Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members know, the Appropriation Act for the 1980-’81 financial year will only be passed by Parliament at the end of the present session. The 1980-’81 financial year, however, commences on 1 April 1980. In the Part Appropriation Bill now before the House, the customary authority is therefore sought to spend an amount of up to R3 640 million as an advance on the main estimates, which will be presented to Parliament in due course, to carry on with the services of the Government during the first four months of the new financial year while the main estimates are under consideration.

In accordance with the provisions of section 4(2) of the Exchequer Act, 1975, the moneys appropriated by the Part Appropriation Act will only be utilized for existing services, i.e. services in respect of which expenditure was authorized by the Appropriation Act for the 1979-’80 financial year or in respect of which some other authorization by Act of Parliament exists.

I intend giving the House the usual review of our economic situation when I present my budget. However, there are some aspects of our economy on which I should like to comment at this stage.

Hon. members may recall that I spelt out a strategy of discipline and growth in my budget on 28 March last year. I said at that time that I believed financial discipline should remain the key to final success in our economic policy. It was my contention at that time that it should not be our aim to stimulate the economy in the first instance through increased Government spending. On the contrary, with a 12% envisaged increase in budgetary spending I stated that our policy needed to be aimed at the encouragement of expansion in the private sector. In this direction I believe we have been persistent, consistent and successful.

On 18 September last year I proposed additional fiscal and other measures which were not so much intended further to stimulate the economy as to normalize or maintain the position as envisaged in my budget as at the end of March last year. Important new developments in the world economy, in South Africa in particular, during the first six months after the budget, including substantial increases in oil and gold prices, necessitated these adjustments in order to ensure that our policy aim of stimulating private consumption and investment expenditure should not be neutralized.

The steps which I announced included—

1. (a) a special non-recurring bonus to social pensioners, paid out in November last year;
2. (b) an additional amount of R20 million for the further subsidization of basic foodstuffs;
3. (c) a contribution of a further R12 million, in addition to the R50 million originally provided, for the purpose of limiting unavoidable increases in bus fares to resettlement areas owing to the substantial rise in fuel prices; and
4. (d) the early repayment of R160 million in 1977 loan levies on individuals on November 12 last year.

Together with other revenue sacrifices and additional expenditures already approved at that time, I estimated that this normalization package would add up to more than R500 million. If this is considered in conjunction with the aggregate concessions amounting to R762 million set out and approved in the budget in March, I am sure the House will agree that the Government has done its part in achieving the goal of what we call “growth from strength”.

All indications are that our economic momentum has increased appreciably since then and we appear to be on a winning course. In fact the senior editor of one of America’s most influential financial Magazines, Forbes, has recently said, after a study tour of South Africa, that this country has the potential to become the economic wonder of the world in the ’eighties. I fully agree with him, provided always that all of us work hard and withstand the temptation to live beyond our means.

At the same time the very substantial rise in the gold price since the middle of 1979 and certain accompanying developments thereafter have brought about a new set of circumstances in the South African economy which will require our closest attention in the weeks and months ahead. Close surveillance will need to be exercised over the build-up of liquidity in the domestic money market, the more rapid rise in broad money supply, the continued large disparity between domestic and overseas interest rates, the appreciation of the commercial rand, albeit moderate, and the marked further strengthening of the financial rand.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Finance has covered a wide range of subjects, but I would like to come back in the first instance to the Bill itself, because in this Bill we are asked to give authority for R3 640 million to be spent until the budget is approved. This is a very substantial figure, and what is more significant is that it is a figure which is much higher percentage-wise than has been the case in the past. Yet, the hon. the Minister of Finance gave us no explanation as to why we have here an increase of 19,78% over the amount voted last year, an increase of more than R600 million. If this is compared to the 1979 year we see that it was R3 040 million, and in the 1978 year, R2 900 million, an increase of only 0,048%. Surely this House is entitled to an explanation why in terms of percentage so much more money is required this year than last year. The hon. the Minister might say that there is inflation and an increase in Government expenditure, but if that is so, can we fairly anticipate that the budget will provide for an increase in Government expenditure in the vicinity of 19%? If it does, it will be substantially in excess of the rate of inflation existing at present. It would also appear to be a new departure in Government policy with regard to the control of public spending. That is a question which remains unanswered after the hon. the Minister’s speech.

May I ask the hon. the Minister one further question arising from his speech? He told us—

*Then he goes on to other matters. What is interesting here is that only a short while ago, a week or so ago, a report was tabled in this House and the date on that report was December. In it one reads (para. 14.1)—

In other words, there is a vast difference between the amount mentioned today and those amounts. I should have expected the hon. the Minister of Finance have told us where this further R10 million came from, and where what settlement was reached with whom. I have my own ideas as to where the money comes from. [Interjections.] I think I am probably right, but I believe it is the duty of the hon. the Minister to tell this House what arrangements and what deals have recently been made with certain people in order to obtain the R10 million. I think it is very important and we are entitled to it. I expected that we would have been informed as to where that amount came from.

†I now come to the Van der Walt Commission. I want to say a word as its passing, because I think that the Van der Walt Commission could have done very good work if it had been allowed to do that work. The members of the commission spent many hours reading through thousands of pages of documentation and evidence. We worked day after day, at expense to the State, and now we are not to report on our findings. I want to say, with great respect, that some of us may have a doubt in our minds as to why the Van der Walt Commission was appointed in the first place. We wonder why it was decided to appoint it and then after all the time having been spent and all the work having been done, it is now considered unnecessary that anything further should be done by that commission and that no report need be tabled. I am sure that there are hon. members who are relieved that they need not work further at this. I need look no further than to one of my colleagues to the left of me who felt throughout that this was a purposeless exercise. An explanation needs to be given in some detail as to why the work of this commission should be dropped and nothing further be done.

This debate is normally the occasion when we can put our case to the hon. the Minister of Finance in respect of the budget. It is to be expected that he will not make his budget speech in advance, but this is really our last opportunity publicly to debate what we think should be in the budget and how we think the budget should be structured. The interesting thing is, of course, that the public has seen the increase in the gold price and the increase in the share market, particularly in gold shares. The image of the hon. the Minister of Finance as a sort of latterday benevolent Mr. Goldfinger who is about to bestow largess on all and sundry is abroad and there has seldom been greater expectation in respect of a budget than there is for the budget this year. As we see it, there is a particular kind of budget which we would like the hon. the Minister of Finance to present to this House. We would like to have set out in the budget the short-term and long-term objectives of this Government. As far as we are concerned, we would like the budget that is to be presented to be a people’s budget in which the prosperity which is available as a result of the increased gold price, the substantial exports that have taken place and the upswing in the economy is used for two main purposes. Firstly, it should be used to give even the most underprivileged in South Africa a share in that prosperity and, secondly, to ensure the long-term security of the individual citizen and of the community to which he belongs. To do this a balance needs to be struck between priorities. In this connection we want to submit certain matters for the hon. the Minister’s attention. We believe there are many who have not benefited from the increase in the gold price and the up-swing in the economy. The elderly, the pensioner, the saver, the unemployed, the worker, particularly in the lower income group, are the people whom we believe are entitled to be at the head of the queue.

May I on this occasion again put to the hon. the Minister a special plea on the means test for pensioners and may I also with some degree of sentiment put forward a plea for the military pensioners from past wars who are not in the same category as ordinary pensioners. I make this plea for it to be considered and not to be forgotten.

We would also like to submit to the hon. the Minister that there is a need to take meaningful measures to combat inflation. The purchasing power of the rand has dropped by 65,1% from 1965 to 1969 and is dropping further every day. Food prices are escalating. The consequences of this inflation have already been serious for South Africa, and they can become even more serious. Inflation is a destabilizing factor in the economy. It has eroded and continues to erode savings. It acts as a redistributor of wealth and income. Much as the hon. the Minister may not like those terms, he, by not combating inflation, is redistributing wealth and income in South Africa. Inflation inhibits confidence and restrains growth.

We therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister that there should be contained in the budget active anti-inflationary steps. There may be tax concessions which can be granted and which can also be anti-inflationary. I shall deal with some of those in a moment.

Immediately I can say that we believe the import surcharge should be removed wholly or at least partially. This will mean that there can be savings passed on to the consumer. It will in turn mean that inflation can be combated by making a tax concession.

In the second instance I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister about a matter which is very close to the hearts of many of us in these benches. I refer to the general sales tax and the impact thereof on the poor and on the lower-income groups of South Africa who have to spend up to a third of their income on food alone. We believe that when the Government has to make tax concessions, there should be a reduction in general sales tax or certainly, at the least, a removal of general sales tax from basic foodstuffs in South Africa That will help the people and will help to make this a people’s budget.

The hon. the Minister has with some degree of satisfaction—I agree with him on it—spoken of the healthy state of the current account of the balance of payments. He has in recent days also pointed to our growth rate as being a positive factor when one compares it to the growth rate in Western countries. Perhaps the only non-positive factor as far as the economic structure is concerned is the inflation rate.

The other factors, however, mean that we should have a strong currency and, as he has said, a strong rand is part of the armoury of the economy of South Africa, but the rand has even now not yet reached the effective relative value to the currencies of our main trading partners which it held in 1976. One has a feeling—perhaps more than a feeling—that the rand is being managed so that it should not find a higher level and so that there should in fact be no great appreciation of the rand. We, on the contrary, believe that the rand should be allowed to find a stronger level and that this will also help in order to fight inflation. It will help, too, to reduce the price of imports. There will not be a serious effect on exports from a moderate adjustment in this regard. We therefore appeal that, as another anti-inflationary measure, the rand should be allowed to find a stronger level in relation to the currencies of our main trading partners.

I want to touch again on the question of inflation and on the question of the money supply. I believe that in these times when there is a high degree of liquidity, the money supply needs to be very carefully watched and managed so as to prevent even more serious inflationary consequences.

While I am on this subject, the other matter to which I want to draw not only the attention of the hon. the Minister, but also the attention of other hon. Ministers, is our believe that stronger action is needed in order to deal with exploitation of consumers in South Africa. I want to give just one example. We have recently seen—I believe that members of the Government have also seen it—a certain presentation in regard to the economy. When one looks at that presentation, one finds it remarkable that the three indices for the wholesale prices, the locally manufactured and the imported commodities, do not, even in periods when all three of these indices have shown a reduction in the rate of increase and even if one allows for the lags which are necessary in order to give effect thereto, have a corresponding effect on the consumer price index. This is, with respect, a clear indication that when there are reductions in the prices of commodities, somehow or other the consumer is not getting the benefit of it. The consumer is being exploited and inadequate steps are being taken to protect the housewives of South Africa, the suppliers and the consumers of South Africa against exploitation.

I should also like to deal with …

Exploited by whom?

The hon. the Minister of Agriculture must not bring farming into it now. Another hon. member of my party will deal with that.

You are misleading the public.

I do not mislead the public like some other hon. Ministers do.

Order! I do not believe the hon. the Minister ought to use those words.

Mr.Speaker, on a point of explanation. The hon. member for Yeoville used exactly the same words when he referred to me last week. When I stated certain facts, he said I was misleading the public. In order to help you, I shall withdraw them. The hon. member said exactly the same to me.

Tit for tat.

Order! I shall go into the matter.

Mr. Speaker, if it will make the hon. the Minister of Agriculture happy, I shall reformulate what I said to him. It is only his facts that mislead. He is not personally a misleader. [Interjections.]

However, allow me to deal with another important matter. That is the question of housing. We are entering an era in which the costs of housing are reaching such proportions that home ownership is gradually moving out of the reach of the young married couple with children. We believe that if young married people cannot have their own home it may well have serious consequences for the future. We believe that this needs attention from the hon. the Minister, perhaps with longer repayment periods for mortgages, with a revision of the subsidies for saving schemes, for deposits, as well as interest on home mortgages being allowed to be tax deductible. Inflation is a very real problem and it needs the urgent attention of the hon. the Minister in the next budget.

Then I should like to turn to another matter which, I believe, should be high on the hon. the Minister’s priority list. High on his list for action should be the question of combating unemployment in South Africa. It is clear that expenditure on private fixed investment in South Africa has not been increasing at a meaningful rate. The jobs which are needed are not being created. At a time when the economy is awash with liquidity fixed investment is lagging badly. The hon. the Minister is therefore asked to give meaningful attention to incentives to stimulate private fixed investment, particularly in labour-intensive industries. The creation of new jobs should have real fiscal attraction. The money is available. The hon. the Minister should give the encouragement because this is an urgent social priority. So, too, should the budget contain further incentives in regard to the training of the unskilled to acquire skill. This will not only assist in combating unemployment, but it will also remove bottlenecks in industry and will also help in the fight against inflation.

Everyone talks today about the upswing in the economy. However, if one looks at the statistics one sees that more needs to be done in order to maintain the upswing in the economy. Gross domestic expenditure in real terms is still below the peak of the last upswing, and exports face the problems of recessionary tendencies in the economies of our main trading partners. The upswing therefore needs local stimulation, and consumer spending therefore needs moderate encouragement. The appeal that I make to the hon. the Minister is to take steps which will enable the fixed income earners, the lower-income groups, to play their part in consumer spending. They, in any case, are likely to spend it on local activities, on locally-produced commodities which need boosting, such as clothing. This, in turn, will encourage expansion of capacity and so will encourage the creation of more jobs.

More money is needed in the hands of the pensioners. More money is needed in the hands of the lower-income groups. More money will be given to the Public Service. All of this can encourage consumer spending and stimulate the upswing.

I know everybody talks about tax concessions, but I want to make a special plea for those taxpayers who are married and have children to educate. I believe that concessions should be granted, in the forthcoming budget, to give those who have the burden of bringing up children whom they are educating—something which is becoming increasingly expensive—some relief in this situation. When the hon. the Minister deals with these concessions, I think he should bear in mind that it is the White workers who have on average, in the last three years, actually had a reduction in their real income. Over three years the incomes of White workers in South Africa have, on average, gone down, whilst the rate of increase for those of Blacks have slowed down dramatically over that period. So an unanswerable case is made out for the worker to be entitled to something real in his pocket as a result of the next budget.

