Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Constantia began his speech yesterday by offering me his co-operation in the new portfolio of Mineral and Energy Affairs which comes into being on 1 March 1980. I thank him for this and for his good wishes. I must state, however, that I am less appreciative of the rest of his speech. The crux of his argument was that the Government had what he termed a disintegrated energy policy as a result of a lack of co-operation. That is—and I think I am putting it mildly—a severe accusation.

Let us test this accusation in the light of the facts with regard to Government action on the energy scene. South Africa has travelled a considerable distance on the road of energy self-sufficiency and is still actively engaged in improving the situation, thereby fulfilling one of the major aims of our so-called non-existent energy policy. Our country took the first steps on this road as long ago as the early 1950s, when the first Sasol plant was commissioned—the first commercial plant of its kind in the world. In the aftermath of the energy crisis of 1973, the Government took the decision to proceed with Sasol 2, and in the beginning of this year the new developments at Secunda were announced. South Africa has in fact emerged as a world leader in the technology of coal gasification and liquefaction. Furthermore, long before the words “energy crisis” became fashionable and the price of oil increased so dramatically, South Africa embarked on a strategic programme of oil stock-piling to weather possible disruptions of oil supplies to the country, whether politically inspired or otherwise. We have, furthermore, embarked upon a programme of oil exploration and have spent, through the Southern Oil Exploration Corporation, some R120 million on the search for oil. This search for oil is continuing and is being intensified in South Africa’s off-shore areas.

We have already started to build our first nuclear power station, which will be a valuable asset and which will form the basis for further development in the nuclear field. In addition here, too, we have developed a unique process of uranium enrichment, and the decision has been taken to proceed with a small commercial plant. The Government is actively advocating higher efficiency in the extraction and utilization of our indigenous coal resources and the extraction percentages of South African coal mines have shown a marked improvement. Over a period of more than two years the Government has made a thorough study of alcohol such as ethanol and methanol as fuel for internal combustion engines, and in the light of the latest development the decision with regard to the form of Government incentives for the production of alternative motor fuels have been taken. I shall return to this later.

Attention, study and research are continuously applied to unconventional forms of energy, such as sun, wind and wave energy. Against this background how can anybody say that all these momentous decisions reflect a disintegrated energy policy and a lack of co-ordination? Such a statement is really and truly beyond me. I do not know of many informed persons who have voiced the opinion that these decisions have been either wrong or far off the mark. If these decisions were correct, or even reasonably well within the target, then it must follow that the machinery employed by the Government in its investigation, consideration and decision-making processes must also be more than just reasonably effective.

I also want to stress that the more recent decisions and developments which I have just outlined were not taken on a hit-and-run ad hoc basis. For some years now the Energy Policy Committee functioned in conjunction with the appropriate Cabinet committee on a co-ordinated basis. Energy decisions were therefore taken after full and extensive investigations by a well-structured, balanced and representative committee of experts. Likewise, research, to which the hon. member also referred, is properly co-ordinated under the able leadership of a National Committee for Energy Research, chaired by the president of the CSIR. Therefore, to accuse the Government of a disintegrated approach and of neglect of co-ordination is to my mind grossly unfair.

*In contrast to the negative approach of the hon. member for Constantia, I wish to pay tribute to my predecessors, my colleagues and the officials who have all contributed to, and are still contributing to, what I call a remarkable history of decision-making with regard to energy matters. The mere fact that we are in such a favourable position in respect of purchases, notwithstanding a fairly general boycott against us, speaks volumes. The fact that within three weeks of the development of an unexpected crisis at the beginning of 1979, we were able to make well-considered decisions on Sasol 3, is proof of a form of preparedness that refutes the charge made by the hon. member for Constantia.

Of course I do not differ with the hon. member when he underlines the necessity of an energy policy or strategy, but then he must not create a false image of a Government fluttering about aimlessly in this field. In the determination of the guidelines for an energy policy, it is important to realize that the correct choices in respect of many of the energy problems cannot be made immediately or simultaneously. Geological resources, the availability of oil, the effect on the environment, technological advantages and other uncertainties prevent a country from adopting a single set of inflexible programmes. There has to be an inherent pliancy in an energy policy. The development of an energy economy is a continuous process that is determined to a great extent by the innumerable decisions of consumers and producers that must mainly be guided by normal commercial principles. The function of an energy policy is consequently not to force the country into an energy-straitjacket, but rather to intervene to a lesser or greater extent in order to change a potentially adverse consumer pattern and to ensure that the energy economy develops in keeping with the national interest. It is nonsense to say that we do not have an energy policy. The Government is indeed implementing a co-ordinated energy policy, the general characteristics of which one may summarize in four points: In the first place there is the reduction and substitution of oil imports; in the second place, the development of local energy resources; in the third place, the promotion of fuel-saving and in the fourth place, the impact on energy prices. Within this framework we are giving attention to all the matters mentioned by the hon. member, and to a great deal more. I do not wish to burden hon. members today with an exposition of everything that is being done. There is ample time for that under the relevant Vote.

However, I do wish to make further reference to a few aspects raised by the hon. member for Constantia. He made three more points which I cannot allow to go unchallenged. In the first place, he insinuated that we were wide of the mark with our fuel-saving measures because it was not realized that the real problem was diesel fuel. But it is here where the hon. member is completely mistaken. Petrol conservation as such was of course also necessary for obvious reasons, i.e. actual shortages at certain stages, and at times when there was no actual shortage of petrol, then still at least for economic reasons. With the increasing demand for diesel fuel, however, this problem is becoming graver by the year and in respect of diesel fuel, apart from the normal fuel-saving measures of which the hon. member should know, intensive efforts are being made to discourage the use of diesel fuel by major consumers. Six major objectives have been formulated and are in the process of implementation and if this should succeed an appreciable saving will have been effected.

In the second place the hon. member referred to a “panic lobby” as he described it, that is alleged to have developed around the Koeberg project. The bodies that control this project are absolutely and totally geared to security and there is no cause for any concern whatsoever. South African experts are directing their attention to the problem that is alleged to have arisen at nuclear power stations abroad and if any mistakes have been made elsewhere, we shall learn from them in good time. I find it unfortunate that the hon. member spoke incautiously about Koeberg and incurred the risk—I am not implying that this was his express intention—of arousing feelings on aspects that are not of real concern, or relevant at this stage.

I did not do that.

I must utter a serious warning against the use of Koeberg as an issue for political gain. I wish to ask the hon. member in all calmness now whether he trusts the Atomic Energy Board. Does he share the confidence I have in the Atomic Energy Board to give the public of South Africa the assurance that this project is in safe hands and that they may feel reassured? Does he share that confidence with me?

Yes.

Thank you very much.

†The hon. member also claimed that the Department of Environmental Planning and Energy based its work on 1974 statistics. He referred to a report on the principles of energy economy published in 1979. The publication to which I assume the hon. member was referring, is entitled Principles of Energy Conservation and was published in 1978. This publication contained data up to 1976. A major portion of the data used in the publication was not available from conventional sources, and where international sources were consulted, information was, in many instances, only available up to 1974. For the information of hon. members I may mention that in the collection, collation and publication of national energy data a lag period of two to three years is unavoidable and considered relatively favourable by international standards. In the circumstances I do not think the criticism of the hon. member was warranted. Regarding the need for confidential treatment of oil data and the hon. member’s allegations regarding excessive secrecy, I think this was adequately dealt with during the discussion of the amendment of the Petroleum Act in 1979.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I want to deal with two aspects of general importance with regard to energy affairs, viz. rationalization and alternative liquid motor fuels. With regard to rationalization, it is stated in the rationalization programme that it is the intention of the Government to bring the whole spectrum of energy matters together in one department of mineral and energy affairs, and thus to ensure a co-ordinated control of all matters regarding the planning and effective utilization of the numerous energy sources and resources. The fact that we are doing that now does not mean that we have not had it in the past.

Still, it is nice.

Sir, the first step in this direction has already been taken with the recently announced transfer of the energy-planning component of the existing Department of Environmental Planning and Energy to the newly formed Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs as from 1 March 1980. A second phase, for which our aim is 1 May 1980 as the starting date, will involve the transfer of the control of semi-governmental institutions and functions of departments involved in matters of procurement and utilization of energy carriers to the new department. The foregoing includes institutions such as Sasol, Escom and the Electricity Control Board and functions of the Department of Industries. A third phase will be the transfer of yet further functions from existing departments. In view of the integration of such functions with the normal functions of the existing departments, it will require further investigation before such transfer can be effected.

You have seen the light.

The Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, for example, has certain responsibilities and machinery with regard to import and export control, price control, etc., and further investigation and administrative steps are required before the energy aspects of this overall function can be transferred to the new Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs.

*The hon. member says I have seen the light. Now, does he think we have formulated these plans since he held his speech yesterday? No, Mr. Speaker, we must really not raise such childish arguments here. This was begun years ago, long before the hon. member even suspected that real energy problems would ever arise in the world.

†Mr. Speaker, in the last instance I want to refer to alternative motor fuels. In respect of alternative liquid motor fuels such as methanol and ethanol, I announced certain Government decisions on 7 February this year. The Government welcomes the positive reaction of private enterprise to the measures and proposed measures announced. More particularly, the positive intentions of a number of reputable companies to become involved in energy projects augurs well for the future. Hon. members will recall that I announced two main concessions with regard to all liquid motor fuels produced from indigenous raw materials. Firstly, it was announced that the same excise and other duties applicable to Sasol will apply to such motor fuels on the basis of their energy content. In this regard it appears as if the qualification of energy content has given rise to some misunderstanding. In order to dispel all doubts I want to illustrate what we have in mind by way of a hypothetical—and I underline “hypothetical”—example. Suppose Sasol petrol enjoys an advantage of exactly 4 cents per litre over petrol derived from imported crude oil. Suppose further that a particular type of alcohol is exactly 50% of the energy content that petrol from crude-oil has and that 2 litres of such alcohol will therefore have an energy content equivalent to 1 litre of petrol. In such a situation, in terms of the Cabinet decision, that particular alcohol will benefit in two ways. Firstly, the excise and other duties payable on petrol per litre will be halved in respect of the particular type of alcohol, because its energy content is only half of that of ordinary petrol; and secondly, it will furthermore enjoy an advantage of 2 cents per litre over fuel derived from imported crude oil, once again one half of the advantage of Sasol, because its energy value is equivalent to one-half of the energy value of petrol.

Mr. Speaker, arising out of the interesting point the hon. the Minister is making now, may I ask him whether if there are such savings the whole advantage would be passed on to the producer, or is it intended that some of the advantage would also go to the consumer, that is to say the motorist or the user of the new fuel?

Mr. Speaker, these concessions will apply in exactly the same way as it applies to Sasol. What will happen initially is that excise duty and other duties will be paid according to a fixed tariff. In the case of Sasol and other petrol it is exactly the same. Sasol, according to sales, applies for a repayment, and on that repayment they receive approximately 4 cents per litre. In some cases it is 3,6 cents per litre and for other kinds of fuel a little bit more, but one can say it is approximately 4 cents per litre. So, the full benefit flows back to the manufacturer. It is he who has to manufacture on a more expensive cost basis than perhaps exists at the moment if he manufactures petrol from crude oil. In the case of alcohol that will definitely be the case, because it is more expensive to manufacture. What will happen in regard to alcohol is that the initial duties will be lower because there is a difference in energy content. If the energy content of the alcohol is lower, the initial duty, on the one hand, will be lower and the repayment, on the other hand, will also be reduced because the energy content is lower.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. the Minister for his explanation, although he has not really got to the final point. May I ask him whether the consumers, that is the motorists, will eventually benefit or will this new product also be price controlled at the same price as other fuel?

Mr. Speaker, the Government is not going to interfere with the distribution of these new products. I do not know exactly what the private sector is going to do. In all probability they will come up with a mixture by mixing about 10% or 15% of an alcohol product with petrol. No decision has been taken with regard to price control, but it would be extremely difficult to differentiate between a price for one component of a mixture and another component. Therefore I do not foresee it, unless it is sold as a pure and separate product. Then perhaps we can consider a specific price for that specific product, but if it is a mixture I do not really foresee it. So, no decision has been taken and we are open to positive suggestions in that regard. At this stage, however, my reaction is to say that I do not think that should be done and the same price should apply because the same concessions apply.

The second leg of the concessions announced refers to additional incentives in respect of actual contributions to the replacement of diesel fuel only. The extent of such additional incentives will be decided upon at a later stage, after the receipt of applications by all interested parties who will have to submit certain detailed information, as indicated in the announcement that I made. I now wish to announce that it has been decided to call a meeting of all parties who are interested in the replacement of diesel fuel. At this meeting consideration will be given to the procedure which is to be followed with particular reference to the period which should be allowed for submission of applications and the form such admissions and applications should take. Anybody and any company interested in attending this proposed meeting must please write to the Secretary for Mineral and Energy Affairs, Private Bag X59, Pretoria, within the next 30 days.

*I hope that in this way we shall, at the outset, obtain proper co-operation between the private sector and the State in respect of this new field we are embarking upon and the preparatory work we have to do, and that we shall be able to make decisions by way of consultation and that there will be more consensus in this decision-making than is the case with the private sector. As long as their approach is a reasonable one we shall strive to consult with them on a regular basis in the development of a new process in which there will have to be closer co-operation, consultation and assistance.

I wish to conclude by stating that this announcement on concessions, which according to the Press only affects alcohols but which will in reality affect every new product manufactured from indigenous raw materials, should not make us lapse into a state of euphoria in which we imagine all of a sudden, that we can now, drive just as we like and that, as a result of these announcements, we have an abundance of fuel at our disposal. It will take years before it will be possible for us to start reaping the benefits of this development, and there is just as a great need as always for members of the public and for business undertakings to apply strict fuel-saving measures and to exercise self-discipline in the interest of South Africa, at least, even if they are not concerned about their own pockets. In respect of this matter we are still appealing for strong economic patriotism on the part of our people.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Environmental Planning and Energy has dealt with a highly technical subject and I would prefer not to react to the many statements and announcements he has made.

I would rather make use of my time to speak about two areas, one of which is extremely close to my heart, namely the problems of the Western Cape. It is a well known fact that over the last decade or two the Western Cape has, from an economic point of view, started lagging sadly behind the rest of the country. Last year in this House the hon. members for Moorreesburg and Tygervallei asked the hon. the Minister of Finance to pay special attention to certain shortcomings they saw in this particular area, shortcomings which called for remedies. I shall refer briefly to some of those subject areas which they covered. I think it was the hon. member for Moorreesburg who spoke at length about the possibilities of development in and around the Saldanha-Vredenburg area. He called for the erection of a semis factory and indicated what additional work opportunities this would provide for that part of the world. He also referred to the need for major industries in and around the Atlantis area, and spoke about the possibility of creating smaller and medium-sized industries around the Mitchell’s Plain area which would result in those people who have been newly housed there to be supplied with the necessary job opportunities.

The hon. member for Tygervallei spoke at length about discrepancies concerning the rates for power from Escom in this area and also pointed out some of the problems we have with regard to the high rail tariffs we have to pay in this area. A year has passed since those very encouraging representations were made in this House and I take it that some time during this debate, or perhaps later on in the budget debate, the hon. the Minister of Finance will be referring to some of these problems which have been raised.

There are two other areas which I should like to mention and which need attention, and if attention were paid to these two problem areas, it would result in major benefits for the Western Cape. One is the excise tax which is applied to the product of the vine. At the moment the State is gathering something like R150 million per annum from excise on the product of the vine. This means that roughly 8 000 farmers in a relatively small area are producing a product which is making available to the State an astronomical amount of money. At the same time it is also a well-known fact that, because of the increased production costs, a great number of these farmers are going through a very difficult time. While the State is going to have a large amount of money available to spend on infrastructure, housing and other matters during this year and possibly in the years that lie ahead, I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister of Finance that this is possibly the best time to do something to alleviate the plight of those farmers, not by giving them subsidies, but by reducing the excise tax, at least to such an extent that the farmer will be receiving about the same amount of money for the product he produces as the tax collector will be receiving from the excise duty when that product is sold. To give an example of what I mean: At the moment it is so that, if a wine farmer should deliver grapes to the value of R100 in the normal mix of good wine and grapes for “stookwyn”, the State actually collects between R150 and R170 on that. If the difference could be shared, this would enable these people to create on their farms the housing which the Western Province desperately needs at this time. It could help these farmers to plant new vineyards for the future at a time when we know that, unless we rapidly move towards high quality products in wine production, we are possibly going to find that the cost of cultivation of vineyards which are not in full production because of poor material, the vineyards are going to create difficult problems. Therefore one of the ways in which the money should be spent in the near future should be, I believe, by reducing the excise tax on the product of the vine.

