Mr. Speaker, I should like to announce that by mutual agreement this House will not sit tomorrow evening but will adjourn at 18h30.

Mr. Speaker, I have learnt that the hon. member for Gezina, who was the last speaker last night, spoke mainly about the pensioners and about the good record, as he put it, of the Government in this regard. I doubt whether there would be any point in our arguing across the floor about how good or bad the record of the Government is with regard to pensioners. Pensioners are quite capable of voicing their own opinions on that score, and I believe they will definitely avail themselves of the opportunity of doing so.

†Mr. Speaker, I want to look at the position of the economy in general. I think the appropriate place to start is, as always, with the balance of payments. The figures for the first three quarters of 1978 are available and they show, again, an extremely satisfactory surplus on the current account, a surplus of R1 357 million in fact. They show, again, a deficit on the Capital Account of R278 million on the long-term side and R777 million on the short-term side. The growth reserves show little change, though the net reserves rose by R261 million as a result of the repayment of certain debts.

The situation remains therefore remarkably similar to what it was a year ago. We again have a sparkling performance on the current account while we see that performance being largely wiped out by the adverse movement on the Capital Account. It is worth reminding ourselves again that this is the opposite of the traditional situation to which we were accustomed over many years in South Africa until very recently, the situation where we normally ran deficits on current account and were able to cover these adequately by the surpluses on our Capital Account. I will return to this as part of the theme of my remarks. However, I should now like to look more widely at some of the indicators that are available.

It is a matter for considerable gratitude, on the part of hon. members, and of observers of the economy in general, that the quarterly bulletin of Census and Statistics has begun to break down the figures for the gross domestic product in real terms into the various components which make up the gross domestic product. This enables us to see that we had during the first three quarters of the last year, a clear, though not a major, upswing in private consumption expenditure of 3,5%. When one looks at it closely, however, one sees that most of that came in the pre-GST buying rush, when people spent their money as fast as they could ahead of the introduction of the sales tax, and that there was in fact a downward reaction in the third quarter. Government consumption expenditure was up by 4,6%, but gross domestic fixed investments were down by 5,9%—very nearly 6%. That meant the gross domestic expenditure would rise only marginally.

Fortunately, once more the performance of exports—the measure by which exports exceeded imports—was such that the gross domestic product was able to rise by 2,5%.

*To sum up so far: We notice a somewhat shaky tendency towards a slow improvement in the economic growth rate, based on a good export performance, but also a sustained outflow of capital and a lack of investment in the country.

It is now time for me to associate myself very strongly with what other speakers have said here about the growth rate. The figures which have been furnished and the views expressed by Dr. Simon Brand have already been quoted in the debate so I need not repeat them. However, everyone knows that it is absolutely essential, if we want to supply jobs at the rate required, for us to have a growth rate of 5% to 6% per annum, whereas we are now growing at a rate of 3% at the most, and that the most optimistic predictions put the growth rate for this year at 4%. There is some measure of uncertainty as to how exactly the most recent figures on employment and unemployment should be interpreted, but it is probably fair to say that the total number of people employed in the country is remaining more or less constant at the moment, or is showing a slight decrease. That does not take into account the new people entering the labour market—at a tempo of approximately 250 000 per annum.

The message, as hon. members on this side of the House have said—is very clear: Growing unemployment, with all the dangers it involves—not only for the economy, but also for the society—and also, a decreasing real standard of living for the average South African.

A further characteristic of the economy today is that in the midst of all the unemployment, we are also having a shortage of skilled labour, particularly in some sectors of the economy. The building industry in particular, which finds itself in the worst recession in many years, definitely and very clearly has a shortage of skills. There is no doubt whatsoever that if and when we succeed in bringing about another strong upswing in our economy, this is going to be one of the worst bottlenecks, if not the worst.

†Against this background, what should the Government do? One only has to add one’s voice to the virtually unanimous demand for stimulation. One has to agree with it. One can perhaps argue about the methods available. The hon. member for Yeoville gave the hon. the Minister a number of excellent suggestions when he spoke during this debate.

My own preference is that the stimulatory methods should be on the side of tax reduction, rather than deliberately increased Government spending, because what is above all necessary is increased discretionary spending in the pockets of consumers to enable the slack and unused capacity in the manufacturing sector to be taken up as the first step towards a revival of investments.

When the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke spoke, he was rather scornful about the hon. member for Yeoville’s request for a reduction in the income tax. He said it was “mosterd na die maal”. It was something which had already been decided and everybody knew that there was going to be a reduction in the income tax, because the hon. the Minister had said so when he introduced general sales tax. This is of course not all we are saying. We are not saying that the hon. the Minister should simply hand back to the public his calculation of what he has taken from them in the form of general sales tax. We are suggesting that he should genuinely stimulate the economy by a net reduction in taxation, effected preferably through personal and income tax.

The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke also invited the Opposition to comment on his own plea for assistance to the agricultural industry at this time in South Africa. I think it is quite clear that agriculture is going through a very difficult period, and therefore the hon. the Minister should be considering ways and means of being of assistance to the farmer. I have my doubts whether the marginal mine scheme can be adapted very easily to the case of farmers in South Africa today. I think there are probably more imaginative and constructive ways of assisting them. However, certainly a rising level of production and productivity in agriculture must be one of our major economic aims at this time and if this is done in a reasonable way, if the farmers, without undue interference with the market mechanism and without distortions in the economic patterns, can be helped, the Opposition is entirely prepared to support it.

When we talk about the stimulation which is so necessary, we must by all means not be unaware of the risks we shall be running and of the likely consequences, the certain consequences. Any stimulation of the economy at this time that will be worthwhile in scale, will do two things: increase imports and increase the rate of inflation.

I began by referring to the balance of payments and by saying that the gross reserves are more or less at a constant level and that the net reserves are somewhat, though not dramatically, improved. We have not got a great deal in hand in our gold and foreign exchange reserves. Therefore, any increase in imports will have serious consequences and is going to compel the Government to take action quite quickly. I will come to that action in a moment. We must not ignore the fact that our rate of inflation is today actually higher than many, probably most, of our main trading partners. We have become accustomed to inflation and have experienced this for many years. However, it was always possible for South Africans to say: “Yes, we have inflation, but our rate is among the lowest in the world.” Today, that is no longer true. Certainly, that is not true in relation to our trading partners, who tend to be the larger industrialized nations in the world. Therefore, if we are going to stimulate our economy—and I think that we must—we will put a further strain on our reserves, and that strain will only be aggravated if there is a partial failure of the maize crop due to the drought, and we have been told this is a distinct possibility.

This is where the interim report of the De Kock Commission comes in, because the effect of this report, as the hon. the Minister has told us, is that the value of the rand should be determined essentially by supply and demand in the market place. I am perfectly certain that that is the right thing to do. That means presumably—and I think that the hon. the Minister may wish to comment on this when he replies to the debate—that any adverse trend which develops in the balance of payments, will be allowed to exert its impact through the exchange rates. If that is going to happen, again it will have implications in planning for economic growth for the future.

*In this regard I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to explain further what he meant when he said in his introductory speech: (Hansard, 26 February)—

It seems to me as if other currencies, with the exception of the dollar, must also be involved in this. If the hon. the Minister is really going to allow the value of the rand to be determined by supply and demand on the world currency market it is not only dollars that matter, but also and in particular the currencies of our other major trading partners. I shall be glad if he would furnish further information in this regard.

Where do we stand, therefore? There is at the moment a shaky tendency towards an improvement in the general economic wellbeing of the country and a very strong current trade account which is largely, but not totally, based on the increase in the gold price. But besides that there is still the poor capital account. There seems to be a feeble recovery in consumer spending, but there is still a very low fixed investment rate. There is a high unemployment rate and at the same time a shortage of skills. I said there should be—and I am sure there will be—stimulation. If that stimulation is not to be particularly dangerous, something must also be done to improve the capital account, to encourage investment and to counter the shortage of skills. This is where, in analysing the economic well-being or otherwise of the country, one should look further than merely economic matters and data. In analysing these three weak points, viz. the poor capital account, the low investment rate and the shortage of skills, we are essentially dealing with a policy that covers a much wider spectrum. The people who have failed to invest in South Africa or, on the other hand, those who are trying to take money out of South Africa, usually do so because of a combination of two reasons.

On the one hand they believe that the policies implemented in South Africa, viz. the failure to allow Black people to fulfil their role in our economic set-up, means that we shall prove to be economically inefficient, that we shall not achieve the growth rate that we ought to achieve and therefore would not be an attractive investment field. On the other hand, they fear that the continued practice of apartheid could cause political instability. I am sure there are many hon. members in the House who often talk to investors or potential investors, either from abroad or here in this country, and I am sure those hon. members must be struck, as I am very often struck, by the political nature of most of the questions which one is asked. One is not asked what the reserves of South Africa amount to, for these people usually know that. One is not asked for economic statistics either because they usually have them already. They are usually quite satisfied with data of that kind. What they usually ask us, is: What is your political policy going to be?

†I have already referred to the potential shortage of skills, which, as Dr. Brand has said and which has been said often in this House, threatens to choke off any revival that we might have been able to achieve. Sir, it is right there where the first step has got to be the removal of all the restrictions which have always held our Black people from making the full contribution that they can make in the economy of this country. This should be done by way of very serious and urgent programmes to develop and train the skills of our Black people for the day when we can achieve anything like an economic upswing again. In the short-term we have to stimulate and we have to take the risks, but if we are to contain these risks and if we are to achieve any sustained prosperity, then we have to do something for the medium and the long term. It is in this regard that I want to join my appeal very strongly with the one that was made yesterday by the hon. member for Constantia, when he said that if the Government wished to give itself an instrument to attract new investments and to improve the Capital Account of the balance of payments, it should go out to create greater political confidence. In doing so it must publish and commit itself to a charter for reform in South Africa such as may restore investment confidence. Such a charter will have to include a number of things. It does not have to include a promise to do everything overnight. In my experience the view of potential investors is usually sensible and conservative. They do not ask for miracles. But they do ask for commitment to meaningful movement in the direction of at least certain reforms. Firstly, they would like to see the scrapping of all colour-bars in the economy, not merely those which are written into statutes, but also those that are enabled by statute to exist and which exist by custom, by convention and by agreement. Accompanying this, as I have already said, there must be crash programmes for the education and the training of Black people to enable them to play a fuller role in the economy. On a wider basis a charter for reform which is going to make this country attractive as an investment field, is going to include the dismantling of small apartheid and the opening up of our society. It has been said in other debates in this House during the course of this session that everybody accepts that that is the direction we are going in. Everybody accepts that society has got to be opened up, and I think that almost everybody will say the sooner that happens, the better. Let us commit ourselves then, as a matter of high Government policy, to move in that direction, to diminish the strains and the irritations which not only create tensions in South Africa, but which also undermines confidence in South Africa on the part of people who can help us so much. The charter for reform will also have to include a plan for political reforms leading ultimately to equitable power sharing between all the peoples of South Africa.

These are the steps which can really help us economically. In saying that I am in a sense expressing my pride in the fact that in the strictly economic field we are performing well. This country is possessed of good economic management and rich resources. The current account of the balance of payments shows that strength, but the weakness strikes in the places which I have nominated and all these places are directly the fruits of the application over the years of the policy of apartheid. Not for the first, nor for the last time, I have to conclude an economic speech in this House by saying that South Africa can have either apartheid or prosperity and not both.

Mr. Speaker, with his final remark the hon. member for Parktown passed a final judgment, in an economic sense, on his own speech. I make this statement because I think that it is a tragic day for the official Opposition and a joyful day for hon. members on this side of the House when a person like him cannot even discuss the economy of the country in this budget debate for a full half hour. In fact, that is symptomatic of all the other speeches we have had from the other side of the House. Nowhere could they really get their teeth into the policy of the hon. the Minister of Finance and the results he has achieved over the past few years. No significant dent could be made in the sound policy of the Government, which has put the country back on the path of disciplined growth and economic recovery.

The hon. member raised a number of matters to which I shall refer in the course of my speech. He was concerned about the lack of confidence in South Africa with regard to foreign investments, the lack of capital and the lack of a growth rate.

I want to speak to him in particular about his statement that many of the hon. members on this side of the House supposedly fear that the implementation of our policy of political self-determination will give rise to instability in South Africa, which will have a detrimental effect on our economy. Since the hon. member is waxing so dramatic about the training of Black people and the shortage of trained people in the economy, has he then forgotten that the Government is giving attention, in the most serious possible sense, to these matters, through the appointment of commissions, the creation of opportunities for training and even by the granting of tax rebates to companies who train their own Black people. I shall come back later to his so-called “removal of pinpricks”.

I now want to refer to the remark made yesterday by the hon. member for Yeoville when he referred very cuttingly to the hon. the Minister of Finance. He made the following remark, and I quote from the unrevised Hansard copy of his speech—

That is after he referred to “the redistribution of wealth”. I should like to discuss this matter today very seriously with the hon. member. In the first place, I do not think it is fitting for the chief spokesman of the official Opposition on finance and the economy to make such an absolutely personal remark, a remark which is wholly unjustified. I say this because in the first place it is none other than this hon. Minister who made a speech abroad in which he referred specifically to the fact that South Africa is moving closer to a position where income is commensurate with merit. Moreover, this is incontestably the policy of this Government. Therefore such a remark is nothing but an unfounded personal remark.

There is something else I want to say to the hon. member. The policy of this side of the House as regards the taxation of individuals is also characteristically based on the principle that those people must be taxed who are best able to pay tax. That is why the marginal rate of tax is higher for the higher income groups. Consequently, that policy not only gives rise to a more just division of personal tax, but is also a contributory factor towards a redistribution of incomes by taxing people with a higher income more heavily than people with a lower income. If that hon. member is still harping on the same string of taxing the poor with reference to the general sales tax, there is something I really must tell him. If by this time he is still making such a fuss about the general sales tax—and we all remember his tirade on the subject last year—he is drastically out of step with every recognized economist and financial expert in this country.

He has been out of step for a long time.

But there is a far more serious …

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

No, I am not going to answer questions.

About the redistribution of wealth …

Order! The hon. member asked whether he could ask a question but he did not obtain the speaker’s permission to ask a question. I therefore want to tell the hon. member that he must refrain from simply carrying on with the question without the speaker’s permission.

There is a far more serious effect of these continuing references by the official Opposition—the hon. member for Yeoville in particular—to the so-called redistribution of wealth. Hon. members in this House will recall that a year or two ago the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was cornered by the question as to what exactly he meant by his so-called redistribution of wealth. Having been intensely embarrassed, he eventually found a way out by saying that he was only referring to wealth and income which would be generated by the economic system in the future and that he was not referring to assets and wealth already obtained. Therefore, I want to say something to the hon. member for Yeoville and to other hon. members on that side of the House. The next time they are in touch with our radical Black people in this country in particular—in fact radicals of any colour—they must try to find out how their continual references to the term “redistribution of wealth” is interpreted by those people. I want to give him the unqualified assurance that he will have the surprise of his life. On one occasion I attended a conference at which one of the most well-known Black radicals in our country discussed this matter.

Who is he?

That man, who for the purposes of this discussion will remain anonymous, said expressly that a time would come when the White man would not be able to drive to work in his Mercedes without question while he had to walk. We took the discussion further and questioned him. What the discussion eventually amounted to in frank terms was the fact that by the expression “redistribution of wealth”— which is so freely used by those hon. members—the Black man in South Africa understood a drastic redistribution of all existing wealth in South Africa And the political implications of that are too serious even to think about further. That is why they should set a watch before their mouths as far as this is concerned.

†I am afraid the hon. member for Yeoville has caught a tiger by the tail, and he will have to be very careful that that very tiger does not devour him in the short term. [Interjections.]

*Since we have discussed this sphere of the economy ad nauseam I should like to refer to a few positive and negative factors which we may encounter this year. Then, in the light of those factors, I wish to enter into a political discussion with the hon. member for Yeoville and his colleagues. There is much in the economic scene this year that is positive. There are also many danger signs. I came across a very interesting article about the calculation of the gold price. It appeared in a periodical called Economic Week. That article is very encouraging for South Africa. They estimated that the average price of gold this year—the article was written in August last year—could be at least between $230 and $240. That is after they had already predicted with absolute accuracy at that stage what the average gold price, based on demand and supply, would be for last year. Therefore, as regards gold as an international buffer against inflation, there are very positive indications for us in South Africa that the demand will remain substantial. Moreover, as another buffer against inflation there will be a consistent and substantial demand for our diamonds.

