Mr. Speaker, following the point I raised with the hon. the Minister of Finance yesterday, I want to say that it would appear to me to be customary for the hon. the Minister to coin a phrase which epitomizes his financial strategy for each fiscal year. If my memory serves me correctly, I think for 1978 the hon. the Minister of Finance coined a slogan which epitomized his strategy as being one of constraint by financial discipline. For the fiscal period 1979-’80 the well-known phrase “growth from strength” was coined by the hon. the Minister. The extent to which the hon. the Minister has succeeded in fulfilling that expectation of “growth from strength” will obviously be the subject-matter of considerable debate during the main budget debate next month. However, in respect of possible phrases the hon. the Minister could coin for 1980-’81, I should like to make a very strong plea to the hon. the Minister that the slogan for this year should be “invest in our people”.

*In other words, I should very much like to see that the slogan for 1980-’81 should be “invest in our people”. It is undoubtedly ascribable to the acumen, the determination, ability and perseverence of the people of South Africa that we in South Africa are finding ourselves in such a fortunate position today as far as the economy of the country is concerned. It is their skill and ability that has made all this possible. It is their strength that has made South Africa what it really is as far as her economy is concerned, namely the jewel of the word.

†It truly is the people of South Africa who are our most precious and valuable commodity. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me, and also every hon. member of this House, when I say that an investment by the hon. the Minister in our people will certainly continue to provide a very handsome dividend and return.

My appeal to the hon. the Minister is to give to all the people of South Africa that which is due to them. I think particularly of the people in agriculture. The problems of the farmer have already been well enumerated by other hon. members in this House. I also think of the home-owners. Yesterday I requested the hon. the Minister to try to make interest paid on mortgage bonds deductible from income tax.

I also think of that continuing battle to eradicate illiteracy in South Africa amongst those poor individuals who due to historical and circumstantial factors have not been able to obtain formal education in the normal sense of the word. In talking about investing in our people, one’s mind turns in particular to the ordinary man and woman in South Africa, of all colours, particularly the White group, who have carried the burden of excessive income tax, joint income tax scales for husband and wife and who have carried loan levies willingly for so many years. I appeal to the hon. the Minister that when he thinks of this slogan of making an investment in our people, he will seriously consider these appeals. The hon. the Minister is a well-known economist. He lectured at a very distinguished university for many years, sometimes to distinguished pupils, and he may remember that epitaph that stated that gold is a real store of value. We have that in South Africa, but I believe that we have more than gold, and that the real store of value for South Africa is its people. I hope that the hon. the Minister will have a softer heart this year with regard to that real store of value.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the speech made by the hon. member for Durban North who has just resumed his seat. At the end of my speech I should like to come back to certain remarks he made yesterday. The hon. the Minister will most certainly furnish him with a reply with regard to the appeal he has made today, and consequently I do not want to say anything about that.

When the hon. member for Ceres made his maiden speech in this House yesterday, he said it was a privilege for him to be able to stand up in this Parliament and deliver his speech. I want to say that it is a privilege for me, today, to stand up in this House and deliver a speech and to do so from this side of this House. I should like to tell hon. members opposite—and this is something they are going to hear often in future: It is nice to be Nationalist. I recall that after the election of 1948 a large gathering took place on Church Square in Pretoria. Dr. Malan was there and all the members of Parliament went to Church Square. Thousands of people were present and there was excitement and a bubbling enthusiasm. I believe that if we want to enliven Church Square, as the Administrator said we should, we should bring politics back to Church Square. In any event, the members of Parliament got onto the stage and each one made a brief speech, and at that great moment Wennie du Plessis said: “Dis lekker om Nasionaal te wees.” Today I understand what that means. The NP is a party with a vision and with great ideals. The NP has a will to realize its ideals. It is a party with a plan to realize those ideals and, above all, the NP is a party with leaders which will lead it to realize those ideals. [Interjections.] I want to tell hon. members opposite that the NP is a party with resilience, vitality and a burning enthusiasm. It is a patriotic party, and therefore one can say today with a glad heart today and with conviction: “It is nice to be Nationalist!” The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who is not present here today, has probably also had a great deal of pleasure in his life, nor do I begrudge it him. The life of the Leader of an Opposition is surely a full one. He has a great deal of experience. However, there is one experience he has not yet had and which he will probably never have, and that is to feel how enjoyable it is to be able to say: “It is nice to be Nationalist!” I want to ask the hon. member for Pinelands, if he were to say something of this nature, how it would sound to say: “It is nice to be a Progfed?” People would say he was ridiculous. How would it sound if the hon. the Leader of the NRP, the hon. member for Durban Point, were to say: “It is nice to be NRP?” The people would think he was mad. However, if some members of the NRP were to join the PFP, we could understand that they would also want to say: “It is nice to be Progfed”, or perhaps it would lie easier on the tongue to say: “It is nice to be Fedprog.” We in the NP are determined to make a success of the implementation of the NP’s policy and the realization of its principles.