*I also want to refer to the announcements made yesterday by the hon. the Minister of Finance on the assistance to be granted to the stricken areas in the North-Western Cape and elsewhere. I believe that this is once again a case of too little, too late. The way in which this R17,5 million is going to be spent has not yet been announced to us in detail, and within the next few days we shall certainly know how the hon. the Minister, in co-operation with the Jacobs Committee, is going to make these funds available.

It has been published.

When was it published? [Interjections.] I should like to tell the hon. the Minister here and now that he must please ensure that whatever he does, the interest rates on that money will not be such that…

It will be 5%.

The hon. Minister points out that it will be 5%. He must ensure that it will not be such that it will cause the farmer to be clamped in a vice from which he will be unable to extricate himself.

I spoke of too little that came too late. I believe that as far as some of our border areas are concerned, the Government has been guilty of a shameful neglect of duty. More than a year ago the hon. the Prime Minister of South Africa pointed out how great the danger on our borders would be if we allowed those borders to be depopulated. Merely from a military strategic point of view no country can afford to leave its border areas unpopulated and consequently unguarded. I do not believe there is a single person in this House who will differ with this statement. Everyone will agree with it. In view of what has happened up to now, however, one does gain the impression that the persons charged with the implementation of the measures adopted have neglected to do their work.

To prevent the situation of depopulation and to rectify it, legislation was passed last year which enabled new farmers to obtain land in those areas and to establish themselves there, and arrangements were also made to assist established farmers financially. But what has happened in the interim? In the interim very little has happened, and the newspapers are full of this. Meetings were held in those areas and, as I am informed and according to what I read, there is a great deal of dissatisfaction. The facts of the matter are that depopulation in those parts is continuing unabaited and is now occurring at a rate of approximately 2 000 farmers per annum—not only in those parts, but throughout South Africa. In the Ellisras district alone 10 000 sq km has either been sold or simply left as it is and the people have left the land. There are 400 farm-houses standing vacant in that area. At present only 150 out of the 450 farmhouses in the Thabazimbi area are permanently occupied. For how long are we going to allow this situation to continue? The South African Agricultural Union estimates that certain border areas are already so bad that only 25% of the agricultural land is being utilized.

Being utilized for what?

I am referring to good agricultural land that is lying fallow.

25%?

No, only 25% is being utilized.

In other words, 75% is lying fallow?

It is lying fallow.

That is nonsense.

Then the hon. the Deputy Minister must quarrel with the South African Agricultural Union, since they are the source of the information.

That is total nonsense.

I must point out to hon. members that this very Government accepts that the South African Agricultural Union must be the advisor and that the South African Agricultural Union must to a large extent be the hon. the Minister’s advisor in all respects relating to agriculture.

Give me that document.

Now I cannot accept that figures originating from that source, are being questioned by the hon. the Deputy Minister.

What source are you quoting from? Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I only have three minutes left.

What source are you quoting from?

The reason for this state of affairs is of an economic nature, and the economy of agriculture, too, is to a large extent controlled and determined by the Government. 90% of all agricultural products are controlled by boards appointed by the Government. I am not criticizing control boards now. We can do so in another debate, if we want to. [Interjections.] The Government must prove to this country that the consumer as well as the producer are benefitting from the present system we are applying in South Africa, that the Government is applying. The Government must prove that its system does work well. It is very simple to prove this. All the Government must do is to narrow the gap between the price the producer receives for his products and the price the consumer pays for the product. This is all it need do.

Mention an example.

I am going to give several examples of cases where the gap is steadily widening. I am pleased that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture has asked this question. We can take all the foodstuffs. I have already quoted these figures in this House. In 1974 … [Interjections.]

Give an example.

But I am giving an example. In 1974 the producer received 55,2% of the consumer price. Through the years the situation has deteriorated to such an extent that in 1978 the farmer only received 46,7%. These are figures that were published. Here they are; they are available. [Interjections.] Let me use meat as an example. In 1974 the producer received 62% of the consumer price. In 1978 he received only 52,8%. What is going on here in respect of the percentage of the consumer price? I know these things are difficult to understand, particularly if one does not want to. However, these are facts, and they are as clear as daylight. If the system works, the gap must be narrowed. This is the only way to prove to the public and the farmers that the system we apply does benefit the producer as well as the consumer.

The other side of this House are “boerehaters”. [Interjections.]

If I had more time, I would have used the example of meat. Assuming that this figure is correct, viz. that in 1974 the farmer received 62% of the consumer price and that the percentage the farmer has received over the past five years has dropped by 10%, this drop alone, which amounts to millions of rands, would have been sufficient to eliminate to a very large extent the problems in the meat industry. This is easy to work out, but it is the Government’s function to see to it that the system works because it is a system that has been chosen by that side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wynberg had touched on so many points that it is extremely difficult for me to deal with all of them. However, I want to refer to a few. In the first place I refer to the issue of the Western Cape. As far as the Western Cape is concerned, the hon. member ought to bear in mind that the hon. the Minister of Industries called for a special investigation by the University of Stellenbosch last year concerning the situation in the Western Cape, and an interim report has in fact been published. The hon. the Minister also directed that the matter be further investigated and we are eagerly awaiting the second report. It is to be hoped that there will already be possibilities, even on the basis of the interim report.

I should like to refer to the last issue raised by the hon. member, viz. that of Ellisras. He said that too little had been done too late. He also used the words “as I understand” and “as I hear”. I just want to tell him that as I understand and hear from people who live near there and from the hon. the Deputy Minister, he is wrong, and he did not mention the right facts and figures here.

As far as control boards are concerned, it is of course very easy to prove anything by way of percentages. For example, the German Government once proved that a train travelling through a tunnel at 35 miles per hour would cause all the passengers in that train to suffocate. One can prove anything with percentages and this is particularly true when they are used as the hon. member for Wynberg used them.

To come back to the debate, in the first place I should like to convey my congratulations to the hon. the Minister and his department. I do so particularly in view of the abnormal economic circumstances he has had to deal with, with specific reference to the Republic of South Africa. Our country’s major defence expenditure, housing expenditure and other expenditures to develop and promote our ideology, makes of South Africa’s economy an abnormal one which cannot be compared with that in other Western and developing countries. It is therefore an exceptional privilege for me to congratulate the hon. the Minister, and it is a matter for pride that he has maintained the delicate balance between slow growth with inflation and rapid growth with deflation. This part appropriation, the budgets of the past few years and the handling of our financial affairs, are a monument to the hon. the Minister and attest to sober thinking and sound financial discipline.

However, situations can change rapidly and drastically and it is gratifying that the hon. the Minister has the power to act when Parliament is not in session, because situations can crop up which require attention.

It is as well to take note of the situation in which South Africa finds itself today, in contrast to that of other Western countries and, in fact, the entire world. While other countries are going into recession, while their growth rates dwindle, while they are experiencing financial problems and have deficits on their current accounts, South Africa’s growth rate is rising from 2% to 3 and 4% and now even 5%. It is a fine and commendable thing that there should be a report in The Argus of 11 February 1980 entitled “Official US reports forecast growth for South Africa”, which reads, inter alia—

It is encouraging and gratifying to hear that.

Since 1976 financial discipline has been implemented by the hon. the Minister and in this regard I want to break a lance for the population of South Africa who have accepted that financial discipline and who have co-operated to make that discipline a success. We are now on the threshold of a period of economic growth, something which could make South Africa the prodigy of the ’eighties, as has already been said in other debates.

I now want to refer briefly to the question of gold. At the moment a gold psychosis is developing in South Africa. For example, the hon. member for Yeoville said to the hon. the Minister yesterday that gold should be used as the cure to solve all South Africa’s problems. It is easy to speak about the gold bonanza and to say that everyone should share it. That is all very well, and indeed all of us are already enjoying, indirectly, the benefits of the gold bonanza which South Africa is enjoying today. On the other hand, however, we must not forget that as far as the gold bonanza is concerned, tremendous problems can arise if this situation is not dealt with realistically and soberly.

We can look at the increase in the gold price and ascertain what its effect on the gold mines will be. I am informed that due to the present high price they are being paid, the gold-mines are exploiting lower grade ore. This means that the direct contribution they are making to the gross domestic product is in fact in a downward phase instead of increasing in extent. It is also interesting to note that if we try to determine why the present gold price is so high and why it has risen with such extreme rapidity, we reach the conclusion that it is the effect of political factors at the international level. The situation could change as quickly as it occurred and we could find ourselves once again in a situation similar to that of 1974. At that time, too, everyone wanted to share the gold bonanza and use it to set everything to rights. However that cure did not work, and accordingly it would be irresponsible in the extreme if we sought to do the same thing in the present situation and apply the same cure as was applied then.

The second point I should like to touch on is the question of inflation. It is a recognized fact that at the moment, what we in South Africa have is for the most part cost inflation and not demand or imported inflation. Here again we have the situation that if the hon. the Minister were to accede to all the requests of the Opposition, we should have a mixture of cost, demand and imported inflation which could confuse and disturb our entire economy and the financial advantage we have at the moment By doing so, we would of course lose our initiative. “Financial discipline” has been the watchword since 1976 and we shall have to continue to implement it in a realistic fashion in the future.

Since we are dealing more specifically with cost inflation this year, it is no wonder that “higher productivity” will have to be emphasized as a watchword for this year’s budget and for the future. I take it that the hon. the Minister will stimulate higher productivity in various ways.

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to come back specifically to one special section. Whereas in the seventies we had the era of boycotts and enjoyed the benefits of oil, we can refer to the years since 1974 as the decade of oil. The entire Western economy was upset, if it did not collapse in ruins. Even at the beginning of the ’eighties, the important question on the horizon is still: What is going to happen next year and in the next few years?

Fortunately, there are signs that this situation is going to change. Fortunately it appears from new scientific analyses that natural gas and oil are more abundant than is generally accepted at the moment and that the present Opec countries do not have the sole monopoly on them. Due to the monopoly they have had this far, the Opec countries were able to use oil as a means to boycott and intimidate the countries of the West.

I want to make a prediction, not only on the basis of my own views but also on the basis of the convictions and ideas of other people who have also ventured them: Just as the ’seventies were the decade of oil, the ’eighties will be the decade of food and agricultural products. I base my prediction on the opinions of a few other people. The first is the president of the USA, who has reported as follows—

In this he is backed up by Sir Lesley Price, President of the Australian Grain Control Board, who is reported as follows in The Argus of 17 January—

This gives us some indication of the situation we are in at the moment. For example, if we consider the situation in South Africa, it is evident that we are one of only six countries in the world producing food at a rate exceeding that of our population growth at the moment. Nevertheless, it is perhaps interesting to dwell for just a moment on our own present population explosion. On the basis of the density of South Africa’s population in 1952, in that year there were 10 people per square kilometre. If, therefore, the surface area of the country is divided equally among all its inhabitants, each would have 9,7 ha at his disposal. In 1975, 23 years later, the picture is totally different. Then there were only 4,5 ha of land for every inhabitant of the country. Looking at the future, this is how the matter stands. If we take it that in 1970 the country had a population of 20 million people. With the projection of 50 million people in the year 2000, this will mean that there will have to be a steady increase in the production of food, with an estimated population increase of 1 900 per day. In order to keep pace with the population increase, it will be necessary to produce daily 342 kg more vegetables, 81 kg more eggs, 120 kg more meat, 530 kg more potatoes, 190 kg more pork and 196 kg more sugar. It will also be necessary to bake 150 more loaves every day. These are interesting figures. It is perhaps also interesting just to note the difference it would make to the rate of population increase if people were to have only two instead of three children. If all married couples in South Africa were to have only two children, the population would reach 40 million by the year 2000. However, if all married couples were to have three children, the country’s population in the year 2000 would reach 100 million.

At the same time we in South Africa have an exceptional potential. At the moment the world population is increasing more rapidly than the production of food. I should just like to quote one example of what can happen if judicious use is made of sound extension in agriculture. It can be very significant. For example, we ought to take note of the influence of agricultural source classification with regard to the production of grain. In this regard I refer to the net revenue from farming in two development areas in the Transvaal Highveld region, viz. Vermaas-Lichtenburg and Roadside-Vrede. The surface area of the Vermaas-Lichtenburg region is 10 720 ha. Before classification the grain production in that region was 20 682 bags. After classification it was 35 462 bags. It is also interesting to look at the figures relating to the revenue from grain farming. Before classification the revenue was R409 280, while after classification the figure was R991 278.

If we take all these things into account and instead of only looking at the domestic factors we also consider the external factors, I should like to refer to the following aspects. Particularly in view of the fact that our thinking, as expounded by the hon. the Prime Minister, centres around a constellation of States—and therefore, co-operation to the benefit of all—and taking into account the degree of participation by our neighbouring States in agriculture, it appears that that section of the population which is directly involved in agriculture amounts to 90% of the total population in Angola. In Botswana the figure is 90%, in Lesotho it is 85%, in Malawi 87%, in Mozambique 72%, in Zambia 69% and in South Africa 30%. I have now referred to all our neighbouring States with a primary interest in agriculture. I believe that South Africa has the potential and the knowledge to serve this envisaged constellation of States in basically the best way by making an effort to stimulate our agricultural production as rapidly as possible, not only as far as we ourselves are concerned but also as far as our neighbouring countries are concerned. I say this because the question of a food shortage is a problem which could dominate the ’eighties. Accordingly I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it would not be possible to encourage an increase in food production in the RSA and whether we could not in fact pay a premium to those farmers who really increase their production. I am not referring to an increase in the general prices of ordinary products. Nor do I think that the farmer of South Africa wants that charity. Because it will take time to promote and develop this potential and because we shall have to make provision in the l’eighties for this situation in regard to our neighbouring States, I believe it would be as well if we could develop this potential and, for example, grant tax benefits to the farmers who are prepared to develop this potential.

Mr. Speaker, I think there is something wrong now for I no longer feel as good as I felt yesterday. To tell the truth, I have never felt so much like going for a run round the block. It is my privilege to stand here as representative of the Brentwood constituency, a constituency which I have come to know as a peaceful area. It is a constituency of people who are not able to live on their interest, and those who had hoped that they would be able to do so have discovered that their calculations were rather wide of the mark. They are hardworking, loyal people of this Republic of South Africa who want certainty, security and peace in their area. They are people who put everything they possessed into this country and into their properties and who have only one need, which is that what is theirs should be protected for them. They are people who had a very strong and beloved figure in the person of Dr. W. L. Vosloo whom they lost because he was called to greater service in another sphere. Consequently I can congratulate him in this House today on behalf of this constituency on his achievement and on what he has attained, and wish him everything of the best in the great and very important task which he now has to perform elsewhere.

In analysing this group of people I should like to conjure up in my mind’s eye this afternoon an image which ought to be enshrined somewhere by the Monuments Commission in a building of practical value in the form of a sculpted frieze. I should like to describe this frieze to the House this afternoon. Standing in the background I see a clergyman, in an attitude of prayer, with his hands resting on the heads of a husband and wife in a kneeling position denoting strong faith and certitude. Their gaze is directed at a distant future over a country with its unfathomable capacity, its undulating grainlands, its hidden mineral treasures, its growing industries and its grazing herds. To me these figures represent Calvinism with its unshakeable faith, humility and reliance on the Eternal Light which willed their future in this southern land. They do not know fear, as one who has no hope, but they do know the joy of labour and the martial music of the word “calling”. They know the Eternal Rock on which they have built and they derive their only truth from the Scriptures in their hands.

These parents have many children and each one of them would have wished me to have mentioned their names in this House this afternoon. In this frieze, however, there are only three figures which I should like to examine a little more closely. These three are the favourite children of the parents. They had to make do with the bare necessities of life when the parents were not very well to do. They had to set to themselves and go out to work, they counted their blessings with gratitude and were less concerned about the type of house in which they were living or the type of motor car with which they had to make do. Many of the modern home conveniences they had to do without until they were well on in years. They were less concerned about what they could get out of life and more motivated by what they could give back to it. They did not come to be served, but to serve others and to help them achieve a better position in life with its greater possibilities. They saw the younger members of the family growing up under more favourable circumstances when their parents were far better off. However they were not envious of their brothers and sisters. They did not level reproaches, become less productive or ran away to join another more lucrative profession in which they could make more rapid progress. They stuck to what was for them a calling and a responsibility in this world. I should like to take a closer look at these three children.

