on 21 April 1978 for general information, and interested parties have been given an opportunity to comment on the proposed measure up to 30 May 1978.

The proposals of the Law Commission are of a far-reaching nature, and if they are accepted, our existing legal position will change drastically. In view of the great interest that is taken in the matter, I should very much have liked to introduce the proposed legislation during this Parliamentary session. However, as I have said, comment is still being awaited up to 30 May 1978, and after that we shall have to consider any problems which may have been pointed out and any further proposals which may have been made. It is unlikely that this would leave any time for the proper consideration of the measure concerned before the end of the session.

Since we are concerned here, amongst other things, with principles of our common law, principles which have developed over a period of centuries, we would do well to take our time and to give everyone sufficient opportunity to make a careful study of the proposals.

Under these circumstances, I am obliged to inform hon. members that the proposed Bill will not be introduced during this session. This will leave us a reasonable time for examining these proposals in depth and presenting a well-considered measure to this House.

†I should also like to say a few words about persons detained in terms of the Terrorism Act. In a statement in the House on 1 March 1978 I made reference to the appointment of one or more retired jurists to visit persons detained in terms of the Terrorism Act. I have now appointed two such persons.

As from 1 June 1978 Mr. W. M. van den Berg, S.C., former Attorney-General of the Cape, will visit detained persons in the Cape Province and Natal. Mr. A. J. Mouton, former Chief Magistrate of Pretoria, will visit persons detained in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. If it is later deemed necessary further appointments will be made.

These gentlemen will be empowered at any time to visit, unannounced and unhindered, persons detained in terms of the Act. It will be their full-time task and they will report regularly to me.

This step is in addition to existing measures designed to protect detainees and the police, measures such as the visits of magistrates as prescribed by the Act, the visits of district surgeons and other measures already in force.

I make this announcement under the Justice Vote because these two gentlemen will be appointed by the Department of Justice. I feel constrained to stress again that I have the fullest faith in the integrity of and the methods employed by the Security Police, but because the Act does make provision for incarceration without recourse to the courts, I believe that the appointment of these two gentlemen of high repute, who will have access to the detainees, will allay any fears which the public may have for their safety, and will also act as a protection for such detainees, but will also, I hope, stop unfair criticism of the Security Police, who are doing a magnificent job for the protection of the lives and property of our people.

*Then I should like to say a few words about the shebeens. I announced last year that a committee of the Liquor Board would investigate shebeens in the Black metropolitan areas to find out how the Black man can enter the legal liquor trade in such areas.

Especially as a result of the riots which were still being experienced in certain Black areas last year, no progress was made with the investigation. However, it will shortly commence, particularly now that community councils have been instituted and it will be possible to draw on their knowledge in this connection as well. They will be consulted in an attempt to obtain their assistance in normalizing liquor distribution for the benefit of those who obtain licences and in the interests of the entire community.

I also want to say a few words about non-Whites as barmen. The employment of Bantu as barmen in hotels for Whites is prohibited in terms of licence conditions. In the same way, non-Whites may not be employed as barmen in ladies’ bars. I have reconsidered the conditions in this connection and it has been decided to abolish them. I trust that this step will not lead to the summary replacement of White employees by non-Whites. I also want to warn that if this step gives rise to irregularities on licenced premises, very strong action will be taken against the licencees concerned.

†Mr. Chairman, I would also like to make a few remarks concerning so-called international status for liquor licensed establishments with special reference to liquor licensed sports clubs in non-White areas in respect of which there seems to be some misunderstanding. In 1975 the Liquor Act was amended to make provision for the granting on application of what has become known as international status to on-consumption liquor licensed establishments intended for occupation by White persons. This was done after a Select Committee of this House had investigated the position and had come to the conclusion that a need had arisen for non-White persons, under certain circumstances, to be accommodated at certain establishments liquor licensed for—I repeat and stress this— White persons, and where such non-Whites could be provided with liquor and refreshments. A number of hotels for White persons have since 1975 applied for and been granted international status. The relevant provision also applies to liquor licensed clubs for White persons and a number of applications by such institutions are at present under consideration.

As far as we can ascertain there are in existence in the Republic a handful of liquor licensed clubs for non-White persons. One of these—a sports club—saw fit this year to submit an application for so-called international status. According to the applicant’s representations which accompanied the application, he made the application “notwithstanding the fact that the wording of the said section 81(3) appears to relate to clubs which have been established for the use or convenience of White persons’’.