As far as our current account is concerned, the achievement of the surplus is already more than well-known to all of us. The reasons for this are also more than well known. What is important is that owing to the substantial surplus we have had, we are able at this stage to make up the deficits in our capital account. It is particularly with regard to the capital account that we in this House should perhaps conduct a political discussion with each other, since it is based to such an extent on confidence in South Africa.

As far as our export trade is concerned, I want to point out that even though the possibility is being predicted of a moderate recession in America in the short term, even though things are going badly with England and even though Japan’s growth rate has levelled out, the growth rate of West Germany will probably compensate for the levelling out in Japan with the result that our exports, which mostly comprise food and strategic materials, will not necessarily be detrimentally affected, particularly if we consider the composition of our exports. Another positive factor internally is the fact— and here I can refer to the personal experience of businessmen—that the level of supplies is still fairly low and that as soon as the consumer demand is stimulated and grows further, supplies will necessarily have to be supplemented, and we shall have the chain reaction which will enable us to utilize our surplus production capacity. Furthermore, it is also encouraging that an adequate degree of liquidity already exists in order to carry the further stimulation of the consumer demand and the building up of further supplies. Consequently it is praiseworthy that the hon. the Minister is still maintaining a very conservative and disciplinary view with regard to the further stimulation of our economy.

There are also serious negative factors. The first obvious one is the energy crisis which is going to have a drastic influence on our rate of inflation and balance of payments and, in fact, on world-wide economic growth. However, what is extremely important and an outcome of the energy crisis, is the possible structural change in our economy. This possible structural change relates to the oil content of various commodities. Firstly, there is a wide series of articles with a direct oil content, articles such as plastic, fibreglass and a multitude of lesser products. On the other hand, we have products which could serve the same purpose and consist of different materials. For example, there are plastic cups and porcelain cups. There is going to be a dramatic change in consumer products as far as the direct oil content is concerned. The indirect influence of the energy crisis—this concerns the energy used to produce the product—is a further vitally important factor. In this regard South Africa is very fortunate since, in the overall picture, we make use of coal and not oil for such a large proportion of our energy requirements.

A second factor which has a negative influence on our economy is the relatively lower agricultural production which can be expected as a result of poorer weather conditions. However, when I travel to Parliament by bus from Acacia Park and seek to assess the situation in agriculture from the smiles or the sour faces of the farmers in the bus, I do think that the smiles are gradually getting the upper hand. This is undoubtedly an indication that agricultural production might not be as low as it has been in recent years.

Other aspects that are also very important are the political implications of the events in Rhodesia and South West Africa, and political developments in South Africa. These aspects have an important influence not only on capital inflow from outside but also on the actions of foreign companies in South Africa. Foreign companies which, for years and years, ploughed their dividends back into their companies in South Africa, are now disbursing these dividends to an increasing extent Instead of carrying out further market and production development in South Africa, many of these companies are adopting a wait-and-see attitude for no other reason than political uncertainty. In this way a vicious circle is formed because people who sit and wait for a revival in the economy are not prepared, as in the past, to contribute towards getting that process going.

A further result of all this distortion that can take place in the economy as a result of the oil crisis is what Dr. Jan Hupkins calls the relative price structure of certain products in our economy. This is a structural change which will undoubtedly make its influence felt.

Other important matters affected by this energy crisis are transport patterns, the placing and development of facilities, the building of houses, the situation of schools and everything that involves, which could have a drastic impact on future economic development in South Africa.

I now want to refer to the two structural changes. One is the imbalance—the hon. member for Parktown also referred to this— between economic growth and the demands the population makes on us. It is undoubtedly true that never before in the history of South Africa have so many demands been made on the economy in such a difficult time. We are making a two-dimensional demand on the economy. In the first place there is a vertical demand made by the people that are already economically active, but whose standards of living are not yet adequately high, even though they are economically active. Those standards of living must be increased. At the same time there is a horizontal component of the demands being made on the economy, viz. the demand made by the vast number of young Black people in particular who are trying to become economically active. I can only agree with hon. members on both sides of the House who have spoken in the course of this debate that this wave is going to hit our economy with a shattering impact if we do not take the necessary precautionary measures.

I have only spoken about those who are already born, but now I want to refer to the unborn. Yesterday the hon. member for Paarl made a strong plea that we limit the number of our potential unborn citizens in time. We simply cannot allow such a tremendous horizontal demand to be made on our economy in the long term. Quite simply, this may not happen. Moreover, these provisions in our economy must be made in the midst of a situation in which tremendous demands are being made with regard, too, to contingency planning. We are in fact being faced with the problems of a shortage of oil and a possible cutting off of the supply of other essential commodities to South Africa. For that reason we have to stockpile supplies and purchase things which we cannot yet use. We shall perhaps have to utilize hundreds or even thousands of millions of rands for that purpose instead of using them productively in our economy, whereas at the same time we must comply with these vertical and horizontal demands. When we consider these matters, we know what demands are being made on our economy today.

How can we eliminate this imbalance between our economic growth and the demands which our population makes on the economy? I want to suggest two alternatives. If we take the present growth pattern into account and, as hon. members on that side of the House have advocated, we have to drastically increase our economic growth rate, we must, firstly, look at the world-wide pattern. We can say what we like, but if we in South Africa are going to take steps, for example by the creation of greater liquidity or whatever the case may be, to stimulate South Africa’s economy to grow more rapidly, out of step with the economic growth taking place elsewhere in the world, we shall very soon bum our fingers. That is the simple truth. We cannot simply grow unilaterally. And it is a fact which White people as well as people of colour who make those demands of the economy must simply understand.

Our economic growth rate can in fact be increased. I want to argue that we can only increase the growth rate if we do so by way of market penetration in the world, if we do so by displacing some of our competitors from the existing markets. We can do this if we are prepared to do one of two things, and it is obvious which of these two must not be done. The first is that we must reduce the cost of our production by reducing wages. In this regard there is a specific fact we must face. It is true that we have largely solved our social problems by allowing Black standards of living, while White wages have remained fixed, to rise excessively over the past few years, I dare say in many respects out of proportion to their productivity but at the same time, allowed production costs to increase tremendously. In other words, if we want to stay competitive in the international market, we must either reduce those wages so as to bring them into line with the productivity of our people, or else we must increase the productivity of our people.

A fact which our Black people as well as our White people, including those White people who no longer want to pick up a brick, must understand, is that there ought to be an absolute link between the value of the money one puts in one’s pocket, and the value of what one is prepared to put into the economy with one’s own two hands. I shall personally welcome the day when a man’s income, irrespective of his colour, is no longer determined by the whiteness of the top of his hands, but rather by the callouses on the inside of his hand.

If we want to increase our growth rate we must do so at the cost of other countries. Then, too, we must work ourselves into international commerce so that we can increase our exports and by so doing meet the demands we are making on our economy.

There is a second way, as an alternative to the first one, and what it amounts to is that we reduce the wages or increase the productivity. What the second amounts to is that if we take our present growth rate and optimize it and we take the components which constitute that growth rate and we change their composition in a way which I shall refer to in a moment, we shall also have a chance to meet the demands of our population. To be specific, we must make that growth rate far more labour-intensive than capital-intensive. Now, it is a fact that one cannot have a purely labour-intensive investment without a certain amount of capital also being invested. We must seek the ideal combination, and there is one thing that we cannot get away from, namely that we must compensate that investor who is prepared to seek the combination of labour-intensive and capital-intensive investment. Moreover, we must provide incentives to encourage this, to a far greater extent than we are prepared to do today. Moreover, we shall have to provide better training for the workers that will be drawn into the economy in this way.

In my opinion there is one field, among others, that is wide open: The agricultural development of the homelands. How many times have we not heard the complaint that that land is lying relatively unutilized after White farmers have left? Why do we not have agricultural schools in Soweto? I am quite probably out of my field, but nevertheless the question occurs to me: Is this not the appropriate place for us to involve masses of young people from the Black community in productive work? Is it not also essential, in any event, for us to concentrate on the production of food which in any event is our best way of assuring peaceful coexistence in South Africa? We shall have to consider a dramatic revision of our incentives with regard to labour-intensive or at least relatively labour-intensive capital investment.

I want to make a final statement concerning a possible structural change. I think that in these times we have been through and are still experiencing, the private sector has realized with shock how dependent it is on the expenditure of the public sector. We hear from so many people—for how long has the private sector not been requesting this—that the Government must stimulate the economy, as if the expenditure of the public sector is the only source of stimulation. In this regard the private sector must ensure that it takes the necessary steps in future to secure itself, by way of exports and other things, against a further possible cut in the expenditure of the public sector.

I now want to come back to the whole issue of confidence in South Africa and of the inflow of capital into the country. The hon. member for Yeoville is not present at the moment. However, I want to remind his hon. colleagues what the hon. member for Yeoville said last year on one occasion when he was in a highly patriotic mood. I refer to a speech he made in this House on 3 April 1978. This is what he said (Hansard, 1978, col. 3698)—

We must take into account that this is an hon. member of the Opposition who is speaking and not an hon. member on this side of the House—

Mr. Speaker, I believe that as far as this speech is concerned we cannot accuse the hon. member for Yeoville of a lack of patriotism. However, I now want to ask hon. members opposite, in all seriousness, what image of South Africa they propagate abroad. When we come into contact with people in South Africa, people of all races and colours, people who are close to hon. members of the Opposition, and also at international conferences, and when we talk to foreigners from all walks of life after they have spoken to hon. members of the Opposition, we discover what image of South Africa they project abroad.

We only tell them the truth, nothing else.

What is that image they project? What is that image, particularly now that the hon. the Minister has dramatically cast off the oppressive bonds of a rigoristic approach to the legislation of 1936 and shown a more flexible and accommodating approach? What does that image look like after the hon. the Prime Minister, in his speech during the no-confidence debate, referred to drastic changes in Black education, after taking the drastic step of taking active steps to narrow the wage gap, after we have been engaged for the past two years in drafting a new constitution? In the midst of all these things, and also while the entire position of Black people in our urban areas is being reviewed, the question remains: What image of the Government do they project abroad? What did they offer as an alternative to foreigners? I can answer that.

My personal experience is that everything the Government does is written off as “too little, too late”. My experience is that they tell foreigners that we are heading inexorably for a bloody conflict. These statements of mine are substantiated by things said by the hon. member for Houghton, wherever she goes. They are also substantiated by things said by the hon. member for Parktown. Let me recall just one of his statements. He said that if one looked at South Africa clinically, one would be wary of investing in South Africa.

It is only the truth.

That is the image projected abroad by hon. members of the PFP. Whereas the whole principle of partition in South Africa is recognized internationally by scientific authorities, and whereas there are important elements of consocialist democracy in our envisaged new constitutional dispensation—a matter about which they have so much to say—their reaction is still one of “too little, too late”. Despite the opinions of international authorities and people whose intentions as regards South Africa are good and even people whose intentions are not so good, hon. members of the Opposition constantly come along and disparage these efforts as unworkable and inadequate. What, then, is the alternative they offer? Chaos, nothing else! The alternative is a variation on a consocialist system, a system which has never achieved any success anywhere in the world. Do they really want to come and tell everyone who wants to listen that South Africa is the equivalent of Switzerland, where the system works? What about Lebanon and Cyprus, where a consocialist democracy collapsed in ruins and, in the case of Cyprus, was replaced by enforced partition?

I want to say at once that I agree that partition can only work if it gives rise to a fair dispensation. That is why I, personally, am excited and very grateful about the hon. the Prime Minister’s view that he wants to take active steps with regard to partition. With reference to what the hon. member for Constantia said yesterday, and I quote (Hansard, 26 February)—

I want to say that the day is approaching when it will no longer be possible to give the world a one-sided image of the Government’s policy in South Africa as something that is inflicted one-sidedly on people of colour. There is growing support for the principles of the policy of this party and I want to put it to the hon. Opposition that when we can tell the world that we now have the support of the majority of reasonable Black and Coloured people in this country, that we have a “charter”—as the hon. member called it— and can then ask the world for capital, for aid for the development of the homelands into something sound, to get this country on its feet, will they then refrain from this undermining of NP policy? Will they then concede that we are obtaining a “charter” in South Africa without the so-called national convention which they propose and which the hon. member referred to yesterday?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Florida basically discussed the economy and also raised certain political matters. I shall come back to the political aspects later in my speech. We know this hon. member to be one of the regular speakers on the economy on the Government side of the House and I should say that he is one of the better speakers on the Government side. He said certain things today about productivity and the utilization of the homelands which were economically meaningful, as one would expect. However, when the economic aspects come into question, he also has something in common with all economic speakers on the other side, of course. That is that they behave like prophets and fortune-tellers and they try to outdo Madam Rose. On the Government side, however, the predictions are always wrong. What they do is to tell you that the inflation rate will improve and the growth rate will rise towards the end of the year. Towards the end of the year they say that these things will happen towards the middle of the next year.

On the Opposition side, of course, it is much easier to make economic predictions, since we know the Government’s policy. Therefore, when we say that things will be worse in six months’ time, we are always right.

In the no-confidence debate, I also risked one or two predictions, and it seems to me …

[Inaudible.]

No, those predictions were correct. I said that the hon. the Minister should remember that the people of South Africa had great expectations of the main budget, that they had lived through a decade with an inflation rate into double figures and that the effect of the general sales tax would keep it at that level until the middle of the year. At that stage I also said what would happen by that time, that the new petrol price would in turn lead to a whole new series of increases.

†What I have said, has appeared to have* come true, because at the time the whole feeling towards inflation was that the inflation rate would be lower towards the end of the year. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether it is correct or not that by the end of the year the inflation rate could be in the region of 15%. The hon. the Minister must not come with punitive measures now. The public this time has the right to fair treatment from the hon. the Minister.

I should also like to pay some attention to the first leg of the amendment moved by the hon. leader of the NRP. In this leg of the amendment the Government is accused of allowing its policy to degenerate in uncoordinated ad hoc attempts to resolve the fundamental problems of South Africa, particularly those facing the future of the urban Blacks. I have heard people say sometimes that a person does not know whether he is Arthur or Martha, when a person is either so stupid or drunk and confused that he does not know which way to go. Honestly, the actions of the Government have taken so long that we do not yet know which way they are heading. In this regard I want to remind hon. members of the issue in relation to the Senate. In order to disfranchise Coloureds, they enlarged the Senate and now, in order to give the Coloureds some sort of franchise, they are going to abolish the Senate!

There was a time when the NP considered, measured and reconciled every piece of legislation, action or lack of action, against the logical consequences of their own policies. It took actions which made no sense at all, except when viewed against the fantasies of the grand design of apartheid. Many of these actions were, as we know, cruel, others were punitive of nature and generally they were against a number of humanitarian principles and established economic laws. Because they could reconcile these negative steps within the framework of their own policies, hon. members on that side of the House could at least go to bed at night and sleep with so-called clear consciences believing that these negative steps can be explained away in terms of the overall policy of the Government. The message to all, and especially to the Blacks, from the so-called verligtes on that side of the House, was always: “It is better to suffer now, because Utopia is just around the comer.” The Utopia for Blacks was something which the NP Government conceived in total isolation many years ago, without any consultation with the communities concerned and without allowing themselves an alternative. The dawn of a Black Utopia was determined by the Nat rulers to be the day when the Blacks would all be granted independence in one or other remote homeland within the four comers of the Republic of South Africa where, as fairy tales go, the Blacks would live happily ever after, because there they would then enjoy the privileges of their own exclusive citizenship. Meanwhile the urban Blacks were denied many—and are still being denied it today— fundamental human rights and basic political rights …

Such as?

I shall mention but a few. The right to home-ownership was denied to them, because it was argued that if one should allow them to own a home within the White areas, they should also have political rights where they live and of course there was no place within the framework of grand apartheid for them to be granted political rights. For that reason they were denied a fundamental human right According to NP policy a situation should not be created where they could demand political rights. Even today they are being denied the right of freehold title for that very same reason.