The eldest son became a teacher. At his feet sits the future President of the country, the future Prime Minister, the future Speaker of the House, but at his feet also sits the future Leader of the Opposition. At his feet sits the mining magnate and the industrialist, but also the labourer. At his feet sits the financier and the entrepreneur, but also the indigent; the strong, vital intelligentsia, but also the poor in spirit and means. Of this man is expected that each one of them will unfold and develop until he is able to occupy his position in life. He must manipulate them and give them their bearings. He must give them confidence and direct the gaze to a certain future. He must do so in a way that enables each one of them to occupy their particular place in the multiplicity of the vast potential of this country of ours.

The second son became a policeman. He is a quiet person, but firm and resolute in his conduct. He must listen calmly to the many complaints in life and see to it that justice and equity prevails, protect the aggrieved and the victims of assault and frequently risk his life to save the lives of others. He is called upon to restore order when sport and pleasure get out of hand. He must stand by and watch while others drink to excess and when drunkenness leads to misconduct, he has to intervene and restore order. He braves the elements when we lie sleeping snugly in our beds. He is there for our safety and to ensure that what is ours remains protected.

The third child, a girl, became a nurse. Her oath of loyalty concerns the alleviation of the suffering of others. She is in attendance when the new-born infant draws his first breath, and she closes the eyelids when he breathes his last, after every effort has been made to prolong life. Her service is one of love and sacrifice, she has to alleviate pain and make people comfortable. She will watch at the bedside when sleep must promote recovery. She will stay awake from sunset to sunrise, while rest can bring recovery to the ailing. My recovery is her joy and reward for her faithful and willing service.

This group of people fulfil their calling in the lives of all of us. There is no one in this House today, nor any member of the general public either, who has not at some stage in the course of his life been dependent on this group of people. I have called together this group of people as a family in its entirety and they have asked me to state here that these parents are worn out and weary. Some of them have crippled themselves in their struggle and can look back on a rich heritage for those of us who came after them. They do not ask; they will take what we wish to give them, particularly in the spheres in which they made insufficient provision during their lives because they were unable to see so far into the future. We shall support them because it is worthwhile for us and for our country. Many of them are old today, and we shall not allow these people to suffer. The community itself will take care of the clergyman, and we shall simply foster the attitude that it will do this for him.

These three children do not have a fund from which they can make appropriations for themselves and by means of which they can meet their own needs. Time and again they have had to take what was available for them, and they have accepted long and patiently what came their way. Now that we are better off and the promise is there that there may perhaps be more to share out, I am asking whether it is not possible for us to take good care of this group of people. Cannot we reconsider and make sure that we give them that little portion which they deserve? Often they did not suffer hardships because they received so little, they suffered hardships because the rest of the family had so much because they could meet their own needs in their professions. If they had also suffered hardships when everyone did so, the suffering would have become proportional.

That is why I wish to advocate this afternoon that we tell one another in a good spirit that we shall look into this matter. A very strongly-worded message should emanate from this House that we ask for discipline outside, particularly in respect of those professions which take care of themselves, which are able to accumulate their own means and quite simply arrange their prices themselves in such a way that they can live in abundance. Such a discipline should be maintained so that it is at least possible, through the mediation of this House, to reach a point of compromise which brings the excessive extremes closer to one another.

Finally, these six persons are also to my mind the symbol of the edifice of authority in this country. There is a cruel and subtle onslaught aimed at clipping the wings of these people, whether in the parental home, in the classroom, or in the country at large where they are quite simply applying the laws of the country. There is an onslaught on this edifice aimed at handicapping its means and at causing the hand which should keep its grip on life and its discipline to draw back. We must ensure that we maintain our grip on these things as well, and that we continue to strengthen their hands in the work which they have to do in this beautiful country of ours.

It is with difficulty that I relinquish this opportunity which I now have to be heard in such silence, because I know that I shall be less privileged in my next round. Before I resume my seat, however, I feel it incumbent upon me to thank the hon. the Leader of the House, the Chief Whip and the other Whips, the members of the Cabinet and the old stalwarts in this House, each of them in particular, for the way in which they received us here as newcomers. I want to thank them for the way in which they have helped us negotiate these first slippery rocks. We want to thank them humbly for the opportunity to make our contributions here as well. We thank them very sincerely for the opportunity, and may we, in the spirit of the beautiful prayer which is read to us at the beginning of each sitting day, carry on with our task so that we can continue this difficult and responsible work in such a way that it, too, will receive the blessing of the Almighty.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to welcome the hon. member for Brentwood here in the House and to congratulate him on his maiden speech. I heard him thank the hon. Chief Whip and other Whips and other members on that side of the House for the reception which they accorded him. I hope that after I have spoken he will thank me, too, for the words I am addressing to him. I want to tell him that he is welcome here in this House. Now that he has taken the first step, he can expect a little more noise from our side than was the case today. I want to express my appreciation to him for what he said. He painted a very interesting picture of his view of society in this country. One can see that he is profoundly religious. That is something which I welcome in this House and for which I am grateful because in that faith I see something which could be of inestimable value to us in future. In that spirit I welcome him here.

The hon. member for Vasco spoke about the “decade of food” and said that our food producers now have the power to ward off the blow of the oil weapon. I shall exchange a few thoughts on this matter with the hon. the Minister of Agriculture later. I welcome the hon. member for Vasco as a member of the Agricultural group. We are very glad to hear that he has also become a part of it now.

But actually I want to say a few words to the hon. member for Umlazi who spoke here yesterday and kicked up such a row.

Where is he?

I see him peeping in over there. He spoke about the policy of the party that I represent here from Natal and kicked up a fuss about “power sharing”, etc.

†I have a great problem with an hon. member who comes to the House and then deliberately displays his ignorance. For any person to come here and to make it quite apparent that he does not have a basic mental understanding of and does not grasp a concept such as power-sharing, does not do the dignity of this House any good. [Interjections.] It may have been deliberate. Perhaps he has been put up to it by other hon. members on that side of the House or even by the hon. the Minister of Finance, the leader of his party in Natal. They have a problem as far as the policy of this party in Natal is concerned. When one talks about power-sharing, it must be obvious to any simple-minded hon. member of this House, let alone the more …

Who is he?

Who is he? There is always one or other who asks that question. Ask that question of the hon. member himself. He must wear the cap if it fits him. If groups of people have power over their own concerns and they then have to share certain concerns amongst them which are common to them all, they then have to share power. Even the hon. member for Umlazi can understand that when groups of people have power over their own concerns and there are certain concerns of which they all have to dispose, they have to share power and have to take joint decisions. What we had here was nothing else than a diatribe against the whole proposal that was made in Natal, which was to allow groups of people to take common decisions over matters in which they were all concerned together. What does the hon. member’s complaint on what has been done in Natal really amount to? He said that in Durban and Pietermaritzburg there were going to be separate areas, but that in little places like Weenen and Winterton people were going to share a common roll.

What he was really saying is that Durban is big and Weenen and Winterton are small. That is what it amounts to. There is no other way of approaching it. Where there are enough people to have viable areas and viable bodies of authority, they will be separate and where not, they will share. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance and all the other hon. members on that side of the House what objection they have to that. From what we hear, a President’s Council is going to be appointed on which Coloureds, Indians and Whites will serve. They are going to take a joint decision on what the constitution of this country is going to be. What objection do hon. members have to that? But at the same time where it has to do with the affairs of a town like Weenen or Winterton, the ones mentioned by the hon. member, then it is “iets uit die bose” and completely unacceptable to the members of that party. But what happens if the people who come together to talk about the constitution decide that that is the situation which they would like to pertain in Natal? That party sits with an hon. member who is so verkramp and is absolutely typical of the problem that that party faces. We hear all these noises, the stretching of the skin of the National Party in every direction, like some amoeba which is trying to ooze out of the positions in which it has found itself.

What I want to say to hon. members opposite is that what the Cabinet is doing by taking the decisions which it does, is nothing other than sabotaging an attempt to find a means of living together between the Indian, the Coloured and the White community in Natal on a local government level—nothing more than that. They want to live together and to take joint decisions where matters concern the three groups in Natal, and what possible objection can there be to that? What objection can there be if we, the people of Natal, the elected government of Natal, decide that we wish to move into that situation with elected representatives of the other groups? Who is there who can come along and negate a decision which our provincial council has taken and then influence members on the other side that they should not proceed along those lines or allow this to go ahead, especially if we have decided that we would like to be the crucible in which this type of experiment can take place?

You talk as if you have the majority of members from Natal in this House.

Who controls the province?

You talk as though you were elected to this House.

The hon. the Minister must realize that he must not throw stones when he lives in a glass house. I want to ask that hon. Minister if he will not do any of our members here a service by saying now that he is going to oppose them in the next election. We shall guarantee a by-election straight away. I ask him please to do us that favour.

I wish to return to another matter which was the subject of one of the legs of our amendment and which deals with the question of the farming community and the stimulation of 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. It is not an easy problem and I do not think anyone is going to come along here and pontificate, saying that they have an answer and that if you do this or that the matter will be solved. It cannot be done. The problem is basically an economic problem, viz. production and the ability to market the food which is produced in those areas at a time when at last the food market is promising, particularly because the Black people’s ability to buy food is starting to expand because more people are now beginning to come into employment. And yet it happens at a time when food prices have never been so high, and they are going to go even higher. I do not think the hon. the Minister or anybody else will deny that we live in that particular situation, and we have not yet had a chance for the wage structure in the country to catch up. I think that is a very, very significant factor.

I now wish to talk to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture specifically because he has been in the northern areas. He has held meetings there, and I have a newspaper cutting here to which I shall refer in a minute. I ask the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister that when we are talking about subsidization, surely it would be of advantage if we had a basic look at the whole idea of subsidization, because as of today subsidies are paid at the consumer end, when the whole food-producing process has worked itself through and comes to an end when it has worked right through the retail process. Surely it would be of advantage to the country and to the consumer public if subsidies, or whatever process can be used to bring down the input costs—and I have said this before to the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. the Minister—could be reduced, because of the undoubted efficiency of the farming population of this country, we will gain percentage-wise far more from the money being put in on the input side than we are getting now for the money we are putting in at the consumer side, which is merely to bring down the price which has already been established of the food which is marketed to the public. The question about the border farmers quite apparently boils down to this: How do you stimulate an economy in those areas, stimulation which is going to lead people to go there, to stay there and to farm there economically? There are obviously several things which could be done there, things which have been mentioned, e.g. the subsidization of fuel, of fertilizer in those areas and perhaps even of wages. Those are things which are going to draw people to those areas. I want to quote from a newspaper something which the hon. the Deputy Minister said. I hope that he has been misreported. The hon. the Deputy Minister was quoted as saying with regard to the Promotion of the Density of the Population in Designated Areas Act passed last year, that if the whole Act could not be implemented, at least those portions which deal with the population should be implemented. These are the words which are quoted here—

Those are the three options: The man must be forced either to live there, or to put a White occupant there or to sell. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that if certain proposals in this Act were implemented—that is what I understand him to have said from this news report—the financial implications would be such that the Government decided not to go ahead with the implementation of the Act. If one tries to force people to occupy the ground, the problem is on what basis one is going to force a man to occupy ground which is uneconomic and on which he cannot farm. I can understand why the Government is not implementing the legislation. [Interjections.] Let me just say what I am going to say. One cannot force a person to maintain another White person in an area which is being described—and I welcome the hon. member for Wynberg supporting my amendment—as nothing other than an area of rural blight, an area where the population is being bled dry, where the schools are closing down, where everything is going wrong. The hon. the Deputy Minister has been there, and I have never seen a picture of an unhappier looking man in a newspaper than when he came back, and I saw him on television as well. He knows the seriousness of the situation. The third aspect is to force a man to sell his farm for what he can get, and I do not think the hon. the Minister or anybody else is going to force a man to sell his farm for what he can get.

I would never say a thing like that. You should know that.

That is what I was hoping. But here it is, a quotation from this newspaper in which it is reported that the hon. the Deputy Minister said just that. I cannot believe anybody is going to say that a man should be forced to sell his farm, because that is that man’s stake in the private initiative, in the private sector in South Africa. That is something with which we absolutely could not go along. I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister and to the hon. the Minister: Until such time as there is an upsurge in our economy and the population is able to absorb increased production, there has to be a holding operation of some kind in these border areas, because what we need on the borders is a farming community which will be a part of the defence system of South Africa, and we need a mobile, elastic Defence Force on those borders to help protect our country against the sort of things that we have seen happening elsewhere.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister whether it is not possible to place national servicemen in these areas, on groups of farms or in any other way, so that they will be present there as a professional element, a cader of people to stiffen the resistance of the farming community in those areas and to provide the leadership. Something else which they can do there which I think is of the utmost importance is to get to know the local conditions on those farms, where the trails, the holes and the caves are and all the rest of it The one thing one finds in any kind of operation like this is that one must know the country one fights in. The Mau Mau, for example, was defeated in the forest, because the Whites there knew the forest and defeated them on their own ground. If the Act is not going to be put into operation, if we are not going to repopulate those areas or if it is not economically possible for us to make it work, I would suggest that we should think of something like this. It will cost money and a number of our troops, but I do not think the number need be too high, because you will be able to group properties and to have a squad of soldiers to cover a whole area. But we have to recognize the importance of the farming community in the security areas of our country. We cannot allow those areas to be unpopulated. Today the price of food is so high that many people battle their hearts out to be able to afford it. I think we are entering a stage where the economy will be coming up and more and more people will be able to buy food. The quality of life amongst the Black people is such that they will now be able to absorb more of the products of the farmer. The hon. member for Vasco was quite right when he said that in the years to come we would be able to feed our neighbours from the production potential we have. What we want to see from the Government is leadership in an area such as this. If it is that the Bill which was passed last year by this House to cope with this situation, cannot be implemented, we have to have an alternative. The Government itself contributes towards the input costs of farmers. I may mention only the surcharge on tractors to illustrate this. Farmers have to receive assistance even if the Government has to subsidize fertilizers and wages to lower the input costs of farming so that the farmers can make a living. This is the only way farmers are going to go back into those areas, particularly in view of the threat that they know and we know is just across the border.

Should subsidies only apply in the border areas or should all farmers qualify for it?

I would think that there is a particular threat in the border areas. The Bill we passed last year allowed the hon. the Minister to draw a line and to specify certain areas where a special need exists. I think the situation is such that we should give the most urgent attention to the farmers in those areas. I think the hon. the Minister is getting the drift of what I am saying. If the input costs were lowered you would be getting far more efficient use of your money than you would when using it on subsidies, because it would have gone through the whole process of profit-taking and everything else before it reaches the public. The input cost is something to which the hon. the Minister, the department, the Government, the Cabinet have to give their attention. We have been asking for three years that this matter should be investigated. The Government is continuing to collect imposts on the goods the farmers use for input. That hand should be taken off and input costs should be lowered. Apart from some of the methods I have mentioned to recreate confidence in those areas, this is one method whereby we are going to get people going back into the border areas.

I think the whole agricultural industry in our country faces this situation. We have these dead areas. People are leaving the border areas and there is a pressure on costs in general and on the price of ground in other areas, something which should not be a natural process. I regard this as something of the utmost importance. The entire area of South Africa is open to farming and many of these areas are very good cattle country. At the moment the beef industry is undergoing something of a revival, but as the hon. the Minister knows, there are factors like slaughtering costs, etc., in respect of which help can be given to the farming community to ensure that they can make a viable living out of the occupation they are following.

This is something which I would like to put before the hon. the Minister. One of the legs of our amendment is that we do not wish to support the Second Reading unless action is taken along the lines of believing the lot of the fanning community and the re-stimulation of the agricultural economy so that people, in particular young people, will benefit. The reason is that living on the borders in future is going to be a pioneering job. It is not going to be a laugh. It is not going to be a laugh. It is going to be a jolly tough way of living. Dedicated men and dedicated wives are going to be required to go to those areas. This is a task which the Government has got to shoulder, and they have got to be bold and they have got to be imaginative about it. Up to now we have seen no such action, though I do wait for the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply. For that reason we have placed our amendment on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the hon. member for Mooi River one wonders what one can say about the NRP. It is with a feeling of real sadness that one regards the remnants of the once mighty party of Gen. Smuts on the other side. It passes one’s comprehension to think that people could dissolve such a great party and replace it with such a plodding little party as the New Republican Party.

You have got the name wrong too.

It does not seem as if the speech made by the hon. member for Mooi River or the game he played with the little balls did anything to remove the frustrations of that party.

You pinch everything we say. What are we supposed to do?

I am sorry to tell them at this early stage of the session that they look like a tired party. I do not intend to say anything more in response to the hon. member for Mooi River.