The Liquor Board correctly found at a recent meeting that this particular application could not legally succeed, because the club is licensed for Indian persons only and is situated in an Indian group area. This application should never have been brought to the Liquor Board. The local board conditions of the licence held by this sports club prohibit the licensee from supplying liquor and refreshments to White persons and to Bantu. All the licensee had to do was to apply for and obtain a group areas permit in terms of proclamation R228 of 1973 and thereafter approach my department for an amendment of the relevant condition of his liquor licence.

Mr. Chairman, before I ask for the half-hour, I would like to have your ruling on whether or not I am able to motivate what I intend doing, and that is to move a reduction of the hon. the Minister’s salary. I have to do this under the Justice Vote for there is no salary for the hon. the Minister as the Minister of Police or as the Minister of Prisons. My reason for wanting to move this reduction concerns the administration of the security laws of this country which were introduced by the Minister of Justice at the time. I am now referring to the Terrorism Act and to the Internal Security Act.

I have a problem, because there are two departments involved, but I would like to point out that it was the hon. the Minister of Justice who originally introduced these Acts and I also have to point out that in previous years we have discussed the question of persons detained under these Acts during the Justice Vote. Mr. Chairman, I would like your ruling before I say anything further, because, depending on your ruling, I shall have to ask for the privilege of the half-hour. Will you give a ruling, Sir?

The hon. member can proceed.

While you are considering your ruling, Sir, I shall say a few words in reply …

Do you not want the privilege of the half-hour?

I do want the privilege of the half-hour, but not if I cannot motivate the reasons for removing the hon. the Minister’s salary. If that is the case, I shall ask for the privilege of the half-hour during the discussion of the hon. the Minister’s other Vote.

This is quite a difficult question for me to decide upon immediately. I shall give a ruling tomorrow morning.

Well, then I shall merely waffle now!

The hon. member may ask for the privilege of the half-hour tomorrow.

Thank you, Sir. In the first place I want to say a few words about the statements that the hon. the Minister has made this afternoon. I am very disappointed that there will not be time to introduce the new laws relating to divorce. I have seen the draft Bill and I have attended a very interesting conference at the University of the Witwatersrand. I am aware of the pitfalls and I am, of course, consulting various expert bodies and a lot of women’s organizations about this Bill. By and large I would have said, however, that certainly the intent behind the new draft divorce legislation is a decided step forward in a modern direction and the sooner this sort of legislation is introduced, the better. I feel that I am voicing the opinion of a large number of people when I say it will come as a disappointment if the hon. the Minister is, after all, not going to introduce this legislation.

The hon. the Minister, although he is now speaking in his capacity as Minister of Justice, informs us today that he has finally done something about the appointment of the so-called jurists—I think he called them “regsgeleerdes”—to supervise the implementation of section 6 of the Terrorism Act. He has appointed these two people who are going to visit detainees. I must say that I am glad to hear this, though I am surprised that it has taken the hon. the Minister such a long time to carry out the promises which he made, the undertakings that he gave earlier this session here to Parliament and also to the General Bar Council, who approached him—I may say at long last—on the whole question of detention following on the death of Steve Biko in detention under what I consider to be appalling circumstances.

You are a Biko addict.

No, I am not a Biko addict.

Of course you are!

Those hon. members would like to forget all about Biko and they are not going to be allowed to forget all about him; not by me and not by the world, that I can assure them.

Tell us of the Biko fund that you have contributed to.

The hon. the Minister also told us that he was going to issue certain instructions about the manner in which people, who are detained under section 6 of the Terrorism Act, were to be treated.

That falls under another Vote altogether.

The hon. the Minister wants that to be discussed under another Vote. The hon. the Minister has a dichotomy which I am unfortunately not allowed to share. He is able to introduce the subject of the appointment of his jurists, but I am not allowed to discuss the manner in which the measure is going to be implemented.

Jurists are appointed under the Department of Justice.

I shall leave the matter there, because I shall have my opportunity to discuss it during the Police Vote. I shall then raise the entire matter under the Police Vote and I shall therefore take less time under this Vote. It makes no difference to me.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order and also on another point: In view of the fact that you are unable to give a ruling at this particular stage, in view of the lateness of the hour and in view of the fact that this ruling will dictate the whole course of the debate, I would like to move the adjournment of the debate.

Order! In terms of Standing Order No. 77(1)(g) a private member may not move the adjournment of the Committee.