Let me also refer to the question of Black taxpayers. The hon. the Minister indicated previously the commitment of this Government to the removal of discrimination in the tax structure, and I have welcomed this, as have other people in these benches. During this year, however, we should like to see a further movement towards achieving parity between the income tax payable by Black taxpayers and other taxpayers.

Lastly I want to deal with the question of the choice that has to be made between a degree of increased Government expenditure, on the one hand, and tax cuts on the other. The question that has to be posed is whether the benefits of the gold bonanza are going to be used to meet the pressures for short-term benefits or whether they will be used to help solve long-term problems in South Africa. The need to close the gap in social services for the different race groups is apparent to all. The question need not be put because the case is clear. The specific need in regard to housing, education and pensions speaks for itself. It is there for all to see. We know that it may not be possible to do all of it at once, but it must be done eventually. We must use the money for this purpose when it is available, and we certainly believe that there is money available to help towards this end.

Perhaps I should now turn to what is a little further away from the economy and go a little nearer to political factors that influence the economic position. There are many factors that influence business confidence in South Africa. In South Africa politics, as we all know, is a major one. At this time Southern Africa is on the brink of possibly the most important election that has ever taken place in Southern Africa. A new Zimbabwe is about to be bom, and the fears of violence and of a Marxist government are on many people’s minds. We believe that South Africa should keep cool on this issue. Reaction by our Government should be carefully considered, and all the implications of whatever is or is not to be done, should be borne in mind. The wrong decisions, at this moment in time, could have serious implications in the long term. This appeal is not only directed at the Government. It is also directed at businessmen. They should not form hasty judgments about any adverse consequences on the economy of South Africa if what happens in Rhodesia is not in accordance with their desires. They should not form hasty judgments because our economy is sound, the investments and jobs are needed for South Africa, and whatever happens to Rhodesia, our economy is sound and we shall have to go on. Therefore pessimism is out of place. We should be optimistic. There is always time to be pessimistic at a later date.

The second political factor I should like to touch on is the question of industrial peace. If in fact the economy is to prosper we need industrial peace. Changes need to be made tactfully, and while to many the changes may be too slow, many others appreciate the difficulties which face the Minister and the Government in this regard. I am particularly appreciative of the fact which the hon. the Minister of Manpower Utilization has sought to exercise in this regard. Short-sighted policies based on emotion appear to influence some, though fortunately not all and probably not even most trade-unionists.

What is, however, disconcerting is for one to read of an academic explaining to trade-unionists that political action may be the answer to their problem. It does seem to me to be a dangerous role to which is being pointed by people who advocate this kind of conduct. If right-wing unions are to have recourse to politics and if Black unions then do the same, polarization in South Africa could reach very dangerous proportions. Workers should keep to economic objectives and leave politics to recognized political organizations. The cause of workers would to my mind be immeasurably harmed if this were not done. Calm and reasonable negotiation for economic objectives is a trade-union function and one hopes that the recourse to political action which has been advocated by some will not be heeded by the majority of workers in South Africa.

Sir, I also want to touch on efficiency of Government in this context. We have noted with interest the rationalization in the structure of the Public Service that has been announced. We believe that this will be welcomed by businessmen generally. The speed with which this has been done is a matter on which all those concerned, and particularly the Public Service Commission, deserve congratulation. There are, however, two questions I want to pose today. Firstly, will the rationalization programme bring about real financial savings and, if so, to what extent will their be savings as a result of this programme? Secondly, what will the “comprehensive central planning role” of the Prime Minister’s office, as envisaged in the plan, entail? What co-ordination will there be between the new Directors-General and what role, if any, will the National Defence Council and the Prime Minister play in this in the future? I believe that these are important questions which need to be answered.

The fourth thing that is needed for business confidence is that the process of orderly change must continue. If there are signs that the process of orderly change is going to stop or go in reverse, it will have very serious consequences both for local and overseas business confidence. While one was pleased with many of the actions of the hon. the Prime Minister in the year 1979, one cannot but express concern at what has been happening recently. I want to draw attention to two particular features. The first is the statements made by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, Dr. Koornhof, in the House, statements in which he committed himself quite clearly to the experiments in Pretoria and Bloemfontein. I quote his own words (Hansard, 4 February 1980, col. 79)—

What is important is the reaction to that from the Pretoria city council of the NP, from hon. members of the House, from the Press—from all of them. I want to say, Sir, that if harm has been done to South Africa in any way, it has been done in that context.

I want to draw attention to one other matter, namely the activities of the hon. the Minister of Tourism. That hon. Minister is carefully choosing his words in order to try to put the process of orderly change in South Africa into reverse. That hon. Minister is dangerous in this context. We need to deal with him, and we need to do it at leisure. Sir, I therefore move as an amendment—

1. (1) to take adequate steps to combat inflation and in particular to protect the working man and woman and the aged against rising living costs;
2. (2) to take positive action to ensure the security of South Africa by reducing unemployment in a meaningful manner and by planning for the jobs needed in the short, medium and long term;
3. (3) to evolve long-term economic plans which will create a caring society in which all South Africans will participate in improved living standards and which will present a viable, attractive economic alternative to be used in the fight against Marxism.”.

I want to return to a further problem which arises out of the political situation in South Africa. In order to ensure that there is business confidence we also need to have confidence on the part of the businessman in that they know where the constitutional development of South Africa is going, because at the present moment we have constitutional confusion in South Africa. Nobody knows where we are going. We are dealing with things in piecemeal fashion. Instead of having an orderly process of negotiation which will culminate in a national convention where one can create a proper constitution, what is happening? We had an election in 1977 fought on the basis of a constitution which is never going to be implemented, even though there was said to be a mandate for it. We now have a situation in terms of which piecemeal bits of legislation are being scattered around in such a manner that nobody knows where the country is heading constitutionally. We thought we had a commission of inquiry in order to present a constitutional plan. What one now has to do in order to find about the constitutional plan is read the Afrikaans Press, e.g. somebody is going to be appointed as president of the President’s Council, there is going to be some other constitutional body and all sorts of other things that are taking place in South Africa. This is political confusion par excellence and is causing a situation in South Africa which cannot be allowed to continue. Surely the time has come that the hon. the Prime Minister should tell us what his plans are, where we are going and what his actual objectives are, because one cannot have constitutional confusion. It is bad for confidence here and abroad and bad for business as a whole. Therefore we cannot have that sort of situation.

Lastly, I want to touch on one other matter which is necessary for confidence, and that is the question of seeing that law and order are preserved in society. There is confidence in the Defence Force and there is unity in regard to the condemnation of terrorism in the House, but there is a very serious concern felt in these benches about the increase of crime in South Africa. There are many people, particularly elderly people, who are being subjected to crimes of violence in South Africa and there appears to be an increase in crimes of violence in South Africa. People are concerned that there is not enough protection for them in their homes and on the streets when they venture forth. I want to make the appeal today that the security of our population needs to be assured. Our Police Force needs to be strengthened. We need to see more police on the streets doing the ordinary routine job of protecting the citizens against crime, because that is an important ingredient for stability, which, in turn, is an important ingredient in the economy. That is why we stress that the fight against crime is one that must be pursued with energy and fought with everything at the disposal of the community.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville will excuse me if I do not react at once to the matters that he raised. He spoke about all kinds of different matters, and I made notes on several matters that he raised. He will therefore have to wait a moment, because I should first like to give my attention to the hon. the Minister.

Say thank you.

I want to congratulate the Minister heartily on the very clear explanation of the financial position which prevails at the moment. I also want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on a few very important announcements that he made today. The announcement of his Committee for Financial Policy and Strategy is of the utmost importance to us at the present time. I shall come back to this matter during the course of my speech.

I think that the announcement that the hon. the Minister made regarding the relaxation of currency control regulations, is an extremely important one. It is true that we have been trying for a considerable time to prevent funds leaving this country unnecessarily by means of very strict measures. We have succeeded to a certain extent, but—I shall come back to this in a moment when I deal with the hon. member for Yeoville’s allegation concerning this commission—it has become clear to us that the best way to control currency, is to release it, provided that the economy is strong enough to afford to do so.

I should also like to thank the hon. the Minister very much for his announcement in connection with assistance for drought-stricken areas. I believe this emanates from the policy being followed of having a permanent committee on agricultural financing and agricultural affairs. In this regard I should like to refer specifically to the appointment of the Jacobs Committee which has been converted into a permanent committee which is now advising the Government on agricultural affairs on a permanent basis.

Since the hon. the Minister has been dealing with this portfolio, he has been faced with an economic recession, an economic downswing and all the concomitant problems. In fact, it can be said that he jumped in at the deep end. He had to look on while foreign investment in South Africa dwindled, the balance of payments became unfavourable and the formation of domestic capital levelled off, and the eternal problem of inflation was with us all along, as well as the energy crisis at a later stage. Sometimes the hon. the Minister had to introduce unpopular measures to safeguard South Africa’s economy and its total preparedness. Fortunately, he had the co-operation of the nation when he had to introduce those unpopular measures.

As a result of his strict policy of financial discipline, conditions began to improve from the beginning of last year in particular, and he was able to start taking positive action towards stimulating the economy, which he did with great success. The hon. the Minister looked beyond our borders, and with his very competent officials and advisers he entered the financial world physically by holding discussions with the world’s most eminent bankers and businessmen. In this regard I think that one should convey a word of thanks to Dr. De Loor and Dr. De Kock in particular for the assistance, insight and vision which they continually put at the hon. the Minister’s disposal. Results were not slow in coming and today South Africa is in the front line of countries who set the pace in the economic sphere. I quote what Dr. De Kock said last week—

This was very well put. We are in a strong position and we must take the right decisions now. It may perhaps be said that this is entirely due to the phenomenal escalation in the gold price, but in order to support my argument I should like to quote Dr. De Kock further—

This financial discipline that we applied, is the essence of our success. Congratulations once again to the hon. the Minister. He deserves them. He has been through difficult years and he dealt with the problems in exemplary fashion.

Now it is our wish that he will be just as successful in dealing with the prosperity that he is enjoying at the moment. Very often it is more difficult to handle prosperity correctly than it is to draw up plans in times of adversity. Many of the problems that we are faced with today, emanate from that very period of economic upswing when everyone lost their heads and we all thought that we would never experience anything but prosperity again. Our memories are short, particularly those of the Opposition, which are very short. One can only hope that we will not repeat the mistakes of the past, like that of excessive expenditure—and we have indeed made mistakes in the past.

I think that the hon. member for Yeoville passed up an opportunity to strike a blow for South Africa today. If he had spoken exclusively in his capacity as a financial expert, his contribution would have been much more positive, but he is so bound by his party-political ties that he is not entirely able to remain on the level of what is in the best interests of South Africa. The hon. member raised a number of matters, and as I have already said, it was a real shotgun speech. The hon. member is objecting to the fact that percentage-wise, the part appropriation is much higher than that of last year. However, the hon. member will concede that we do have an economy that is in the process of developing, and the budget must surely keep up with the development of the economy. Surely he will grant me that. In a growing economy, one’s budget surely cannot remain stagnant; it must keep pace with that growth. What is more, the hon. the Minister has just made announcements of bonuses for pensioners and assistance to drought-stricken areas. Where is this to come from if the hon. the Minister does not enlarge his appropriation? The hon. member for Yeoville asked for a great deal more. There is a long list of items that he asked for. How one is to succeed in distributing more and still limiting one’s budget, I do not know.

The hon. member for Yeoville is terribly concerned because he still does not know where the hon. the Minister obtained the additional R10 million which was recovered by the State Trust Board. I just want to tell the hon. member that he should be patient a little longer. He is still going to receive a report. Then he can read it.

Do you know the contents of that report?

The hon. member for Yeoville referred to the Van der Walt Commission. What is the purpose of appointing a commission? The purpose of appointing any commission is to obtain clarity on a certain subject. I do not know what other reason there could be to appoint any commission. It is quite simply to obtain clarity on matters. As the hon. member correctly said, the Van der Walt Commission got to work and determined the extent of the problem. After having done so, the commission reached the conclusion that this was a type of problem that could best be dealt with in the way proposed by the hon. the Minister this afternoon.

The commission never reached such a conclusion.

It was a generally recognized idea that arose amongst the members of the commission.

That is not true.

And in the meanwhile—the hon. member for Yeoville is forgetting this—currency control regulations have been relaxed, for which we are very grateful to the hon. the Minister. What were offences, are offences no longer due to the relaxation of the regulations.

That is wrong too.

No, it is not wrong. It is a fact.

Of course, this is the opportunity—I grant the hon. member this—for him to make his recommendations to the hon. the Minister, and he did in fact do so. He said that there were great expectations. “It must be a people’s budget” and the appropriation must grant assistance to the poor and to the pensioners. Surely it is very easy to make such recommendations if one knows that they are going to be put into effect in any event. It is going to happen in any event; it happens every year.

The hon. member spoke about inflation. We can speak about inflation for hours. I have before me a cutting from the Sunday Times of 10 February 1980 from an article written by Jim Shromes of Washington, entitled “Inflation: A Cataclysmic Assessment”. This is an extremely pessimistic approach. I agree with him in many respects. However, in this article it is pointed out that inflation is not a national problem. In fact, the article says the following—

It is an international problem that the world is struggling with. One can read any international magazine, and one will see that no one has a solution to this problem, because what is the basis of this problem? The basis of inflation is the fact that the supplies, the national resources of the world are becoming too scarce for the prevailing demand, whether it be in the form of oil, or in the form of other strategic minerals. This is the basis of inflation. Unless the whole world, including ourselves, are going to cut down on the demand, unless we are going to be satisfied with managing with less—in other words, unless we are all going to be satisfied with lowering our standards of living slightly, we cannot conquer inflation. We have that choice. We can continue as we are doing at present, and the world can continue as it is, but then we shall have to live with inflation, or alternatively, we shall all have to cut our coat according to our cloth. It is as simple as that.