Before I come to my subject, I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Finance that I think it is a good decision of the hon. the Minister to mint a smaller and cheaper coin along with the Kruger coin. It should be very popular. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would not consider calling this smaller coin the President Steyn coin, or simply the Steyn coin, in honour of President Steyn of the Free State. He was just as great and famous a president as President Kruger. At the same time this would give some recognition to the Free State, which is already producing 29% of South Africa’s gold, valued at R1 674 million. This is just a request to the hon. the Minister.

I should like to turn to the official Opposition and their new leader this afternoon. Now that we have a new Opposition leader, one enters debates such as this one with much greater expectations. For years we were saddled here with a very negative Opposition which was quite unable to play the role of a positive Opposition. We had an Opposition which, because it was completely lacking in leadership, could not rise above petty political squabbling. Now we have a new Opposition leader, someone who is highly regarded by his supporters, and who is lauded to the skies by his Press in particular.

But not by Stellenbosch.

It is breathtaking to see what the Opposition Press says about this hon. leader with the Superman image, also called “the great White hope of the PFP”, or simply “Super Van”. [Interjections.]

In a large headline, one of these newspapers writes—

Another newspaper writes—

Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.] However, another newspaper takes the cake by quoting someone who said—

Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.] But that is not all. A certain Sunday newspaper writes—

Now we see … [Interjections.] So one cannot help having great expectations of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. [Interjections.]

How do you make a woman faint, Van Zyl? [Interjections.]

Even before taking up his new office, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition held out the prospect of a new style in Opposition leadership. He held out the prospect of a more constructive Opposition. This is something we are really looking forward to after a period of disturbing negativism in our Opposition politics. The hon. leader displayed an interesting new approach by saying that he was prepared to support the Government in principle in certain of its plans. This is gratifying because it can put an end to a period which can undoubtedly be described as the most destructive one in our Opposition politics in South Africa. During the last year or two in particular we have been faced here with a destructive process of disparagement on the part of people who have been prepared to trample underfoot the highest interests of South Africa for the sake of political gain.

However, to come back to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his performance in the no-confidence debate. When one examines that much-vaunted speech by the hon. leader, one soon comes to the conclusion that it did not contain much substance and that he was guilty of the same mistake as his hon. predecessor, namely to put one question after another to the Government. However, the real deficiency in the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition lies in the fact that he so conveniently shied away from his own policy and from the dangerous consequences of his party’s policy. I should like to address the hon. leader on this subject this afternoon.

After taking over as Leader of the Opposition, the hon. leader travelled all over the country and made many speeches. In those speeches he discussed many matters without beating about the bush. He said, among other things, that he would open residential areas and schools to everyone, that he would open swimming baths, beaches and all facilities to all, and that he is in favour of the abolition of the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, as well as the Group Areas Act and the Population Registration Act. It is also a strong point of his policy that full citizenship should be given to Blacks, knowing full well that there is bound to be a majority of Black voters when this happens. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that his party is against forced integration at all levels of coexistence, but in the same breath the hon. leader also says that he is against forced separation and that voluntary association should be the guideline. I see the hon. the Leader of the Opposition nods his head. By saying that, the hon. leader opens the doors so wide that it can lead to nothing but full integration, except of course for people who are able to buy their apartheid, people in the rich residential areas and in the exclusive clubs. They will very easily be able to avoid this voluntary association. As we know perfectly well, there are many of them in the ranks of the official Opposition. Regarding the very important central issue of South African politics, too, i.e. the question of the way in which political power can be exercised in this country with its many population groups, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has not yet been very illuminating. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition today that he and his party are reluctant to spell out to us exactly what their policy means in practice. They are reluctant to do so because their policy amounts to nothing less than Black majority government. They are hiding that from the electorate.

That is not true.

In a moment of great frankness, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition admitted that the electorate was not enthusiastic about the PFP policy. In a lecture at the University of the Orange Free State, reported in Die Volksblad of 27 April 1979, he said—

Does the hon. leader wish to tell us the meaning of these signals that they are sending out? What do they mean to achieve by them? An NRP provincial councillor asked the hon. leader a very important question some time ago. The MPC asked the hon. leader—

That has never been said. It is untrue and … [Interjections.]

That hon. member will have an opportunity to reply. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not reply directly to this, but he said—

The hon. leader nods his head. However, it is striking that the hon. leader is only rejecting the present kind of majority rule. He gives no direct, unequivocal reply to the categorical question of whether he repudiates the contention that his party’s policy amounts to majority rule. He does reply to it by implication in the rest of his statement, however. To anyone who gives words their normal meaning, the answer must be quite clear, namely: The PFP’s policy amounts to “one man, one vote” in a system where the rights of minorities will be endangered. The mere fact that provision is made for a minority veto is nothing less than an admission that the rights of minorities will be in danger, and such a minority veto, that we all know, is not worth the paper it is written on, as minorities throughout Africa have so cruelly experienced. The PFP’s policy of universal franchise in a federal State with proportional representation and a doubtful veto amounts to only one thing, namely a system of “one man, one vote”, a system in which the minority groups will be vulnerable to the point of being wiped out. Only the most basic arithmetic is required to work out that the Black majority in the country will succeed in having the majority representatives elected in each of the PFP’s proposed federal States and will undoubtedly dominate the federal Parliament. If this is not so, I shall eat my hat. If this is not so, we are being grossly misled somewhere by the PFP’s policy-makers. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must tell us how he will prevent Black domination in terms of his policy. According to a report in Hoofs tad of 13 September 1979, the Leader of the Opposition said in Pretoria at his first public meeting after his election as leader—

Can you give any guarantee?

To the Citizen of 30 October 1979, the Leader of the Opposition said—

What do you say?

The hon. member for Sea Point, too, indicated, when he was Leader of the Opposition, that they could give no guarantee against domination of one group by another. In an article in Deurbraak, 18 February 1979, the hon. member for Sea Point writes as follows—

The PFP knows very well, therefore, that they are on a political course which will lead to the domination of other people by Blacks. Here the hon. member for Sea Point is admitting that this presents them with serious problems.

I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition today that they cannot deny that they have not furnished any proof that they are to be trusted with their approach to Black majority government.

That is untrue.

The hon. member says it is untrue. He can rise after me and spell out to us in what way it is untrue. I want to tell the hon. member that with their attitude towards important aspect of politics they are heading for a situation which is presently being experienced in one of our neighbouring States and they are sewing the seeds of chaos in South Africa as well.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is trying hard to give his party a patriotic image. I want to tell him that he will not succeed until he has got rid of certain people in his ranks. Breathing down the neck of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition are people who are not only giving his party a bad unpatriotic image, but who will not allow him either to play the role in South African politics which he would obviously like to play. The political statements by the hon. members for Houghton and Groote Schuur that their franchise policy will lead to “one man, one vote” will hang round the neck of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition like a dead albatross. What is more, in the latest debates we have learned for the umpteenth time what dangerous friends and political bedfellows the hon. member for Houghton has. The head of the previous leader of that party rolled after his games with people who are not friendly towards our country. Now the hon. leader asks us to stop calling them unpatriotic. Even if we stopped doing that, it would not help them, because a stigma would remain attached to them of which they could not rid themselves as long as they had people in their ranks who were friendly with enemies of South Africa.

Order! The hon. member is now going too far with those words he has used. Is he referring to hon. members of this House in saying that?

Yes, Sir.

The hon. member must withdraw the words.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the words. [Interjections.] As long as the PFP have people in their ranks who are prepared to give money to the Bikos, people who are prepared to sit around one table with those who commit acts of violence, Marxists and Mandelas, as long as they have people in their ranks who tell the outside world that South Africa is a powderkeg of tension that can explode at any moment and that the outside world must not relax its pressure against South Africa, the PFP will not be trusted. [Interjections.] As long as they persist in doing that, their image will be that of a Jekyll and Hyde in South African politics. Corduroy trousers, a corduroy waistcoat and a fancy necktie, just like a Voortrekker wears, cannot change the image of this party.

It is no use turning the hon. the Leader of the Opposition into a Gen. Smuts. This will not help the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to gain acceptance among the Afrikaners and it will certainly not help him to make a breakthrough at Stellenbosch. The PFP’s image can only be changed if its leader is prepared to rise, as he said to the hon. the Prime Minister in this House, and to say like a Dr. Malan: “If I perish, I perish, but I am going to set my house in order.” If the hon. Leader would set his party in order, he could expect us to regard it as a patriotic party and to give them a more patriotic image.

Mr. Speaker, like other back-benchers I too want to avail myself of the opportunity of thanking everybody for the friendly manner in which they have received us here in Cape Town and for making us feel at home so quickly. I want to thank the officials, the messengers and the hon. members of the House most sincerely for this.

Having listened to an inspiring speech by another newcomer yesterday I also want to express our sincere thanks to the parliamentary typists for their valuable service. They make our task considerably easier and we appreciate this sincerely. I also want to avail myself of this opportunity of wishing my predecessor, Mr. Stoffel Botha, now Administrator of Natal where he is rendering outstanding service, together with his attractive little wife, a very successful future.

I regard it as an exceptional honour and privilege to be able to represent the constituency of Eshowe in this House. Natal is called the Garden Province and in Natal the constituency of Eshowe is the garden constituency. I grew up in that constituency and over the years I have grown particularly fond of the people and of the area. I want to thank the voters of Eshowe most sincerely for the confidence they have placed in me in sending me here. I shall represent them here conscientiously and enthusiastically to the best of my ability. Eshowe is an exceptionally interesting constituency in which various interests are represented.

My constituency has a tourist potential that has not yet been exploited nearly to the full. Everybody has already heard of such well-known holiday resorts as Richards Bay, Mtunzini, Mapellaan, Charter’s Creek, Fanies Island, St. Lucia, Cape Vidal, False Bay and Sordwana, to mention only a few, and the game reserves that are known all over the world, like the Umfolozi and Hluhluwe, Mkuzi and Ndumu game reserves.

As far as farming is concerned, a vast variety of farming activities are carried on in this constituency. As far as livestock farming in this constituency is concerned, the number of cattle make up 1,33%, the number of sheep, 0,06%, the number of goats, 0,29% and the number of pigs, 0,25% of the total livestock population of the Republic. Farmers may say that these percentages are not very significant but in this instance it is not quantity but quality that counts. I may inform hon. members that timber, pineapples, cotton, sisal and vegetables are also grown there.

However, I come now to the more important products that are produced in this constituency. Hon. members may find it interesting to know that 17% of the Republic’s grapefruit are grown in the beautiful Nkwalini Valley in my constituency.

I come now to our most important product. Twenty-nine per cent of the Republic’s entire sugar production comes from the constituency of Eshowe. For the first time in years the local sugar price was increased this year to a level more or less equal to the production costs. This is a great improvement on the basis used to determine the sugar farmer’s return on his capital investment in the cultivation of sugarcane. In this connection I want to thank the Minister who was previously concerned with this, namely the present hon. Minister of Transport Affairs most sincerely for the enthusiastic and personal interest he showed in the sugar industry. I am convinced that his successor will show the same interest.

I want to tell the new hon. Minister that, like many other farmers, the sugarcane farmer has also had a very hard time in the past few years while the profits of the millers have risen. We feel it is absolutely essential that there be a more equitable apportionment of the profits in this regard.

It is gratifying to note that there has been a dramatic improvement in the prospects for the sugar industry. From January 1978 up to September 1979 the London price which is used as a yardstick was in the vicinity of £100 per ton but then the price rose to £121 per ton. There was a slight drop after that but last week the price was £250 per ton and yesterday it was £220 per ton. The drought conditions in both Cuba and South Africa and the cutback in production in terms of the International Sugar Agreement may be some of the factors that have been responsible for this. Gradually the demand will again begin to exceed the supply.

I think that the local consumer should not from time to time have to subsidize the low export prices and also that the profits made on the export market should not be used to keep the price on the local market lower than the production costs. This will enable the sugar industry to catch up on and to wipe out the present backlog of R50 million as a result of the loans that have had to be incurred to assist the farmers over difficult times and will also ensure that the Stabilization Fund can once again be strengthened. I believe moreover that the prospect of producing ethanol from sugarcane will act as an important catalyst in placing the industry on a sounder and more stable footing.

I want to refer briefly to the recent terrorist attack from Mozambique in the northern part of my constituency. That incident has emphasized the fact once again that this area is very important strategically, and for that reason I appeal to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture to consider the possibility of including that farming area in the special scheme for assistance to farmers in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act No. 28 of 1966.

In conclusion I want to say a word or two about the Empangeni-Richards Bay growth point. In 1969 Richards Bay was a small fishing village with a population of 62. At the moment it is developing into an industrial giant and the population is fast climbing to the 10 000 mark. The fact that the then Minister of Transport announced this important step on 15 April 1965 is already history. Construction work was commenced on 1 June 1972 and on 1 April 1976 the former Prime Minister, the hon. B. J. Vorster, inaugurated that harbour. That was truly a unique achievement. Since then the sea traffic has greatly increased from 85 ships in 1974 to 518 last year. Today 14 trains consisting of 84 trucks each from the Transvaal and three trains consisting of 50 trucks each from Natal arrive there daily. As far as the export of coal is concerned, this increased from an initial four million tons during the first year to 20 million tons last year, and it is anticipated that 25 million tons will be exported from that harbour during the current financial year. Because of the extensions that are being effected to the coal loading quay it will be possible to push this figure up to 44 million tons within three years.

I want now to refer to a few of the pioneering developments at Richards Bay. Alusaf—that is the aluminium foundry—has invested close to R80 million and is already supplying more than South Africa’s domestic needs. Triomf—that is the phosphoric acid plant—has invested R100 million and over the past year exported more than 1 million tons of phosphoric acid. Richards Bay Heavy Minerals has invested R250 million and exported 600 000 tons during the past year. These are products like rutile, zircon and titanium that are extracted from the sand dunes just north of Richards Bay. These pioneer industries, as well as the professional people and the small businessman, have made important contributions to the economic and social development of this area I trust that other Government departments will in the near future also play an active role in this area and extend their services when necessary.

In spite of the fact that during past decades South Africa has made considerable progress in the industrial sphere, she is not yet self-sufficient as far as manufactured consumer goods and capital resources are concerned. She still has to look to sources abroad to meet her needs in this respect. Richards Bay harbour will enable South Africa to acquire a larger share of the world trade as far as export goods are concerned. The people at Richards Bay are young people with ideals and faith in the future and we invite investors and industrialists to share in the bright future Richards Bay offers. To the Government of the Republic of South Africa this new strategically situated harbour on the east coast of our country is the fulfilment of an ideal that testifies to foresight, to initiative and to an unshakeable faith in the future of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to convey my sincere congratulations to the hon. member for Eshowe on his maiden speech and to wish him a successful future in this House.

Mr. Speaker, you will allow me just to correct a statistic quoted by the hon. member for Wynberg. He has asked me to correct this figure. He said that 75% of the land in certain border areas was not being utilized. From the figures we have here it appears that 25% of the farmland in certain border areas is not occupied. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Bloemfontein West …

Bloemfontein North!

Yes, whether it is north, south, east or west, I do not think he himself knows where he is, not geographically nor as far as the political situation in South Africa is concerned. His speech was so petty. It was typical of his spirit and that of his other verkrampte friends in that party. In my opinion it showed a lack of intellectual understanding, which must be a very painful and permanent handicap to him. We can only pity him. I just hope that there are other hon. members on that side of the House who have the intellectual ability to understand what we on this side of the House would like to do in debating the political problems in South Africa.

†However, I want to leave it at that because today I want to speak to the hon. the Minister of Finance. One does not often get such an opportunity in this House, and I think that the part appropriation debate is, in fact, an opportunity for members of the House, who are the representatives of the people, the taxpayers of South Africa, to talk directly to the hon. the Minister of Finance about the way in which he should go about spending the money that the public entrusts to the Government in the form of taxes. I want to speak specifically on behalf of those South Africans, White, Black, Coloured and Indian—by far the majority—who are deeply concerned about the gathering clouds of war on our northern border and are absolutely determined to do everything in their power to avoid a war situation developing in South Africa. I want to speak on behalf of those people who fear the violence of revolution, the death and the destruction and the tears and the bloodshed that go along with war and violence. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he has an opportunity of making a major contribution towards the prevention of war in South Africa, because that hon. Minister fortunately has the ability to do so at this time in South Africa, having at his disposal large excess funds which we have not had to date. That hon. Minister fortunately has the opportunity, at this stage, to apply those funds in order to bring about better race relations in South Africa, to remove points of conflict and frustration and to contribute towards harmony and peace between South Africa’s peoples. He can contribute towards a real spirit of South Africanism and the security and peace of our country.