There are examples of this to be found also in the field of education. There was a time when Black teachers’ training colleges could not be established in so-called White urban areas. That was taboo. They had to be established in the homelands. The establishment of secondary schools outside the homelands was discouraged and unrealistic quota systems were designed to restrict the size of schools. Bursaries were earmarked to be given to the people in the homelands. Apprenticeships and technical training had to be homeland-bound. Let me state clearly that in many respects these punitive measures still exist today in one form or another. However, during the 1970s and especially since the occurrences in Soweto during June 1976 when in spite of its overwhelming majority the Government lost control in Black townships for a period of a couple of months, the Government increasingly sought refuge in ad hoc steps to solve the immediate problems, without considering the logical consequences of those steps.

Every single step taken by them to get them out of the difficulties was a step contrary to the general philosophy of “groot apartheid” or of “multi-nationalism”. The irony of this is that the NP must virtually save South Africa continuously from the Frankensteins created by the NP itself. The time has come that they should consider the logical consequences of the various ad hoc steps that they are taking. This is all that we ask. If they do so they would realize how imperative it is to co-ordinate all these ad hoc actions into a specific policy for all the communities in South Africa. The Government as a whole, and not only the hon. the Minister of Health, must accept the reality that the Government’s policy will never achieve its logical conclusion. I think the hon. the Minister of Health will be accorded a special place in history for his statement about Black South African citizens. On so many occasions in the past the Government stubbornly refused to accept the realities of the day, only to capitulate in the end. In the end they always did the very thing that they initially said they would never do. Their stand always was that if one did that, it would be the end of the world and the end of the White man. I can think of no better examples than the field of sport and adjustments in the labour field. I usually do not pay much attention to what Andrew Young has to say and I do not normally agree with his statements. When he was in South Africa he did say that he liked the Nationalists. He said they reminded him of the Americans in the south of the United States who walked around with little badges with the word “Never” printed on them. This meant “never any form of integration and never any granting of political rights to Blacks”. But in the end those same Americans accepted integration enthusiastically. Similarly we have seen that when the real pressure is on, this Government always surrenders. That is why I feel that there is some hope for us! They have become “hensoppers’—to use the good old Afrikaans term—-when it comes to the many cardinal issues affecting the implementation of apartheid.

Now you are talking nonsense!

The hon. member says I am talking nonsense, but surely he knows how many times they have “hensopped” and adopted the policy of the old UP or of the NRP. [Interjections.] They will end up by adopting the PFP’s policy as well!

†There is not a single hon. member of the Government who, within five years, will not be proud to get up in this House to praise the hon. the Minister of Health for his statement on permanent Black citizens. They will then tell us how far-sighted the Government has been. They will say that they already accepted that there would always be permanent Blacks in South Africa as far back as 1979.

*Is there any hon. member on the other side of the House who does not agree with the hon. the Minister’s statement? Was he wrong or was he right? It would appear that the hon. members on the other side of the House do not want to think today. [Interjections.] Let me ask the hon. member for Sunnyside whether the hon. the Minister of Health is right in saying that there will always be Black South Africans.

Black people …

That hon. member must not answer. He is too enlightened!

†What the Government must do now is very clear. Considering the permanency of Black South African citizens, as evidenced by the honesty of the hon. the Minister of Health, they should immediately stop the one-sided negotiations they are conducting with Coloureds and Indians about the future constitution in South Africa. To continue with present negotiations would be an act of defiance and the height of irresponsibility. I do not think we have to talk any more about urban Blacks or non-homeland Blacks, because we have a new expression coined by the hon. the Minister of Health, i.e. the permanent Black South Africans. [Interjections.] The Government is ignoring the plight of those permanent Black South Africans at our peril. The Government is taking steps to greatly improve the quality of life of the permanent Black South Africans, I agree, and that is fine. However, the Government must realize that improving living conditions will never be adequate compensation for the permanent denial of political rights to this important section of the population. The problem is not merely one of living conditions. In the final analysis, it is a problem of political rights as well.

The problem with the Government is that through the years it has adopted a too simplistic view of South Africa’s race problems. Unfortunately the hon. member for Florida is not here at the moment. He talked about meaningful partitioning. Like all of us, however, the Government knows that South Africa’s basic political dilemma is that all effective political power is today vested in one of the many minority groups in South Africa, and that happens to be the White group. This is the dilemma facing us. That this is an intolerable situation, is agreed upon by all political parties, the only possible exception being the HNP. The Government concedes as much, but for 30 years it has attempted to escape from this dilemma. The Government has sought a solution, however, purely by attempting to establish a division of power between Blacks and Whites through geographic separation. The hon. member for Florida used the word “partitioning”, but that does not get us away from the fact that they have taken far too simplistic a view of the problem. What they should realize is that South Africa does not have only a geographical problem. South Africa also has a race problem. South Africa has a problem of minorities that have to be protected. I must mention, however, that historians will one day recall that the NP did at least serve one useful purpose.

No!

Yes, let me tell hon. members what it is. Over a period of 30 years it showed South Africa how not to solve the race problems in the country.

That is better!

It has cost us millions of rand, but at least now we do know that one cannot solve South Africa’s problems purely by adopting the attitude that the problems will be solved by the division of political power. One cannot solve the problems merely by partitioning; one cannot solve them merely by geographical separation. Let me remind hon. members that we all agree that the dilemma is that one minority group has all the political rights in its hands. If we want to escape this dilemma, and since we know, after 30 years of failure on the part of the Government, that we cannot solve this problem merely by the division of power, it is obvious that we must devise a system in which we can share political power in some respects and divide political power in other respects. The party I represent, the NRP, has devised a constitutional framework which will achieve just that. That is why we advocate a federal/confederal constitutional structure. This is logical and sensible. The NRP also makes it clear that such a constitution must be developed through full consultation with all the communities affected by it. Once again we urge the Government to take into account the permanent Black South Africans, the very people who, as the hon. the Minister of Health now realizes, will always be with us. He used the words: “As long as there is a NP.” That is quite right because it is a logical consequence … [Interjections.] There are hon. members who believe that the NP will rule for ever.

He said that that was his personal standpoint.

Do you agree?

Yes, does the hon. member agree?

That is irrelevant.

That is irrelevant?

What is your personal opinion?

Order!

We shall have to find out the personal opinion on the subject of each one of the 133 members on the other side, and then we shall have to ascertain whether there is consensus among them. That is the very point I want to make: The poor Government is engaged in ad hoc attempts, while one half does not know where the other half stands.

†I want to conclude by urging the Government once again to bring the permanent Black South Africans we spoke about into the whole process of negotiation so that we can in fact cater for them permanently in South Africa in the best interests of all of us.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down was in a great hurry to get away from the financial debate. Some time ago the NRP commended themselves for the alleged depth of their thinking on economic affairs. Where is the hon. member for Mooi River?

I am here.

He is going to speak.

All I can conclude is that the hon. the Minister of Finance has completely disarmed them with his competent handling of the finance of our country. The rest of file speech made by the hon. member for Durban Central can be regarded as a joke. It was a joke to those who listened to it.

Take care! Someone is going to send you a letter!

We have heard about their philosophy at various stages and in various ways, and I really want to give my benchmate, who will speak after me, an opportunity to deal with the hon. member for Durban Central. I just want to refer to one aspect of the speech made by the hon. member. He referred, among other things, to inflation. I do not know where he got the figures he gave to this House. These are in regard to the increased prices of fuel. I think one should get some perspective in this connection. South Africa now has to pay about 10 times more for its oil than in 1970. Fortunately, we have also had the same increase in our gold price in South Africa since 1970. The implications of the increased prices which have now been announced are regarded from different angles, however. Sometimes irresponsible conclusions are drawn, such as those of the hon. member for Durban Central. I just want to make a little sum. At an average price of $22 per barrel of oil during 1979—we paid $13 per barrel last year—and at an average gold price of $240 for 1979, our economists expect and state with confidence that our balance of payments can carry the increase in the oil price we have recently had. This is no cause for us to feel satisfied and to relax, however. Firstly, although we may be able to afford it, as I have explained, it is a tremendous waste. The benefits of a higher gold price could and should surely be put to much better use.

Secondly, we must accept that the increased oil price will have a negative effect on several sectors and facets of our economy. So there is no doubt about the fact that it is urgently necessary for the Government and the private sector to apply all possible methods of reducing fuel consumption, of using fuel more productively and of being less dependent on it. Nonetheless, I think it would be wrong simply to single out the increase in the price of fuel as being the only or the major reason for growing inflation, lack of growth, unemployment and other economic evils. That is not so. In the latest edition of Business Times, the writer Stephen Mulholland put the rise in the fuel price in the right perspective. I think we would do well to examine his arguments for a moment.

In 1978, South Africa’s gross domestic product was approximately R40 billion and the oil bill was approximately R1,3 billion; so it was 3,3% of the total. The recent price increase of 18% must consequently be taken into account with regard to this 3,3% if a meaningful conclusion is to be drawn. When we do that, we see that it represents an increase of only 0,6% in the gross domestic product Economists accept that an increase in the price of a specific product or service must not be equated with an increase in the inflation rate. Inflation can only occur when there is a continuous rise in the price level of the product, a rise which must also be maintained over a period. However, inflation can only occur if sufficient money is created to provide for the price increase. If no money is created, the consumer will have to curtail either the consumption of the more expensive fuel or the consumption of some other article.

If one insists, therefore, on consuming the same amount of fuel at 39 cents a litre as one did at 33 cents a litre, one will be forced to reduce one’s consumption of something else, such as beer or cigarettes, which have been referred to. It is interesting to note that in such a case of an increase in the prices of beer and cigarettes it can lead to lower beer and cigarette prices. It therefore appears that a single increase in the price of fuel will not in itself cause inflation, but rather a rearrangement of patterns of consumption.

In recent years, the Government has exercised firm control over the growth of the money supply, so we should be fully confident that the same discipline will be maintained under these circumstances. The most important measure, however, remains the one taken by the people of South Africa, and that is a reduced and more productive consumption of fuel. However, there is no need for South Africa to grow panicky and to ascribe unwarranted significance to the increased price of fuel.

Now I should like to refer to a matter which was raised yesterday by the hon. member for Yeoville—I think it was he.

†The hon. member for Yeoville was quite excited yesterday because the hon. the Minister failed to make use of the occasion to announce measures to stimulate the economy. That hon. member knows well that the hon. the Minister has at all times prescribed the correct medicine for our economy, whether it be a stimulant or discipline, or both, and he will do so again in his own good time.

*Let us just look in this connection at the short period since 1977. The current account of the balance of payments showed a deficit of R353 million in 1976-’77. The recession was so severe that the growth rate in the economy dropped almost to zero. [Interjections.] Yes, the hon. member confirms my argument. In 1977, a real growth rate of only 0,5% was recorded. For this very reason, the Government made use of strict monetary and fiscal measures to set our house in order again: The protection of the balance of payments enjoyed the highest priority. This necessitated an interest rate structure, especially in 1977 and at the beginning of 1978, which was not at all conducive to economic growth. Unemployment rose, costs rose, production dropped and turnovers were low.

The medicine worked surprisingly well, however. In the course of 1978 the priorities could be changed, and the hon. the Minister did so. First long-term rates and then short-term rates were encouraged to drop to more normal levels. Steps were taken to alleviate the problems of certain sectors of the economy which had been hard hit by the recession. R250 million was made available for housing, and in the last budget, tax relief amounting to approximately R200 million was granted. Last year and again this year, loan levies were paid back before they were due. In May and June last year, the credit ceilings on the banks was raised by 4% and the prescribed investment requirements for financial institutions were lowered. In July— that was the date on which the general sales tax of 4% came into operation—the impact of this tax on the real internal demand was partly offset by the abolition of sales duty on some articles and the considerable reduction of this duty on a whole series of articles. In August last year, the bank rate was lowered by 0,5% to 8,5%, and in the course of this month by another 0,5% to 8%. This led to a drop in the prime lending rates of the banks. All these strict financial disciplines in 1977 and before to which the economy has been subjected for the past three years has made it possible for the Government to take the stimulating and incentive measures which I have just referred to and to apply them with great success. There can be no doubt about this.

The tone of the debate up to now shows clearly, as in fact it did in the no-confidence debate, that the hon. Opposition really does not have any financial grounds on which to base their charges against the hon. the Minister of Finance or against the Government. There can be no doubt about the fact that the Government is handling the country’s economic affairs very sensibly. From a deficit of R353 million in the 1976-’77 financial year we moved to a surplus of R505 million in the next financial year, and then to a further estimated surplus—as the hon. the Minister of Finance said yesterday—of between R1 000 million and R1 500 million. All this speaks volumes. I do not think there is a comparable achievement anywhere else in the world.

This should earn the praises, not only of foreign bankers and Governments, but of all South Africans as well. Of course, it is not only the »hon. the Minister and the Government who deserve praise.

That they do deserve praise is quite obvious, of course. However, the people who also deserve special praise are all South Africans who have been prepared to take the medicine and to subject themselves to the discipline. Thanks to this, we find ourselves on the threshold of sound development and growth again. We can all be grateful that the people of South Africa are not behaving like the people of the United Kingdom. In fact, we see almost every day on television how they are ruining the economy of their country.

The recommendations of the De Kock Commission with regard to exchange rates have already received attention in this House. I believe that we all agree that this is a very expert and useful piece of work, a piece of work which will be of great academic and practical interest to us all, in the future as well. The hon. member for Parktown said that it was one of his priorities that we should do something to improve the capital account, or words to that effect. By means of implementing the recommendations of the De Kock Commission, I believe, a very useful and positive method is being created for helping South Africa to obtain that very essential foreign capital for development. The question of the inflow and outflow of capital is in fact a matter which received special attention from the De Kock Commission. The report shows clearly that the existing exchange control measures tend to impede the inflow of capital to South Africa. I shall illustrate this with one general example. The ordinary non-resident who wants to make a direct investment in a new factory in South Africa has to convert his foreign exchange into rand at the official exchange rate. However, if he wants to repatriate the funds afterwards, he first has to invest them in special Government securities for seven years. The other alternative is to transfer the funds from the country at the securities rand rate, which has long been standing at a discount of between 30% and 40% below the official rate. This has meant a great loss to the investor, of course. The commission came to the entirely justified conclusion that this kind of exchange control had served to discourage new foreign investment in South Africa as well as to encourage the legal and illegal outflow of funds from South Africa.

For the specific purpose of promoting the participation of foreign capital in the South African economy, of achieving a higher growth rate in this country and of reducing the risk of unemployment, the commission recommends that the system be adjusted so that a non-resident who wants to make an investment with a view to obtaining ownership in South Africa should now also be able to bring his funds into the country by means of the securities rand, which is now the financial rand. In this way, foreign investors will be given an attractive incentive to invest in the South African economy at a very favourable exchange rate. Of course, such an investment would not be felt directly by our reserves, but as the commission rightly says, it would be able to create new economic activities, employment and technical progress.

The hon. member for Parktown pointed out in particular that a charter of intention should be issued, based on political factors. Political factors are certainly important. However, the hon. Opposition is no longer able to produce any thinking which is not related to politics. This is an obvious, excellent and outstanding method of improving our capital inflow from abroad, but the hon. members of the Opposition did not even refer to it.

I want to conclude by saying that the economic future of South Africa is in very competent hands indeed and that the Reserve Bank and the Treasury are co-operating in a proper way to implement these new recommendations. Accordingly, I have no doubts whatsoever about the successful development of the economy this year.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise to speak after my benchfellow, the hon. member for Eshowe, after having been able to listen to the calm and logical way in which he addressed his economic arguments to this House. I also have the privilege of being able to speak after the hon. member for Durban Central. Among other things, that hon. member said, with reference to certain economic predictions which he made and which in his opinion have come true, that he thought he may as well participate as an economic debater in this House in future. He is of course known to us as a person who speaks on matters pertaining to education. If I compare his speeches on the two subjects, I want to tell the hon. member, arising out of what I am going to say in a moment, that I think he should try to do so. Possibly he is a better speaker on economics than a speaker on education. Inter alia, he referred in his speech today to ad hoc decisions which the Government was allegedly taking in regard to Black education and particularly in regard to circumstances in Soweto. The hon. member, and some of his colleagues, are frequently inclined to quote certain newspapers or certain people, from other population groups as well. I wonder why the hon. member does not also quote the good side of the matter to indicate what favourable circumstances are prevailing in South Africa today. I have with me here a report which appeared in The Argus of 1 February 1979—

That is sufficient, and I need not say anything further.