†I should like to say a few words on the ideals of the NP and the purpose of the Government. [Interjections.] The purpose of any Government is, inter alia, to maintain peace and security.

Which National Party?

The purpose of any Government is to promote social progress. [Interjections.]

Order!

I shall reply to the question of the hon. member for Durban Point which he hurled at me across the floor of this House. The hon. member asked: “Which National Party?” I want to give him the assurance that there is only one National Party and that is the one to which I belong. If he has been misled by Press reports over the weekend, then I want to say that those Press reports that seek to drive a wedge between the Leader of the National Party in the Transvaal and the hon. the Prime Minister have served a very good purpose. They have misled politically uninformed people and have confused the enemies of South Africa. There is only one National Party.

†I now wish to continue with what I really want to say. The intention of the Government is to improve the quality of life of all its peoples, to firmly establish fundamental human rights and to establish political rights for all men and women irrespective of race, colour or creed. But the question that we must ask ourselves is how this is going to be done. The strategy for successfully achieving this object depends on the various circumstances pertinent to any particular country. I want to draw attention to what I regard as the most important factor of South Africa’s political life, and that is that the 24 million people living within the geographical borders of the Republic of South Africa do not form a homogeneous entity. They are not one nation of which some individual members merely happen to be White and others merely happen to be Black or Coloured, as is the case in the United States. We in South Africa are heterogeneous because we have Whites, Blacks, Coloureds and Asians. If one takes a closer look at the Blacks of South Africa one sees that they are comprised of several major distinctive peoples. The Asian people of South Africa are not homogeneous. The Coloured people are not homogeneous. The Whites, also, do not form a homogeneous group.

*I believe we can rightly say that South Africa is a microcosm of the whole world; such a wide variety of people live in South Africa. There is a variety of faiths, races and peoples. This certainly makes South Africa one of the most difficult, if not the most difficult country in the world to govern today. The Government has an exceptional and difficult task in this regard.

Since peace and order has come to the ranks of the PFP, let us come back to the central theme of South African politics. The central theme of South African politics concerns power. It concerns the important question: Who governs whom? Hon. members know the statement “politics is about power”. Relative to this question of power is the question of a power struggle, and if we speak of a power struggle, we must speak about the powerbase which goes hand in hand with a power struggle. These are the relevant factors of South African politics of which we must take cognizance and which we must discuss when we want to discuss the politics of South Africa. Linked to that we have the question of conflict.

With regard to conflict I want to say that there can be no doubt that the more heterogeneous a society, the greater the potential for conflict and the more homogeneous, the smaller the potential for conflict. Since the Black people of South Africa do not form a homogeneous group, the potential for a Black-Black conflict in South Africa is a reality which we in South Africa must take into account.

If we examine how the outside world sees and conceives of South Africa, if we examine what the Opposition people say about South Africa, then we see that South Africa is being presented as having a potential for conflict between Whites and Blacks only. What could be further from the truth? The greatest potential conflict in South Africa must surely be similar to the conflict in the rest of Africa, viz. between Black and Black. If we examine the history of Africa and of South Africa in this regard, we see that the most blood that has flowed in conflict situations in South Africa and Africa, has flowed in conflict situations between Blacks and Blacks; not between Black and White but between Black and Black.