There is little the Government can do about this inflationary situation, but it is doing what it can. Is it not true that as a result of the increase in the value of the rand, a counterbalance is being created for inflation? I think the hon. member for Yeoville will grant that As the value of the rand rises, our rate of inflation tends to drop. The hon. member is asking the hon. the Minister to revalue the rand. We can do so, but what will the immediate consequences be? The immediate effect will be that we shall be faced with stronger competition as regards our exports. The immediate effect of that will be that we will export less and therefore have fewer employment opportunities for our people. On the one hand we are asking for more employment opportunities, and on the other, the hon. member is asking us to take steps which may lead to our exports being limited.

The hon. member uttered so many of the generalities that the man in the street speaks about. He spoke about the “gold bonanza” and asked whether we were going to utilize this for long-term or short-term purposes. The financial philosophy of the hon. member for Yeoville has one basic shortcoming. I should like to tell you, Sir, what this is. It is that the hon. member is arguing as if South Africa is merely a First World power, whilst in reality it is a combination of First World and Third World. The planning in a situation like this is of necessity completely different to what it would be if it was basically a First World economy. I want to allege that it is very much easier to plan the economy of a country like West Germany than the economy of a country like South Africa, because one has two opposite poles here, i.e. the First World and the Third World, each with its own demands, but joined nevertheless. I do not think that there is a better example anywhere in the world of such an intricate interweaving of First and Third World than in South Africa.

On the international front, there is a struggle between capitalism and Marxism. There is a struggle between these two ideologies for the favour of the Third World. This is true of South Africa too. The duty of those of us in this capitalist system who believe in this system and therefore in the system of free enterprise, is to convert less developed nations within the Southern African geographic territory to these capitalist ideas. Why should we do this? We should do so—and this is important—so that a Southern African constellation of States can become a reality. A Southern African constellation of States can work best under a capitalist system.

Today, we can learn a great deal from the mistakes of the past, mistakes that were made by the West and by capitalism. After the Second World War, those countries in particular that are today known as Third World countries, underwent a process of political emancipation, and there was a redistribution of political power based on the idea of the inherent rights of nations. The inherent right of nations to political emancipation is a principle in which the NP has an unshakeable belief. It is also something in which the international community believes, but I am not sure whether the official Opposition believes in it. The redistribution of economic prosperity has not always accompanied the division of political power in the past, because the redistribution of economic prosperity can only emanate, not from an inherent right to it, but from the achievements of individuals and nations.

It must be earned.

Yes, it must be earned, as my hon. friend here says.

Surely the hon. member for Yeoville believes in this, but why does he not profess it? I have never heard him professing it, nor has he done so this afternoon.

After their political emancipation, the less developed countries became increasingly aware of their economic backlog, and they began to insist, mainly by using the UN as a platform, on a more just distribution of wealth. Of course, Marxism saw the opportunity here for selling their own doctrines and putting capitalism in an awkward position. The Western guilt feeling towards former colonies compels the West to donate large sums of money to less developed countries, to buy their favour as it were, and to compete with Marxism.

It was hoped that these aid programmes would stimulate the economies of these countries and that as a result, the less developed countries would experience the necessary economic growth from which capitalist systems would develop. The West made a mistake, because the less developed countries simply did not have the ability or the skills to use their new freedom properly. The lust for power amongst some of the leaders of the Third World countries forced them to use their political power in order to obtain economic power too. They seized the so-called unethically acquired wealth of the colonial powers.

Since we in South Africa are granting political freedom to nations in terms of their inherent right, we must attempt to adopt a more realistic economic approach to them, and we should do so by means of the principle of progress through co-operation as advocated by Henry Kissinger. In this process of co-operation South Africa will have to be the senior partner. We shall have to provide a great deal of the capital, technical skill and knowledge. There is no doubt about that. That is why it is vitally important for South Africa not to misuse the prosperity that we are generating. If we are not economically powerful, we shall not achieve the ideal.

The basis for economic co-operation has already been established. We already have the customs union agreement between South Africa, Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland which has been in existence since 1910 in the form of the old Customs Union Agreement and which was renewed in 1970. Later on, Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda were included. There are also existing trade agreements with Rhodesia, Malawi, Mozambique and even with Angola, although dormant at the moment. The South African transportation system plays an extremely important role in Southern Africa. There are excellent examples of co-operation in the agricultural sphere, for instance protection against plagues and pests, improvement in production, technical skill, marketing, etc. These are all spheres where we co-operate.

Now our hon. Prime Minister’s initiative as regards greater co-operation, which is certainly cause for excitement on the part of any right-thinking person, has linked up with this idea of co-operation and the programmes that are already in existence. He declares unequivocally that our own developmental strategy must be aimed as far as possible at causing our own well-developed infrastructure to produce a ripple effect on the less developed States in the subcontinent. The ideology of the hon. the Prime Minister is absolutely in line with the Kissinger idea of development by co-operation, not only co-operation between nations, but also co-operation between the public sector and the private sector. We find proof of this in the Carlton Conference that was convened by the hon. the Prime Minister. Furthermore, he also emphasizes co-operation between various sectors of the South African economy, and co-operation on a regional basis, i.e. co-operation in order to allow the less developed regions come into their own. I should like to quote the hon. the Prime Minister—

Now I say that this prosperity that we are experiencing at the moment, must be utilized properly. This is important. All sorts of possible situations may arise and we must be prepared for them. I shall single out a few. We must be prepared for possibilities that may arise out of international politics.

I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Yeoville—he mentioned this too—in saying that we must be ready for situations that may arise as a result of political developments in Rhodesia. We must be prepared for developments that may arise in South West Africa. We shall have to be prepared for eventualities that may arise in the field of defence. I do not think we are spending enough money on defence. We must be prepared for a world stance. We must be prepared for the attitude of America. There is something else we have seen. The hon. member for Simonstown will probably agree with me on this. Unfortunately he is not present at the moment. [Interjections.] We have seen that these days one can expect practically anything from that quarter. We have seen how quickly the international situation can change. We have watched the Russian infiltration in the Middle East. We have seen that it could very easily happen that Russia would withhold strategic material from the West. We have also seen that it is very possible for the sea route around the Cape to be controlled by Russia.

We must take into account the development of the economies of our neighbouring States. All these things can only be done if we have the financial ability to do so. The day we have to enter some sphere or other and we do not have the financial ability to do so, it will be too late. That is why I want to ask that we should understand that this “gold bonanza”, which the hon. member for Yeoville also mentioned, cannot simply be used for short-term projects. It must form a solid reserve in order to give South Africa the power to do those things that it must do. We are entering a new boom period. This new period will also require a new infrastructure, as well as a link-up of our infrastructure with that of our neighbouring States. This new boom period will also require more money for the storage of water, as well as more money for the development of agriculture and for providing power; more money for energy, etc. One is very grateful that there are very encouraging signs that this country will most probably be independent of overseas countries as regards its energy requirements within a short while. However, all this requires money.

More money will be required during this period for training and education. More money will be required for support to local authorities. For all these reasons it is my plea today that we should not be carried away by a sense of euphoria, created by the high gold price, but that we should continue in a sensible, disciplined way, as is our wont, to deal with the financial affairs of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to elaborate fairly extensively on some of the matters raised by the hon. member for Malmesbury towards the end of his speech, particularly the aspect concerning a constellation of States and matters related thereto. I do think, however, that the hon. member for Malmesbury sketched a very hopeless future for South Africa, particularly by expressing the idea that the only way in which inflation could be combated was to lower standards of living. After all, that is what he said. I do not believe the hon. the Minister of Finance agrees with the hon. member in this regard. Nor do I believe that what he said in this regard, is true. If this is in fact, the case, if the only way in which inflation can be combated, is to lower the standard of living of the population, what are we working for? It is rather the other way round.

We in South Africa have the production capacity, the primary and secondary production capacity. Virtually everything we need, we ourselves can manufacture here. The solution is not to be found in ploughing people under and in lowering their standards of living because inflation is a world-wide problem. No, I believe that South Africa’s future holds much more than a mere lowering of the standards of living.

What is your solution?

In a situation like this, with the Government sitting comfortably in the butter, it is very easy to catalogue a long list of things on which we can advise the Government to spend its bonanza. It is indeed very easy, but I do not want to compete in this sphere. The hon. member for Yeoville covered a wide field. I agree with most of the items he mentioned. Most of them are, in fact, obvious. They identify themselves, e.g. the pensioners, retired people living on fixed incomes, the low wage-earners, the unemployed and the underemployed in South Africa These are the groups that have really been hit by the inflation to which the hon. member for Malmesbury referred and which he said could only be countered by lowering their living standards. How can people living on a survival level or below it, however, lower their standards of living? These are the groups that obviously require the help. Many of them are desperate, living from day to day. This must, of course, be one of the main priorities.

There are, however, certain special small groups of people who are literally dying out, people to whom I believe that the hon. the Minister of Finance can at last do justice in this coming budget. I am referring to those who are still living on pensions dating from a time and circumstances long gone. I should like to make a serious appeal on their behalf, because this only affects a few people. In the first place I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to remove the means test applicable to First World War veterans. There is only a handful of them who are left, and I believe that the time has come to indicate our gratitude to those people who gave so much for freedom and a Free World by removing the means test that excludes them, as the Anglo-Boer War veterans are excluded from the means test. Another group is perhaps not in his control. I am referring to the old-scheme Railway pensioners. They are in the care of the relevant hon. Minister of Transport Affairs. There are, however, also those old civil pensioners who retired at a time when salaries and the cost of living were totally different from what they are now. I sincerely ask him, in giving consideration to this, to also consider the quality of life of those affected. It is not just a question of enough money to live on. It is also a question of having enough money to ensure a quality of life worth having. So I add my plea, not only in regard to the general categories, but also in regard to these special ones.

I welcome the announcement of immediate drought relief. This is part of the twin problems that South Africa faces, the problems of agriculture itself, of the producer, and the problems of the consumer in regard to the cost of food. In this regard we find the anomaly that both producer and consumer are being ground almost into despair. This is something that has to be given immediate priority because food, in particular, is one of the major items for those battling to exist. The Government quotes statistics, but one cannot fill bellies, and pacify bank managers complaining about overdrafts, with statistics.

There are other matters that are going to be raised, and these will be dealt with in detail by other hon. members on this side. I am referring to matters such as our border farms and the problems of security that go with it. In order to indicate what field will be covered by this party, I move as a further amendment—

1. (1) defines clearly the political and economic policies it intends following to secure the future of all races in South Africa, with a view to eliminating the confusion and uncertainty in the public mind;
2. (2) takes urgent steps to stimulate the agricultural economy, with particular reference to the border areas, thereby encouraging young farmers to occupy these areas to the advantage of food production and the security sector;
3. (3) investigates the stimulation of labour-intensive industries with a view to combating unemployment;
4. (4) effectively increases social and other pensions in order to allow South Africa’s senior citizens of all races to maintain an acceptable quality of life.”.

Sir, I would have liked to have spent my whole speech and to have seen this whole debate devoted to some of these problems of day-to-day living, but unfortunately one has to use the limited opportunities of a general debate to deal with “survival politics”. So, I intend to deal with what I believe are the issues on which the survival or otherwise of South Africa depends. My colleagues will deal with the other legs of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, while we are debating this issue here this week, to the north of us the survival of a friendly neighbour is also at stake. I want to digress for a moment to say that I believe that in the heart of every South African there is a prayer for the people of Rhodesia, a prayer that at the end of this week they will emerge into an era of peace and a future which can bring to all those peoples hope for future generations. I think that that is a message which all South Africa would like to send to Rhodesia in the crucial days which lie ahead.

It was brought home to us very clearly only this weekend through the deed of heroism of a young girl what terrorism means when it gets out of hand. I think, too, that all sides of the House will agree that we saw a deed that indicates the determination of the South African character: A young girl of 15, with her father lying dead, taking a gun and fighting to protect what was theirs. It is part of the spirit of a proud people to protect what is theirs. It cannot, however, be done solely with a gun. There is a growing urgency to find answers to the fundamental questions which I believe require attention. With every passing week and month I believe solutions are getting more remote and not nearer to hand. Goodwill is turning into frustration, and frustration into confrontation.

Let me give an example—and I make no apology for referring to this matter. Two or three days ago there was an announcement by the chairman of the Coloured Local Affairs Committee in Natal that the Coloured people were no longer prepared to participate in anything except fully integrated “one man, one vote” local government. Just over a year ago that same chairman was a signatory—I have his signature—to an agreement reached between three communities for a form of local government which all accepted. Because of the intransigence of the Government, the hon. the Minister of the Interior and the hon. the Prime Minister himself, because of the refusal of the Government to allow Natal to implement that agreement, because of the veto placed on the ordinance which would have made it possible, that person, who accepted it not long ago and whose signature stands on that agreement, has now abandoned the course of moderation and said that the Coloured people will accept nothing less than full integration and “one man, one vote”.

Also because of the intransigence of your Natal Executive members … [Interjections.]

No, Sir.

I have evidence of that here.

No, Sir, not of the Natal Provincial Council. What I am indicating is how people change. I will give another example. The abolition of the CRC—I won’t debate the matter now because the legislation has still to come before the House—takes the Coloured people back to square one, back to the drawing-board. This is the same sort of example that I quoted with regard to the Coloured L.A.C.’s in Natal. It is because the Government has given nothing to show for their efforts to those who were willing and, in fact, tried to co-operate in building a future together, nothing to show for their efforts, that the Government has destroyed their political power base amongst their own people.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member for Durban Point whether he would admit that Mr. Maree has given evidence before the Constitutional Commission that the Natal Municipal Association was not prepared to approve the plan?