I am not arguing about that.

I want to go on to quote from The Argus of 1 February 1979, from an article written by Dr. K. Hartshorn, the former Director of Planning of the Department of Education and Planning. He said, inter alia—

What is the hon. member worried about then if certain decisions are in fact being taken and certain adjustments are being made by the Government which lead to excellent results and success being achieved? The hon. member omits to mention that, and prefers to advance a whole lot of other arguments here.

I should like to convey my thanks to the hon. member for Durban Central for the fact that he is present in this House, at my request, because I do not want to talk about him behind his back. In my opinion it is one of the primary requirements in this House that every hon. member, however junior he may be, should know that when he quotes or attacks another hon. member he must at least make certain of the facts he is using. I think it is also accepted, for the most part, that a person should be careful not to draw an incorrect inference and in that way put words into the mouth of a colleague. If that should happen, particularly while one is attacking the hon. the Prime Minister, then there must in my opinion be a certain motive for doing so. This applies particularly when a senior hon. member who is the principal spokesman of the NRP on matters pertaining to various departments, does so. If I were to ask myself what such a motive could be, it seems to me that there is a likelihood that such a person could be stupid. If not, it is because such an hon. member wants to be stupid or otherwise it is so because there is petty political benefit to be derived from it.

You are just joining your club!

The hon. member for Mooi River should rather keep quiet, for I am going to refer to him as well in a moment.

The reason for the actions of the hon. member for Durban Central is in my opinion to derive petty political benefit from them. The hon. member for Durban Central will now be able to furnish an answer in regard to the three possibilities which I have put forward as to why a person would err in this connection. On 9 February the hon. member arrogantly attacked the hon. the Prime Minister during the no-confidence debate and in reply to the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister. He did so in a really arrogant way, for I cannot describe it in any other terms. I am referring to what the hon. member said on 9 February (Hansard, 1979, col. 425)—

In my opinion this was an arrogant attack, particularly in view of an error of judgment made by the hon. member for Durban Central which I shall now try to point out. If I am wrong, I challenge the hon. member to tell me so across the floor of this House. What is the matter to which the hon. member for Durban Central referred in the no-confidence debate all about? It followed on a statement which the hon. the Prime Minister had made in regard to a draft Bill on Black education. The hon. member for Durban Central saw fit to quote certain passages from the speech by the hon. the Prime Minister. He quoted as follows (Hansard, 1979, col. 424)—

That is how the hon. member quoted the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. member then said—

Whereupon the hon. member for Umhlanga, the hon. member who so frequently makes interjections, said—

The hon. member for Durban Central then went on to embroider on this. Surely there is no mention whatsoever in the words of the hon. the Prime Minister which were quoted here that a separate teachers’ council is being requested. There is no mention of that at all. Let us look at the actual words which were spoken by the hon. the Prime Minister. He said (Hansard, 1979, col. 236)—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Central did not see fit to quote these words which I have now quoted to the House so that the matter could be seen in its true perspective. He only read out half of them.

No.

It is in the same paragraph. The hon. the Prime Minister went on to say—

Consequently there is no mention whatsoever of the African Teachers’ Association of South Africa requesting a separate council. What is more …

Are you not…

Wait a moment, I shall reply to that now. Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would only give me a chance I shall give the answer. The hon. the Prime Minister was referring here to the Education Advisory Council. I said that I wondered whether some people were stupid, and now it is very clear that the hon. member for Durban Central does not know the difference between the Education Advisory Council and the African Teachers’ Association of South Africa. I almost feel like asking the hon. member to tell us across the floor of this House here what the difference is. I am convinced that the hon. member does not know what the difference is.

What are the facts? [Interjections.] If the hon. member would keep quiet, he might be able to hear. The draft Bill on education and training has been published and comment on it is being awaited. The hon. member is well aware of this. Various bodies reacted to it, including this one, Atasa. What was their comment? I know that the hon. member for Durban Central, as an ex-teacher, is interested in education, just as I and other hon. members are. Because of my interest I approached the hon. the Minister of Education and Training and asked him, with reference to newspaper reports on decisions taken at the Atasa congress, what the position was in respect of these peoples’ comment on the proposed legislation. It now appears that Atasa made a thorough study of overseas education legislation. It appears, strangely enough, that they did not institute as thorough an investigation into the education legislation of our country. Together with their memorandum they submitted an alternative Bill, which the hon. member for Durban Central is aware of because he mentioned a 43-page document during the debate. It is interesting that Atasa submitted a draft of a Bill which corresponds to a large extent with the draft Bill which was published. Now for the important point. These people accept, right at the beginning of that document, the existing Department of Education and Planning in its present form.

Temporarily!

Surely that hon. member cannot put words in my mouth now! The hon. the Minister will most certainly reply to that in good time, but I am saying across the floor of this House that in the legislation which they present as an alternative they accept the Department of Education and Training in its present form.

Is that not true?

That means that Atasa accepts separate education for the Blacks.

As a permanent institution?

I am simply telling the hon. member for Durban Central what is stated in their documents. Later on he must prove the contrary to us, if he can. I challenge him to do so! [Interjections.]

Not as a permanent institution.

If they therefore accept a Department of Education and Training at the very start, it means in truth that they accept separate education for the Blacks, Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics. But I want to go further. They also have a specific standpoint on the Teachers’ Association, and I think that that is where the hon. member for Durban Central erred again. Natasa is, it is true, an advocate of a national teachers’ association, but “national” in the sense of various Black teachers’ associations in contrast to the present practice of various White teachers’ associations which we regard as adequate. In the second place this same Teachers’ Council proposes a teachers’ council in contrast with the teachers’ council for Whites, as it is known in White education. In the draft legislation which they submitted, and in which they accept the Department of Education and Training, it is a teachers’ council for the Blacks which they advocate, and no other deduction whatsoever can be made. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Durban Central asked the hon. the Prime Minister to refrain from making statements which could bedevil subsequent negotiations. I want to ask the hon. member for Durban Central, in all earnestness, to sweep before his own door before making such an arrogant accusation.

It was not I who made the statement.

I have already said I know that the hon. member for Durban Central is interested in education, and I give him credit for that. I am thoroughly aware of the fact. However, I want to ask him not to turn this serious matter into a political football.

Now you are talking absolute rubbish.

My request to him is that we should preferably keep politics out of this matter and continue our attempt to create a system of education for the Black people based on pedagogical principles adapted to the nature and character of the specific ethnic group.

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

I am sorry, but there are already indications that my time is almost up.

But cannot I ask only one question?

Sit down!

Mr. Speaker, I shall sit down when you request me to do so and not when this hon. big-mouth asks me to do so. I am making this appeal to the hon. member and his party, and to the official Opposition: For the sake of the cause let us refrain from dragging in politics when we are endeavouring, with the best possible intentions, to give those Black people a system of education, so as to create an effective and efficient source of labour for them as well. It is important that in striving to achieve this aim, the establishment of an efficient and effective source of labour, we should bear in mind the available work opportunities. It is the right of any person and not his privilege—whether he is White or Black—to qualify and prepare himself for life in the best possible way. However, it is an injustice if a person is trained for years in a certain direction only to find afterwards that there are no work opportunities in that direction. When we reflect on this matter—and new legislation pertaining to this matter will quite probably come to fruition during the course of the present session—it is important that we should get our priorities and basic premises straight, that we should examine this matter in principle in the interests of Black education, and that we should refrain from creating problems here, as I think the hon. member for Durban Central did, and allowing false ideas to take root among the Black people and others as a result of unnecessary allegations in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Virginia will forgive me if I do not get involved in his argument with the hon. member for Durban Central on the question of education. What hon. members on the Government side have offered today are, I submit, palliatives concerning the economic state of the country; what they have not done is to get down to the root cause of the problems that are responsible for this economic situation. I think that the hon. the Minister of Finance will be the first to admit that, without political stability, there can be no economic stability. It is that subject I want to deal with in the House this afternoon.

Over the past two years more people have left South Africa than have entered the country. In 1977 we lost 1 178 people. Last year the figure went up to 2 509. Had it not been for the war in Rhodesia, the figure would have been 11 104. Why do people even think of leaving South Africa? Would they do so if they had confidence in the future, in a safe and peaceful future? Why, may I ask, is there so much cash lying about that the building societies are refusing investments? Why is this cash not being used to increase capital expansion? Why do so many people want to keep their assets liquid? Why has our Defence budget increased by 1 000% over a period of 10 years? Why is the call-up period now two years and why are our borders the subject of terrorist attacks? Why, may I ask, are we finding it more difficult than any other country to buy oil on the open market? Why are we the target of the OAU, the Third World, the Scandinavian countries and the United Nations?

Those questions should be posed to the PFP.

Why have we been isolated from so many world bodies and organizations? Why have we in the field of sport been excluded from the Olympic Games? We are fighting to get back into swimming, rugby and cricket. Why are we so unwelcome in so many countries and not even permitted into certain others? Why is it that after 30 years of NP rule it is necessary for me to ask these questions in the House today? It is because of Government policy which has resulted in this situation and which has landed us in a morass. Apartheid is the cornerstone of NP policy and it is enacted in our laws and written into our statute book. This policy has spread its tentacles to encompass every fibre and sinew of life and activity in South Africa from the cradle to the grave. It has done so politically, socially and biologically.

Today we are paying the price of apartheid. Can this price be calculated in terms of rands and cents? It is not easy, but I shall attempt to do so this afternoon. What I cannot do, however, is to calculate in rands and cents the cost of apartheid in sorrow, resentment, heartbreak and humiliation. How much longer can we afford to continue with this exercise? Let us today take stock and look at the material side of the cost of apartheid. Do hon. members realize that it has already cost South Africa thousands of millions of rands and is still costing thousands of millions of rands annually?

Let us take a look at some of these aspects that cause me to make this statement. Firstly, I want to touch upon the subject of job wage colour-bars in the South African economy. In a paper delivered by L. G. Abrahamse of Nedbank to the S.A. Institute of Race Relations in January 1977, use was made of the American methodology of calculating the earnings of male and female White Americans respectively for each educational grade or standard attained, and comparing these earnings with the earnings of Negroes who have attained the same educational standards as the White American. After that the difference between the earnings of these two groups is calculated. In this regard the author of the paper then applied a formula. I quote from this paper—

I have up-dated that figure. The GNP for 1977 was R32 994 million. When I apply the same methodology as that used in the USA, I find that the net loss is now R16 000 million.

I want to go further and take a look at the cost of the migratory labour system. From 3 July 1976 to June 1977, 234 300 people were arrested and prosecuted under the pass laws. In 1977 Michael Savage delivered a paper to the S.A. Institute of Race Relations in which he analysed every single aspect concerning these arrests. He calculated—it is there for all to see—the cost in respect of the arrests, the patrolling, the prosecutions, the loss of production, the imprisonment, the issuing of new passes, labour contracts and by bureaux, aid centres and transit camps, and arrived at the figure of R112 825 237 per year. This does not include costs which cannot be calculated, such as transport costs and the spending of many long hours queuing at the bureaux.

Let us further look at the cost of creating political institutions and implementing the homeland policy. I want to start by discussing the homeland policy. The Tomlinson Commission recommended that an amount of R50 million per year should be made available for the implementation of the homeland policy. As the best example I want to refer to Transkei, which became independent as a result of the implementation of this policy. In time this will extend to eight other homelands.

Firstly, this Parliament had to pass a number of laws, such as the Promotion of Bantu Self-government Act of 1959, the Transkei Constitution Act of 1963—which was amended three times thereafter—the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act of 1970, the Bantu Homelands Constitution Act of 1971 and the Status of Transkei Act of 1976. In the ten years up to 1977 the Transkei annual budget rose from R13 million to R30 million, but our Treasury had to bear four-fifths of that cost. According to my calculation we had to pay approximately R160 million over that period. However, the establishment of independence necessitated the undertaking of prestigious and other projects. For example, a hospital which they needed, cost R13 million; an airport, R12 million; a stadium, R6 million; government offices, R13 million; a military base, R15 million; a presidential palace, R2 million; a university, R7 million; and roads, R12 million. All that amounts to a capital expenditure of R97 million. After that we received a very nice “thank you”, but later on we were told: “Goodbye and thank you very much. Take your diplomats with you”. A couple of years ago I visited Vendaland and had the opportunity of seeing the houses of five Ministers which were built for them at a cost of R60 000 each. Each of these Ministers receives a salary of R1 000 per month. Now we have eight homelands. Bophuthatswana was the next homeland to become independent. On the basis of what the independence of Transkei had cost, I calculate that it will cost the Government a minimum of R200 million to establish any one of these homelands as an independent country.

How many more are to follow? On this basis and with costs escalating I calculate the final cost to the South African Treasury when all the homelands have become independent to be R2 000 million.

Then if I look at the additional expenditure for last year on Vote No. 6, R331 million had to be provided for the development of Bantu areas and assistance to self-governing homelands. Under Vote 8 of last year’s budget, R555 million had to be provided for this purpose, of which R151 million was for the development of Bantu areas and R116 million for assistance to the self-governing homelands. There are 312 Black areas, the administration cost of which, is R97 million.

Let us now turn to the requirements of the Coloureds. An amount of R248,5 million is provided in the March 1978 budget for the CRC. The overall budget for administering Coloured affairs was R274,9 million.

Let us now have a look at the Indian position. R96,7 million was provided for the Indian Council. They do not require the same intense form of development as the Coloureds. I must ask whether the Government is serious about doubling and trebling costs. Are they really serious about the constitution which they have proposed? What will the capital and administrative costs be to establish a chamber of deputies for the 46 members of the Indian group, a house of representatives for 92 members of the Coloured group, a council of cabinets of 15 members, a president’s council of 20 members, an electoral college of 88 members and in addition to maintain a White Parliament of 185 members? All in all this is some 546 representatives and, if they are going to earn something like R15 000 a year, we shall have to provide R81,9 million only as emoluments to keep this set-up going.

Allow me to take this argument further and deal with the cost of implementing the Group Areas Act. Approximately 458 959 Coloureds and Indians were moved by 1977. In fact, by 31 December 1977, 106 074 families— 536 739 people—were moved at an average of R100 per person. A minimum of R45 million was therefore needed for that. In addition, 819 White group areas, 550 Coloured group areas and 250 Indian group areas had to be established.

The hon. member for Virginia spoke about the Indian university at Westville. This involves capital expenditure of R16 million and administrative costs of R8,6 million and the University of the Western Cape for Coloureds capital expenditure of R16 million and administrative costs of R6,3 million. The University of Fort Hare, the University of Zululand and the University of the North and the medical university, all for Blacks, involved administrative costs of R26,9 million and a total capital of R81,8 million. Transportation requires at least an additional R50 million for various local authorities to keep up the policy of apartheid. Johannesburg loses 8 million a year. Perhaps the hon. the Minister of Finance would be kind enough to tell us the cost of economic decentralization and of the creation of jobs in the border areas. How much does it cost to administer the battery of legislation for Plural Relations and for the policing of it all?

My overall calculation for the matters to which I have referred comes to the astronomical figure of R18 795,2 million. We cannot afford this policy financially, morally or economically. It is time for a change. This money which has been wasted must be put back into the pockets of the citizens. If we had consensus we would not need apartheid. Everyone must have a share and say in the Government and it must be one Government for all. We must restore confidence in the minds of our people. Let us stop bluffing ourselves and let us get down to the real issues at hand. We can only do this by throwing apartheid out of the window, bath and all. We can do this by recognizing that we are a plural society, a plural society with a religious, ethnic, cultural, linguistic and racial cleavage as defined by Furnivall. We have to recognize that the Westminster system of government as it exists in South Africa today is not democratic. Like apartheid it must be scrapped. We need to recognize that in a Government by consensus every vote counts. Every candidate has a chance of being elected. Minority parties still have representation in Parliament and at every level of government Every party still has a say because of consensus and the right to veto. We need to recognize that majoritarian democracy is not a variable form of government in a plural society such as ours. Broad agreement among the citizens is more democratic than simple majority rule.