I want to tell him that there are many ways in which he can spend the bonanza which is available to him. There are many deserving causes and many services that need funds, but nowhere is there an aspect more important or more vital to the security and future of our country than the spending of money for removing discrimination and providing a better quality of life for all the people of this country. When we spoke about revolution and war previously the Government did not accept that that was a possibility for our future, but I think that under the leadership of the present Prime Minister there has been definite signs that the Government now does, in fact, accept that we are threatened by war and revolution and that we must do something about it.

To prevent war in South Africa the Government will have to do four things. Firstly, it will have to accept and create equal citizenship for all the people of this country. Secondly, it will have to introduce a constitution providing for equitable and real sharing of power amongst all the people in this country. Thirdly, it will have to remove all forms of discrimination based on race. These three points mean the dismantling and removal of apartheid. However, one can remove all apartheid and still not have the peace, tranquillity and progress one requires unless one gives attention to the fourth requirement, viz. the creation of real equality of opportunity. This has to be done to prove to the other people of South Africa, viz. the Blacks, Coloureds and Indians, that we really mean it when we say that we want them to be equal citizens of South Africa, that we want them to have equality of opportunity and that we want them to share in the prosperity and security of our country.

Like in America?

I will not even reply to that interjection. In the remaining few minutes at my disposal I wish to look at some of the areas in which the hon. the Minister can make a dramatic contribution towards providing equality of opportunity. Let us start with education. In the past, when we talked about the inequalities in education, a roar would come from the Nationalist side of the House. They always asked the question: “Where would we get the money from?” Today South Africa is in the very favourable situation that we have the money. The hon. the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues, if they so wish, can therefore make a dramatic contribution towards narrowing the gap in the expenditure on White and Black education. What is the position in 1980? In 1980 we are spending R640 per annum on the education of every White child, while we are only spending R68,15 per annum on the education of every Black child. Such a disparity, such a vast gap, in the expenditure on Black and White children cannot be considered to be anything but harshly discriminatory and an injustice. I know it cannot be done overnight, but I call on the Government to announce to South Africa today, or at the earliest possible opportunity, a programme for narrowing that gap until the expenditure on every child is precisely the same. This is tremendously important for the Black parents and the Black child and will make a tremendous contribution, not only to peace in South Africa, but also to the prosperity we need for the future.

I also want to refer very briefly to job opportunities. Since the publication of the Wiehahn Commission report and the resulting amending legislation we have heard so much from the Government about its sincerity in doing away with job reservation and narrowing the wage gap, but talk and words are not going to impress either the people in South Africa or the people outside South Africa. It is one’s deeds that are important. There are obviously many hundreds of examples, but I want to give only one in this regard. In the Post Office telecommunication technicians of all race groups are being trained and employed. They all have to meet precisely the same basic qualifications, have to undergo precisely the same training and have to pass precisely the same examinations. There is no difference. They are then employed to do precisely the same work. They are, however, paid different salaries, viz. Whites R3 960, Coloureds and Indians R3 267 and Blacks R2 475 per annum, and there can be no explanation of such harmful discrimination. One cannot explain it away to anybody. It is discrimination and it is an injustice. I believe that the Government must now take steps to see to it that such forms of discrimination are removed visibly, and finally, for everybody to see.

The next item I wish to refer to is one we have raised so often, that is Black towns, housing and the development of livable environments for the Black people of South Africa. We have raised this in the House so many times, and every time the excuse has been: “We do not have the funds to meet the requirements which you people in the Opposition set out.” Today we have the funds, not to wipe out the entire problem or to change the picture overnight, but we have the funds to make a dramatic impact on the problem, to dramatically demonstrate the sincerity and determination of the Government to really come to grips with this problem.

Just a year ago the position was that there was a shortage of at least 200 000 Black housing units in the urban areas of South Africa. The money from the National Housing Fund paid R520 million, in the period 1973 to 1978, towards housing. Of that only 6,5% went to Black housing, despite the fact that the Blacks constitute 44% of our urban population. Once again, can the Government not—we understand that it cannot do this within a year or two; it cannot be done overnight—make a dramatic announcement that it is going to meet this shortage over the next five years? It means an expenditure of only approximately R150 million to R200 million per annum. Can the Government not state that over the next five to 10 years, even, it is going to wipe out this housing shortage and that it is going to do it by building so many thousand houses per annum? It would be a dramatic demonstration of the sincerity of the Government.

There are many other things which are wrong in the Black townships of South Africa. Despite the fact that the Blacks now have the right to build their houses on ground leased for 99 years, progress is extremely slow. When one speaks to the people involved, one understands that the reason is that the Government has taken no steps to make it possible to do away with the tremendous amount of red tape and the other difficulties Black people experience when they want to buy or build a house for themselves. It is in the spirit of what the hon. the Prime Minister is trying to do, viz. to hand over this entire job to free enterprise, to the building societies and other institutions that are involved, that we ask the Government to evolve a scheme which would make it easy for Black people to buy or build their own houses, which will …

What is stopping the building societies?

The tremendous amount of red tape involved, the dozens of forms which have to be filled in, the delays and confusion and the problems experienced with the Government departments involved.

Let me just refer to one more point which I think is very important indeed, and that is social services for all the people in this country. When the hon. the Minister of Finance made his budget speech last year, we were all very happy to hear him use the following words with regard to pensions—

He then announced that he was going to give certain increases in pensions to Blacks, Coloureds and Indians. In fact, Whites were given a 10,2% increase; Coloureds and Indians a 13,1% increase and Blacks a 15,8% increase. However, when we went to our calculating machines—and some of us, in fact, did not need calculating machines—we calculated that Whites were getting a R9 increase, Coloureds and Indians a R6,25 increase and Blacks a R3,75 increase per month. So far from narrowing the gaps, the hon. the Minister actually extended the gaps between pensions paid to Whites, Blacks, Coloureds and Indians. That is not acceptable. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister in view of the fact that he is going to be introducing a budget soon. Is the hon. the Minister going to take steps which will visibly and conspicuously narrow that gap? Will he announce a programme to the effect that within the next five to 10 years we are going to narrow that gap until equal pensions are paid to all social pensioners in South Africa?

Will he do this or will he again come with a pious statement, as he did last year, and then shock the country with increases which in fact do not mean a narrowing of the gap? I believe the hon. the Minister himself has the opportunity of making a major contribution to better race relations in South Africa and to the avoidance of violence. He should use the extra funds at his disposal to invest in peace and prosperity for all the peoples of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bryanston made a very emotional plea to the hon. the Minister of Finance to use the funds that are available from the increase in the gold price and from other sources to improve better race relations. I think it is clear to every hon. member in this House that all the political parties represented here want to improve race relations. I think it cannot be denied that in all the spheres the hon. member for Bryanston has mentioned, considerable progress has been made. There are, however, differences of opinion with regard to how one should achieve a situation of equal opportunity for everybody; whether, for instance, it should be in a power-sharing context or whether it should be in the context of dividing power; whether it should be in the context of the socialist philosophy of equal distribution of wealth or whether it should be in terms of the capitalist philosophy of wealth being distributed according to the input made by the people who earn.

I mentioned that one of the differences of opinion was about whether this goal towards which we are all striving could be achieved best either by the sharing of power or by the division of power. In this context there has of late been a romantic atmosphere on the benches opposite. There has been much talk of olive branches. There has been much talk of those who believe in the sharing of power to be united under a single umbrella.

*There is a serious courtship going on between the two largest Opposition parties. [Interjections.]

It is a free market. [Interjections.]

This courtship, this waving of olive branches, has of late given rise to both those parties appointing contact groups to …

Talk to you.

I am coming to that. That would be welcome. But I shall discuss that later. [Interjections.] The idea is to appoint contact groups in order to establish how far these intended in-laws are removed from each other and whether a wedding could actually take place or not.

Chris, we shall make you our flowergirl! [Interjections.]

What I find so strange about this entire courtship, however, is that when we discussed the unfortunate McHenry incident here in April last year—it was during the budget debate—the hon. Leader of the NRP, the hon. member for Durban Point, made it very clear, promised very solemnly, with all the portentous weightiness he is capable of—which is of course not inconsiderable—that he would never again have anything to do with the PFP. In his Press statements during a whole series of by-elections, lasting from June to October, he repeated on each occasion that there could be no pact, no negotiations, that there were cardinal irreconcilable differences in principle. Now, all of a sudden, however, there are contact groups to establish how reconcilable people can be. [Interjections.]

The problem with the NRP is that what it says today it contradicts tomorrow.

Its right hand never knows what its left hand is doing. It is, in fact, suffering from schizophrenia. Therefore it was ironic to hear from the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, during the no-confidence debate that this party was ostensibly suffering from schizophrenia, for it is that party that does not know what is going on in its own ranks and whose statements are contradictory. This wooing of each other was, of course, despite all the denials, already clear at an earlier stage. On 21 June, during the budget debate last year, I put it to the hon. member for Durban Point that negotiations were in fact taking place between his party and the PFP. I shall quote from Hansard, col. 9714, what I said and what his reply was—

I then asked the hon. member for Durban Point what that was supposed to mean in view of his solemn promise arising from the McHenry episode, and he answered (col. 9715)—

That was on 21 June 1979, two months after his solemn promise. The Randfontein by-election took place on 6 June 1979, 15 days before that statement of his that he did not negotiate at all. It is being quoted that Mr. Raw objected strongly to the fact that the PFP stood in Edenvale. In an interview with Michael Acott of The Cape Times on 23 October 1979, in his bitterness over Edenvale, he said—

In other words, at the time when the Randfontein election was taking place, he was negotiating, but in Hansard he said—

Now, I do not want to accuse the hon. member for Durban Point of deliberately misleading this House. All I want to say, is that he is so schizophrenic that within two weeks he does not know what he said 14 days ago.

†He goes on to say the following …

Did you ask him to be here while you made this attack?

I am sorry he is not here. Could he be called, please? [Interjections.] That is all right. I have apologized. Will you please see to it that he is here.

You and I have had this difference before, have we not?

I have now apologized. Shall I now wait or shall I continue? [Interjections.] The hon. member continues—

That was said to applause by the hon. member for Durban Point. Then, in spite of having made this declaration of war on the PFP, the moment the hon. new Leader of the Opposition was elected, the hon. member for Durban Point had the following comment to make. I quote from The Cape Times of 23 October 1979—

But when Dr. Slabbert was in fact elected, in another interview the hon. member for Durban Point said—and I quote from Die Burger of 5 September 1979—

*Sir, the hon. member for Durban Point declared war first. But when the other side took up the declaration of war, he said he was sorry and sought a reconciliation. He says that he does not negotiate and then there is negotiation on Randfontein.

There is further proof. Under the headline “The NRP kept the bargain” in the Rand Daily Mail of 5 October 1979, Mrs. Gloria Slater, who was the NRP candidate in Randfontein, wrote—

There can be no doubt, therefore, that in spite of the denials, negotiations were in progress.

This is very significant stuff. [Interjections.]

A great deal is now being said about the new initiative for negotiations by the hon. member for Durban Point, not only with the PFP, but also with other political parties and across the colour bar. Now I should like to ask any of the hon. members of the NRP who are present whether such negotiations with this side of the House are being considered and whether they have already taken place. It is important, for if this general initiative is continued and negotiations take place with the PFP, other political parties and even Black groups, I should like to know why this party is being excluded, if it is in fact being excluded.

†This depends very much on a definition of terminology, on whether there are areas of agreement amongst various parties in this country. Yesterday—and I see that the hon. member for Durban Point is still not in the House; I shall have to quote him again …

When did you ask him to come into the House?

If the hon. member reads my unedited Hansard tomorrow, he will see that I asked several times.

After I told you.

Yes, I admitted that, but will he come into the House or will he not? [Interjections.] Well then I am afraid he will have to be undefended. He said yesterday in the debate that the Prime Minister should stop using words which are open to different interpretations and should spell out clearly to the people of South Africa where the Government stands on cardinal issues. He said the Prime Minister spoke of a form of confederation and asked: “What does he envisage? Joint decision-making?” Well, Sir, this depends also on whether we will finally hear from the NRP what their definition of a confederation is and what their definition of a federation is.

But the hon. member for Mooi River has told you 16 times.

In the budget debate last year I asked them to provide us with such a definition and I also asked them other questions and the hon. member for Mooi River, who is in the House, did promise me an answer at the time …

He came in. He heard you ringing the bell.

The answer did not come in that debate, nor did it come in the no-confidence debate and it has not come so far in this debate either.

Last time I spoke, you were not here.

The question hinges on what the definition of a federation or a confederation is. I told the hon. member I would not be here, and he said he would make this point. I promised to read the hon. member’s Hansard and I have done so, but I have not found the reply. I would like to define “confederation” as follows: A confederation is a group of sovereign independent States co-operating with one another in a league.

This definition also accords with the definitions provided in the Oxford, Websters and Chambers dictionaries. I would like to define a federation as follows: A federation is a group of autonomous—but not independent, not sovereign States—co-operating together under a central Government. I think it is important to know, now that the NRP knows what our definition of a federation and a confederation is, whether their confederal concept is, in fact, a federation or a confederation. If it is a confederation, then of course that is another reason why we can call it a schizophrenic party, because they have this schizophrenic constitutional model: a confederal and federal model, a two-headed Hydra. If their definition of a confederation is that of a true confederation, then it would accord with the form of confederation the hon. the Prime Minister envisages and with the constellation of States which this side of the House envisages, because by that definition our constellation is ultimately a confederation. By that definition also the EEC is a confederation, Nato is a confederation and the present Customs Union in South Africa is a confederation; in other words, it is co-operation by alliance and treaty, but without any central Government to which the individual States surrender their sovereignty. One has to look at what South Africa is.

There are other schizophrenic statements made by the NRP which need clarification …

What is the definition of a schizophrenic?

A split personality. There are other statements of the NRP which need clarification before one can discuss what their concept of a confederation is and to what extent it conforms to our definition, which is the normal definition. For example, during the budget debate last year the hon. member for Durban Point was asked whether the Black national States, the homelands, would be granted independence under his policy. He replied that they would have the option. During the same debate the hon. member for East London North said that they did not want independent homelands but the traditional South Africa. When the Status of Venda Bill was read a First Time it was opposed by the NRP. So, obviously, the States do not have an option and are therefore bound to stay in a federation.

What option did you give them?

They have the choice.

Of what?

To accept independence or not to accept independence. Under NRP policy, they will not be allowed to be autonomous, independent States as in a true confederation. This is important, because there is an analogy between the EEC and the envisaged constellation that we have in mind, but it does depend on how one perceives South Africa and what the traditional South Africa is. The traditional South Africa was never a South Africa that was united in a single political entity, until 1910, which is only 70 years ago and that is a very short time in the history of any country. It depends on whether one sees this as the real South Africa, the traditional South Africa or whether one sees South Africa as it traditionally is, which is a subcontinent in which many nations have always lived. South Africa is equivalent in area to between seven and eight of the present States constituting the European Community, in which nine different nations live. They operate in a community which could be called a constellation of States, or a confederation. They do not surrender their sovereignty to any superior Parliament. These States are a part of Europe, which, if one looks at it factually, is not a continent, but a subcontinent of Eurasia. Large parts of this subcontinent of Europe where artificially united into single political entities by various imperial interventions: the Roman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire and so forth. In the same way the subcontinent of South Africa was united into an artificial political entity by an imperial intervention, namely that of the British Empire.

What was the result of these imperial interventions in Europe? Repeated conflicts took place until Europe reverted to its natural constituent parts so that each nation had ethnic self-determination, as the French, the Germans, the Dutch, etc., have it today. The ideal, as Woodrow Wilson said after the Treaty of Versailles, was that each nation should be permitted to rule itself as it pleased, preferably within its own territory. To a large degree that has brought about peace in Europe, and where this was not realized, such as in Yugoslavia, in Belgium and in Spain with its Basques, Spaniards and Catalans, the seeds of conflict remained. They will remain in South Africa too until South Africa reverts to its natural constituent parts so that each nation can have ethnic self-determination and rule itself as it pleases, preferably in its own territory.