Mr. Speaker, I admit it.

Well then, why the outcry? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, it is not the Government of Natal. He said it was the Administration of Natal.

It is the people of Natal. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the Natal Provincial Administration, which represents the White voters of Natal, has accepted and supported this. Municipalities, representing more than 75% of the White municipal voters of Natal, have supported it. The former chairman of the Natal Municipal Association signed the agreement himself. Subsequently the association, under a new chairman, with a small majority of local authorities, voted against parts of the agreement. But 75% of the municipal voters of the municipalities of Natal support it, and we are now speaking of the votes of the people of Natal.

What agreement did the Natal Executive Committee enter into with me a few weeks ago?

They came to plead for the withdrawal of the veto. They were told that for various reasons, that could not happen. They disagreed. They stated in public that there was no acceptance by the Executive Committee of any delay in the establishment of…

That is not a correct account.

But that is what they said.

†Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the fact that if one makes it impossible for people to achieve anything by moderation, one leads them into frustration and then into confrontation.

*An untenable situation is beginning to develop. We have a constitutional commission sitting with a mandate from Parliament and before the commission has started considering the evidence and before any discussion has taken place in the commission, we hear speeches in this House and we read in public statements in the Press what the commission is going to decide.

[Inaudible.]

We read predictions. Every day the Press is full of what the commission is going to decide.

I accuse the Government of evading its responsibilities and those of the commission, a commission before which the NP and the official Opposition have not yet appeared to defend their proposals. The governing party and the official Opposition have not yet appeared before that commission, and now it is being published everywhere in the National Party’s Press that the commission is going to be abolished and a new body appointed. I challenge the National Party and the official Opposition to come and defend their proposals there as well, so that when another body is appointed, at least the options and the proposals of the important political parties will be on record for consideration by that new body. Of course I agree that we should involve the other communities. Right at the outset I myself suggested that we should negotiate with the other communities and that we, as Whites, should not draft something for them and then tell them that they will just have to accept it. Of course I am strongly in favour of involving all groups, including Black South Africans, in those negotiations, but then we, as politicians, should also pull our weight, and submit proposals and defend them before the commission. What is going on at the moment, amounts to contempt for the commission, and things cannot go on like this.

†I place the responsibility for the present confusion in politics squarely on the hon. the Prime Minister—I am sorry he has had to leave the Chamber—because he is engaging in a dangerous form of yo-yo politics in South Africa, politics which lift the hopes and expectations up and then drop them down again. It is essential that he stops vacillating and that he decides where he is going. I know what his problems are. I can see them. I do not just have to know them. I understand that they can all see Connie coming over the hill. But that is the hon. the Prime Minister’s problem, not mine. The hon. the Prime Minister has to make up his mind. This session started with high hopes and expectations, but these were blasted in one week—victims of the incurable Nat disease of using words which have one meaning in caucus and another meaning out of caucus, one meaning to the user of the words and another meaning to the hearer of the words. If one wants any proof of that, one can only listen to the hon. the Minister of Tourism, who admits “dit krap wel in NP-geledere”. He has made statements which, if words mean what words mean to me, are in direct conflict with statements by other hon. members of that party. I do not have the time to go into long quotations, but everybody knows it. It is quite clear that different meanings are being given to what has been said by those who say it, even within the NP, and by those who hear them.

Now, having pacified their right wing, having looked over their shoulders to see how far Connie is away and having tied the P. W. Botha régime firmly to Dr. Malan, Dr. Verwoerd and Mr. Vorster, there is nothing but an “ontplooiing van die natuurlike NP-beleid” left. Having tied it completely to the old concepts of apartheid, they have left the verligtes in their own party floundering in total confusion—loyal confusion, let me say. They are busy assuring everybody not to worry, that they must just be patient, that it will still happen. They say “Just give us time; we have got to take our power base with us”. Of course the hon. the Minister of Police is smiling because he and his colleagues have won while those who are now saying “Be patient”, know in their hearts that they have lost the battle. They have lost the battle and they are simply trying to salvage something from the wreck. And so the yo-yo goes up and down. [Interjections.] The lifting of the 72-hour curfew in Pretoria, is yet another perfect example of yo-yo politics. One day the hon. the Minister says something that lifts expectations and the next day he says something which dashes them.

Now the hon. the Prime Minister is trying to give it another uplift, another upsurge. Since the no-confidence debate we have had two weeks where a whole host of new so-called initiatives have emerged, trying to restore the impression that something is going to happen. I want to mention a few of the new expectations that have been raised. There is, for example, the President’s Council and the Homeland committee of experts on the constitutional future, and hints of a new role for urban Blacks. I hope I am wrong, but I want to say that I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister is using words and phrases and concepts open to different interpretations, creating expectations which are not intended and doing it in order to satisfy the divided opinions within his own party. This House has the right to know exactly what he means. It has the right to know what is in the small print. I want to ask certain direct questions, questions to which South Africa is entitled to answers, clear and unequivocal answers.

I put it to the hon. the Minister of the Interior: Is the door open or closed to participation by any Black South Africans as members, in contra-distinction to just witnesses or observers, as members participating themselves in considering the constitutional future of South Africa in the new President’s Council, or whatever that body is going to be called? Or is the only option offered direct membership of the constellation, and all they can discuss is the trimmings? That is a direct question which has to be answered. Are all Black South Africans going to be excluded from the body which is going to determine their future?

How can I tell you that before the commission has finished sitting?

Well, it is being talked about by the NP, the Nationalist Press, by Nationalist commentators and by Nationalist members.

The other question that has to be answered relates to the committee of experts. It so happens that I called for a Council of State last September, a Council of State to work out a total strategy for the future together. The Government turned it down and now they come with a committee. I want to know what the end possibility of this investigation is going to be. What body is this technical committee going to replace, or is it additional—something entirely new? It seems to me that it is completely by-passing this Parliament It is by-passing this Parliament, and what is needed, if the Schlebusch Commission is to continue, is new mandate from this Parliament to bring in the new element of Black South Africans.

Furthermore, exactly what does the Government or the hon. the Prime Minister mean when talking of a form of confederation? Is it just a consultative talking-shop, or is it to be a constitutional entity with joint-responsibility, “medeseggenskap” i.e. joint decision-making? This is a crucial question that must be answered. The hon. member for Randburg wrote only a week ago in the Vaderland and said—

I agree with that entirely. [Interjections.] I want to know whether the Government accepts that a “supra-national body” in which there can be joint decision-making by agreement is a possibility for South Africa which can and will be considered. I want to say that that is how we see a confederation: a body where there will be joint sharing of responsibility, one citizenship, a single economy, and a common loyalty, but no interference in the residual sovereignty and powers of any of the member States. The hon. the Prime Minister was very clear in rejecting any joint decision-making at the beginning of this session. He said there would be observer status and consultation, but he rejected any sharing of power.

That is right.

That is right! I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that we cannot have this situation where those behind cry: “Forward!” while those in front cry “Back!” The hon. the Prime Minister has to tell those in front to get out of his way and to let him through. He should jettison the hon. members of his party, members such as that hon. the Minister of Police, who says: “No power-sharing ever!” He should go along with the younger members of his party, those who can see that the future of South Africa lies elsewhere. [Interjections.] I say that if he would do this, this party would support him in every step he takes to move into a new era, to get away from shackles like the hon. the Minister of Police. But then we would want to know whether his objectives are real or whether they are simply an attempt to camouflage White power with the trimmings of consultation. If they are simply trimmings to camouflage White political power over everybody, then they cannot succeed in creating either the common purpose, the common destiny or the security from domination, which South Africa needs. I sincerely believe that there are enough moderates in South Africa of all races to achieve this and our task as politicians in this Parliament is to bring together those moderates, as we in the NRP are trying to do through dialogue and consultation.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the hon. member for Durban Point, I realized that he was not only having difficulty with the hon. members of his party, but with the Natal Provincial Administration as well. What a pity it is that he did not also elaborate on the difficulties he had had with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. We should have liked to hear about them in this debate. As far as his other questions are concerned, he will get the right answers in due course.

I have a major problem this afternoon. The debate on the Part Appropriation is largely a financial debate and accordingly I am amazed that the hon. member for Yeoville devoted less than 15 minutes on financial affairs, and the hon. member for Durban Point only three minutes. This is all we have had from the Opposition in this regard. [Interjections.] This is clear evidence that in the first place there is a lack of interest in financial affairs among them and, in the second place, that they are unable to hold a discussion about them. [Interjections.] This makes it very difficult for us on this side to conduct a proper debate, because how can one conduct a debate with people who do not want to answer one’s questions or even want to hold a proper discussion with one? In the course of the no-confidence debate—and one has no choice but to go back to that—the hon. member for Yeoville took part in one of the most popular games that has been played in public life over the past few months. He did it again this afternoon—the game of telling the hon. the Minister of Finance how to share out the so-called gold bonanza. It is the easiest thing in the world to share out this bonanza, because how one does it depends solely on one’s personal objectives in doing it. We know the hon. member for Yeoville, and know that he likes to put himself forward as the champion of the cause of the lesser privileged people. That is all he tried to do this afternoon. It could be expected, therefore, that he would come up with the proposal that the gold bonanza be given to the lesser privileged people. However, every hon. member in this House could stand up in the same way and ask that the gold bonanza only be spent on some group or other. I have in mind groups such as the teachers, the mine workers, the farmers, etc. However, it would be extremely irresponsible of any member to do this, because before an hon. member can move such a motion, he must first consider the full implications of his motion. If it still seems to be a good and practicable motion after he has given it careful consideration, such a member can put the motion forward here. Let us analyse the motion of the hon. member for Yeoville. In this regard I want to refer to his Hansard of Tuesday, 5 February 1980. In col. 119 he says, inter alia—

In col. 120 he says, inter alia, the following—

What is the hon. member advocating? He is advocating equal pensions for all and equal expenditure in regard to primary, secondary and tertiary education for all. What a fine and praiseworthy ideal that is!

However, let us come back to reality and analyse the hon. member’s motion. What does it mean? Has the hon. member determined the extent of the gold bonanza? The hon. member cannot even tell us what the price of gold is going to be tomorrow. He cannot tell us for how long the high gold price will continue or whether it is going to fall. Nor did he indicate to us what it will cost to carry out this equalization process. Indeed, I believe that he did not even sit down and calculate what it would involve. If he had done so it would very soon have become clear to him that financially speaking, it is impossible to increase expenditure on pensions and education to the degree that he proposes by way of a single gold bonanza. Surely the hon. member is not so stupid. The only alternative way of achieving such a thing would be to impose heavier taxes or to reduce pension and education allowances to Whites, Coloureds and Indians.

What will the further implications of this be for future budgets? The gold bonanza could be an event which occurs once, or perhaps twice. We also experienced it early in the seventies. What would happen in the long term if the gold price were to show a downward trend? In this regard I want to refer to The Argus of 14 February 1980 in which the following report, inter alia, appears—

Accordingly I find it strange that the hon. member should have come to the House with such a motion. Never before in this House have I heard of such a half-baked motion. However, I shall leave the hon. member’s motion at that.

There are certainly no instant or easy solutions to the tripartite problem of economic growth, unemployment and inflation. To bring about a higher economic growth rate and resultant lower unemployment rate when there is a high rate of inflation is no easy task. The present high rate of inflation and the danger that it could accelerate further, hampers the implementation of an expansionist policy with the view to reducing unemployment. It is therefore important that these three problems should be constantly investigated and analysed with a view to the formulation of appropriate policy measures with which to combat them.

The most important question, therefore, concerns the policy to be adopted in the RSA to reduce the rate of inflation without seriously hampering economic growth. In view of the problematic international political and economic developments, the RSA is in a unique position as far as economic growth is concerned, because the RSA has an expected real growth rate of possibly 5%, in contrast to what our trading partners may expect, and accordingly the RSA can make good progress in alleviating the unemployment issue. Accordingly the Government will have to continue to adopt a cautious approach in running the economy in the best interests of the country.

The Government is not the only body on which the responsibility for financial discipline rests. The private sector—viz. entrepreneur and worker—also have a key role to play in this regard, as I shall try to indicate later in my speech. The economic policy of growth from strength was developed systematically in 1979. The building up of our net gold and other foreign currency reserves due to a record surplus on the balance of payments is one of the most important contributions to greater economic strength.

This achievement, however, is not solely the result of the higher gold price. It is true that the revenue from gold sales is substantially more than it was in previous years, but it is also significant that our exports of goods for the fourth year in succession has shown a substantial improvement. The annual increase in exports—here I exclude gold and gold coin—has been as follows: 1976, 33,8%; 1977, 28,7%; 1978, 17,8%; and last year 20% or approximately R1 500 million. This showing on the part of our goods exports is to me of greater significance than the variations in the gold price. Not only is it more stable than the gold price but it also has a more direct influence on physical economic activities, for example the growth rate and the creation of employment opportunities.

Then, too, there has also been a measure of success with import replacement, which has also benefitted the growth rate. I shall come back to these two aspects at a later stage.

As far as inflation is concerned, there are certain facts which have to be taken into account. An excessively high, and in particular an increasing, rate of inflation certainly does not promote growth. It can even hamper growth to a serious extent owing to its harmful consequences and the effect it has on consumption and investment. That was the first factor. In the second place, it creates expectations of increases, rather than reductions, of long-term interest rates. In the third place, it necessarily has a harmful effect on a country’s trade balance if its rate of inflation is consistently higher than that of its trading partners. However, without underestimating the dangers of inflation, it must be pointed out that the present rate of inflation is not the result of excessive expenditure. In other words, it is not demand inflation, but rather an imported, cost-pressure inflation which has shown itself in the sharp increase in administered prices.