Lijphart gives five reasons why it is not democratic. Firstly, he says, the members of the Cabinet all belong to one party. Secondly, the electoral system is such that the candidate with the majority vote gains representation of the constituency, while the loser is out. Thirdly, in the electoral method the votes cast in favour of the winning candidate count, while votes in favour of the losing candidate count for nothing. Fourthly, the governing party controls all the spoils of office, while the losing party gets nothing. Furthermore, the system of Government is unitary and centralized, there is no restricted geographical or functional areas. This system excludes significant political representation. This system is such that it excludes significant political groups from the decision-making process for an extended period of time.

In South Africa, a factor which upsets the political balance even more, is that the Black majority constituting 71% of the population, is left without any say at all. Of the minority groups without any political say, the Coloureds constitute 10% of the population, the Indians 3%, and even among the White section, the English-speaking part of the electorate has had no say, for the past 30 years. The clear and unequivocal answer is government by consensus. It embraces four main principles, the first of which is the grand coalition principle. The second principle is that of the mutual veto in which minority parties also have a say. The third principle entails fair and equal treatment for all, it overrules majoritarian democracy that is not democratic anyway. The fourth principle is that of segmental autonomy, which may be characterized as minority rule over the minority itself in the area of the minorities exclusive concern. This is, therefore, the form of government and is also the philosophy underlying the policy of consensus. It is more democratic. It is more practical than majority rule.

In plural societies with deep cleavages, majority rule and democracy are incompatible. Government by consensus offers the only realistic possibility to attain a viable democratic system. This is then the philosophy upon which the future policy of the country should be based. That is the policy of the PFP. Thus confidence will then be restored, immigration will flourish, international acceptance will follow and we will then enjoy an era of progress and prosperity unparallelled in the history of South Africa. We dare not hesitate. Time is of the essence. The situation is grave and urgent. We must act now.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hillbrow delivered a speech in a machine gun style. It is impossible to reply to all the matters he mentioned. All the same, it is necessary to reply here and there to some of the aspects he touched on. He commenced by saying that South Africa’s budget of expenditure for defence had increased. He went on to say that South Africa had to contend with terrorism, something which, as he put it, he wanted to ascribe to the policy of apartheid. One wonders, however, to what he ascribes the occurrence of terrorism in Angola, Rhodesia, Spain, Germany, even in Britain. Is that also, perhaps, due to a policy of apartheid?

Furthermore, the hon. member for Hillbrow devoted a major part of his speech to the tremendous cost of apartheid. The hon. member spoke as though the new policy of the PFP would involve no expense. However, one wonders whether the various states which will form part of their proposed federation will involve no extra cost and what the cost of those proposed Governments will be. I also wonder what costs will be involved in the separate parliaments, the parliaments which will come into being in each of those states. However, apart from anything else, the cost involved in apartheid, the cost of the policy of separate development, are costs generated by the whole community. The hon. member asks: “Why not do something and put the money back into the pockets of the people?” However, that is exactly what is happening. Money spent in this way for the various aspects of the Government’s policy, provides employment and puts money into people’s pockets.

In this regard I think it is essential—the hon. member also referred to their new policy with which they came forward in November 1978—to come back to the hon. member for Rondebosch. After all, he was the chairman of the commission which decided to publish this new policy. After various Government speakers had attacked the policy they had come up with and after the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations and of Education and Training and the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations and Development as well as other Government speakers who had put pertinent matters such as the article by Mr. Phillip Frankel to him, he devoted a mere four lines of his speech in the no-confidence debate to a reply to the two hon. Deputy Ministers mentioned.

That is all they were worth.

The fact is that in a deeply divided plural society, one cannot govern constructively and productively by way of a minority veto. That is impossible; that is a figment of the imagination. One cannot anticipate what lies ahead and neutralize it in advance by way of consensus. Mr. Speaker, I am thinking, for example, of the question of neutrality and war. On two occasions in the history of this country we had tremendous dissension among the White groups alone as far as this matter is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member who decides about a war in South Africa under the present circumstances. Is it a minority or a majority?

Parliament decides. A majority of this Parliament decided on that. The minority did not have a veto. If there had been such a veto and the minority had exercised that veto in 1914 and 1939, revolution, rebellion and evil would have reigned in this country.

A bloodbath!

Yes, a bloodbath, as the hon. member has said. What is more, the situation concerned only the two White groups of this country, and not the eleven groups existing in South Africa. Surely it is naïve to anticipate that the majority will simply resign itself to the veto of the minority and will attempt to convert the minority to its viewpoint for ever more.

Then the Opposition, in propagating this policy, wants to maintain that this is the same thing as the Government envisages with its new dispensation. Funnily enough, they reject the Government’s new dispensation, but then they state that their policy is in accordance with the Government’s new dispensation.

We never said that.

As far as consensus is concerned, the Opposition states that it is similar to our new dispensation. If a deadlock should arise under the Government’s new dispensation, it is referred either to the State President’s Council or to the Select Committees of the various Parliaments. If the issue cannot be resolved there, it is then referred back to the Council of Cabinets, where the State President then establishes the decision of the Council of Cabinets.

Who will then decide finally?

The issue is then resolved. That hon. member does not know how the Council of Cabinets or a Cabinet operates. He has never known it and will never know it in future.

Who will decide?

After all, there must be a method to end a deadlock. That, even the hon. member for Johannesburg North will concede.

That is not what Mr. Vorster said.

Strangely enough, the will of the majority counts as far as financial proposals are concerned. As far as the most important legislation of the year, viz. the appropriation of Government money, is concerned, the will of the majority counts—“The winner takes all”. Is this not interesting?

Even their own protagonists, people such as Mr. Tertius Myburgh and Joel Mervis of the Sunday Times, concede that these are fundamental objections. Mr. Joel Mervis states “It looks like a tall order, an impossible dream”. Mr. Speaker, it does not only look like a tall order or an impossible dream; it is a nightmare. He went on to say: “The PFP plan will just have to work”. Is it not strange that the PFP plan “just has to work”, whereas the policy which has already been operating in South Africa for 300 years, i.e. the policy of separate development, a policy which has existed from as far back as our first contact with the Black man, may not work.

You do not know the history and should rather go and read it again.

I want to ask the hon. member who is so loquacious, what the position is with regard to the BSL countries. These are countries that have developed as a result of the policy of separate development. There is no getting away from that. Why does the hon. Opposition recognize the development, the existence and the independence of the BSL countries, but not that of Transkei and Bophuthatswana? Where is their logic? They persevere with what Frankel calls a “dangerous fantasy” and what their own apologists acknowledge as being full of loopholes, but no constructive contribution is made with regard to a policy which has already been operative in South Africa for 300 years. They make no contribution to its development. I agree with the idea that, just as Mr. Garfield Todd and his party became totally irrelevant as far as the ultimate future of Rhodesia is concerned, the PFP, too, is irrelevant in the great debate of Southern Africa.

What has become of Rhodesia now?

Moreover, I have a suspicion that the idea of so-called minority protection is a mere fantasy, only a carrot with which to attract votes. In the back of the minds of those hon. members are, in my opinion, the ideas of the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. the Chief Whip of the PFP.

However, there are a few other matters which I want to debate with the hon. member for Rondebosch. This hon. member asserts that the Government is imposing ethnicity on South Africa.

Yes, the law says so.

The hon. member for Rondebosch is, in my opinion, an honest member and he is attempting to examine the policy of the NP and that of his own party in an honest way. But the hon. member must examine the policy of the NP more carefully. One cannot impose ethnicity on another person. Ethnicity is a part of one, just as one’s personality is part of one. [Interjections.] One can try, like the hon. member for Johannesburg North and the hon. member for Rondebosch, to associate with another group, but one will remain a mere appendage of such a group, a mere outsider. Someone like that will never become a member of the establishment. The hon. member for Johannesburg North remains an Afrikaner and the hon. member for Rondebosch remains an Afrikaner … [Interjections.] diminished Afrikaners, yes, but they will never become a member of the establishment. Similarly, the hon. member for Yeoville will not become a member of the establishment either. [Interjections.] The Black man is proud of his identity, whether he stays in Soweto, Mamelodi, Langa or in Nyanga. A person who attempts to abandon his group, is no longer worth anything; he is unmanned; he is a Prog. [Interjections.]

The next thing the hon. member for Rondebosch wants to know is what our principles are, and I want to mention a few to him. The most important principle of the policy of the NP is the right of self-determination. We claim for ourselves the right, without interference by others, to govern ourselves, but we wish other groups to have exactly the same. We claim for ourselves that territory which has lawfully become our fatherland over the years and we do not begrudge other groups their territory to which they are lawfully entitled. In my opinion this is a non-negotiable principle. This also means that we shall strive to maintain our own identity.

What about District Six?

We believe in eliminating friction, and we are doing this when we consider the elimination of discrimination. We believe in orderly government, in the maintenance of law and order and, above all else, in the safeguarding of our State. Under our policy this is effected by means of separate development. Only apartheid can save minorities. This has been said by a British physiologist and archaeologist, Mr. John Allegro. The policy of separate development is better adapted to the biological and cultural needs of man than any of the other political theories. Mr. Kane Berman states the following: “Apartheid is methodical, rational and very logical. ” When he said that, he was assistant editor of the Financial Mail.

As far as the idea of a convention is concerned, I want to say that the other hon. members have already shot down the plan effectively and have pointed out why it is not comparable with the Turnhalle. Therefore, I am not going to pursue the matter again.

I want to read aloud to this House what Pres. Carter has to say about the question of a convention. Mr. Brown, the governor of California and a possible candidate in the American presidential election, proposed that a convention be convened in America in order to draft a new constitution. Pres. Carter commented on that as follows—

Compromises and settlements in this regard are not necessary in South Africa.

Thus far we have not yet debated the question of federation in this session, but our objections in principle to the idea of a federation are just as valid as in the past. I want to mention a few. Must independent States governed by dictators also be annexed into this federal structure? Furthermore there is no assurance that in a particular State there will necessarily be a particular group in the majority, except in the homogenous homelands. In plural communities, where there is no common loyalty which is nurtured by the collective history, language, culture, traditions and nationalism of the various groups, a federation cannot be formed. The hon. members would do well to take note once again of what the Chief Justice of the former Federation of Rhodesia and Nyassaland, Mr. Justice Tredgold, had to say. He stated—

He had experience of a federation. Furthermore, there is the problem in respect of rich and poor States within a federation, and a problem which can arise where there is a Cabinet in which groups are proportionally represented. How will a federation work successfully where a rich area and a poor area exist in the same federation? The rich States will have to be taxed to help the poor States over the stile. The problem with sophisticated modern federal States, such as America and Canada, is that there is a tendency for the power to be increasingly transferred into the hands of the central federal government. The constituent States lose more and more of their sovereignty. The ultimate result is domination of the one group by another group. This is inevitable. The whole idea of a convention, the veto right by the minority and the concept of a federation, is basically rubbish and the voters of South Africa will not accept this policy of the PFP.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Brakpan delivered a very good speech. I, in turn, want to link up with the speech which the hon. member for Paarl made during this debate, particularly in respect of certain references he made about the Western Cape.

The West Coast.

Forget about the West Coast I shall not confine myself to that. I want to commence by making a very general statement. I do not think that a single MP visiting the Greater Boland or the Greater Western Cape, will deny the truth of what I am going to say now. The general growth rate in the Western Cape, the oldest civilized part of our country and the third most important industrial area in our country, is at present a cause of serious concern to all our people. Also seen in a wider context, when we analyse this specific growth rate in its essence, we find that it is creating very serious concern in the whole of South Africa.

Hon. members must now note the terminology which I am going to use. This part of the country is not Black South Africa’s most important geographic stronghold. It is the oldest civilized geographic area in Southern Africa. Make the Western Cape more serviceable and you will render the whole of South Africa an incalculable service. I do not now want to sit down among the ashes and complain. I just want to point out with one single statement that the situation in the Western Cape is not too good at the moment. There is something wrong in the world around us.

You must come to Natal. It is pleasant there.

I need only substantiate this in two ways. We in the Western Cape are at present contributing a dwindling amount to the gross national product. In 1966 our contribution was 13,8%. Recently it has dwindled to approximately 11%. I do not think I need further evidence to indicate that all is not well with the growth rate of this, the oldest civilized part of this country. However, I want to acknowledge at once that in the most recent past there has been a certain amount of assistance from the State. Over the past few years the State has done its share, and properly analysed, this assistance from the State is nothing but a subsidy to the south. That is what I want to call it. There are approximately 10 points I want to raise in this regard and I repeat that this assistance from the State is nothing but a subsidy to the southern part of our country. I do not want to go into this matter in detail; I just want to mention approximately eight to ten aspects. In the first place there is a gigantic Boland water project which is continuing to develop. However, that Boland water project which was undertaken, a project costing millions of rands, had to come. In fact, it commenced too late. In the second place there was the Sishen/Saldanha project for which our people fought so that the sparks flew. It took a long time before we could obtain a decision for the sake of this, the oldest civilized part of our country. In the third place, I want to mention the provision made for our fishing harbours as an investment in our profitable sea industry. It had to come. Over the past two years, millions of rands have been invested in our fishing harbours in the Western Cape, but it had to come; there was no alternative. In the fourth place, I mention Mitchell’s Plain in order to eliminate this part of a sub-economic twilight world on the Cape Flats. If one examines the Mitchell’s Plain project—and many of the hon. members were there yesterday—one realizes that its aim is nothing but the accommodation of the people who stream from the outside to the Cape metropolis on the one hand, and assisting in eliminating the sub-economic twilight world which has been built up over the years on the other. Then there is Atlantis, which affords a solution for all the forms of over-concentration in the Cape Metropolitan area. It had to come. Furthermore there is the atomic project at Koeberg; the construction of a giant storage centre for oil at Saldanha, a centre which is under construction at the moment; the proposed Krygkor project at Hermon; and the announcement of a diesel project at Atlantis, an announcement made recently by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. If one takes all these projects into consideration and analyses the situation correctly, what this in reality amounts to is merely a subsidy to the southern geographic part of our country. In the broader context it does not yet in reality create the growth rate this part of the world requires.

In most recent times three things have happened which have done my heart good. The first is the shift in the Cabinet as a result of which Economic Affairs and Environmental Planning were placed under one Ministry. I think that was the correct decision. These two departments which work in conjunction, should have been joined long ago. In a young developing country they should not, as in the past, be separated. Moreover, both the Minister and the Deputy Minister are Cape men. I hope they will do justice to this task. In the second place, the Minister of Economic Affairs recently announced a decentralized area for the Industrial Development Corporation. For years the IDC was based in the northern part of our country, and we here in the south, where all the problems are experienced, had no branch of the corporation.

Recently the Minister decided—and this was a good decision—to establish a branch of the IDC here, a branch which will concern itself with the future growth and development of the Western Cape. In the third place, the Minister of Environmental Planning and Energy instructed the University of Stellenbosch to investigate the future growth of the Western Cape. What does this indicate to us? This is an express acknowledgment or an express sign on the part of the State that there is concern in Government circles about the growth rate in the Western Cape. I hope that the work being done in this regard will present us with a formula to escape from this dilemma.

It is against this background that I, as a Bolander, want to ask the Government today to view this part of the country from a totally new angle as soon as possible. I want to point out a few aspects in this regard in the brief time at my disposal. I presume that the work done by the University of Stellenbosch will present us with formulae which will contribute to a solution. Therefore, I do not want to anticipate their work. However, there are three aspects in particular to which I want to refer in passing—I will not discuss them in depth. The first is well thought-out action in our future planning structure in order to place all possible service industries in the Western Cape. Here in the Western Cape we do not have gold; we do not have coal with which to build a third or even a fourth Sasol one day which could create job opportunities and growth momentum in our part of the world. Our greatest asset in the Western Cape is the growing number of Coloureds, which we want to bring to the attention of the Whites for the sake of a sound balance in a new dispensation. We are at present in the process of creating that dispensation.