The division of power is the only thing in all history that has been known to work, and power-sharing formulae, whether in terms of federation, proportional representation, meritocracy or a qualified vote, have always failed. They have failed for a single reason, namely the moral incapability of the human race to share power fairly. Individuals may be moral and Christian, but amongst groups one finds a vying for power in power-sharing situations in poly-ethnic societies, which inevitably leads to conflict and one group dominating the other. It is therefore important to know from the NRP where they stand and whether their concept is one of confederation, in terms of which there will be a division of power as we see it, or one of federation. If it is one of confederation along the lines of the Swiss system, it is in fact a federation. If that is how they see it, they have of course very much more in common with the PFP than with us, but if they see the confederation as we see it and as dictionaries interpret it, they may find that they have more in common with us, and therefore I should like to repeat my question whether they are only negotiating in the Opposition context to find whether there is common ground or whether they are negotiating with all parties.

The formula of the division of power has been shown throughout history to be the workable formula which eliminates conflict instead of engendering it, whereas power-sharing has always resulted in conflict. This is why we also quarrel with the federal concept of the NRP, as we do with that of the PFP. It is incomprehensible to me why the Whites, the urban Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians should form a federation in which each of them will, at best, have no more than a quarter of the share in the confederal council while the independent nation States should be regarded as wholes in the confederal council. In other words, the Whites, the Coloureds, the Indians and the urban Blacks will only have a quarter of the say in the confederal council whereas smaller States such as Venda, Transkei and Bophuthatswana will have full say.

You cannot be that ignorant.

The hon. member promised to reply to me on that aspect and he has not done so.

You do not even have a basic understanding of it.

Well, I should then like to hear his definition of it.

[Inaudible.]

In this federal concept of theirs what guarantee can they give that any Whites will be represented in the confederal council at all? What guarantee have they got …

You are pathetic, to say the least.

… that the Coloureds, the Indians and the Blacks will not gang up in a tactical alliance against the Whites as the three Black liberation groups did in Angola against the Portuguese? Once the Portuguese had been eliminated, they started fighting amongst themselves. What guarantee do they have that that cannot happen?

Are you suggesting that it will happen here?

I think that it can happen in terms of your policies.

Are you suggesting that it is going to happen here?

It is possible. [Interjections.] I am suggesting that that could happen if those two parties came to power. [Interjections.] I would like to know from them what guarantee they can give the Whites of South Africa that it will not happen if they were to come to power.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he is suggesting that, in the federal area where Whites, Indians, Coloureds and urban Blacks will be living, that sort of Angolan situation could come about between those four groups in South Africa?

Yes, Sir, that is what I am suggesting and that is why I suggest that power-sharing is not an option in this country. We feel that the division of power is the only guarantee one can have that will prevent that kind of sorry situation from arising, because power-sharing situations have resulted in precisely that. The Portuguese did have power sharing. The Cypriots did have power-sharing. The Northern Irish did have power-sharing. In the Indian subcontinent there was power-sharing. There was power-sharing between the Israelis and the Arabs in 1947, and everywhere it has resulted in civil war of the kind that happened in Angola. That is why I respectfully ask: If it happened everywhere else in the world, what is going to prevent it from happening in South Africa? I would therefore be obliged if that party would finally give us an answer.

Mr.Speaker, allow me to convey to you my gratitude for the opportunity afforded me to address this House. It is surely one of the greatest privileges, not only to be elected to Parliament, but also to be able to represent one’s constituency and one’s nation in this, the highest council chamber. I should also like to pay tribute to my two predecessors, Mr. J. du Pisanie, and ex-Minister Mr. W. A. Cruywagen. Between them they have faithfully served the Germiston constituency for 30 years. The former for plus/minus 12 years, and the latter for 18 years. We in Germiston have always been aware that they performed their task with great diligence and dedication and that they made important contributions in the interests of this country.

On this occasion, on behalf of the Germiston constituency, I should also like to congratulate Mr. Cruywagen and wish him everything of the best in his new appointment as Administrator of the Transvaal.

If we review the growth and progress of South Africa in every field during the past three decades, in comparison with other parts of the world it seems almost incredible. Allow me just to point out a few facets. In the field of mechanical and electronic engineering, computer programming together with extremely modern equipment has caused this industry to develop to maximum productivity and accuracy. In the sphere of civil engineering and construction work we need not look far. At once schemes such as the Orange, the Fish River, the Tugela and Sasol 2 come to the fore. The freeways and country-wide road-building programmes which have come into being in the course of a few years, are surely among the finest in the world, particularly if the extremely long distances are taken into account. As far as mining is concerned, South Africa is certainly a world leader. Steel shaft head structures have disappeared and ultra-modern concrete units have made their appearance. By using highly sophisticated and developed equipment the optimum has been achieved in the development process. The generation of power is probably one of the most important problems facing any country, particularly rapidly developing countries, such as South Africa. With the cost of crude oil—something which we unfortunately do not have at this stage—rising constantly, we do have adequate coal reserves and several other products as replacements. Therefore it is commendable that, with a view to the future, the conventional methods of power generation will ultimately make place for atomic power, as already seems to be the case. Transportation is another one of the sectors where great progress is being shown. The S.A. Airways is one of the most modern airways in the world and has an excellent safety record. As far as our train services are concerned, whether passenger or goods services, this service is handled extremely effectively and the passengers enjoy maximum transport facilities. Urban and peri-urban services ensure express transport with a minimum of travelling time. I believe we have one of the best organized transport systems.

†Having highlighted the progress made over the past 30 years, I must also say that we are faced with certain problems. Between now and the year 2000 the expected population explosion, along with the ever-growing threat of unemployment, increases the possibility of increased inflation. This will automatically have an adverse effect on our growth rate. It has therefore become necessary and most important that our labour resources, especially in our industrialized areas, be used to the hilt. Bearing in mind the abovementioned factors, I believe that we should embark on a strategy to allow people, particularly in the Witwatersrand area, to be transported to and from work in the shortest possible time. The situation has now reached the stage where it has become necessary to decide on a transport and land use strategy for the future so that detailed planning can proceed. “Land use” means the allocation of land for residences, offices, shops, industries, etc., and properly-conceived transport proposals should serve the land use, at present and in future, with as major goals the provision of mobility and convenience with reasonable cost and minimum side-effects. It is therefore important to keep these four goals in mind, because the success of the transport aspect of these proposals will be measured in terms of how well these goals are achieved. The growth factor is creating problems in viable metropolitan areas universally. It is estimated that the population growth in the abovementioned areas will have increased, in comparison with the population figures as in 1975, as follows: Whites by 53% to 1 279 000; Blacks by 49% to 1 635 000; Coloureds by double to 227 000 and Asians by double to 103 000. The total population will thus have increased from 2,1 million to 3,25 million. Furthermore, in 1975 there were 219 cars per 1 000 people in the Witwatersrand area, while the estimated figure for the year 2000 is 378 cars per 1 000 people, with an increase amongst Black car owners of almost 500%, viz. from 39 cars per 1 000 people to 203 per 1 000. By the year 2000 it is estimated that the proportion of Black households owning no cars will be 28% as opposed to 82% in 1975. The total work trips in the morning peak will more than double, to over one million trips per day by the year 2000. The problem presently facing municipal authorities is the availability of funds in order that they may implement envisaged proposals and grants to the extent of 50% to 60%, totalling approximately R824 million, which will need to be made available between now and the year 2000.

*In view of the aspects to which I have referred in passing, it is my humble opinion that if we utilize to the full our labour force, brain power, skills, competence and our vast mineral wealth, together with the undertaking to create opportunities for all our population groups, and in this way constellate our forces, South Africa will develop into a powerful country.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Germiston has been in public life for a long time and has gained a great deal of knowledge as a result of his past experience. In his maiden speech the hon. member proved that here this afternoon. This knowledge will enable him to make a good contribution in future debates. He has family who came originally from the Eastern Cape, and therefore it gives me great pleasure to congratulate him on an excellent maiden speech. In his speech he discussed important matters, inter alia, the utilization of land and industries, and I assume that what he said will enjoy the attention of the Government. I wish the hon. member well in this House.

†Mr. Speaker, we welcome the appointment of the Committee for Financial Policy and Strategy. We wish Dr. De Loor well in the very important post of Director-General. We think that the ½ ounce gold coins are essential and we hope that the name “Kruger rand” can be incorporated somewhere along the line, because this name has become a household word throughout the world. We might perhaps call it the “half Kruger rand”. We are also very pleased with the assistance—and I want the hon. the Minister of Agriculture to listen now—given to farmers and we welcome the announcements by the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Agriculture which we saw in today’s newspapers. We approve of this assistance and are sure that if the hon. the Minister of Agriculture finds that this assistance is insufficient, he will use the time between now and the introduction of the main budget to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance to increase it.

The hon. the Minister of Finance is flush with money and as a result has a peculiar problem. In the light of the enormous additional income he has to determine his priorities correctly. He has the opportunity of laying solid foundations, so that South Africa can grow into the golden years of the 1980s. More money and concessions must flow from the central Government to the private sector and to the consumer to ensure sufficient growth to alleviate our unemployment situation. There are a host of necessities, but let us look at some of the priorities. I am not going to attempt to mention them in order of merit. It is obviously essential that we obtain the highest possible price for our gold. I do not expect the hon. the Minister to make a complete disclosure of our marketing system, but I would like an assurance from him that he tries to market our gold by placing it with long-term holders and keeping the supply to the free market as short as possible. I see from a newspaper article that Saudi-Arabia intends boosting its gold reserve by the end of 1980 to R7 200 million. Most of this gold will be supplied directly by Soviet Russia. This will effectively remove a large source of supply to the free market.

We understand that the International Monetary Fund will stop selling gold towards the middle of 1980, and we have our doubts whether the USA will continue to sell gold at the same rate as in the past. South Africa is thus virtually the only supplier of consequence of new gold. In addition to the sale of Kruger rands—the sale of which we must continue—we must ensure that we place our new gold in the hands of long-term holders. The free market is bound to feel the effects of that. I do not expect the hon. the Minister to commit himself further than an undertaking to investigate this possibility, if it has not already been investigated. Wherever it is possible to sell Kruger rands, every man, woman and child must be educated that gold, unlike currency, is something worthwhile passing on from generation to generation. A publicity campaign exceeding all past publicity campaigns must be launched. The Government should take the lead and give tangible assistance in such a publicity campaign. We know that the Government gives substantial concessions to the gold-mines, but these concessions must be increased to the utmost to ensure that they continue to mine even though most marginal of mines. This will have the effect of creating more employment and, of course, creating more gold. On the other hand, the mining houses have a duty towards their shareholders in regard to dividends. If they are to plough back large amounts into marginal mining, I believe the Government should compensate shareholders by, for example, reducing the tax further on dividends received from the gold-mining companies.

We can expect a lot from our mineral industry, but it is absolutely vital that our other exports increase to a far greater extent than at present. The hon. the Minister will know that the greater our exports, the longer our production lines and the cheaper we can produce, the greater our production and employment. This in turn means a far greater capital investment in every sector of the economy. To achieve this, exporters must be given bigger and better concessions.

I know all about GATT, but if Japan can export cars to America at a price lower than they are sold for in Japan, South Africa must ensure that every exporter and every potential exporter is given incentives that make it irresistible to increase production and to export. These incentives are costing us a lot of money, and will cost us even more money, but our returns will be such that they could never be measured in monetary terms. Our future financial stability and economic growth are undisputed. It is obvious that the hon. the Minister must continue to provide for an ever-increasing defence expenditure. That is absolutely essential, and no one argues about that.

The main problem which we have to seek to resolve is the question of political stability. If all hearts beat as one in the interests of South Africa, no external force can ever divide us. There is a place in the sun in South Africa for all her peoples. Our wealth lies not in the mining industry, but in the quality of our peoples. The politicians and other supporters of the right try to present the hon. the Prime Minister as a liberal. They think that power can only be retained by an inflexible approach. One has only to look at the Germany of four decades ago. They had an inflexible attitude, and what happened? In the end the, mighty German Reich fell. Inflexibility can never survive anywhere. The politicians and their supporters on the left think that capitulation politics is the answer, although they frame it differently. Without any doubt this would be committing national suicide. In the interest of all the peoples of South Africa we appeal to the left and to the right to come together temporarily and to assist the hon. the Prime Minister to implement policies that ensure the stability of the Southern African situation and of this continent. We cannot afford to try to escape the realities of our situation. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister has assessed the situation correctly and has indicated the direction. This direction gained the approval last year of business leaders, the majority of whom are not Government supporters. Yet they approve of the direction and of the lead given by the hon. the Prime Minister.

I believe the Press has a vital role to play in this process. They should not create a platform for left or right extremists. They should test the bona fides of the hon. the Prime Minister by giving him an opportunity and giving him encouragement. I believe there should be a temporary political truce with the implicit understanding that should an election take place and the hon. the Prime Minister has obviously not delivered the goods as it were, the political parties and the Press will know how to deal with the situation. If the election takes place in November 1982, according to the normal calculation, then 1980 and 1981 should be the best years to for the people of all races to stand together to build a bigger and better South Africa. In 1982, the year of assessment, if the people of South Africa feel that the hon. the Prime Minister has not done what they have expected from him, the voters will have the opportunity of effecting a change of Government. 1980 and 1981 are the years of negotiation between the hon. the Prime Minister and the leaders of the other groups. Unfortunately the more interference the hon. the Prime Minister experiences from the left or the right, the less his chances of success will be. If the hon. the Prime Minister adopts a reasonable and sincere approach we can at least expect that the leaders of the other groups should adopt a similar approach.

I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister and the responsible leaders of the other groups can find each other if they are left alone to negotiate in peace. If all South Africans can find each other the financial and economic future of this country will be prosperous and most exciting for all the people in Southern Africa and in South Africa.

I should now like to deal with another matter. People with fixed incomes, people in retirement, some of them in the twilight of their lives, find their incomes hopelessly insufficient and cannot succeed in making ends meet. Maybe some hon. members of this House are among them too. [Interjections.] Participation bond rates and building society investment rates have dropped. In order to make ends meet, local authorities have increased rates, and rates in cities such as Port Elizabeth have soared sky high. The Browne Committee is due to report this year and the Government must alleviate the plight of local authorities and their ratepayers. A partial solution for local authorities would be if the Government and the Province paid full rates on all properties owned by the Central Government and by the Province. If they paid full rates on land owned by the Government on which buildings were not erected within a specific period of time …

Not the Railways.

Mr. Speaker, since when are the Railways not part of the Central Government?

Of course, they are separate. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the Railways are the heart of the Government, and the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs is sitting in the driver’s seat. As a matter of fact, the hon. the Minister should be supporting me at this moment. If the suggestion was put into operation—the suggestion about the Central Government paying full rates—again using Port Elizabeth as an example, we would receive millions upon million of rand in extra income. This would enable the municipality of Port Elizabeth to alleviate the plight of the ratepayers of the city. Make no mistake, prohibitive rates have a detrimental effect on commerce and on industrial development. Retired people on a fixed income should not be forced to sell their houses because of an inability to pay their rates. An income limit can be fixed, and those under that income limit should be exempted from paying rates. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister of Finance to consider the imposition of an income limit for elderly people. Those under that income limit should be exempted from paying rates. I believe this is a very valid plea, and I hope the hon. the Minister will consider it when he frames his budget.

Until a few years ago certain categories of home-owners received a 2% subsidy. We should like to ask why this 2% subsidy cannot be reintroduced in order to assist home-owners, sectional title holders and tenants in a certain income group to retain their homes. Surely this is the year in which all bond interest could be deducted from taxable income. This plus special depreciation allowances and reduced company and personal tax would encourage the building of flats and homes.

Where would we get all the money?

I am asked where we would get all the money. The money, however, is there. The flat-building programme has to be increased, or within a relatively short space of time we are going to be short of flats in certain major centres in South Africa. This is the year in which we hope we can look forward to the abolition of the means test, subject to certain safeguards. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister of Finance to make this the year of the pensioner and to pay pensions that take into account what it actually costs a pensioner to live. I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister if the full R250 million, made available for additional housing, has been spent, because we would like to see large additional funds made available for housing so that we can have the maximum amount possible to eliminate the backlog. The Government, I admit, has done much for housing in recent years, but the next few years are absolutely vital to the elimination of the backlog. The home-owner is a man who has a very real stake in this country, and he would go to any length to protect that stake. That is why we must encourage as many people as possible to become home-owners. Tax reductions are generally required, and I should therefore like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to abolish the surcharge, more especially where it affects the motor industry and other industries.

Food is going to be one of our greatest weapons in the search for peace in a world in which millions upon millions of people are starving. Farmers must obtain a proper return on their investment and the consumer must be able to afford food that is very reasonably priced, even as prices increase. In 1979-’80 the Government subsidized maize to the tune of R45 million, wheat products to the tune of R117 million and dairy products to the tune of just over R4,7 million. The Government will, however, have to increase the subsidies and their scope during the coming year. It is most important for the hon. the Minister to declare war on unemployment and to give every incentive possible to encourage commerce and industry to expand. It is also important for us to reduce the export of our raw materials and for the hon. the Minister to do everything in his power to ensure that industries are established to make certain that we can export finished or semi-finished products. This would have an enormous effect on our export earnings and, of course, create jobs for thousands upon thousands of people who are unemployed.