If we examine the position in Rhodesia, we see a conflict situation. The same applies in South West Africa. There the White-Black struggle is no longer the real conflict. The real conflict is that between Black people and Black people. If we want to form an image of the future in this regard, of what will be best for South Africa and all its people, we must take into account the fact that we must defuse the potential power struggle between Black and Black in South Africa. We must formulate a policy that will remove the whole potential power struggle in South Africa and not only aspects of it.

It is in this very respect that we must now examine the existing plan for the future of South Africa. We must examine what our future plan for South Africa is, and we must examine that of the PFP and the NRP. We must not ask ourselves whose plan looks best on paper. It is immaterial which one looks best on paper; which party has a plan which merely reads best. The question is: Which party’s plan will solve the power struggle in South Africa? Is it the PFP’s plan that will solve the power struggle between Black and Black and Black and White, or is it the NP’s plan?

Never.

Neither of them. Only the NRP …

Let us begin by examining the PFP’s plan. The hon. member for Durban Point must pardon me, since I am not going to devote much attention to the NRP today.

When we examine the PFP’s federation plan, I want to ask them where such a plan has succeeded in a heterogeneous community such as South Africa’s or in one comparable to the situation in South Africa? Where in the world has their plan succeeded? This is the question I am asking the PFP.

Where has the NP’s plan succeeded?

That is a very interesting question which the hon. member for Von Brandis, no, for Constantia, has asked me. He was formerly the member for Von Brandis, but he was kicked out and is now the hon. member for Constantia. He asked me where the NP’s plan has succeeded. I shall reply to the question very specifically, but first he must tell me across the floor, where in the world the PFP’s plan has succeeded. Tell us which example the PFP is using as a basis. Where has the plan succeeded?

Tell us what the NP’s plan is.

Where has the PFP’s plan succeeded? There is a deathly silence on that side of the House. The PFP’s plan has never succeeded anywhere in the world. In Africa the PFP’s federation plan or a similar plan has been implemented on innumerable occasions and has failed on innumerable occasions. I challenge the PFP to come and tell us that their constitutional plan for the future has already been successful in some country or other. Come and tell us. Tell us across the floor where it has succeeded. [Interjections.]

There are federations in the world that are successful, but none in a situation such as we have in South Africa, where the population is so heterogeneous. A federation can only work where there is a large common denominator among the various constituent parts of the federation. The greater the common denominator, the greater the chances of success for the federation. What is the common denominator among the various peoples of South Africa? It is not culture, it is not skin colour, it is not constitutional experience and it is not religion. There is no fundamental common denominator in South Africa which one usually finds in the rest of the world where federations exist. There is no unity of language; there is a wide variety. Therefore I believe that the same will happen with a federation in South Africa as in the rest of the world where federations have failed. One of two things happen: Either there is a centralizing of power—power is removed from the constituent parts—or certain parts of the federation break away and the federation disintegrates. How is such a federation to work in practice? As far as we know, and as I understand it, such a federation must have a strict constitution with a “Bill of Rights” and the courts must apply the “Bill of Rights” in the constitution.

Where in Africa has a “Bill of Rights” ever protected the rights of minorities? Where has a “Bill of Rights” made any contribution to establishing fundamental human rights in Africa? In 1970 Lesotho had a “Bill of Rights”. When Chief Jonathan did not like the result of the approaching election, he tore up the constitution, “Bill of Rights” and all, and threw the Opposition in jail. There is no security for minorities in “Bills of Rights” or in strict constitutions; security must be sought elsewhere. The question which now arises is why federations do not work. The reason, with all due respect, is that an effort is made to share too much power in a federation, and the power struggle is not eliminated in a federation. Suppose we have a national convention. Suppose, too, that as a result of the national convention a constitution is drafted. Let us also suppose that the Black leaders, as a further move on the chessboard of the power struggle in South Africa, say that they accept a federal constitution. Does this document mean that there is going to be security for the constituent parts, the minorities in such a federal dispensation? This is not true. If there is no peace and a need for co-operation in the hearts of the people of a country, the constitution will not be able to protect anyone.