Against this background there are three aspects to which I want to refer in passing. The first is the question of our system of having two capital cities. [Interjections.] I am now going to tread on the toes of those hon. members who have been making remarks and joking in between. Now that we are creating a new dispensation, now that we find ourselves in dangerous times and are fighting a fierce battle against any increase in our cost of living, it is only reasonable that we pay attention to the cost involved in our double-capital system in South Africa in a realistic way.

Hear, hear!

Within the framework of a new dispensation there is a lot to say for the argument that the Government should pay attention to the idea of establishing a greater part of our executive functions in Cape Town. [Interjections.] We have to conserve fuel. If we only act correctly in this regard and save, we could build a third Sasol complex tomorrow morning and pay for it in cash. In this regard I can refer to many other examples, but I shall refer to only one more striking example, because my time is limited. A few years ago we established a television service in South Africa, a whole new service industry in which the State had a large share. However, what did we do then? We built the head offices and basic structure of the television service in the north of the country, where there is already an over-concentration of industries. [Interjections.] Why could this complex not have been established in Cape Town or in one of our Boland towns? It would have performed this same function, because it is not a locality-bound industry. And moreover, the Boland also has beautiful scenery. We have the right atmosphere for this type of project. [Interjections.] Then, too, there is also the fact that we here in the Boland are level-headed. We can man such a service. As I have said, as far as the environment is concerned, it would have been the correct thing if an industry such as this television service had been established here in the south of the country instead of in the north. Here the industry would have been able to perform the same function and the same service to the people of South Africa.

There is a second argument I want to advance. I want to advocate a more rapid exploitation of all the mineral wealth of the Northern and North-western Cape. These mineral raw materials could be transported via the Sishen/Saldanha railway line to the harbour at Saldanha, which will serve as a servicing point. This is an important matter I am now raising. The Government has done a great deal of important spadework recently. The yield of the Namaqualand mineral production is at the moment estimated at approximately R150 million per annum and it is expected that as a result of the mineral development within the next two years it will increase to R250 million. The Government has done the correct thing in this regard. With the exploitation of the Aggeneis mine, South Africa ought to become self-sufficient in the field of zinc, tin and lead. A small amount of silver and copper is even now being mined in this particular region as well.

And here and there the odd supporter of a defunct opposition party.

The ore will be transported on a special connecting route— hon. members must listen; it is important and I am coming to my argument now—of R2 million to loop 10 on the Sishen/Saldanha line. There is a further special appropriation of approximately R9 million—and this project is already under way—for concentrate loading facilities at Saldanha. That is what is being done at the moment with regard to the minerals which will be exploited here. The Government has, therefore, done the correct thing and is also in the process of establishing a development line which will connect the north-north-western part of our country with new harbour development at Saldanha. I think this is correct action on the part of the Government.

Greater investment on the part of the Government, particularly in prospecting for minerals within the specific geographic area to which I referred, which links up with the north-north-western parts as well as the southern part, viz. the Western Cape, is absolutely essential, and in this regard the Government is doing the correct thing. It is estimated that the world demand for minerals will be twice as large as it is now by the year 2000. On the basis of current money values it will amount to the astronomical sum of R350 000 million.

It is true that South Africa has experienced a tremendous revival in this field in recent years. We cannot deny this. However, it is also true that if we analyse this situation more carefully and place it n context, we reach different conclusions, viz. that in 1969 the prospecting budget of a country like Canada, amounted to R57 million. That is equivalent to 4,63% of the gross income of the mining industry of that particular country. In contrast to this, South Africa spent a mere R6 million, or 0,46% of the total value of its mineral production, on prospecting or development in 1967. Today, just a little more than 1% of the total value of our mineral production is being spent on prospecting, and this in a country rich in minerals like South Africa. If we want to effect new momentum in the Western Cape, we shall necessarily have to make a greater investment in the exploitation of the mineral wealth of the particular geographic area to which I referred, in conjunction with the Saldanha project.

There is a final factor to which I want to refer in linking up with the speech made here last night by my friend the hon. member for Paarl. I am referring to the proposed semis works at Saldanha. It is true that the Government has created great expectations, not only in the specific geographic area or in the vicinity of Saldanha, but also in the whole of the Western Cape. A neat, well-drafted guideplan has already been completed for the whole of the region of Saldanha/Vredenburg. At the moment a water scheme is being constructed there, and on completion, the costs involved in the scheme will amount to R52 million. All possible expectations have been created in that region in respect of future growth and development which could eliminate the dilemma I mentioned in respect of the stagnation in the Greater Western Cape. Yet in spite of everything I have mentioned today, we can only escape from our dilemma if we tackle the semis works in this particular region of the Western Cape. Now I understand—and the hon. member for Paarl also stated this last night—that we are experiencing serious difficulties today. We have lists of priorities which have to be drawn up. We must construct another Sasol, and still undertake many other things. These are all logical arguments. However, the fact remains that, in this the oldest civilized part of our country, we are going to find ourselves in a dilemma if we do not drastically increase the growth rate in this part of the country. This is actually the most important facet or factor of which we must take note with regard to the Western Cape.

I want to make a very serious appeal here today and ask the Government whether it is not possible, on a smaller scale, in conjunction with the semis works at Saldanha, just to make a start with a project which will also be linked up with what the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs announced. I am now referring to the project at Atlantis, a project to which the hon. member for Paarl also referred last night. Is it not possible, with the assistance and the initiative of the Government, to muster the private initiative in South Africa at this stage, to undertake a project in this region, even if it is only a modest one, a project which will bring new momentum, which will create new hope in this the oldest civilized part of our country?

I am not delivering this speech because I want to sit among the ashes. I want to look ahead. If there is a region, a geographic area in our country where our people show the necessary creative capacity, it is, in fact, the southern part of our country. It is for this reason that I am requesting the Government to see the future of this the most important and oldest civilized part of our country, namely the Western Cape, in a different light.

Mr. Speaker, we have listened with great interest to the speech by the hon. member for Moorreesburg. He was at pains to tell us, time without number, that he represents the oldest civilized area of South Africa. He gave his personal opinion. However, he omitted to give his personal opinion on one thing in which we are deeply interested. We want to know his personal opinion in respect of the future of the Black South Africans in the oldest civilized part of South Africa. We would like to know from him how he sees the Black South African in the future of the oldest civilized part of South Africa.

Why did you not ask me that question before I made my speech?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can answer in his own time.

The second leg of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point deals with the sorry state in which John Citizen finds himself today. In order to refresh the memory of hon. members, I quote from the amendment moved by my leader—

The Government is completely out of touch with the people. The Government is growing more and more aloof as each day goes by. I believe that this aloofness is occasioned by two things. It is occasioned by the internal bickerings and divisions that will ultimately rip the Government apart. [Interjections.] It is going to tear it apart at the seams. [Interjections.] That bickering is going to expose the Government for what it really is. The Government is not only out of touch, but also out of reach. It is sitting on a little peacock throne all of its own.

Mr. Speaker, recent history has shown us that peacocks’ thrones much older than 30 years can fall apart overnight I just want to warn the Government. The Government and the Government alone, is responsible for the impossible situation in which South Africa and the South African people find themselves today. John Citizen is overtaxed and has been overtaxed for too long. I want to say that the moment of truth has arrived for the hon. the Minister of Finance. Tax concessions are rumoured, written about and hinted at. Everybody outside expects tax concessions of an appreciable nature this year. Both the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs constantly tell us that the economy is on the up and up. They tell us that the silver lining has almost eliminated the cloud that has darkened our skies for practically the whole of the last decade and certainly since the crash of 1969 when we saw the share market fall apart.

May I say to the hon. the Minister of Finance that 1979 is the year when he must put his money, which is the taxpayers’ money, where his mouth is. The people are expecting, and they deserve, big tax concessions, because without them there is no way in which they can carry on meeting their commitments. South Africans are being taxed out of existence. They are being expected to constantly tighten their belts in the face of an ever-increasing cost-of-living spiral. Let us not for one minute imagine that the increase of 6c per litre in the price of petrol announced last week is not going to have a ripple effect extending to almost every commodity needed to sustain life. An increase of 6c per litre in the price of petrol retailing at 30c is a 20% increase. However, an increase of 6c per litre on lighting paraffin, which retails at 18c, is a 33,3% increase and it is an increase that has to be met by the lower-income group of our people.

It is the cost of food and the ever-widening gap between income and expenditure which faces Mrs. South Africa, who is fighting a losing battle in an effort to keep her family clothed, warm and fed—I did not say “well-clothed” or “well-fed”, but just “clothed” and “fed”.

What about our pensioners, both social pensioners and others? Their situation is an impossible and untenable one. The stories are legion of those who are at their wit’s end and do not know how they can possibly survive much longer. People of advanced years have accumulated capital carefully in the hope that they can live off the interest comfortably. We regard these people to be in the fixed-income group. They were able to accumulate capital and look forward to a fairly secure future until two or three years ago. Today they are eating into the capital they have accumulated, with the resultant drastic consequences. People who have subscribed all their working lives to pension funds are drawing pensions that are hopelessly inadequate today to meet the prices they have to pay for rent, food and clothing. I despair for the social pensioner because he is fighting a battle that was lost long ago.

All that Government members can do is to compare what happened 10, 20 and 30 years ago with the situation today. They produce impressive-sounding figures but let me say that figures, like Marie Antoinette’s cake, cannot feed the people. What about the fat cats, the privileged few who have been living it up? They have had their trips abroad ad nauseam, they have bought one Citizen using the money that the real citizens have had to fork out by way of taxes. They spend the real citizens’ money like drunken sailors and do nothing to lighten what my leader has termed the crushing burden on the people at this time. What about the attitude of the people who represent the party that is in power today? Let us examine what the Nationalist MPC representing the constituency of Delmas, the one represented by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, said in what was described as a rousing speech—

He continued by saying—

Whom are you quoting?

I am quoting Mr. D. P. Kirstein, the Nationalist MPC for Delmas in the Transvaal. He went on to say—

He claims that money lost to the State as a result of their efforts was the equivalent of a mere R5 or R10 out of “your pocket or mine”. Now he might consider R5 or R10 a mere bagatelle but I do not! I count every R5 note and I would certainly look twice at every R10-note. Now, if I have to do that, what about Mrs. Jones or Mrs. Van Rensburg who are living on their old-age pensions, or who are trying to? Does Mr. Kirstein include them? Those people do not count money in rands, they count it in cents because of the miserable pittance they are expected to live on, the miserable hand-out the Government gives to the social pensioner while it throws away millions in gay abandon …

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

No, you may not! Yesterday the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke had the cheek to talk about the “silwerskoon rekord” of the NP Government. I say it is tarnished silver! I wonder if the Government ever stops to think about the social pensioner? [Interjections.] I wonder if the Government ever stops to think about the widows and the less fortunate people of South Africa, people who resent bitterly the over-taxation and the wasteful expenditure on the part of the Government? How do they feel? Have they lost all sense of feeling? Are they too numb with shock to feel anything any longer? What they indeed are is sick and tired of their lot in life and of the incompetence of the Government. Let us please not argue about this incompetence because recent events have proved not only to me, but to every thinking South African, that that is just what the Government is, incompetent! If the Government does not believe me when I say this, let me than say to them all: Go to the country and see what the country says. Go to the ballot-box and let the ballot-box prove the validity of my statement. [Interjections.]

When passing a budget or a part appropriation, one must assume the competence of those who are going to spend the money. Can we assume the competence of the Government after what it has demonstrated to us over the past six to eight months? Can we assume any competence on its part whatsoever? We know our responsibility, which is to take up the cudgels on behalf of all who are suffering as a result of the Government’s incompetence and inadequacies. I say here and now to this hon. Minister that South Africa is waiting for and expecting the generous tax benefits he has hinted at and, together with the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, has suggested are forthcoming, and I repeat “generous tax benefits” and not trivialities. The hon. the Minister must not give the people cents when they have to fork out rands. He must not give the housewife hundreds of cents and expect her to be able to meet bills that are hundreds of rands higher than they were this time last year. The housewife is at her wit’s end in that she has had at most a 20% increase in income with which to meet bills that are, in many cases, 100% higher than they were two years ago. I am not referring now to bills for luxury items; I am referring to food bills, clothing bills, electricity, rates, medical bills and bus fares. The list is endless. I was 20 years of age when the Government came into power in 1948 …

Then you are much older than I thought!

… and I very clearly remember that election and how it was fought. [Interjections.] Let us see how these words grab the hon. the Minister of Finance. I remember that in that election the hon. the Minister of Finance voted for the United Party and not for the Government in which he sits at the moment.

When was that?

That was in 1948.

Is that so?

That is so; the hon. the Minister knows it, and so do I. I remember that election as one that was fought on the issues of white bread and apartheid. South Africans ate brown bread during the war years in order to assist in the war effort, and the Nationalists promised South Africa white bread if they came to power. South Africa did get a Nationalist Government and it got the white bread, but now, 31 years later, South Africans still have the Nationalists—heaven help us!—but the Government is doing everything it can to encourage the people to eat brown bread! They have now suddenly begun motivating the discontinuance of the baking of half loaves of bread because they say we save fuel this way. They say it takes more fuel to bake two half loaves than it takes to bake a whole loaf, and everybody piously sits back and thinks they are talking about oil. They are not. They are talking about electricity and that is electric fuel, coal fuel. Oh, they are pathetic!

Last year saw the introduction of the general sales tax. The indications are that this tax has already taken in far more than was needed, and I submit that even the ordinary tax resulted in a higher level of income to the State coffers than was anticipated. What about the gold bonanza? Let them shake their heads at that one! I think the hon. the Minister of Finance must lift the cover a little and give us some indication of how much relief the taxpayer is going to receive as a result of his overflowing coffers. The man in the street is facing economic ruin. Hundreds of people are fighting a losing battle against the cost of living, and yet the State coffers are awash with funds. How does this come about? There is only one answer and that is incompetence, bungling and bad budgeting— in short, rotten government! What makes the Government claim that it is the party of the people, a so-called “volksparty”. People are starting to ask what this party has cost South Africa and is still costing South Africa, and whether we can still afford this party which blindly throws away R64 million and then can do no more than make puerile excuses. The people now expect their money back. They want their money back by way of relief from this crushing burden they are suffering. The people do not mind Government spending when it is properly controlled and competent, but if it is not they want their money back, one way or another.

One thing the Nationalist Party has is a sense of loyalty. The members of its caucus have a tremendous loyalty to the party. This they demonstrate time and time again when they leap up to defend the party’s bankrupt policy.

Ask Louis Nel!

But what about loyalty to each other? During the no confidence debate my hon. leader spoke about what we call the Archies. Archies and Mehitabel is the story of the cockroach and the cat, and I see from his expression that the hon. Minister of Finance knows the story. My leader spoke of a room full of cockroaches that scatter when one turns the light on, leaving in the middle of the floor the writhing, unhappy victims of the boot that has descended upon them. When a person in that party becomes the victim of an exposure to the light, to the truth, those in the Government benches then turn on him, as they have done in the case of Dr. Connie Mulder and are now doing in respect of the hon. member for Pretoria Central. Yes, they do have their loyalty to their party but they have no loyalty to each other. I am not surprised that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs—and I am sorry he is not here at present—has to look over his shoulder all the time. I can point out many other hon. members who are living in dangerous times as far as their political futures are concerned. [Interjections.] The Nationalist Party has become a party of professional organizers. It has become a party of hacks completely divorced from the needs of the ordinary people who are today paying the price for the failure of the Government’s policy. The Government is now, by its own admission, moving away from the very policy that won them the election in 1948 and which has cost South Africa so dearly over the past 30 years. One leg of their policy was apartheid and the other leg was white bread. Apartheid has been the most expensive mistake in the history of any country in any party of the world. The Government cannot deny that this was a mistake because if it was not a mistake, why are they moving away from it?

Mr. Speaker …

The temporary hon. member for South Coast!

Order!

… I really do not want to complain just because my name is Jeremias and because my Biblical namesake was known as a man who complained. I think, however, that what happens in this House, should be a reflection of what the voters outside feel. Consequently one would expect that we on this side of the House should be allowed at least three or four speeches for every one from that side. Then at least one would not hear the thoughtless gibberish one hears under the present dispensation. In that case one would have a larger number of well-prepared speeches such as those we on this side of the House usually make. [Interjections.]