I realize that private enterprise must play a very vital role in this process. The Government may, however, have to help with some risk capital initially, as was done with some of our public corporations and with Sasol. If there are safeguards the institutions, the people in commerce and industry and the man in the street will invest as they did in Sasol. Members of the public were very fortunate in the case of Sasol in that they did not have to lay out any of the risk capital that was required. So the Government may have to take the lead and give assistance as far as risk capital is concerned. We have the knowledge, the expertise and the foresight to ensure that our resources, our life-blood, are not exported merely in the form of raw materials.

I now come to the final point I wish to make. We have lodged pleas in the past, and are going to do so again today, to free the Army, the Navy and the Air Force from the salary limitations of the Public Service Commission. In asking for this, we in no way reflect on other people falling under the Public Service Commission. In fact, we hope that the new structure that is proposed will mean a new and better deal for the people who have dedicated themselves to the public service, and we hope that the in-depth studies that have been done by the Public Service Commission will ensure, amongst other things, that teachers and nurses are given their fair place in the sun and are encouraged to continue in their professions. The Army, the Navy, the Air Force and the Police are in the front line of service when it comes to hazards, injury and death. They cannot be expected to work normal working hours and, in fact, they do not work normal working hours. Because of the particular difficulties faced by the people in uniform, however, we feel that it would be better if they were freed from the salary limitations imposed by the Public Service Commission. The hon. the Minister can, of course, prove us wrong next month if, in his budget, he can achieve better recognition, within the public service, than we believe can only be achieved outside the limitations imposed within the public service.

Finally I want to get back to the question of gold. The hon. the Minister asked us, in another debate, on what price for gold he should frame his budget. If we must be ultra-conservative we would say $350 per ounce, but if we merely want to be conservative we would say $400 per ounce. We have now given him an indication of our thinking, and we hope he will give us an indication of his thinking.

Mr. Speaker, I now move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) to promote sufficient economic growth to ensure stability and combat unemployment;
2. (2) to alleviate the impossible financial position of pensioners and people with fixed incomes;
3. (3) to give local authorities the necessary financial assistance to enable them to overcome their financial problems and to alleviate the crushing burden of rates currently paid by their ratepayers;
4. (4) to free the Army, Navy, Air Force and Police from the salary limitations of the Public Service Commission and to ensure that public servants, e.g. teachers and nurses, are given greater recognition in their salary scales;
5. (5) to encourage the establishment of industries to ensure that South Africa will reduce its export of raw materials.”.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Walmer must please forgive me if I do not refer to him. We are good friends back in Port Elizabeth. I found it quite remarkable that he and other members of the Opposition indicated today that they want millions of rands from the Government although they stated previously that we would be bankrupt by now.

I should like to deal briefly with a matter which is of topical interest in my constituency. Then I should just like to say in passing that I am pleased and I appreciate it that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is present in his bench, because there is a small matter I should also like to settle with him today. [Interjections.]

In the first place I should like to thank the hon. the Minister of Finance for the wonderful gift that he gave our aged people. Our aged people appreciated that gift. They had a happy Christmas. I find it remarkable that the Opposition is also making a plea on behalf of the aged now. Surely it is a matter of principle and a tradition in the National Party that we always look after our old people. Surely our old people are not neglected.

I find it a pity that the hon. the Minister of Finance has not been able to issue us with copies of the Browne report yet. We are looking forward to it. Sir, there are certain things that are not as they should be. There are certain problems that our aged have to overcome, viz. the declining interest rates and the ever-increasing municipal rates. Not only are the municipal rates increasing, but there are also sporadic increases in the rental of economic and sub-economic homes. I see that the hon. the Minister of Community Development is also present. In my constituency the rental for ordinary houses has been increased by R6 per month. For a man who has received an increase of R10 in his old age pension, it is very difficult when the rental is increased by R6 per month at the same time. I trust that the hon. the Minister of Finance will bear this in mind. We know that he will look after our aged and that he will also try to speed up the availability date of the Browne report. I want to thank him for the attention he has given this matter.

Then I should like to discuss a matter with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He must not hold this against me. He insulted me in his speech the other day. Sir, I am a strange man: If I am dealt a blow, I accept it, but I also hit back when I have the opportunity.

Hear, hear!

In the course of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s speech there were 41 interjections and interruptions. However, if he takes a look at his Hansard, he will see that I did not interrupt him once. However, he insulted me. He said: “That hon. member for Port Elizabeth North kept on interrupting me.” Mr. Speaker, if one did not keep on interrupting someone and he says that you did, may you or may you not say that he lied?

Order! The reply is that the hon. member may not say that.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. Do you know what the situation is now? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is a disappointed and frustrated man, and do you know why? It is because the Opposition praised him to the skies and told him: “We are going to turn you into a superman. We are going to make you the king of kings.” I do not think he received the crown that he was expecting. But if he behaves himself properly there is a possibility that he may receive a crown in the hereafter. The leftist Press said that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would attract Afrikaans-speaking people in their thousands to the PFP. However, not a single one joined, and now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is furious with me and insults me because no one has joined. [Interjections.] But that is not all. He also held an election in Stellenbosch and I believe he polled only about 37 votes. [Interjections.] Now he feels disappointed because he has not attracted any Afrikaans-speaking people to the PFP, and he has lost the election in Stellenbosch to boot. Now he feels like anyone would under the circumstances, like a male baboon that has been driven out by the troop. [Interjections.]

What about his deposit?

When the leftist, communist, English-language Press praised him to the skies like that, I prayed for him. I was afraid that the leftist Press would put his head in a noose. I was afraid that he would bend before that Press and, can you believe it, my prayer was not answered. I find this very strange. [Interjections.] Recently the hon. the Minister of Manpower Utilization asked the hon. member for Houghton—and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition confirmed it—whether, if they should come into power, they would amend or repeal the Suppression of Communism Act, and she replied that they would allow a Communist Party in South Africa.

Oh, nonsense.

I have the words here. I want to repeat the words and then deal with them. She said that as long as they did not preach violence, they would be allowed. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also confirmed this and I want to deal with this matter now. I can hardly believe that a man who is an academic, is not aware of the communist and Marxist techniques in South Africa After all, they will not come along and rant and rave at us and say that they are going to bring the country to its knees by means of revolution. Surely they are going to infiltrate the Government departments and the Defence Force in a peaceful manner. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that he will only take action when they cause trouble. Can he not see the dangers? After all, the communists are not such fools. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition sees his way clear to sleeping amongst puff-adders and mambas, but he will try to escape from the snakes only when they have struck at his heart. The day the communist snake strikes him, the day the puff-adder and the mamba strike at his heart, he will be finished. Then he will no longer be able to offer any resistance. However, this is the man who must lead us in South Africa. He is willing to sleep with the Marxists, to crawl into the same bed with them, and only when they strike at him, will he defend himself.

Order! The hon. member is going much too far. The hon. member must withdraw the words that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is willing to sleep with Marxists.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them. He said that he would not hinder them. He will admit them. I want to say that it is the first time that I see a Leader of the Opposition like him in this House. In my opinion, he is the most stupid leader of the Opposition that South Africa has ever had in this House. In my opinion he is far more stupid than his predecessor, who had the McHenry fever. [Interjections.] In my opinion he is the most stupid, the worst leader of an Opposition the world has ever known. [Interjections.]

Order! It does not contribute to the dignity of this House if hon. members accuse one another of being stupid. The hon. member must moderate his language in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, you must see this in the context in which he insulted me. Now I feel that I, too, have the right to hit back. It is man to man now, and blow for blow. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is a frustrated man. Why is he frustrated? He is frustrated because the man who is sitting next to him, would like to take over the leadership of his party. He knows that he cannot depend on the loyalty of his people behind him. The hon. member for Houghton is frustrated too. Why? She is frustrated because during every recess she has to carry messages between South Africa and America. They cram her head with messages and turn her into a computer lady, which means that she never has a rest. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Pinelands, with his blond hair, is angry because the Suppression of Communism Act, which keeps communists in South Africa in check, has not been repealed.

You are talking absolute nonsense. I think you should resume your seat.

The hon. member for Bryanston is also disappointed, I am sorry that I do not see him here now. He is disappointed because he cannot find a new head for his body. However, if the Lord spares me, I shall make an appeal to the hon. the Minister of Health that, one day when medical technology in South Africa has advanced so far that they can perform a head transplant, he should do a head transplant on him, but—and I shall pay for it—it must be the head of a pig. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. member say that there is an hon. member in this House who should have a pig’s head?

Yes, Sir.

Then the hon. member must withdraw that immediately.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is an academic, and he ought to know our history. He probably knows that there was a Boer war in South Africa. At that time the Boers were fighting the Tommies. There were people at that time who held the Tommies’ horses behind the lines. Thank heaven that the Lord put a sign on those people. Surely hon. members know what that sign was. If one shook hands with them, one felt a limp hand and a cold arm. It was like touching an eel. We in South Africa must guard against our hand being as cold as an eel.

In the recent no-confidence debate they had the audacity to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that he must do away with discrimination and that, like Dr. Malan, he should say: “If I perish, I perish.” However, do they know the history of Dr. Malan? We do not want the words of Dr. Malan to be bandied about by an hon. member by the PFP. Dr. Malan was one of the ideal figures of South Africa. He left the ministry and, in his farewell sermon which he delivered on 6 June 1913, he used those words. He quoted the words of Esther and said: “If I perish, I perish.” They said that Dr. Malan left the ministry after the war because there was controversy among the Afrikaner leaders. There was no such controversy among the Afrikaner leaders. Dr. Malan did so because he realized that the Afrikaners in South Africa were in a terrible predicament. It must not be forgotten that this occurred only 11 years after a bloody war had been waged, a war of annexation in which the Afrikaner was shot to pieces. When the Boers returned from the battlefield, all they found were burnt-out homes. There were no women to welcome them. There were no childrens’ voices. All they found were the graves of 26 000 women and children. It was under those circumstances that Dr. Malan said what he said: I hear the call of my people; I am now going to become editor of Die Burger, and if I perish, I perish.

Dr. Malan, together with General Hertzog, Strydom and all the other great leaders of our nation, carried on the struggle. Then, in 1948, he became Prime Minister. Then he was crowned, not with a Marxist crown, but he received the crown of his nation, the Afrikaner crown, with love and confidence. How that man fought! Was he negative? No, he fought. First of all, he fought for us to be allowed to speak our own language in this country. After that he fought for South Africa’s own flag. The struggle for independence followed. He also laid for South Africa the foundations on which the Republic was built. It was in that context that Dr. Malan said: “If I perish, I perish.” Today we are once again engaged in a war. Our sons are engaged in a war once again. Do hon. members know how many of our sons are fighting on the borders today for the survival of our White civilization? It is not the sons of any Tom, Dick or Harry who are fighting there. It is our children who are fighting there. It is my child and your child who are dying there on the border. What contribution does the PFP make towards supporting those boys there on the border? Do those hon. members not know that it is a struggle between the Christian ideology and the Marxist view of life? Let some of those hon. members rise to their feet and tell me that they accept the Christian national view of life. Surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself knows how divided they are. Just take a look at your own party. Just look how divided your own party is. Look how few members there are in your party who accept the Christian national view of life.

Order! The hon. member may not address the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as “you” and “yours”. He must address the Chair when he speaks to hon. members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I defer to your decision. I have always referred to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition with respect and deference. What I now want to say about the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, is that he must be positive for once. He must tell the leftist Press that they must stop besmirching, besmearing and befouling South Africa. He must tell the world how much money the NP Government and the Afrikaner nation are spending on the upliftment of the non-Whites here in South Africa. Surely we cannot always be negative. He must tell the world how much money we are spending on primary and secondary education, and even on Universities. He must also tell the world what we are doing for non-Whites in the economic sphere. He must talk about the provision of employment, and also tell the world how many millions of rands we are spending on housing. Surely he would then be contributing something too. Why does the PFP allow the leftist Press to extol the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as a superman, while they sit still and do not want to do anything positive for the sake of the country and its people. I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon to extricate himself, to free himself from the thongs that bind him, that he should come forward, come back to his nation and do his share for his nation. He does not have to show the hon. the Prime Minister what to do. We have had great Prime Ministers in South Africa. We have had one great Prime Minister after another in South Africa. Each one-had a job to do, a task to accomplish in his time, and the present hon. the Prime Minister, who is sitting here today, has an even greater, more serious task to accomplish, and we are confident that he will do so. He has the support of those of us who stand behind him. We on this side of the House, we Nationalists, are on our knees to the Lord to thank him for a leader like the one that we have in our hon. Prime Minister today, a leader whom we are proud of and we pray that the Lord will give him the strength to tread the path of South Africa, and that he will not have to call in the aid of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is a particular privilege for any new member to make his first contribution in this House. I know that each new member is affected in one way or the other by the firm traditions and the dignified atmosphere of this House, and I should like to commence by thanking all those hon. members whose friendliness and thoughtfulness during this initiation period have made life tolerable for me. I appreciate their friendliness and thoughtfulness.

I do also believe though that on an occasion such as this most new members speak from the heart on matters which are of great concern to them. To my mind, therefore, it is only natural that I should speak on this occasion of Ceres and agriculture. It is significant that Ceres is really synonomous with agriculture, because Ceres was named after the goddess of agriculture and fertility.

I want to start by presenting the inhabitants of Ceres to you as people who are steadfast and have a balanced view of life. I think that that view of life has grown from their ties with the land. In the course of more than 31 years Ceres has sent four Government members to this House, men who have rendered valuable service with great distinction in this House and have been active in a wide sphere of our national life. I want to express grateful acknowledgement to them today and pay tribute to those four leaders—each was a leader in his own right—on behalf of the people of Ceres.

I want to make Ceres known to the House as a constituency of extremes and contrasts. I want to mention just two extremes. The first is rainfall. In the south, in the vicinity of Ceres and Gydo, there is an average rainfall of 830 mm a year. North of Ceres, near Calvinia, the rainfall drops to between 100 and 200 mm a year. The second extreme is the population density. It has been estimated that the productive area of the Hex River Valley consists of approximately 9 500 ha This region is divided into 153 farming units each of which measures about 62 ha. Approximately 40 people live on each farming unit. That makes the Hex River Valley probably one of the most densely populated agricultural areas in our country. When we go further, to the Karoo region of this constituency, we find numerous stock farms in excess of 9 500 ha On each of these farms there are only one White family and three or four Brown families.

These extremes confirm, in my view, a very old but also a very basic truth of agriculture, viz. that agriculture is tied to place and nature. Nature determines the risk element in agriculture, and the climate and the soil determine what branch of agriculture can be carried on in a particular region. I should like to ask now that when decisions are taken or criticisms expressed regarding agricultural planning and agricultural price determinations, we bear these limitations of agriculture in mind.

Thirdly, I should like to present Ceres to the House as an agricultural region, a constituency which is totally motivated on an agricultural basis. I want to dwell on just two agricultural industries. The first is sheep-farming, the wool and meat industries in the north in the vicinity of Calvinia, Niewoudtville, Sutherland and Touws River. Under normal circumstances in the past this region made a very important contribution to our meat and wool production. The sheep of that area, that is wool sheep, merino sheep and slaughter sheep, are known all over the country. That region was also known for its progressive and strongly established farming communities, communities with pride in themselves which were able to plan on a financially independent basis. But that region is now in the grip of a devastating drought which has continued for three years. There are certain areas of this region which last had rain three years ago and, as far as these regions are concerned, one can justifiably talk of disaster areas. This is a disaster which threatens the existence of man and animal in these areas.

I am pleased on the occasion of my maiden speech in this House to be able to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister of Finance, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture for the supplementary assistance measures that have been announced for this disaster area. This purposeful action by the Government convinces me of its understanding for and real sympathy with the people affected by these dreadful circumstances. It is clear to me that the assistance that the Government is giving is aimed at keeping the farmer on the land. I think that all of us in this House must support that approach. When one talks to those people, one is deeply impressed by their reasonableness, balanced outlook, resilience and faith. They have faith in their region, their land and the intervention of a Higher Hand. These are the sort of people we cannot afford to lose in agriculture. So I want to thank the Minister concerned again for the timeous help they have announced for these people.