Then, too, it is not a case of an excessive increase in the supply of money or quasi-money. It is therefore to be doubted whether more restrictive monetary and fiscal measures would in fact reduce the inflation pressure. Indeed, this might instead have a detrimental effect on the growth rate. Accordingly the appropriate course of action seems to be to continue with the existing policy of gradual and systematic stimulation, utilizing measures which will have the least possible inflationary effect. Accordingly it is also necessary to take action in other fields, for example the expansion of the goods and factor markets, the training and retraining of the labour force and an improvement in the investment climate. These are matters which enjoy the constant attention of the Government.

In the no-confidence debate, hon. members of the Opposition—I regret to note that the hon. member for Durban Point is not in the House at present because he raised the matter specifically—reproached the hon. the Minister of Finance for having been satisfied with a growth rate of 5%. In the light of inflation … Yes, the hon. member for Mooi River need not sit and frown now. That is so. He can read Hansard and he will find it.

The hon. member for Durban Point did not discuss the growth rate.

I can quote it to the hon. member. Does he want to hear it?

Yes, please.

As soon as I have finished making my speech, I shall send it to the hon. member so that he may read it. The hon. member ought to be wide awake when his leader speaks. [Interjections.]

He is not really interested.

He is his own leader. [Interjections.]

In the light of the dangers of inflation which all hon. members of the Opposition are so concerned about and which they all discuss at such length, I want to warn them against the idea of growth at any price. It is for this very reason that the Government speaks in terms of growth with financial discipline and growth from strength. It is therefore necessary that the high degree of liquidity that already exists should now permeate through to the production level and that it be ensured that increases in salaries and wages are linked to increases in productivity. This can contribute a great deal to the solution of the inflation problem.

The domestic factors underlying the high rate of inflation will not lessen, either, before fundamental changes have occurred in the attitudes and the conduct of employers, employees, and consumers, particularly with regard to the negotiation higher incomes, determining the prices of commodities and in particular the increase in productivity. The increase in productivity is one of the most fundamental problems we have to deal with. The economy simply does not produce enough of what we expect of it. Labour expects and receives annual increases higher than the long-term growth rate in productivity. The community, in turn, expects more and more socio-economic benefits and defence, as the hon. the Minister of Finance rightly mentioned in the no confidence debate, is setting increasingly heavier demands.

There is no better way to increase the size of the cake than to increase the key factor, namely productivity. Statistics show this very clearly. Over the past decade the national productivity has increased by 1,5% per annum while the annual earnings per worker have increased by a composite rate of 12% per annum.

Yes, it is the Government’s fault.

It is this inequality, the increase in wage and salary structures, associated with no real comparable increase in the production per worker, that is also partly responsible for the high rate of inflation. The hon. member for Durban North has just said that this is the fault of the Government. I want to quote to him what appeared in the Citizen of 12 February 19801—

He does not say “the Government”—

Accordingly our people must be taught, firstly, that there is a relationship between input and output. In other words, output is no more nor less than what can be obtained by a given input; secondly, a community cannot increase its wealth by the simple process of “equal sharing”, that slogan which we hear so often from the official Opposition. These facts apply in any economic and political system, even in Marxist systems. Accordingly, over the past year the Government has come forward with specific steps aimed, firstly, at increasing the growth rate, secondly, at combating unemployment and, thirdly, at combating inflation. I want to mention some of these steps. There is the reduction in the high marginal income tax and company tax, and a higher premium has been placed on the private sector to stimulate growth. The total investment budget of the Government was reduced from 70% to 40% last year. The R511 million placed in the hands of the private consumer last year—and the hon. the Minister referred to that in his Second Reading speech this afternoon—was done by way of a repayment of the 1977 loan levy and the increase in social pensions. Then, too, there was last year’s conference and the talks held by the hon. the Prime Minister with the private sector, concerning the realization of a Southern African constellation of states. There was also the De Kock Commission’s recommendation proposing a major relaxation of exchange control and the influx of foreign capital via the financial rand. This was implemented and immediately began to show results. There was also the establishment of Sasol 2 and Sasol 3 and the fact that the public was able to obtain a major share in these projects. Then, too, there were the recommendations of the Riekert and Theron Commissions to create a better labour dispensation. Rent control is being abolished over five years. Limitations on trading rights in Black urban areas have been lifted. Security of tenure and other rights for Black people have been introduced by way of the 99-year lease system and then, too, there is the present rationalization of the Public Service. I could continue in this vein, but I do not believe it is necessary to do so. The examples I have mentioned are more than sufficient.

Accordingly I wish to conclude with what can still be done, in my opinion, to counter these three problems simultaneously. In the first place a concerted education campaign must be launched to convince importers and consumers that their requirements and demands can be satisfied just as well and even better by South African manufacturers. Here I refer to the “Buy South African” campaign. Secondly, a renewed export campaign must be launched, even by way of large specialized corporations. Thirdly, businessmen must make the greatest possible profits by achieving the highest possible output with minimum output. Fourthly, the more developed labour force must be prepared to afford the other workers greater opportunities. Fifthly, the highest income tax rate must never be more than 50%, because in a system of free enterprise the State ought never to be the senior sleeping partner. Finally, the tax on undistributed profits must be abolished, because it imposes a serious restriction on the capacity of companies to promote new development, further expansion and provision of employment. It is true that there are still snags, but with the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Minister of Finance and the NP Government at the helm, I believe that economic growth will surmount all these problems, because the most important precondition for economic growth is confidence and faith, and that indisputably exists.

Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday I asked the Government certain questions about the visit of Robert Keeley, the Assistant-Secretary of State for African Affairs in the State Department. The answers that were given to me on behalf of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs confirmed that gentleman was on a 10-day visit and ended with the general warning that, should officials of a foreign country interfere in South Africa’s domestic affairs, the Government would view matters in a very serious light. Sir, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs would be living in a dream world if he were to think that Robert Keeley came to South Africa on a “brief routine orientation visit”, which were the reasons he gave to our Ambassador in Washington. I am sure the hon. the Minister does not believe today that those were the real reasons for his visit. The fruits of Keeley’s visit to the Republic have yet to manifest themselves. I want to say for the umpteenth time in the House that the State Department has embarked on a deliberate campaign of provocation and confrontation with the Republic. Those who met Mr. Keeley and other State Department officials in Washington in October of last year will remember him as saying that “the United States is concerned with the need for fundamental change in South Africa” and that “the existence of racial polarization in South Africa leaves the United States with no alternative but to enter the field in Southern Africa”. That means: To intervene and take sides in South Africa. Mr. Keeley concluded his address to us by saying that South Africa should allow all visitors into the Republic, those who were friendly and those who were unfriendly; and he maintained that they should be given both radio and television coverage and be allowed to speak freely with all South Africans. Sir, I wonder what the State Department of America would say if we sent the Secretary for Foreign Affairs over to America to “orientate” himself on conditions in Harlem and other Black slums and then to have meetings with trade union leaders and industrial leaders to see why the Sullivan principles are not being applied in the factories of the United States while they are supposed to be applied here in the Republic. What would the State Department say to our Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he were to travel through the length and breadth of the United States criticizing publicly why the Congress of the United States was debating, when we were there, the keeping of tens of thousands of hungry and work-seeking Mexicans out of Texas?

Sir, I want to warn the House: The Americans are blatantly interfering in the most sensitive of economic and political relations in the Republic; that is to say in the industrial worker field. Unless we take action, the fruits of their interference in the factory in Port Elizabeth will shortly be seen and they will mushroom into other industrial areas when civil rights programmes they are planning in the Republic come off. The Americans whom Mr. Keeley wants to visit South Africa are the likes of Jesse Jackson, Solarz, the Chairman of the Southern Africa Committee of Congress and a virulent anti-South African Congressman, and Tsongas who has recently been here and is behind the anti-South African investment campaign. We have already had more than enough people of this sort visiting the Republic, too many for our safety. I call on the Government today to put an end to such visits and to the overt-interference of Edmundson, Lukens and company in the affairs of a sovereign country in which they are merely diplomatic representatives. The Government is playing with fire if it allows this state of affairs to continue.

Sir, I am a member of the commission on the constitution and till now I have deliberately withheld from making any comment on the possibilities of a new constitution for the Republic. There have, however, been many comments made by politicians in and out of Parliament, and in addition much evidence that was heard by the commission has been published, which in turn has stimulated Press and public comment. What is more, this week we will have before the House the reading of the South African Coloured Persons Council Bill. As a result I feel it is necessary for us of the SAP to say where we stand in regard to these changes.

In relation to constitutional change generally, and to participation in it by the Coloured and the Indian communities in particular, we stand for decentralization, or the devolution of powers to the different race groups in the Republic. We belive in giving them responsibility for handling all of those matters which affect them and the communities to which they belong. In the case of the Whites, Coloureds and Indians, we see them as three distinctly different race groups which have, however, very much in common. Having said that we recognize them as distinctly different race groups, we maintain nevertheless that the futures of Whites, Coloureds and Indians are interlinked with each other. We share the same country and we will never have separate homelands, but we do constitute different communities, or groups, living in the same country. We, in the South African Party, stand for a devolution of powers to representative law-making bodies which we call legislative assemblies, and which we believe should be established for each of these three racial groups. We feel that these law-making bodies should deal with matters of intimate concern to the particular race group for which it is established. Education, hospitalization, social welfare and pensions and local authority government are, to us, obvious examples of matters which affect intimately the affairs of their groups.

However, there remain those matters of common concern which are not the exclusive concern of any one or other racial group or community. Such matters, we have always felt, should be dealt with by the leaders of the various race groups in some form of common council. We have stated that the numbers of those elected to such a common council should, in our opinion, be chosen on the basis of the contribution made, by the members of the particular racial group concerned, to the general welfare of the Republic of which we are all citizens. This basis would obviously include such things as income taxes that are paid, contributions to the economy as a whole, educational standards and achievements by the particular racial group generally. This process should not be based on a counting of heads. In other words, the state of development and advancement of the group as a whole and its contribution to the general welfare and benefit of the South African society of which it is a part, are factors which, in our opinion, should count.

I have said that Coloureds and Whites have much in common, but nevertheless they are obviously at different stages of development and have, as a result, different standards in both social and economic fields. Yet we, the Whites, and the Coloureds share common languages, we have the same religious denominations, our ways of life are similar, our cultural interests follow the same pattern and our sporting and recreational activities are much the same. In addition to that, we fight a common enemy on the borders of South West Africa and of the Republic. We, the Whites, and the Coloureds, serve in the same Police Force to maintain internal law and order. Our Coloured sailors are serving in the Navy. Coloured soldiers serve in the army. Indeed, in the case of military service the Coloureds eelect to fight for their country and are not even compelled to do so. Much of what I have said about the Coloureds applies equally to the Indians. They are a proud, small and distinct community with a culture and a tradition of their own, but nevertheless they are very much a part of the South Africa to which all of us in these three groups belong. They have no home, no homeland other than South Africa, to which to turn.

The objective of the Constitutional Commission is to work out a new constitution for the Republic, primarily involving the Whites, the Indians and the Coloureds. I am of the opinion that a State President’s Council should even now be playing a very important consultative role in planning this new constitution for the Republic. I wish therefore to appeal to the Government to constitute the State President’s Council in the near future and to nominate, or else to have elected to it, responsible leaders in all fields of the White, Coloured and Indian communities. In trying to draw up a constitution for the Republic, we must include Coloureds and Indians, in my opinion for both moral and practical reasons.

What I have said so far, conforms to the policy of the party to which I belong. What is more, we in the SAP, those of us here in Parliament and our colleagues in the provincial council, see nothing but advantages in the giving of representation in the supreme lawmaking body in the Republic to all three groups I have mentioned.

The Coloured people had Whites to represent them in Parliament for many years. I was never an enthusiastic supporter of that system, and the Government in its wisdom abolished it. It was open to abuse and was never a substitute for direct representation. I believe that members of my party who are not in Parliament will agree with us that the time has come for Coloureds and Indians to be represented in Parliament by their own people under a new constitution, not on the basis of numbers, but on the basis of the contribution made by the Coloured and Indian groups as such to the welfare and the well-being of the Republic as a whole. I feel the time is ripe for this to be said. We in this party are moderate and we are conservative. We believe that the vast majority of Whites in the Republic are not radical leftists, or off the earth liberals or ultra-conservatives living in the last century. We believe they are also moderate and conservative people, that they are also fair-minded, and if arguments and facts are properly presented to them, they will be fair in their judgment. We believe that those people outside will also see merit in our proposals that in the new constitution, Coloureds should represent Coloureds and Indians should represent Indians in Parliament, a Parliament of the Republic that will deal with matters affecting the interests of those three race groups that have the most in common with one another, three race groups that share a common fatherland and face a dangerous, but a great future together if common ground can be found amongst them. What we stand for, is quality representation in this House and not quantity representation. We want each group, Coloureds and Indians, to accept proportionately, on the basis I have tried to outline to the House, their responsibility with the more advanced White nation, for a South Africa, in which we all live together.

The hon. member for Walmer is going to move an amendment to this Bill. It is printed on the Order Paper and obviously I support it in advance. I have addressed the House on an entirely different subject today, and that is why I have spoken first.

Mr. Speaker, in any important country in today’s world a budget is or should be a steering mechanism of the economy and also of the whole social and political machine towards desirable objectives, meaning in the first place security and prosperity on a fair basis for all, not just for some.

I believe that we in this country are in a unique position today. We are going to go through difficult times, but I believe the indications are there, clear for everybody to see, that we could become an ark of refuge and safety for many people, in contrast to the arc of crisis which runs through a large part of today’s world.

We must admit that South Africa is an extremely lucky country.

Except in so far as its Government is concerned.

We are lucky in having a very able Minister of Finance and very able administrators such as Dr. Joop de Loor and Dr. Gerhard de Kock. Yet the fact of the matter remains that if it were not for gold, the soaring gold price and our so much sought-after minerals, South Africa would have been in a relatively weak and poor situation.