†Just before I started with my speech, the hon. member for Eshowe reminded me of the fact that the previous speaker is the hon. member for Umhlanga and not the hon. member for Umhlanga Rocks. After hearing him, however, I must say that he sounded to me like someone who has had too much of something on the rocks. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to make what is clearly a derogatory inference?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Unfortunately, I do not have much time and I have a very important point that I must make. If I have any time left over, however, I certainly will talk a little politics with my dear friends from Natal.

Honourable friends!

Yes, my hon. friends. The position is that we do not get enough time to put our point across and there is something I feel to be of the utmost importance, something I think I should bring to the notice of the House. The voters in our constituencies in Natal continually ask: Why do you chaps not do something about the English-language Press?

I now propose to look, in a very clinical and scientific manner, at the Press. I feel that the only way I can do so … [Interjections.] I shall be getting round to the hon. member for Mooi River. He is the one who is here in a temporary capacity, and that is a fact. I can see he is getting worried.

What is your point?

To do this …

Start with Die Burger.

… let me take one issue of a Sunday newspaper picked at random. I normally do not like to read these newspapers, these Sunday horribles or Sunday comics, because I do not like my peace of mind disturbed. I want to state, however, that the people of South Africa are basically the most wonderful people in the world. The English-language Press, we find, is continually inciting racism and creating a feeling of animosity amongst the peoples of South Africa. What I am saying is that we have become so conditioned to this that it by-passes us and we do not even notice it any more. I propose to take nine items from one newspaper only, The Sunday Tribune of 12 November 1978. The first item is headed: “The Hotnot King hits out.”

What year was that?

The hon. member must be deaf. I am not prepared to repeat what I have just said. I said this was in 1978.

You did not.

This first article refers to a Mr. Van Rensburg who had been sacked as town clerk because he had done too much for the Coloured folk. This was in Calitzdorp. This is the sort of reporting we get. We know that this is not true. If we were to sack people because they had compassion for the Coloured people, we would have to sack the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations and the hon. the Minister of Community Development…

Hear, hear!

… because we know how much compassion they have for Coloured people and how much they do for them.

Let me refer to another item from the same newspaper. There are nine such items, but I do not think I shall have the time to refer to all of them. The heading of the second item is: “Greytown City Hall bars its doors to Indians.” In Greytown there is a White township and an Indian township. The taxpayers have paid for their civic hall and the Indians for theirs. Simply because the Whites, who have paid for their civic hall, will not let the hall to the Indians, one gets this sort of reporting which is absolute racism. If I have a house which is mine because I have paid for it, I can do with it what I like. I am saying that these newspapers are inciting racism and nothing else.

Here I have another horrible example. The heading of this article is: “Town backs its killer cops. ” I am not prepared to go through all of the items, but I shall refer to a few. I quote—

They are expressing surprise—

The article continues—

They were sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment—

Now, Mr. Speaker, does this not amount to inciting racism in the worst possible form? A typical sort of approach is used. They get a stooge, in this case Van Niekerk, to make a statement to the Press. This is often the case. If one wants to talk about the Zulus and one wants to give the matter a measure of authenticity, one gets Ingoti Hatebe to write about them. If one wants to write about the Afrikaners in this Press, one gets Ingoti Strydom, Serfontein or De Villiers to write about them. Those are the tactics used. This is causing race friction. I ask myself whether we can afford this sort of thing. We were told that, because of the actions of the National Front, the hon. member for Houghton rand to the hon. the Prime Minister and said: These people are inciting racism.

It was the hon. member for Yeoville.

Yes. I ask myself why he does not go to his own Press, the Press that belongs to his establishment, and starts there.

Let me give another example—I do not want to go through the whole list. Just look at the sort of reporting we get. I maintain that the South African people have become conditioned to it. I shall go so far as to say that in no other country in the world will one find that a section of the Press in that country has so much to say that is derogatory and runs one group down at the expense of another as is happening in South Africa. I am taking these examples from one edition of one newspaper. In another item they deal with “The missing children of Msinga”. This happens to be my part of the country. I quote—

Hon. members must listen to this—

Now follows this important statement—

Was that true or false?

I happen to know the brothers Koos and Louis van Rooyen and I can tell hon. members that Koos van Rooyen and his brother have more compassion for the Blacks than anyone of the hon. members in the Opposition. I do not know whether anyone of them have toiled with the Blacks in the fields. I know that dozens of hon. members on this side of the House can speak the language of any of these Blacks, often better than they can speak their own. I challenge any hon. member of the official Opposition to say whether he can speak any of these languages. [Interjections.] I am referring to the official Opposition. Last year the hon. member for Musgrave pretended that he was speaking on behalf of the Zulus. I am a White Zulu. I spoke Zulu before I spoke Afrikaans. It annoys me no end when a person like the hon. member for Musgrave pretends that he is speaking on behalf of the Zulus. I challenge him to a debate in Zulu or, if he fails to do that, a good old Zulu stick fight [Interjections.] If he does not want to do that I say he is a bluffer. Those hon. members should stop talking as if they have compassion for the Blacks in this country. [Interjections.]

There are other incidents which have also been reported. One concerns Kallie Knoetze and is also incitement of racism. When I read this report in the newspaper I told my wife that Knoetze was going to run into trouble in the USA. Shortly afterwards Manickum Pather of the SACS followed up this report and asked for this fight to be stopped. The newspaper carried on in this way and even critized the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs for objecting against the action taken by the State Department in an endeavour to stop the fight. This matter was followed up by their daily newspapers. They instructed a stooge to say that a victory for Knoetze would mean: “A victory that would symbolize the Afrikaners ability to survive at all odds.” This sort of reporting is absolute and unadulterated trash.

There have been other reports along similar lines. One appeared under the heading: “Indians in kwaZulu face the boot”. I want to say that the statements made in that report are not true. It appeared in the same newspaper. Another report appeared under the heading: “Bishop Desmond Tutu is deeply saddened.” We read his views in the last edition of the Sunday Times and we know how “saddened” he is. That report was not true. Reports such as these also incites racism. There is also the inevitable report which refers to the “Bond of fear that cannot be broken”, namely the Broederbond, a report which also incites a feeling of animosity and hatred.

I also want to refer to an article in the same newspaper which referred to the hon. the Deputy Minister, Dr. A. P. Treurnicht, an article which reflects pure racism, and I am positive that it cannot be true.

Merely to add insult to injury, they complained in the editorial section of the same newspaper because the hon. the Prime Minister dared to say something against the Press. I quote—

After these nine items, all of them untrue and inciting racism—this is the sort of thing we get—we find that the reporting in the overseas news media on human rights, on South Africa, is shocking. According to the report there were more items in 1977 about human rights in South Africa than almost all other countries in the world combined, with the exception of the Soviet Union. There were 644 separate newspaper and television items about human rights in South Africa in the major media in 1977. However, the same newspaper and television networks published only 85 items on human rights in Uganda during the same period, only nine in Angola, eight in Mozambique and only two in Equatorial Guinea, where half the population is reported to have been killed or to have fled the country. Why do we get this sort of overseas reporting? It is because of the reporting we get in these South African newspapers and their stringers, which is part of the establishment which includes the external branch of the official Opposition. Consequently the results we get from overseas as indicated are on human rights reporting.

Finally, we get a man like Mr. Ben Bradley of the Washington Post coming here and referring to the “heroic” South African Press. I say if it were not for this “heroic Press” we would not need the R65 million which the Opposition has been talking about so much to counter the damage done by this Press and these statements.

Can you justify that?

Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for South Coast on his speech. I think he has succeeded in conveying his message. Secondly, I should like to take this opportunity to compliment the hon. the Minister of Finance. Before I do that, however, I wish to say that it is part of the pleasure of being a Nationalist to praise a Minister. We on this side of the House are able to do so at the top of our voices and not tongue in cheek like the Opposition who then cause their colleagues embarrassment.

Firstly, I should like to compliment the hon. the Minister on the correct forecast of the amount of R650 million from general sales tax for the period 3 July 1978 to 31 March 1979. All credit is due to the hon. Minister, for the way in which he introduced this reform of the tax system. The cooperation of the public is conclusive proof of this. Had this not been the case, there would not to date have been only two prosecutions for failure to register. This reform of the tax system has also influenced the attitude to this tax, for as reluctantly and grudgingly as income tax is paid, so meekly is sales tax paid by the consumer. Why? Because this manner of taxation makes sense to John Citizen. Secondly, it is accepted without argument because it is fair. In the light of the above-mentioned facts and of the observations in regard to the depressing and restraining effect of income tax on the more highly paid people, I request the hon. the Minister of Finance to elaborate on this reformed tax system. I request the hon. the Minister to kindly remove the pressure of income tax from professional people and entrepreneurs.

Income tax places a heavy burden on these groups, so heavy that many of them become contra productive. These groups represent highly trained professional people, people with imagination, initiative and enterprise. I do not want to motivate this statement any further, for the hon. Minister is very well aware of it. I believe that an alleviation of the pressure of income tax on these important groups in our economic structure will recompense them to such a degree that they will be encouraged to greater efforts and dedication. This reward is the stimulus which is needed to accelerate the economic growth. If there could be alleviation for them with regard to these problem areas, the logical result would be that talents would be applied, enthusiasm aroused and energy released.

If contra productivity could be turned into productivity, we would be able to curb inflation, which creates poverty. Furthermore, the desired growth in the economy would be produced. The curbing of inflation and the stimulation of the necessary economic growth would create the work opportunities which are desired and envisaged. The approach of the NP to employment and the creation of work opportunities was stated very clearly by the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke yesterday. The hon. member for Paarl also elaborated on this fact and stressed that employment cannot be created by the State only, but that free enterprise in our economic system has to make, and keep on making, a major contribution to work opportunities. Allow me to add a refrain to that. The ideal of employment and the attendant work opportunities are the aspiration of the NP, its purpose, its objective. Surely that is our survival kit. Hence the policy of border industries, of homeland development, of proclaimed industrial areas and of decentralized industrial areas. That is also why so many industrial development corporations and administrative boards for bringing employer and employee together are being established.

I realize that the Government knows its duty. I am attempting to outline what private enterprise and private entrepreneurship need to start acting. I am also attempting to illustrate why we need these action programmes. I should like to stress once more that South Africa has an urgent need for work opportunities, whether it is in the learned professions, in the technical fields, in skilled trades or in the semi-skilled and unskilled fields of activity.

It is my task, my bounden duty, to tell hon. members of this House about the problems of the Eastern Cape, and I do so with a heavy heart.

In my part of the world—the border area of the Eastern Cape—there is not merely poverty, there is hunger with the accent on “hunger”. I now ask: For how long can one endure hunger? How long does it take before one is driven to desperation by it? How long does it take before one does not argue about it any more? I ask this, for hunger has no conscience.

In order to alleviate the problems I mentioned, I should respectfully like to request the hon. Minister of Finance to consider, prior to his main budget, whether the base of the general sales tax should not be expanded. There are still commodities, as well as public and other services, which could in all fairness be classed in the consumer expenditure category. I should like to stress that, as soon as the economy is growing and the base of the general sales tax has been expanded, no reason can be envisaged for changing the formula, because this reformed taxation system—the system of general sales tax—is linked to growth, and as a result will undergo a natural growth together with the growth of the economy and of prosperity.

Secondly, I should like to submit a plea on behalf of the fairer sex. [Interjections.] However, I submit my plea for only a specific section of them. [Interjections.] That is, in fact, the working widows. I should like to point out that I am still talking about income tax. I urgently request the hon. the Minister to bring about a positive adjustment in the method of assessment as far as working widows are concerned. What I am in fact requesting, is that a working widow should also receive a deduction of R750 on her salary, just as her married sister does. At present the salary of the working widow is added to the income she receives from her deceased husband’s estate, legacy or pension in order to calculate the taxable amount. In the case of a married woman, R750 is deducted from her salary before it is added to the net amount of the husband’s income to calculate the taxable amount.

It is far too little. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed the basis at the moment that a working married couple are taxed. However, is it fair and reasonable to the family? Their mother undoubtedly has to forfeit just as much as the married working women when she wishes to leave her home to work elsewhere. I should just like to mention to the hon. the Minister that situations often arise where the services of the widows are required because of their particular knowledge and technique pertaining to unique learned professions. The lack of co-operation in respect of the tax I mentioned, often makes them feel negative, a feeling which in turn gives rise to reluctance to make the desired contribution to the community. The result is even more contra productivity. I ask the hon. the Minister please to bring about a willingness in the coming budget which will lead to greater productivity on the part of these women.

There is also a third matter I should like to discuss with the hon. the Minister of Finance. That is the age-old question of estate duty. Let me immediately say to the hon. Minister that I do not wish to argue in favour of the abolition of estate duty, despite the report of the Franzsen Commission and its recommendations. As a farmer, however, I wish to say to the hon. Minister that estate duty remains a sore point with the farmer and the farming industry. In the times in which we are living, tendencies arise which force the State to reconsider, reform and re-adjust its approach to the financing of farming to the alarming and unpreventable situations which exist at present in the farming industry. A few days ago, these problems were indicated and singled out in masterly fashion during a debate in this House.

My suggestion to the hon. the Minister may serve as a point of departure for the State to make a contribution which can serve as a prop for stability without doing any harm to the Treasury. The proposal reads as follows: That is the case of testamentary or intestate inheritance of a farming property, the stock and farming implements inherited by a farming heir in the case where the inheritance takes place in favour of a person who will continue to run the farm, such farm property, livestock and implements should not be taken into account for estate duty purposes.

Of all the thousands of estates which are administered every year, an average of 921 estates per year were reported in the past three years for tax purposes. In round figures, the total income obtained from estate duty last year was R8,7 million. Unfortunately the number of estates in which farmers are involved, is not available. There is also no amount available which indicates what was paid in estate duty on the estates of farmers. What we do know, however, is that the estate of a farmer who left a wife and two children, who had a life insurance policy of R30 000 and who owned one farming unit, the value of which is now estimated to be R240 000, was liable for estate duty to the amount of R18 300. This amount is otherwise needed for current working costs. My time has expired, and therefore I should like to briefly ask the hon. the Minister: Please consider my request favourably, for it will be aimed at and give meaning to the fourth stanza of our National Anthem: “That the heritage they gave us for our children yet may be. ”

Mr. Speaker, if I do not react to the contents of the speech made by the hon. member for Griqualand East, it is not because I do not sympathize with him, but owing to a lack of time. The hon. member has a great deal to be grateful for, for at least he still has an estate to worry about. There are many of us who do not even have that.

Although my time is limited, I cannot resist the temptation to refer briefly to the speech made by the hon. member for Moorreesburg. He painted a very dark picture of what is happening in the Western Cape. He told us about the uneasiness at the growth rate which is prevailing in the region. In this connection we agree with the hon. member, because we know what it feels like to live through such a dark period. I want to go so far as to say: My friend, if you come to the Eastern Cape, bring a candle along, for where we are it is pitch dark. However, the hon. member referred to various rays of light which gave the people of the Cape hope. One of those rays of light is the development at Saldanha. I want to remind him that the development there is taking place at the expense of the development which should have taken place at St. Croix.

You complained about the dust there, after all.

No, not at St. Croix, we were referring to the city. Our position at this stage is so tragic that an attempt is being made to establish a dry dock complex there. This will eventually be done by private enterprise provided the funds for the purpose are found. All that we got from the authorities was a green light to say that we could proceed with the project provided we could find the money. That is why the hon. member for Walmer advocated yesterday that the hon. the Minister should afford alleviation to the motor industry. We consider it to be a very serious matter and I want to emphasize this. If no alleviation is provided for the motor industry we will soon have no problems with the acquisition of fuel because we will not have the motor vehicles to consume the fuel.

Surely it is not as bad as all that.

No, it is not as bad as all that, but it could easily become as bad as all that, because the motor industry and allied industries are heavily burdened. Every time the price of fuel goes up, they experience graver problems.

I should briefly like to illustrate a few positive aspects of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Walmer. The first refers to the investment in energy-saving facilities. The announcement of the new fuel price was not really an unexpectedly great shock, but in the Press we already see talk of further increases which are going to be introduced. This will constitute a further shock to the motor industry, but also to the public, particularly when it has had an actual effect on the cost of living.