I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that it certainly comes as a great disappointment to all of us that the report of the Cillié Commission is not going to be available for discussion this session. Earlier on I asked the hon. the Minister when the report was expected, and he said probably in May. However, later, in reply to a question by another hon. member, he told us that it very likely was not going to be produced in time for us to discuss it this session. I want to point out that this means that Parliament will not be able to discuss this very important question until 2½ years after the unrest started in June 1976, and in the meantime much valuable information has been denied us. I have put many questions to the hon. the Minister this year on the riots—questions concerning the number of people killed or wounded and various other questions like that—and to all of them he has given me the same reply, i.e. that all this information has been referred to the Cillié Commission and that he does not think it would be fair and in the public interest to disclose any figures until the Cillié report is published.

You yourself asked for that commission.

Yes, I asked for the commission, but I did not think it was going to sit for ever.

Why are you then against something which you asked for?

Now please! The hon. the Minister must not distort what I said.

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

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the word “distort”, but I still feel that the hon. the Minister must not change the meaning of what I said. What I said was that I was disappointed that the report has not yet appeared, which is very different from saying that I now regret having asked for a commission to be appointed. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, in order to abide by the rules of the House and a ruling which you are not able to give this evening, I am going to be very brief and, I shall have, I am afraid, to move my amendment without motivation this afternoon. However, I promise the hon. the Minister and the hon. members of the House that I shall certainly be motivating my amendment when I talk on the Police Vote. Mr. Chairman, I move—

You will force me back to the Bar!

Well, I think the hon. the Minister might even earn more money at the Bar. Who knows, he also might not earn more!

You will have to make a contribution from your secret fund!

I doubt very much whether I would brief the hon. the Minister if I found myself in legal difficulties.

The Minister has got his own secret fund.

On the other hand, if the hon. the Minister ends up as a briefless barrister, I might consider him a worthy cause and help him from my so-called secret fund.

I have to say that most of the complaints that I have about him are to do with the lack of administration and supervision which he has exercised over the two very far-reaching measures for which he is responsible, i.e. the Terrorism Act and of course the Internal Security Act. I shall be giving details of my misgivings about the manner in which these two Acts have been carried out. There are, however, other matters … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton is the chief spokesman of the Official Opposition, not on Steve Biko, internal security, and terrorism, but on justice. [Interjections.] If ever there was proof of the political bankruptcy of the Opposition and their inability to discuss those matters which are the purpose of these debates, viz. the administration of the country as a whole, then it is the plodding she has been doing for the past 10 minutes. If the hon. member wanted to wait and speak after you gave your ruling, Sir, why did she not say a few words about the annual report of the Department of Justice? She cannot level a single word of criticism at this annual report of the Department of Justice. Otherwise they are so obsessed by Biko, detentions and the security of the State that they probably did not even condescend to look at this report.

[Inaudible.]

I want to tell that hon. member in all sincerity that I anticipated her proposing that the hon. the Minister’s salary be reduced. I want to tell her, however, that by means of this motion she will make neither the hon. the Minister nor the country bankrupt. Tomorrow we shall talk to her about the functions of the hon. the Minister and about the fairness of her motion.

I should like to refer to the annual report of the Department of Justice now. I really want to congratulate the Secretary for Justice and his Department who are responsible for a report of this nature. This report is exceptionally lucid, enlightening and comprehensive. It provides an overall view of the vastness and comprehensiveness of the activities of the department. It lays particular stress on the activities of the department during 1977, which was a very full year for the department. Apart from any other activities, a new Liquor Act and a new Criminal Procedure Act were put in operation. The implementation of those two Acts alone required immense organization, preparation, guidance and instruction. The positive effects of the Criminal Procedure Act are already apparent in this report.

What is particularly gratifying in this report, is that the acute shortage of staff which really hampered the department a few years ago, is rapidly solving itself. If there is any lesson for us in that, it would be that staff problems are of a seasonal nature, which means that one does not necessarily have to deal with them in a permanent manner. I am very glad to see that as far as skilled staff in particular are concerned, the shortage is rapidly decreasing.

I think it should be said, however, that the Secretary states in this report that in spite of opportunities to fill vacancies, he filled them with discretion and deliberation so that he could still comply with the appeal made by the Treasury that the various Government departments should economize, it is clear from this report that he has not merely filled vacancies left, right and centre, but that the staff of the Department of Justice have really tried to economize in every imaginable way. For example, it is mentioned in the report that the skilled and other staff of the magisterial division alone worked 96 322 hours overtime without extra pay. I think this is indeed a praiseworthy example for which the Committee should convey their sincere thanks to the Secretary and his officials. I want to conclude by congratulating the Secretary on this report.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.