It is therefore logical that the very special bonanza which we have available today should be prudently and wisely applied in a very scientific manner to achieve the maximum security and prosperity for the whole country. It is obvious that we first have to look to the highest priorities such as defence, the infrastructure, communications, etc. But after that, I believe it is logical that we put our whole system, our whole nation, under the magnifying glass to ascertain what the particular, basic structural weaknesses are that we still have in our society.

We may differ on priorities, but let me try to identify seven of those which I consider to be particularly important. The first one is that we should become less dependent on exports. We are too dependent on trade, especially exports of our minerals. Approximately two-thirds of our exports consist of mineral sales. Exports account for roughly one-third of our GNP. We need therefore to become more of a nation of manufacturers rather than being to such a large extent a nation of traders. In a tax context, with inflation and soaring replacement values of machinery, plant and equipment, I hope that it will be possible for the hon. the Minister to continue to give very special attention to this particular matter in the application of taxation measures.

The second basic weakness is with reference to employment. We are over-employed as far as Whites are concerned, but we have a large number of unemployed people when it comes to the total population, and obviously this particular weakness has some reference to the first one. The more we can manufacture, the more we can convert our raw materials and our minerals and refine them, the more jobs will become available. Also here, in respect of taxation, we should pay particular attention to a greater incentives for conversion and refinement locally of our many raw products.

The third basic weakness lies in productivity, an issue some hon. members have already referred to. To illustrate, our productivity level in this country can be judged by comparing it with that of some other leading countries. Maybe it is unfair to compare South Africa with leading European countries because we are basically an African country; but let us look at some of the latest available figures of the output per economically active person to the nearest $1 000: Switzerland, 34 000; Germany, 27 000; The United States, 21 000; Australia, 17 000; the United Kingdom, 12 000; and then South Africa, 4 000. Obviously this is something that needs great attention. At the same time South Africa has one of the largest population increases anywhere. So here again we should direct our taxation system at incentives to overcome this particular problem.

In the fourth place, we need education and training on a colossal scale, and in this I include adult education. I have a particularly soft spot for people who study while they work, and I must declare my interest in the University of South Africa. I do think, however, that taxation-wise we can hardly do enough to build in more incentives and rewards for people who study to equip themselves; but at the same time I do think that we also need to build in certain obligations. It is not fair for some people, for instance doctors, to be educated in this country on the backs of our taxpayers and then to leave to practise elsewhere. I believe that they should be restricted to serving this country for a certain minimum period, or otherwise pay penalties for leaving without fulfilling this obligation. We might even learn something from a man whom most of us, maybe all of us, do not like, viz. Jesse Jackson. This man encourages his followers to devote at least two hours of their spare time per day to studying or to being trained; and we need to tell our people, the masses, the ordinary people, that this is what we should do, what all races should do. At present only 5% of our total labour force is in the higher categories, compared to 26% in the USA, 17% in Australia, 14% in the United Kingdom. This is because the top echelon positions are still being occupied primarily by the White population group. We cannot, in fact, have a real democracy, an effective one that works well, unless our total population reaches a certain level of education and possess a certain measure of national and international awareness. This reverts back to my concept of adult education; and I still believe in what I said before in this House, i.e. that we should really have a number of non-political roving ambassadors who could speak at important seminars and conferences throughout the world, people who would then come back and also speak to people in this country, especially also in the most outlying areas, because one can really only judge this world by comparison, and the truth must be brought home to our nation, the truth about what is going on in the world of today and how our future relates to it. Why we have to adapt.

The fifth factor is inflation which is decimating the hard-earned savings of the hard-working people of this country. Not all people have the expertise and the knowledge available which are necessary to invest in appreciating assets. So a large percentage of our people make monetary investments only, bank deposits, building society deposits and Government stock. Now let us place ourselves in the position of a man who retires today with a R1 000 per month income and R100 000 to invest. In a few years time, with inflation as it is today in this country and elsewhere, he will be on his way to the poor house. Therefore, we again have to look, not only at civil pensions, but also at pensions across the board, because whether the government is responsible or not, the fact remains that ultimately the happiness or the unhappiness of the people about their savings and life-style reflects on the State, whichever party may be in power. I am particularly grateful and wish to thank the hon. the Minister for his announcement today that there will be gold coins available for the people of this country to invest in, and I think more should be done in this particular regard—gold, diamonds and similar investments.

The sixth weakness is discrimination. I believe that all political parties are agreed on moving towards equality of opportunity and selection on merit, and that morals and manners should ultimately replace laws, rules and regulations. However, we have to work for it. We cannot just press a button and think that it will pop up overnight. So here again we have to build incentives into our system to bridge the wage gaps, to put females on a par with males. We should eliminate discrimination right across the board, and we also have to look at certain monopolistic situations, even if they are not really and truly monopolistic. There is some sour taste in the mouths of certain people with reference to recent developments in, for example, the liquor trade.

The last weakness has to do with something which is partly intangible, viz. incentives and inspiration. This country needs people who are prepared to take risks, this country needs entrepreneurs, this country needs top echelon management people, technologists and people of that calibre. This brings me to the question of perks. Obviously we want to eliminate malpractices, but at the same time we have to judge perks by comparative standards. We do not want other environments to offer this kind of person more attractions than they can find in the context of our own society. We shall need investments for a long time to come; we shall need more skills; we shall need the risk-takers; we shall need the capitalists—to put it bluntly—to lead this nation towards the kind of development that we are capable of and to give our people jobs and to make them prosperous. The moral issue about the perks situation should also be considered in any approach of this nature. In other words, we should cover the full spectrum, viz. the Civil Service, the public sector, the private sector, the agricultural sector—across the board.

Finally, in the political sense I believe that all of us should avoid promising people something for nothing. We should tell people that they cannot expect more and more pay for less and less work. We should with our taxation system, encourage hard work, thrift and merit. Provided we do that, we can look forward to a wonderful future for us all in this country—ultimately the most prosperous anywhere!

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to convey my appreciation to the hon. members of this House who made us as newcomers feel so much at home and gave us so much assistance. In the second place I want to convey my appreciation to the officers of Parliament who have given us their support. It was really very pleasant for us to find so many people here to assist us and to facilitate matters for us. I represent a constituency here which I believe to be the best in the Transvaal. In fact, I think it is the best in the Republic. Moreover, I want to point out that I came in the place of a person who made his mark in this House for 13 years, viz. Tonie van Tonder, Commissioner-General of the Kwa-Ndebele.

This afternoon I, too, want to tell hon. members about a budget. It is not a budget in which one can speak of rands and cents, but a budget in which one can speak of appreciation, recognition and understanding. I should like to discuss the woman. In my mind’s eye I saw the smiles on hon. members’ faces and the twinkle in their eyes as I said that I was going to discuss the woman, and I have not been disappointed at all. I do not want to discuss women’s rights this afternoon, but the role of the woman in present-day society. In the second place, I want to discuss the way in which she is fulfilling this role and, thirdly, what is required of her in more than one respect to play this role to the full.

The time when the woman remained exclusively at home and was committed to her husband, her children and her household is gone forever. We only dream about it now. The times in which we live today and the society in which we move make very heavy demands on the woman. Our country and our people require ever greater willingness and sacrifice on the part of the woman. The education of her children demands more knowledge and skill to equip them for and enable them to withstand the onslaughts of the outside world. I have no fault to find with the fact that heavy demands are being made on the woman or that she is being depended on heavily, because in the first instance she comprises more than half of the population of any country, viz. ± 53%. Secondly, God did not bid the man alone to be creative, but the woman as well. Thirdly, the woman does possess the qualities needed to meet the demands being made on her by society, by her nation, her children and the members of her household. She is able to participate in the higher commandment she received, and she is able to fulfil it very successfully.

I want to describe these qualities briefly to the hon. members. The first quality of a woman is that she has faith. She senses things—that woman’s intuition which is the object of so much derision. She is concerned, she protects, she provides stability, she equips, she gives love and she renders service. All these qualities belong to the woman, and only if she possesses them can she fulfil the role being required of her. When she no longer possesses them she loses her value as a woman. The woman journeys through the pages of the Bible from the Creation to the end: as mother, companion, wife, judge, ruler and in many other roles. In view of these qualities, we can say that the woman is able to be successfully involved because she has in her hands the power, in her heart the love and in her ideals the will to fulfil in the best possible way what is required of her. She can do this, she wants to do this and she will do this.

I just want to outline a few spheres in which the woman now has to be involved. Firstly there is her husband. When one hears about a great and famous figure, one immediately wonders what his wife looks like, how she stands by him—does she do so in a dignified way?—how she supports him and how she helps him. A woman can bring out the best and the finest in her husband. She shares in her husbands successes and his victories, but alas, at times she must also share in his failures and humiliations; and how does a woman not sometimes stand by her husband when his deeds have begun to catch up with him! We have many examples of this which I could quote. Secondly she must be involved in the lives of her sons and daughters, because the woman is the bearer of life, she gives life, she nourishes life and she must protect and equip that life. If the onslaughts on us from the outside world become so fierce that they give our children drugs and LSD, then I want to give the hon. members the assurance that every woman also has LSD which she can give her children: L, which stands for love; S, which stands for security and D, which stands for discipline. It has rightly been said that the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world.

Maternal love is described as a powerful emotion which can triumph over all obstacles. That is why she can mean so much to her son and daughter, and does.

In another sphere the woman is the homemaker, the creator of the home to which her husband and children can return in the evening, where they feel secure, where they feel provided for, where they are understood and where they are pampered.

The family is the State in miniature as well as the Church in miniature. Woman has it in her hands to cause the State and Church in miniature to develop to the full.

In addition the woman is also involved in society. We need only look at co-operative life in general. For example, let us take cognizance of the part which the woman plays in the care of the aged, of children, battered babies, neglected children. What task does the woman also fulfil in the church community? Now I want to point out that there is another sphere in South Africa today in which the woman really has to do much more than her share. This is the sphere in which the sly enemy, communism, operates. This is an enemy which fights for possession of man’s spirit. Communists believe that once they possess man’s thoughts, once they have people thinking as they do, believing as they do, he will also do as they do. Then it is not even necessary to use other weapons in order to conquer a country.

Consequently it is very important that I point out today that we in South Africa are already dealing with that weapon, that weapon which is aimed at man’s spirit, weapons that have to be counteracted by the woman. I do not want to allege that it is only the women who have to carry out this task. The man does this with her, but I am dealing specifically with the woman today. Pornography, the condemnation of laws, infiltration into key positions, the disparagement of the family as an institution, the ridiculing of marriage, the propagating of free love, the denigration of persons in authority, the degradation of the arts and of artistic expression, the debasement and exploitation of the woman’s body in the world of advertising and entertainment, are all among the most powerful weapons being used against us by the enemy.

Modern life very often requires the woman to take the place of the man, i.e. when he goes on long business trips, when he does border duty, etc. Then she needs knowledge, insight and understanding to keep her children together. These are not the only demands being made on a woman. Prosperity, success and development demand their share of the woman’s life as well. Women have ventured into virtually every sphere of national life as well as the professions. She does so very gracefully, diligently and successfully. In our young country we have really come to the stage where the competent, diligent and willing woman has to plan her daily time-table very skillfully and good judgment in order to meet all its requirements.

The dwindling of time and space are factors that hamper and greatly affect the life of the woman. She has to adapt herself to these circumstances. However, she does not adapt herself without inconvenience and sacrifice, without pain and heartbreak and at times deep sorrow. I said that I was not coming to fight for women’s rights. I am merely asking society for understanding, appreciation and recognition of the woman, as I said at the outset. I ask society to make it easier for her to fill her many positions, to have understanding for her great task as a woman and to grant her the compensation she deserves. The quality of a nation depends on the quality of its women. Is it not perhaps appropriate for us at this stage to consider investing in our women?

Someone once used a particularly apposite expression. In fact it was not a woman but a man who used this expression. He said that a woman was like a polished diamond, a diamond with many facets, which could catch the bright rays of the sun and reflect them in beautiful, bright colours which could impart its warmth and beauty to the people around it and give them pleasure. Now, it will probably not benefit us if our gold prices soar while the quality of our women is no longer that of a polished diamond.

Mr. Speaker, I have a very special and rare privilege this afternoon. It is almost unique to have the opportunity to welcome a new female member in this House and to congratulate the hon. member for Germiston District, as a woman, on her maiden speech. The last time an hon. member in this House had the privilege to welcome and congratulate a female member, was 16 years ago in the case of Mrs. Cathy Taylor, the then member for Wynberg. I think it happens too seldom that we have such an opportunity in this House. We greatly enjoyed the speech by the hon. member for Germiston District. It was a striking and well-delivered speech. I think we shall be expecting two things from her. The first is that she will continue to set an example to the male members in this House and, in the second place, that she will also continue to set an example to the women outside this House so that they will also come here and afford other hon. members in this House the opportunity to welcome women to this House. That will be a happy day for this House.

†I have little fault to find with the speech of the hon. member for Pinetown, particularly in so far as he draws a thread between low productivity in South Africa, discrimination in South Africa and the very high inflation rate we are faced with in this country. There is a very important connection between these three things, and I think he made an important contribution in repeating this in the House today.

I now turn to the main theme of my speech, and I make no apology for speaking on the subject of energy. It hardly needs to be stated in this House any longer that energy is a vital element in the financial and economic policy of South Africa. It is a vital element, not only because of the very high capital costs involved, but also because of the enormous contribution that energy makes, and must make, to the growth of this country. I am glad, on this occasion, to be able to welcome the new hon. Minister of Environmental Planning and Energy and to thank him for finding it possible to be present. We very much hope that the hon. the Minister will come to remedy certain weaknesses in the energy situation and will put together what we see as a disintegrated energy structure.