The announcement on the expansion of Sasol 2 is definitely a step forward and we all welcome this good news.

The Eastern Transvaal.

Yes, the Eastern Transvaal is fortunate in this connection. It creates confidence for the future, but it should not be seen as a short-term solution only. It should also serve, as I am certain it is meant to do, as a solution to the long-term problems of South Africa. It is with a view to the future that our amendment calls for financial and tax incentives to be granted in respect of such saving facilities.

Do you also have an amendment?

Yes, we have an amendment. Where was the hon. member yesterday? We therefore consider it to be an investment in saving measures. Last Friday it was made very clear to us here in a private motion—I am not going to discuss the motion—that our problem in South Africa revolves around with the availability of liquid fuel, since we have abundant supplies of solid fuel at our disposal at present. It is so easy for us to talk of an adequate supply of coal for the next 300 years. However, the question which arises is what guarantee do we have. A certain Dr. Erasmus referred last weekend to the possibility of a coal supply for 300 years, but at the same time he said that if the present rate of development continues and we have a growth rate of 5% per annum, the supply of coal could last for only a 100 years. Consequently a great danger exists in respect of our coal supplies. Last year Dr. Kotzé, who was Director of Energy in the Department of Planning, said in an article in the CSIR periodical, Scientiae, that he was worried because it was not impossible that we could already begin to experience problems within 15 years from the present time. Consequently no one knows precisely what the position is. One thing is certain, though, and that is that the coal which is used or exported is finally gone. It is not a commodity which supplements itself. And so the supplies grow less each day. The problem which we are at present experiencing is a problem for the present generation. But what about the future? We must take care of future generations as well. Supplies cannot simply be used at will. That is why the sixth leg of our amendment provides that we should try to export processed products. The hon. member for Walmer referred to gold and diamonds. I want to go further and say that attention should be given to the processed products which we manufacture from coal.

You are now on the coal leg.

The hon. member is quite right I am now discussing the coal leg of our amendment. However it is a very important leg because I am worried that future generations will not have a coal leg to stand on.

The hon. the Deputy Minister of Environmental Planning and Energy made it very clear last week that the saving of fuel was priority number one. We are all agreed on that score. We agree whole-heartedly with the hon. the Deputy Minister. However, this priority involves not only the saving of fuel, but also the wastage of electricity, a product derived from coal. So we have enough coal and therefore electricity, but to waste electricity is indirectly to waste coal. We cannot afford it. The State is in duty bound to ensure that the wastage, particularly in the commercial sector, is stopped. The State must encourage this by word and deed. In addition financial assistance must be granted to saving projects. As far as the wastage of electricity is concerned, I cannot help thinking of the large modern buildings where the air-conditioning is in operation 24 hours of the day, tower blocks in which the lights are sometimes kept burning 24 hours of the day and buildings which have been constructed in such a way that electric lighting has to be used. Then, too, there are the neon lights and advertisements which keep on flashing on and off in our empty streets at night. This kind of wastage of electricity may at first glance appear to be negligible, but at some stage in the future it is going to be important. We must therefore look to our priorities. I know the hon. the Minister of Transport would like to collect the money for the conveyance of coal and the coal owners’ association would like to sell their product. We must try to extend the life of our coal supplies as far as possible. Our proposal is therefore the encouragement of investment in energy-saving by the private sector. What encouragement exists today for any industrialist to institute an investigation into saving or the development of techniques which could lead to saving and which would also be of use to other industrialists? We are too inclined, because coal is in such abundant supply, to consider the saving minimal and to regard it as useless. The Government should therefore proceed to protective action.

Everyone knows what steps are being taken to protect our soil and water resources. Over the years a great deal of money has been spent on soil conservation and the preservation of water resources. Money should also be spent on preserving our coal resources. This would extend the life of our coal supplies. Standards should be laid down—and the Government should take the initiative in this connection—for the various industries and particularly for the large consumers of power. Specifications for the effective use of power by domestic appliances should be laid down. There should be an incentive for the utilization of solar energy. This is a matter which is frequently discussed, and when it comes to the planning of large buildings, schools, hotels, hospitals and so on, greater use ought to be made of solar energy. Financial assistance in the form of subsidies for the installation of this kind of machinery should be made available. I know that reference will be made to the investment concession of 30% which I think is applicable until 1982. This is an encouragement, but is not adequate for the period of crisis in which we are living. The tendency exists to argue that the degree of wastage which occurs has to be accepted because the combating of wastage will only bring about a minimal saving. The reason for this attitude is merely because coal is in such abundant supply. This is an erroneous and fatal attitude for which future generations might possibly reproach us. There are certain industries which could make use of waste products, inter alia, certain gases which they are obliged to bum off in any case. These gases could perhaps be used for the generation of energy. Recently I read about municipalities which are investigating the generation of energy through the burning of refuse. The Government ought to encourage such a project. It would be an investment for the future of our country.

In a country such as Sweden it is realized that no person will make an investment which is not profitable for him merely to bring about a saving of energy. With this in mind Sweden appropriated an amount of $22 million in 1977 for donations to industries that want to develop saving techniques. France, for example, subsidizes 50% of the installation of machinery for this purpose, on condition that information on the progress be published and that even competitors in the industry are entitled to carry out inspections of this development. In 1978 130 of the developments of this kind in France had already been financed. Nothing will produce results more quickly than financial encouragement. Consequently I want to make a plea for this today.

Now I want to dwell briefly on pensions. A great deal has already been said here about pensioners. We are requesting that the means test be raised because the amount of R984 per annum which is at present applicable is hopelessly inadequate. I realize that there will always be people who will be just above the limit and who will therefore not qualify for a pension. If the amount involved is of such a nature that a person can maintain a reasonable standard of living, it can be accepted. However, I am afraid that the amount is at present so low that if some people do not receive an addition to their pension they will definitely have to lower their standard of living. We are therefore advocating that the level of the means test be raised. I want to refer briefly to a case of a person who qualified for an old-age pension and who had a daughter, a minor, who qualified for an allowance. Although his pension at this stage amounts to approximately R101 or R102 per month, it only means a cash amount of R87 per month for him because he has to pay medical contributions and so on. It then so happened that his little pension was increased—in point of fact by a meagre amount—and that between the periods of review he unfortunately received a pension to which he was not entitled. Today this man has a cash income of R87 per month and must, at the same time, pay back an amount of more than R2 000 to the department. If the level of the means test had been higher, this person would not have found himself in this predicament and it would have been to his advantage.

I now want to touch upon another aspect concerning pensions. The joint income of a married couple may be such that both of them qualify for an old-age pension and that they are able to maintain a reasonable standard of living, but if one of the two should die, the surviving spouse loses his pension as a result and finds himself in the position of having to exist on an income which is by no means sufficient, particularly if one takes into consideration that he is perhaps in a high age group and has to incur additional medical and pharmaceutical expenses. He simply cannot make ends meet. Usually my advice to him is to marry a widow so that he can receive his pension again, but I am afraid that not everyone has the initiative to do this. My plea is therefore that we should raise the level of the means test so that these people can enjoy a better subsistence. If the hon. the Minister can do this, I am certain that, as the hon. member for Walmer said, he will be known as the poor man’s friend.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is a friendly and courteous person and it is always very pleasant to listen to him. However, for a fleeting moment the hon. member’s joie de vivre deserted him when he tried to outbid the hon. member for Moorreesburg about how bad things were in his part of the world in comparison with the Western Province. According to my notes, the hon. member said: “Boeta, as jy na ons toe kom, bring ’n kers saam, want daar is dit bitter donker.” I am not going to try to copy the hon. member or sing in a duet in a minor key, because where we are, in Natal, it is not pitch dark; a vivid, blinding light is shining there. In Natal there is pulsing, seething life and it sounds like a beehive as a result of all the activities. [Interjections.] We in Natal have the resources and the labour at our disposal. The Newcastle/Durban/Richards Bay triangle in Natal is becoming the Ruhr area of South Africa, and we are not complaining about that.

What is wrong with the Transvaal?

I want to come back to the speech made by the hon. member for Hillbrow earlier this afternoon, a speech so gloomy that my heart bleeds for the hon. member. With a logic that defies all explanation the hon. member urged us to throw apartheid out of the window and accept pluralism.

Yes.

That is tantamount to saying that we should reject the hon. member for Hillbrow and accept Mr. Widman. The hon. member went on to say that apartheid was costing this country the astronomical amount of R18 000 million per annum. Is that correct?

Yes.

Our GDP is in the order of R34 billion.

It is closer to R40 billion.

According to him more than 50% of this amount is spent on apartheid. I believe there must have been some miscalculation. I wonder whether the hon. member did not add a few noughts to many in that little sum he made.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member then talked about many things that troubled his mind. He was worried about apartheid, the urban Blacks, the Blacks in the rural areas, the group areas and our universities. The hon. member seems to be a born worrier, not a warrior. He has much too little fight left in him to be a warrior. [Interjections.] This afternoon I am not going to try to allay the fears of the hon. member. On the contrary. I am going to add grist to the mill of his discontent I am going to give him more things to worry about and to trouble his mind. I think that what should trouble the mind of the hon. member, is the ice-cold reception the announcement of his party’s new policy received.

The contrary is true.

I think in his most optimistic mood—if he can ever be optimistic—he must admit that the response to the announcement of this new policy was less than heartening.

It was received with a deafening silence.

There was a time when the announcement of a new policy by a political party in the Opposition was greeted with keen anticipation. But as a result of the proliferation of policies, it eventually became a source of amusement. At present the mood of the electorate is not one of being amused. This futile exercise has now become fairly boring. Never before has there been a policy announcement that was so totally ignored as this latest attempt made by the official Opposition. Surely we cannot blame the electorate for not being enamoured of the policy of the PFP when the architect of this policy, the hon. member for Rondebosch, holds out the prospect to the electorate that it might well take a 100 years for this convention to reach consensus.

In the meantime we shall have Black majority rule.

Surely the apathy of the electorate must be a source of worry to the hon. member for Hillbrow. The hon. member seems to revel in worry. The Bible says that when the people have no vision, they perish. For precisely this reason the Opposition is not viable. It holds out no vision of a better South Africa. It cannot grip the imagination and quicken the pulse of the people and it cannot kindle the flame of patriotism. Their policy is simply not marketable. They have been telling the electorate negative stories about the Information debacle and all that. But we have an enlightened electorate who want to feed on sterner and more solid stuff.

There are other things which should trouble the mind of the hon. member for Hillbrow and which should keep him tossing restlessly in bed at night.

I am worried about Louis Nel too. Tell us about him.

I can add to his long list the question of the hike in the oil price and tell him what it is going to do to our economy and how difficult it is going to make the struggle against inflation. I can tell the hon. member about the international situation— that ought to trouble his mind. I can also tell him about a West that has become so weakened that it has lost the will to stand up and assert itself against communism making inroads in the international and domestic fields.

At least one country is added annually to the communist fold. Marxism is right on our very doorstep and we have already apprehended Russian armed terrorists within the borders of our own country. The hon. member for Hillbrow wants to be worried; here is something that must worry him.

Let us have it all.

It is the psychosis he is causing by continually harping on this Information issue and I believe the hon. member should fear the consequences of the lie that is being perpetrated that the Government is busy with a massive cover-up. I believe that the hon. member should fear the consequences of the distrust he is sowing, the authority that he is questioning, and when authority goes, it is a very dangerous vacuum that is created. All the facts belie the claim that there is a cover-up. Eighteen months ago when it was brought to the notice of the previous Prime Minister that there were irregularities in the Department of Information …

And what did he do?

Yes, what did the hon. the Prime Minister do? He asked the Auditor-General to do a thorough investigation.

But not of the secret funds.

When it was subsequently revealed that the real trouble spot was the secret funds, these were investigated. And what did the Government do? It appointed the Van den Bergh and the Reynders Commissions. [Interjections.]

Order!

I am very pleased that I can amuse the hon. members on that side so much. They would have every reason to be mirthful about my statement had the Government stopped there, but when it had weighed the Van den Bergh and Reynders Commissions and found it to be wanting, what did it do? It appointed the Kemp Committee. [Interjections.] It expanded the Kemp Committee.

How much later was that?

But that was not all.

And who let the cat out of the bag?

The Opposition asked for a judicial commission of inquiry and they got it. The Opposition asked for a special session of Parliament and they got it. 28 of the 30 members of the Opposition had an opportunity to speak. Was that a cover-up? Was there any member of the Opposition who could not speak up and say what was on his mind? Was any hon. member on that side ever inhibited in the slightest in saying what was on his mind?

But if you do not have the evidence, why did you not…

Order!

In other words, you do not give us the evidence and we must shut up?

You protesteth too loudly.

Why did Connie not come?

Order!

The term of office of the Erasmus Commission was extended to the end of May. The public was invited to give evidence before that commission. Only this morning I heard over the news that people have not been coming forward voluntarily to give evidence; they have had to be subpoenaed.

Because you keep the lid on the matter.

Are these witnesses not rather reluctant? Why do those people who are so knowledgeable about this matter and who have been talking about it for months not come forward to give evidence, or are they busy with a cover-up?

*My friend, the hon. member for Sandton, is not present at the moment. A little while ago, in the no-confidence debate, the hon. member for Sandton surely made the most gloomy speech I have ever heard, much gloomier than the speech the hon. member for Hillbrow made this afternoon. The hon. member for Sandton asked the rhetorical question in that speech: Who would have thought a year ago that one should distrust such and such? Who would have thought a year ago that such a person was not above suspicion? Then he got carried away to such an extent by his rhetoric that he asked the question: Who is there remaining in South Africa whom one can trust? I gained the impression that the hon. member for Sandton was just like the servants of Job who came to report on all the disasters they met with and then said: And I only am escaped alone. [Interjections.]

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

No, I only have five minutes left Like that philosopher of old, the hon. member for Sandton doubts everything, except that he doubts. I should like to say to the hon. member for Sandton that as against this doubt, against this flame of hope which is burning so low for the Opposition, we need nothing more in South Africa these days than a strong trust and an indestructible faith in our future.

And another scandal.

We are living in times which will, in fact, make drastic demands on our faith, but if we are going to lose this faith, we will fall into total scepticism, like the hon. member for Sandton. If we lose that, we have lost everything. The greatest investment a person can ever make in any undertaking, the greatest investment we can ever make in the future of this country, is the conviction that we are going to succeed and that the onslaughts will not get the better of us. South Africa needs people who have the will to survive, and not people who fall into scepticism. We have the confidence that there are more things giving us hope than those things which oppress us. One of the things which gives me hope for the future—time does not allow me to mention more—is the very policy of the official Opposition which I was discussing a few moments ago. With all its deficiencies, this policy now has, for the first time in history, this fundamental truth, i.e. the recognition of ethnicity, the admission that one cannot simply bundle people together. In future the official Opposition is going to come up with many new policies, but I forecast that this one element, i.e. a recognition of ethnicity, will be present in every new policy to come. This party has been proclaiming for 30 years that ethnicity is an indisputable fact and we are advocating the policy of separate freedoms, i.e. the self-determination of nations. Sometimes it has felt as if we were speaking against a wall, except for those Opposition members who kept coming over to us. That is why the Opposition members are so few today and we are so many. Now for the first time we have the position—at least on paper—that the official Opposition accepts ethnicity. I am not so well-acquainted with the policy of my friend, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, but according to what other members of his party say, it seems to me that they are accepting ethnicity. The policy of the NRP is totally incomprehensible to me, but the hon. member for Mooi River came to light with a model the other day and it seems to me as if they also accept ethnicity. So even they have now accepted it.

What is your policy? Come on, tell us.

It is true that they are still very quiet about ethnicity, that their public declarations are not in accordance with what is on paper, but the fact remains that the policy of that party, on paper, accepts the premise of ethnicity. That is something which makes me very hopeful. I am very hopeful that the time will come when we will no longer argue with each other about multi-nationalism, but will accept it as a fact, a premise. Then it will be in order to differ from one another about minor things. If I read the political signs aright, that day is approaching.

You have another minute; tell us about your policy.

Order!