The second important agricultural industry I want to mention is the deciduous fruit industry and table grape industry in the southern part of the constituency. The Hex River Valley produces 75% of our country’s table grapes for the export market. In 1979 the table grape producers of the Hex River Valley received almost R23 million for their export crop. In Ceres and its environs a large portion of the fruit for our country’s export market is produced. In 1979 the total payment to the fruit producers of Ceres was R10,5 million for their export crop. The products of this region are known for their really high quality which enjoys world wide recognition. The marketing of these products by the Deciduous Fruit Board is really a success story.

This board deserves our gratitude and appreciation because in 1979 it earned R206 million in foreign exchange for us on a wide range of overseas markets. But we must realize that this board has one great problem, i.e. ever-increasing shipping costs. In 1979 the Deciduous Fruit Board paid more than R50 million in shipping charges. Shipping charges are thus the unpredictable factor in the fruit farmer’s planning for the future.

Apart from the two agricultural activities I have mentioned, there are, of course, a large number of other agricultural products produced in Ceres such as wheat, potatoes, vegetables, dried and canned fruit and wine. It requires some effort on my part not to say more on this occasion about wine.

I hope I have convinced hon. members that Ceres values her name as the goddess of agriculture and fertility. I am also positive that Ceres is a dream constituency for any MP.

I want to present Ceres to hon. members as a reflection of the Western Cape as a whole. Agricultural development and growth is of basic importance to the growth and development of the Western Cape. In the field of the development of agriculture in this region there are clear danger signals and bottlenecks in the road ahead, of which I want to mention only three. The very first bottleneck is transport costs. The Western Cape is far from its most important markets in the north and abroad. Transport costs are therefore of basic importance to this region. The second bottleneck is the provision of electricity at reasonable tariffs. The fuel crisis has made the supply of electricity at reasonable tariffs an absolute necessity for the continued growth of the region. The third bottleneck is an adequate water supply at a reasonable tariff. In the higher rainfall areas of the region far too much water runs away to the sea. This water should be made available at reasonable cost to develop the full agricultural potential of the Western Cape. It is clear that these bottlenecks must be given our urgent attention if the Western Cape is to share in the new upswing in our country’s economy.

In conclusion, I just want to make one remark in regard to agriculture as a whole. At the outset I made the statement that we had to keep the right people on the land, people with the right attitude, expertise and experience. I think this is vitally important, especially against the background of the strategic importance of agriculture. If we are to succeed in our task there is one basic requirement, viz. that we must rectify the image of agriculture. Agriculture is too often and too easily presented as a struggling industry which is dependent for its survival on State subsidies; or else it is presented as an exploiter of the consumer through a policy of unrealistically high prices. This sort of misrepresentation destroys the image of agriculture and the farmer’s self-respect. It creates uncertainty and friction between producer and consumer, and it puts the future of agriculture and thereby that of the country in danger. That is why I want to give the undertaking today that I shall do my share, no matter how modest, to present the image of agriculture correctly in this House.

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I want to congratulate the hon. member for Ceres on his maiden speech this afternoon. It is obvious to all of us that he is not only a man who has the interests of the farmers at heart, but that he is also well-informed. On behalf of the House, I congratulate him on the very positive and informative speech he made this afternoon. We wish him well. It is obvious to all of us that we are going to enjoy his speeches as much in future as we enjoyed the one he made this afternoon. Hearty congratulations, and we wish the new hon. member for Ceres every good fortune.

I just wish to refer briefly to the speech by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North. Unfortunately he is not present in the House. I only wish to state that I hope that he was merely looking back on the past, and that it was not a vision of things to come as far as the attitude of NP frontbenchers was concerned. We shall leave the matter at that.

I wish to direct attention to the speech by the hon. member for Benoni.

†In the first instance I think the hon. member for Benoni, the NP Whips and frontbenchers, will agree that an attack on a frontbencher, in particular the leader of a party, without giving appropriate notice that such an attack is going to take place, can only leave one with the impression that the hon. member for Benoni did not want the leader of the NRP to be present. I believe that was uncalled for, and I should like to remind the hon. member for Benoni that there is a very good maxim which one should follow. That is that the manners maketh the man. [Interjections.] I believe it was totally inappropriate for the hon. member for Benoni to attack the hon. leader of the NRP in his absence. I also believe it is inappropriate, not only because the hon. leader of the NRP was not here in the House, but also because it does not create the sort of climate in which one can conduct a meaningful and positive dialogue across the floor. [Interjections.] We leave the matter there, however. I believe the hon. member for Benoni has got the point now and that possibly in the future he will attend to the etiquette of debate as much as he attended to his attack on the NRP today.

The hon. member for Benoni asked us what the intentions were in connection with the contact group of the NRP. He wanted to know why we had created it and what our intentions were in connection with contact with the NP. I should like to take the hon. member for Benoni back a few years in order to get the functions of this contact group into total perspective. The NRP initiated dialogue across party and racial lines in Natal quite a number of years ago. Dialogue is an on-going process. It is a prerequisite for consensus in South Africa, and consensus is a prerequisite for finding a peaceful solution to the constitutional proposals and difficulties which we face in this country. I should like to take the hon. member for Benoni back to 1976 when the NRP, then the United Party, commenced dialogue across racial and party lines with other members of the population of Natal. That particular dialogue and the positive climate that was established thereby resulted in the agreement which was signed by all parties concerned in Natal. I should like to put it to the hon. member for Benoni that this positive dialogue across party and racial lines in South Africa is the most important prerequisite to understanding the other man’s point of view. I do not believe we should prejudge issues to such an extent that we preclude achieving consensus and dialogue with people, even with those with whom we disagree.

Therefore, to answer his question directly about whether this party’s contact group or any other sector of this party is prepared to have discussions with the NP, I say: Yes, depending on the attitude of the NP. I should like, however, to stress the importance of finding a common understanding and a new trust among all sectors of the population of South Africa, because unless we can establish trust and re-establish mutual respect for each other by way of dialogue, I do not believe that the good work which is going to come out of the Schlebusch Commission would have any hope of being put into operation successfully. Furthermore, this old haunting cry of “do you believe in power-sharing or do you believe in the division of power”? is only there to engender feelings of emotional satisfaction in the minds of those who use this kind of terminology, and is not a tremendous contribution to finding solutions to the problems that face us in South Africa. As far as the hon. member for Benoni’s inquiries are concerned regarding the technical definition of a federation and a confederation or a constellation, I should like the hon. member to know that—I do not have much time here today—it would be a pleasure for us to give him a copy of our evidence to the Schlebusch Commission, a document in which he will find all the explanations which are necessary as far as the federal White area proposals are concerned. Unfortunately the Schlebusch Commission does not have the mandate to deal with the other parts of South Africa. Therefore, at that particular stage, we were unable to spell out as clearly as we have our federal concept in regard to the confederal nature. No doubt, however, there will be a suitable opportunity when the hon. member for Benoni and we will be able to discuss the technicalities and the difficulties between their interpretation of a confederation and ours.

Let me re-emphasize that I believe it is absolutely essential that all parties represented in this House should be able to find each other in terms of a common understanding of the proposals which were put forward for constitutional solutions. I hope the hon. member for Benoni will allow me to leave the matter there. He has an open invitation to come at any other time to discuss the technicalities of our proposals.

*I also wish to react to the speeches made by the hon. members for Smithfield and Pinetown yesterday. I do not wish to attack them. I wish to go so far as to congratulate the hon. member for Smithfield on his speech. I read it again this morning, and he presented an appreciable number of interesting and new statistics to the House. We are all agreed on the increasing of productivity, the lowering of the inflation rate, etc., which he mentioned, but the aspect on which we perhaps differ is in respect of the policy we wish the hon. the Minister of Finance to follow.

†Mr. Speaker, I believe that we can agree on many things. The hon. member for Pinetown highlighted here the differences in productivity levels between South Africa and other European nations. It is a sad state of affairs, whether it be for historical or other reasons, that we are so far behind with our productivity levels. I think, however, that the hon. the Minister of Finance in particular and the Cabinet in general can go a long way towards assisting us in solving the problems of inflation, unemployment and productivity. I believe that before we can actually tackle those problems it will be necessary for the Government, in particular the hon. the Minister of Finance, to possibly adopt a new attitude towards fiscal and political solutions in the South African scene. I believe that to date the Government has, to a very large extent, in attempting to tackle the problems of unemployment, inflation and productivity used a passive or reactive type of attitude in finding solutions. I believe it is absolutely essential that the attitude of the Government should change and that they should bring in a strategy of active participation in attempting to solve these problems. It cannot be a one-sided affair. The hon. the Prime Minister in his initiative at the Carlton Centre has clearly indicated that the old style co-operation, if one can call it that, or working together with other sections of the population and under the private free enterprise system cannot be done on a reactive passive basis between State, Government and private free enterprise. I believe that the Government must take positive initiatives in attempting to solve these problems, because the problems of unemployment, productivity and inflation are all inter-related and interdependent on one another. They are the tripods on which the quality and viability of life in South Africa rests squarely. That tripod, however, also cannot survive in a poor fiscal and political atmosphere. No more can our attempts at viability and prosperity in South Africa survive, grow and develop in a poor fiscal and political climate than a mammal can breath underwater. This is where the active aspects should be emphasized. The Government must take positive initiatives in order to stimulate the private free enterprise and political sectors to go in certain directions.

I would like to give the hon. the Minister of Finance an example of what I mean by a passive reactive policy and an active participant policy. When we come to unemployment, I believe the figures which we have at our disposal are subject to considerable error. Nevertheless, I will quote the official figures and see what we can make of it. The official figures indicate that we have approximately 1 million unemployed people in South Africa today, but this figure does not take into account the reduction in the number of farming units which we have had over the past eight to ten years. In fact, the number of viable farming units have been reduced from about 105 000 to about 77 000, and the number of people who became unemployed because of this reduction in farming units would add considerably to the figure of 1 million which is now accepted by the Government. In fact, I would go as far as to say that the unemployment figure at the moment, including those people who were previously unemployed in South Africa, has climbed to well over the 1,5 million mark, because if one looks at the reduction in employment in the farming sector, one can see clearly that at least ½ million people not reflected in official statistics, have lost their jobs in the last eight years.

A further aspect is the under-employment of people. There are estimated to be a massive numbers of about 2 million underemployed in South Africa. If we are going to solve productivity and inflation problems, we also have to tackle under-employment problems. This is where we would expect the hon. the Minister of Finance in particular, and the Cabinet in general, to play a positive and active role in determining fiscal and political policy.

There is mechanisation in agriculture too.

Thank you. Let me give an example. I want to give the hon. the Minister a positive indication of what we expect of him. The first thing he could do would be to introduce a fiscal policy which would encourage industries to train their employees across the board. I know that certain tax concessions and financial incentives have been given to companies, but just granting concessions and reducing tariffs is what I would call the reactive, passive type of participation of the Government. One should go further than that, find out where the problem areas are and initiate fiscal and tax benefits for the private sector in order to lead it in a particular direction.

A further indication and elaboration of this aspect lies in the training of people. As we have a massive unemployment figure of about 1,5 million, and about 2 million underemployed people, I believe the initiative lies fairly and squarely in the hands of the hon. the Minister to change that situation. I want to give an example. The hon. the Minister of Finance should take cognizance of the reality of the problem we have in South Africa in the training of people for industry. The tax concessions offered at the moment…

Mr.Speaker, now that the hon. member for Durban North has created an impression that may be misinterpreted, may I ask him whether I understood him correctly as saying that there are 3,5 million “unemployed” and “under-employed”?

Yes, that is quite correct. That was the figure I quoted. There are 1,5 million unemployed and 2 million under-employed. If the hon. the Minister of Manpower Utilization would like to wait for a while, I shall come back to it.

What is your source?

You would not understand.

I shall give the hon. member all my sources as soon as I have the opportunity. I should like to say that the hon. the Minister of Finance must take a realistic view of these problems. Tax concessions and fringe benefits are given to companies which train Blacks in particular for skilled jobs. In fact, a figure of R3 million was mentioned by the hon. the Minister of Finance last year as the cost of tax concessions to the State. He also predicted that it would cost in the region of R10 million for a full fiscal year. However, the problem we have in South Africa—and the hon. the Minister of Manpower Utilization may be able to confirm this—is that the in-service training centres we have for training these people in technical skills, suffer from a dearth of applicants, despite the tax concessions and the fiscal benefits available to companies. There is a very simple reason for this. My first appeal to the hon. the Minister of Finance is therefore to take active policy decisions. The problem is that the majority of the Blacks working in our factories are not so literate that they can benefit from training for the higher skills. Their fundamental training in the three “Rs”—reading, writing and arithmetic is such that although they have the intellectual capacity, their formal training has, for historical reasons, been lacking and therefore they cannot benefit from the training for the higher skills. This in itself is causing a bottleneck. The eight in-service training centres the hon. the Minister of Manpower Utilization’s department has built up, in particular the one in Pinetown, are suffering from a dearth of numbers, because the industrialists cannot afford to send these people, who have had insufficient formal education, to go and benefit from that training. I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister of Finance to see what he can do to provide a tax incentive and fiscal relief for companies to give in-service literacy training to their Blacks in the fundamental three “Rs”. The attitude of the hon. the Minister and his department to that has always been that it is not his function to take over the function of basic education for people of South Africa, but if one looks at the facts, one sees that these people are predominantly over the age of 25 years. We are not taking over basic education of the Blacks. Those people will never be going back to school again. So unless the hon. the Minister can see his way clear to providing some kind of fiscal incentive to companies to provide in-house training on their own premises, not at the in-service training centres, I am afraid we are going to sit with massive productivity, inflation and unemployment problems.

That is a real bottleneck in the system at the moment. Labour is not mobile, it is locked into the semi-skilled and unskilled jobs. If we can train these people—and there are thousands of them who could make use of the in-service training centres—provided the hon. the Minister of Finance gives some incentive to the companies to do this, we shall find that the mobility of labour will move upwards into semi-skilled and ultimately into skilled jobs. It is common knowledge that we shall be short of 50 000 skilled artisans in this country by the year 1984. The numbers cannot be made up from the White population. The industries which are going to be hardest hit by the shortage of 50 000 artisans are going to be the mining industry and the engineering industry. If they suffer we are in serious trouble in South Africa. We must start the upwards mobility of labour, up the skills ladder. The hon. the Minister of Finance can play an active role in promoting that development.

I have already mentioned the agricultural sector, but a further sector which requires close attention is the building industry. The building industry is one of the most labour-intensive industries in South Africa. Here again I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister of Finance to take a positive lead. There are some 400 000 mortgage-bond holders in South Africa and, for historical reasons, these are predominantly Whites. The average individual of those 400 000 is paying something like 30% of his total income on his house—on capital, interest, rates and taxes and maintenance. Those 400 000 are the stable core of society in South Africa They are the anchor of the ship of South Africa around which the boat turns. These are the people who really have their roots in South Africa They are committed to living here, like many other people in this sector of the economy, but I am talking specifically about those people who have made a considerable investment in real estate and therefore the wealth of the nation. A home is an Englishman’s castle, but I should like to say that the hearth and home of the South African is his kingdom. I believe that the hon. the Minister of Finance, in working out how he is going to distribute the wealth of this country, should give some recognition, some acknowledgement and some financial help to those 400 000 people and to those who went before them who are prepared to invest one third of their life’s income in real estate and the soil of South Africa. I want to ask him directly to apply his mind and his departments to apply theirs to providing relief for these people.

Building costs are soaring. It costs approximately R250 per sq. meter to build, and that is for a very modest home. The average householder today is paying R79 per month on rates and taxes. Then there is still maintenance which probably uses up another R400 to R500 per year. These are the homes of the future generations in South Africa No home and no family can develop a resistance to change—not to change in the sense of an adverse change but to the onslaught on South Africa—unless we encourage home-ownership. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would see his way clear to making interest paid on mortgage bonds for homes tax deductible for income tax purposes. I believe the hon. the Minister will be pleasantly surprised to find how little this will cost the State and how much it will help the citizens of South Africa. This is a benefit which can be spread to all population groups without any trouble at all. I believe that we now have the opportunity, with the income that this country has generated, to show our appreciation to and give an incentive in the future for people to invest in real estate and homes in South Africa. By doing so we solve many problems in one. The building industry, as I mentioned earlier, is labour intensive. It can make use of the present unskilled labour force, it can help to generate new semi-skilled occupations and it can create skilled occupations and opportunities for people of all population groups. The effect on the building industry will be momentous if the hon. the Minister will change from a passive, reactive type of philosophy to active initiation and taking the lead in this direction.