In 1974 the former Prime Minister announced a comprehensive national energy policy. That was six years ago. He then said, and I quote—

For this reason, he said, a petroleum economizing committee had been formed in December 1973. A Cabinet Committee, consisting of the then Ministers of Transport, Economic Affairs, Planning and Mines, would be set up to formulate the new policy. An energy policy committee, representing the main Government departments and corporations, would be set up to assist the Cabinet Committee. I repeat that that was in 1974. Six years later, here we are today in the year 1980. On 20 February, a few days ago, I asked the hon. new Minister of Environmental Planning and Energy what progress had been made in co-ordinating the administration, by his department, of all matters relating to energy. The hon. the Minister replied quite honestly that satisfactory progress had been made and that for the rationalization of the Public Service all energy matters would be brought together in a new department of mineral and energy affairs. What this statement amounted to was, in fact, a confession that although a policy of co-ordination had been formerly announced in 1974, it was now hoped that, in consequence of the hon. the Minister’s new rationalization programme, at last the various ministries concerned with energy might have their policies co-ordinated under a single ministry. I want to warn the hon. the Minister that, if he thinks the process of rationalization of the past six years can be described as satisfactory progress, then by the year 2000 A.D. we will still not have an energy policy.

We already have one.

Let us briefly examine the present basis of energy in South Africa. I want to do this very briefly, firstly because I have very little time to deal with so broad a subject and, secondly, I suppose, because there are very narrow areas, and very few of them, where silence is in fact necessary for security reasons. Sir, the House needs no lecture on the energy potential of South Africa. I merely refer to the main sources to put my argument in perspective. We have coal, the most plentiful and important of all our fuel sources. It is available as a fuel in solid form, in gaseous form and in liquid form. On this commodity, this resource, will depend the major part of our hopes of survival as an energy consuming nation in the next 30, 40, 50 or even more years. We have uranium, the production of which is highly developed for export, but which will not be employed as a fuel for another two years in South Africa and after that in limited quantities, and which is, I think, part of a fuel development which will be of shorter duration than, for example, the coal economy or the hydrogen economy, which will probably succeed the nuclear economy. We have, too, the oil economy which is now suffering its demise. It is in fact being gradually phased out. Oil is imported at high risk and at very high cost and it is already being partly replaced in South Africa by coal derivatives, but these are also produced at very high cost.

We come then to the renewable sources such as hydro-energy for hydro-electric purposes, solar energy, wind energy and the conversion of vegetable matter known as the bio-mass system. Lastly, and most importantly, there is energy saving as a means of creating new sources of energy, for it is the truth that in respect of all forms of energy input only one third becomes effective as an energy producer while two thirds go out as waste. There is a vast field for improvement, greater efficiency and the reduction of waste in the use of our fuels.

It is easy to assume in South Africa that we have partly solved the energy problem. We look to the high prestige of Escom and Sasol; the brilliant response to the challenge of the times by the South African coal industry; the scientific achievements of the Atomic Energy Board; the potential and in some cases actual contributions of such private corporations as AE Senator CI, Sentrachem and others. All these inspire great confidence for the future. It would certainly be wrong to suggest that their autonomy and their special incentives should all be centralized into a single bureaucracy. That would be to destroy the very initiatives which inspire the confidence we have. Why then is integration necessary? Why is it argued that there is disintegration, lack of co-ordination, in our energy policy? What are the faults in the system? There is a lack of co-ordination in various senses. Firstly, our main energy sources are expendable in the long or the shorter term. They must undergo a process of constant adaptation, constant adjustment and constant renewal. No such process can succeed without steady regard to the elements of time and cost, and without constant attention to the possibility of finding alternatives. This means research, and it means research not directed at a single part of a system, but research carried out in the knowledge of the system as a whole, the spectrum in its entirety. This applies most urgently, at present, to the crude-oil supply of South Africa which is vulnerable, exhaustible and intolerably expensive. The Soekor prospecting programme, under the auspices of the Department of Mines, has shown no reward so far, but it must obviously continue while there is any reasonable off-shore prospect of obtaining oil or gas which is cheaper than fuels at present available, or in prospect. That is a condition, because only oil which is cheaper than other non-transport fuels which are plentifully available will be of any real use to South Africa.

The oil-importing programme of the Minister of Industries is aimed at supplying essential current needs by imports and by the development of local substitutes. It has been successful, in part, but at a very high cost. For years it imposed rigid controls. It imposed controls on the gasoline motor sector when import tonnages of crude-oil were seen more and more clearly to be determined by the essential needs of the diesel engine sector. Only in 1979, after years of discipline, impositions and controls on the gasoline sector, did the Government start to take action directed at the reality of the situation, which is that a reduction in oil imports depends on rapidly developing adequate diesel substitutes or diesel supplements. There is no other way in which the overall level of crude-oil imports can be brought down, in the South African situation, unless a supplement or an alternative can be found for our diesel requirements. Therefore, to concentrate so heavily on speed restrictions, on every other kind of restriction on the ordinary motorist and on the selling hours of petrol at the pumps, was in fact very largely to miss the point and the urgency and necessity of the situation. It needs to be added that work on such a product, that is to say an alcohol which can be added to petrol, has long been conducted at fuel research institutes and universities in South Africa, but almost always without adequate research funds and without adequate State encouragement. The frustration of this was hardly helped by ill-considered ministerial statements about sunflowers and cassava plants as sources of effective diesel additives. So the hon. Minister for Agriculture came to join the already overcrowded energy variety show.

The statement about the use of methyl and ethyl alcohol, which was released this month, is a late but welcome recognition of the reality of the situation. The astonishing thing is that the Energy Policy Committee was only confronted with this reality and reached its conclusion in December 1979. Dr. Frans Quass, a member of the hon. the Prime Minister’s Scientific Advisory Council and former director of Soekor, who is a top energy expert in South Africa, said quite plainly last August that the Government had mismanaged the oil crisis and was “meandering without proper direction through the energy situation”. One recalls that similar confusion has occurred in the oil and coal sectors where fundamental policy hinges on estimates of coal reserves. The two responsible Ministries of Environmental Planning and of Mines were found to be in wide disagreement as to the actual reserves available. Since coal is the most vital element in the whole of the energy economy, how can we plot a consistent policy if we cannot reach agreement on the kind of reserves which are actually available and if there is disagreement between the various Ministries which take part in the energy variety show?

Let me give another example of the wide disparity in the variety show. Nuclear research and enrichment development are the responsibility of the hon. the Minister of Mines, but nuclear power generation is, as everybody knows, the responsibility of Escom, which falls under the hon. the Minister of Industries. The Minister of Mines is the licensing authority and must look to the safety of the nuclear plants erected for the generation of electricity in South Africa. However, it is Escom which is being criticized for not paying sufficient attention to the safety of the nuclear fuel cycle. Recently we have learnt, from a reply to my question, that as yet there is no contract for the reprocessing and return of our fuels, and the separation and safeguarding of plutonium, other than the international agreement which deals with the board question of safeguards. Whose responsibility is this going to be? Is it going to be the responsibility of the hon. the Minister of Mines, who is responsible for the licensing and safety of nuclear power plants, the responsibility of the hon. the Minister of Industries under whom Escom falls, or the responsibility of the new Minister of Environmental Planning and Energy? We should like to know. There is a great deal of anxiety in the country about this matter. There is already the emergence of a panic lobby, the “doomsday group”, people who almost eagerly look forward to the explosion of nuclear power systems. I want to make it clear that I am not one of them. If Escom were to build a cabin for me on the beach at Koeberg, I would gladly go and spend my weekends there as an example to people of the safety of the plant. I doubt, however, whether I would have the chance to do so.

I believe the time has come for all these disparities, varieties and discrepancies to be brought together in order that confidence might be established and that we might make more rapid progress. I want to refer briefly to the lack of statistics. In 1979 the Department of Environmental Planning and Energy published a report, prepared for the Energy Policy Committee, on the principles of the energy economy. I have had a look at this report, and every statistic that one can find in that report, all the data, were from 1974, believe it or not. Enquiries I made at research organizations and universities produced the astonishing reply that the local data they are using for the purpose of their oil research and other studies, for which they require consumption figures in South Africa, are also 1974 figures. Where do they obtain more up-to-date statistics? They go to the United Nations, because the annual statistics of the United Nations, of which the Committee for Apartheid, for example, is a part, contain figures on South African oil consumption which have been derived from the Lloyd’s Register of Shipping, which is an open document available to everybody. It is published in New York for sale anywhere in the world. This is where our research workers have to obtain the statistics they require for research in the interests of South Africa, because those same figures are not available in South Africa, either because they are secret or because they are now known. This is a deplorable state of affairs.

I can quote many other examples. It is the stringent provisions in the Atomic Energy Act which prevent people from discussing matters such as enrichment, the principles of which are published in text books available in all the nuclear physics faculties of the world. I have one which, on a strict reading of the Atomic Energy Act, I suppose I should not have. It merely expounds the basic principles of nuclear energy and enrichment.

I now want to refer to the financial aspect. Vast amounts of money are rightly being invested directly in developing coal reserves, uranium and oil sources and their various derivatives. These resources are all more or less finite and there is a parallel need, as we use up these resources, to develop the alternatives which will eventually take their place. Research of this kind is expensive. There is the question, which I have already mentioned, of the reduction of our energy resources by waste and inefficiency. This is not a criticism; it is a factor in the energy situation that two-thirds gets lost. In France, which I recently visited, there is an organization called Comes, the Comissariat for Energy Research. This organization in its first year of operation has a budget of the equivalent of R70 million, which money it is able to spend in order to encourage research in the various fields of solar energy in France. By doing this it is able, through its own overall view and knowledge, to stimulate those areas where gaps need to be filled and where development has to take place. France plans to go 80% nuclear by the year 2000 A.D. Solar energy can at best fill some 10 or 15% of France’s future requirements, but this is the kind of budget and the kind of system they are using. If we go to our own solar energy effort, South Africa has a solar energy potential of maybe 10%.

What was the amount you mentioned?

R70 million. In South Africa our solar energy effort is being co-ordinated at the CSIR by the National Building Research Institute, and the National Building Research Institute’s budget for solar development is R200 000, one-fifth of one million. Even allowing for the difference between the French effort and our effort, this is really quite ridiculous. These are but a few examples of the inadequacy and disarray alongside the plenty in the South African energy system.

I end as I began with goodwill towards the new hon. Minister. If he accepts that his portfolio is no sinecure and is merely the beginning of repairing the disarray, the gaps and the needs of a proper energy portfolio and a proper energy policy, he will have much support from this side of the House. However, if he does not, then I am afraid he will find us very severe critics indeed.

Order! Before calling on the next hon. member I should like to say that when the hon. the Minister of Agriculture said this afternoon that the hon. member for Yeoville was misleading the public, I asked him not to use those words and he thereupon withdrew them. I did not hear the hon. member for Yeoville at that time saying “I do not mislead the public like some other hon. Ministers do”, but I have now seen it in Hansard and I ask him to withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I trust the hon. member for Constantia will forgive me if I do not follow up his arguments. I gained the impression from the tenor of his speech that it will probably justify a reply from the relevant hon. Minister and I have no doubt that the Minister will in due course reply. I want rather to associate myself with the satisfaction and pride expressed by the hon. the Minister of Finance in the concluding portion of his introductory speech in regard to the present financial position of this country. I think every one of us was pleased to learn that we could expect a bright future in the ensuing months and years as far as South Africa’s economic well-being was concerned. I think also that no mean share of the credit for this burgeoning in the South African economy is due to the hon. the Minister himself. In the days when this country of ours was in a very bad way, in the days when we passed through a phase of near recession, it was due mainly to the sound financial measures he introduced and the financial discipline he preached from time to time in this House that it was possible to reverse the trend and to improve our economic position so that today we are able to look forward to a period, as the hon. the Minister said elsewhere over the weekend, of “probably unparalleled growth in South Africa”, and so that foreign financial experts have been able to speak, as the hon. the Minister also mentioned, about the possibility of our country’s becoming a whizz-kid of the ’eighties. I believe that all ten of us on this side of the House who hail from Natal have every reason to be proud of this expert hand at the helm, not only as far as the financial matters of the country are concerned but also those of our province, in the party that we represent. We listened subsequently to the hon. leader of the second largest group from Natal in this House and I could not help but feel sorry for him. I suppose the hon. member for Durban Point has more serious problems to contend with. We have learnt during the past few weeks that two of his senior members, two front-benchers, have already given advance notice of their intention to quit politics. One of his junior members has already left the party and now, to cap it all, the hon. member for East London North …

What are you worried about?

Mr. Speaker, it will in due course dawn on the hon. member that I am worried about Natal, about the leadership his party is giving to a section of Natal. In the no-confidence debate the hon. member for East London North said the following—

That language gives an impression which is totally different from that conveyed in the official publications of the NRP concerning its true policy. In its official publications that party never fails to accentuate the concept of group identity, and that is language which is not strange to us on this side of the House. In their booklet they talk about—

and later of—

Nowhere in the entire booklet do that party and its leader refer to “power-sharing”. That is the language of hon. members of the Official Opposition and for that reason it is not surprising that the hon. member for East London North talks about “The sooner those who wish to share can get together under one umbrella”. When he talks in that vein, it is not surprising that we on this side of the House believe that he is casting his eyes to the right—in fact to the left—but to the right in this House.

During the past few days the hon. member for Durban Central has given us further proof of the fact that various members of that party are firmly on the road towards the Progressive Party. As a matter of fact, they cannot fall into the arms of the PFP quickly enough. I notice that a certain Mr. Gird, who has even become the youth organizer of the PFP, has agreed to explain to the young people of the NRP why he changed his allegiance. [Interjections.] There is no doubt about it, Sir, the hon. member for Durban Point has problems because, after all said and done, if the hon. member for East London North is correct in saying that all those who believe in power-sharing must get together under one umbrella, surely there is no real justification for that party to continue to exist. When one thinks about Edenvale one realizes that in the case of the official Opposition there is at least some growth but in the case of the party of the hon. member for Durban Point there is no growth whatsoever; there are only those contemplating resigning, there are only refugees. It is undergoing nothing less than a process of decay. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Durban Point tries very hard in his publications and speeches to create the impression that as far as principles are concerned there is a fundamental difference between the official Opposition and his party. Then the hon. member for East London North talks about “those who believe in sharing power should be under one umbrella”. How does one reconcile those two statements, Sir? Surely those two sentiments are irreconcilable. [Interjections.] I do believe, however, that the hon. member for East London North has another reason for not having yet left that party. He knows that almost 90% of that party is made up of Natal constituencies. Apart from him, all the members of Parliament of that party come from Natal. He knows too that the electorate of Natal, both Afrikaans and English speaking, are not prepared to accept the leftist philosophies of the PFP. This is the way, therefore, in which he is trying to “hijack” the NRP. What the hon. member for East London North has in mind is in fact to try to hijack …

A Capetonian.

… a Natal party. I shall prove now that the electorate of Natal do not accept the philosophies of the official Opposition. The hon. member for Durban Point referred to the negotiations and discussions of the so-called Natal Local Government Committee. This committee consisted of 10 members and had to draw up a new blueprint for local authorities in Natal to follow in future. Two of those 10 members of the committee were members of the Executive Committee, one was the former president of the Natal Municipal Association and the remaining seven were Coloureds and Indians.

The present president was also a member of that committee.

He became a member later but only three of the signatories to the report of this committee were the Whites I have mentioned.

That is not true.

Even that committee, composed as it was, had to accept that they would not be able to foist a multiracial set-up on the electorate of Natal. They also say the following in their report—

Yes, that is correct.

Their comments in this regard cover five points. They say, inter alia, the following—

The hon. member for Durban Point must tell me now what his attitude is because, if that is not the “final solution”, what is it? After all, the two White members of the Executive Committee who served on this committee are his supporters.

No solution is ever final. [Interjections.]

I ask you, Sir, is that an answer?

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

Will the hon. member tell me what the “final solution” is? My time is very limited, but he may put his question.

Do the proposals of the NP constitute a “final solution”? Numerous Ministers have already said that they are merely springboards.

We all know that a certain process of evolution determines the destinies of nations … [Interjections.] But we on this side of the House are prepared to face up to every logical consequence of our policy. Does the hon. member not wish to tell me what the “final solution” was of that committee on which two of his followers served? [Interjections.]

Order! I think one of the hon. members of the NRP can deal with this matter in detail when he speaks. The hon. member may proceed.

The hon. member for Durban Point and his party must, on the one hand, satisfy people like the hon. member for East London North who is in favour of “power-sharing under one umbrella” with the PFP and, on the other hand, he has to satisfy the electorate of Natal by making sham-concessions in the sphere of “power-sharing”. They tell us now that this municipal blueprint is an example of the way in which they want to share power but nowhere in their pamphlet is there any reference to power-sharing when they talk about solutions in regard to local government. Under the heading “It works”, they say the following in the pamphlet—

That is the direct opposite of “power-sharing”; they do not emphasize this in their publication.

If you cannot understand English, do not try.

Mr.Speaker, let us go further. There are three levels in the draft ordinance that they piloted through the Natal Provincial Council which they wanted the Government subsequently to approve. Firstly, contrary to the recommendation of their own committee, it provided for separate local authorities on a group area basis. [Interjections.] This is in respect of the bigger ones, the so-called “viable local authorities” and group areas. In the case of the smaller ones there had to be Indian, Coloured and White wards in the same municipal bodies. In the case of the very small ones, it simply had to be a whole conglomerate. In other words, they are introducing “power-sharing” on the smallest basis possible. In places like Weenen or Winterton and the like, but not in Durban. Let me quote the leader of his Executive Committee to prove this to the hon. member for Durban Point. It was reported in The Daily News of 16 October that the hon. the Minister of the Interior had said the following in his statement as to why the President-in-Executive Council had rejected the legislation—

There is no doubt, therefore, as to the attitude of the Government in this regard. Whether it be a small or a large local authority, we believe the principle remains the same and we shall not allow it. What does Mr. Martin, the leader of the Executive Committee, say about this? He says the following—

“Small communities”, but in general the principle is one of separate race groups for metropolitan councils. In other words, when it suits them, his party talks about “power-sharing under one umbrella”, but in Natal they try to “pooh-pooh” that concept as much as possible. Then the people of Natal may not be told anything about power-sharing; then the NRP is ostensibly the conservative party of the province. [Interjections.]

Sir, it is not necessary for me to say anything more about the acceptance or rejection of this draft legislation of the NRP by the Natal Municipal Association. His party tried its utmost to make use of the mere fact that the former president had served on the committee when the decision was taken to show that the Natal Municipal Association approved of this legislation. However, the present chairman of the Natal Municipal Association categorically denied that the representatives of the people of Natal, irrespective of their political views, would ever have accepted this legislation.

To sum up—I do not want to say anything further about this—I want to put it to the hon. member for Durban Point that if there are people in his party who are casting their eyes in the direction of the PFP, people who are enthusiastic about defecting to the PFP, he must please let them go. All I am asking them however, is not to try to hijack Natal.

Since when have you become so fond of Natal?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Central is aware of the fact that I have been living in Natal for almost as long as he has. If he wants to make himself out to be a Natalian he should not criticize other people. He was not born in Natal either. [Interjections.]

Order! Bom, and not naturalized Natalians, must please remain quiet now.

Mr.Speaker, those of us who come from Natal, whether we support the NP or the NRP—I am not talking now about the hon. member for Musgrave; it was purely by accident that he won his seat; it was because the voters refused to accept the candidate put up by the NRP—are basically conservative people. The hon. member for Durban Point and his party are doing their utmost to find space for themselves between the two main streams of political philosophies in South Africa. Let me tell him this very clearly. There is no room for them there. If the supporters and voters of the NRP in Natal do not want to join forces with the official Opposition, the hon. member for Durban Point must stop splitting hairs in every possible way in regard to political terminologies and throw in his weight behind the NP Government, a Government that believes in group identity and that believes in a future for every national group in this country in its own sphere and in its own area. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to add my good wishes to those expressed by the hon. member for Constantia to the hon. member for Germiston District on her maiden speech. I was going to say to her that, as one new boy to another, I know how she feels, but that would have been very inappropriate. Consequently, as one new person to another, let me say to her that I know how she feels today.

It was Rudyard Kipling who said that the female of the species was more deadly than the male. Now, I know it is a rule of this House that in one’s maiden speech one should not be controversial. Therefore I do not intend to debate that point. What is statistically indisputable, however, is that in South Africa the female of the human species is hardier than the male. If we look at the number of people in South Africa over the age of 60 years we find that there are 53 000 more women than men in that age group. Whereas the survival rate for White males who have attained the age of 65 years is something like 0,7469%, the survival rate in the case of White women is 0,8560%. This is not peculiar only to the White race group. In all the other race groups women live longer than men.

Yet, the Social Pensions Act—Act No. 37 of 1973—defines an aged person as over 60 years in the case of a female and over 65 years in the case of a male. Despite the fact that a woman is likely to outlive a man by 7,9 years we retire her five years earlier. Whether this is why women live longer I do not know. The problems of old age and the financial implications thereof are, however, problems that both men and women in South Africa are facing today. The problem has many dimensions and I should like to mention only a few of them.

Firstly, there is the change in our life-style. If we go back to the beginning of this century we find that a person spent approximately 20% of his life learning to do the work he was going to do, approximately 75% of his life working, and about 5% of his life in retirement. Today it would be more accurate to say that we spend approximately 25% of our lives in learning, between 50% and 60% in working, and 15% to 25% in retirement.

Secondly, there is the breakdown in what is commonly called the extended family unit. By this I mean the system whereby the aged tended to live within the community, rather than to leave the family unit. Amongst White South Africans this breakdown has progressed rapidly. It was estimated by the hon. the Minister of Industries, who was then Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, that between 7% and 8% of the aged White population of South Africa are housed in old-age homes. In Europe 4% is considered to be the norm and 6% is considered to be very high. The problem has not reached the same proportions amongst our non-White population groups as yet.

Thirdly, we can expect a rapid increase in the actual number of aged people in South Africa At present it is estimated that there are approximately 1,65 million aged people in South Africa. By the year 2000 it is estimated that there will be 2,95 million aged people in South Africa. This represents an increase of nearly 80% over a period of 20 years. However, to some extent we will not face the same problems the USA and Western European countries are facing, namely a rapid increase in the aged as a proportion of the total population of those countries. This results in a situation where a declining proportion of workers will have to finance the social benefits of the increasing proportion of the aged in the population. At present it is estimated that approximately 11,55% of the White population falls within the category of the aged and by the year 2000 this will have risen to something like 12,69%. In many countries in the West it is expected that at least 20% of the population will fall in the category of the aged by the year 2000. In South Africa we will eventually face the same problem. Our problem, however, will be aggravated by a rapid growth in the aged population of our non-White groups. At present aged Indians represent 4,14% of the total Indian population. The corresponding figure for the Coloured group is 4,37% and for Blacks the figure is 4,77%. If hon. members recall that I said that aged Whites now comprise 11,55% of the White population, they can see the dimension of the problem that South Africa will eventually have to face.

Clearly the factors that I have mentioned will have serious economic, social and political implications for South Africa. I would like to dwell on some of the financial implications. Obviously, the provision of benefits to our aged is likely to consume an ever-increasing proportion of our wealth, unless the necessary corrective action is taken now. Moreover, in South Africa we face particular problems as a result of the various stages of development of the different population groups. At present, as I have already pointed out, the proportion of our non-White aged population is small, but it will increase. In absolute terms it is estimated that it will double within the next 20 years. Moreover, we can expect a rapid increase in the number of members of the non-White population who claim pensions. At present, for example, we have approximately 140 000 White social old-age pensioners out of a total population of approximately 4,4 million. Out of a total Black population of approximately 20,6 million only about 190 000 have social old-age pensions. In South Africa we also have the problem of the cost of equalizing pensions. At present it would cost us in round figures approximately R700 million per annum to eliminate the gap between White and non-White social old-age pensions.

I hope I have given the House some indication of the problems we are facing. The critical question is what can we do to overcome these problems. In this respect we must remember that, given the nature of the problems, the steps we take now will determine the nature and extent of the problems that will face us in the year 2000.

I should like to sketch in brief some of the steps which we should perhaps consider to help reduce the extent of the problems in the year 2000. The State encourages people to provide for their retirement. There are generous tax concessions for those who contribute to pension funds and to retirement annuities. Regrettably people are disinclined to provide for tomorrow’s living requirements out of today’s earnings. Indeed, if one looks at the rapid increase in the use of credit, one sees that we are in fact inclined to spend tomorrow’s earnings on today’s living. Some argue that those who will not provide for their future must face the consequences. However, it is the taxpayers of that period, not only the people themselves, who have to face the consequences and therefore it would be better if every working South African belonged to a pension scheme. In 1976 Senator Van der Spuy, then Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, estimated that approximately two thirds of South Africa’s economically active population did not belong to a pension scheme. However, if pension schemes are to serve their purpose, it is essential that people should not be allowed to squander their pension benefits. Mr. Pierre Steyn, General Manager of Sanlam, has estimated that annually approximately R175 million to R200 million is paid out by pension schemes to people who are changing jobs. From my own experience of counselling those retiring I know that very little of this money is re-invested in another pension scheme.

If people are to have faith in their pension schemes, it is essential that they should know that their pension schemes are sound. Fortunately, we have legislation in South Africa to ensure that pension schemes are run along sound lines. However, in a highly inflationary period a company can easily find that its potential obligations to exceeds its ability to meet those obligations. In the United States, for example, there have been instances of companies whose pension liabilities exceed the net worth of the company. Fortune magazine conducted a study which showed that out of its top 100 companies there were seven where the unfunded pension claims exceeded the value of the company’s stock. Has the time not come that companies should be obliged to furnish details in their annual accounts about their pension fund schemes and the present and potential obligations of those pension schemes?

We must also ask ourselves if age is the best indication of whether a person should retire or not. I believe that in the USA laws have been introduced which make it illegal to force somebody to retire on the grounds of age before they are 70 years old. In South Africa we face a critical shortage of skilled manpower. Are we not aggravating this problem by forcing people to retire who may still be willing and able to contribute to the development of South Africa? Is this not a case of an artificially created brain drain? If we are to encourage aged people to work, should we use the means test, which discriminates against earned income in favour of income derived from assets? Since we already house a large proportion of our population in old-age homes, compared to other industrialized countries, should we not encourage the healthy aged to live in their own homes in the society of which they are a part?

In this, my maiden speech, I have tried to sketch some of the problems that are and will be facing us with regard to the aged and the financial implications thereof. I have also indicated some possible steps which may have merit in solving these problems. I have done this in the knowledge that in a civilized society the aged should not be demeaned by having to eke out a pitiful existence in the last quarter of their lives.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this side of the House and on behalf of the whole House it is a privilege to congratulate the hon. member for Edenvale on the delivery of his maiden speech. Both from the point of view of content and delivery he impressed the House this afternoon as being a member from whom we can expect a positive contribution in the future. On first impression he is almost as good as his name and we hope that all his contributions will be as good. The hon. member obviously made a thorough study of the subject he dealt with and he presented the House this afternoon with serious food for thought. He pleaded, inter alia, that every person in South Africa should provide for a pension for himself. In this regard the Government took a very important step in this direction about a year ago when it appointed a committee under Mr. Wynand Louw, the Registrar of Financial Institutions, to investigate ways and means of ensuring transferability of pension contributions from one fund to another. Should this committee find a formula to succeed in this, I think that a great stride will have been taken to solve a very major problem which the hon. member has aptly highlighted this afternoon and we thank him for it.

They said Japie should go on pension.