When the Lancaster agreement was finally signed in London, Lord Soames was already in Rhodesia. When that agreement was signed, great excitement prevailed, because finally there was agreement among the various parties. I saw Lord Soames announcing dramatically on television that “peace has come to Rhodesia”. Why did he say so? Because there was an agreement. Today we know that that agreement has not brought peace and that the power struggle is continuing. At present an election is taking place in Rhodesia and we can only hope and pray that the result of that election will be accepted by the people who lose. There are already ramifications that indicate that certain people will not accept the result of that election, that the struggle will continue and that even the election will not solve the power struggle among the people. We see that democracy has merely been used as a temporary expedient in the hands of people who are in actual fact not democrats.

Before I refer to the NP’s policy in this regard, I want to say something about the question of a power base. In the no-confidence debate the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs referred to Chief Buthelezi’s power base. With reference to a quote from the book of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, he said that Chief Gatsha Buthelezi’s power base was five million Zulus. We say this is correct and we know that those five million Zulus are not all living in the homeland, but that many of them are living in various urban areas. However, Chief Buthelezi regards them as his power base. I was at a Press conference abroad where chief Buthelezi was attacked with regard to his power base. At the time himself said—

I agree with him that he is that. He also said—

He regards five million Zulus as his natural power base. This is the reality of South Africa and we should bear it in mind. When one has different power bases such as that, the question is whether one can solve the power base situation on the basis of a federal constitution where one has one Prime Minister or one ruler in that federal system.

A few years ago I had an interesting experience after Transkei had become independent. An international conference was held which was also attended by the hon. the member for Bezuidenhout. In the hotel which was the venue for the conference, hung a large and impressive photograph of Kaizer Matanzima. The photograph was lit up; strong lights lit up that impressive photograph. Informal discussions took place in the course of which someone said that Transkei should not have become independent, but should have remained part of a greater South Africa, because there should be one ruler for the whole of South Africa. To that I replied:“In practice that means the following: While the Xhosa people want to put up a picture of their leader, we shall have to remove that picture of Chief Matanzima and replace it with a picture of perhaps Chief Gatsha Buthelezi.” When I said that, a young Black man came forward—he was a secretary of a State department—and said: “Before that happens, blood will flow in the streets of Umtata.” This is the reality of the power struggle between Black and Black. [Interjections.]

I now come to the policy of the NP, and ask whether we can solve the power struggle by implementing the NP’s policy. This is the crux of South African politics: Can we solve the power struggle? Can we apply the NP’s policy in such a way that we can bring about peace? The reply is: Yes, we can. I want to point out that in this regard the NP has a successful record to look back on. I am referring specifically to the independence of the Transkei. Transkei’s independence has many attendant problems and from time to time there are even problems between ourselves and the Transkei. However, I want to challenge anyone of the political parties opposite to deny that as far as the Transkei is concerned, the NP has solved the power struggle. The Transkeian people are not lighting about who is going to govern the Whites or who is going to govern the people of the Transkei; that struggle is over. The power struggle between these White people and those Xhosas is over—it has been solved.

And the Opposition members are in gaol.

There may be problems from time to time, but the power struggle has been solved; it has passed and is something of the past.

You abdicated your responsibility.

Why did this happen? It happened because there was consensus between White and Black. Whether the hon. member for Pinelands likes it or not, this comprises the greatest measure of consensus between White and Black that has ever come into being on the continent of Africa. This is what has been brought about by the NP Government. The consensus that attends the independence of the Transkei, is embodied in 60 to 70 contracts. An agreement was drawn up that was signed by White and Black. That agreement sets out the relations between White and Black in areas of common interest.

After the independence of the Transkei, Bophuthatswana also became independent. This is the result of a consensus between White and Black which has grown up. We are proud of that consensus and proud of what we have achieved. As far as the Tswana people are concerned, the power struggle between Black and White has been solved in this way. That power struggle is now a thing of the past.

The independence of the Transkei may be denigrated and disparaged and one can insult those people. One can also be insulting towards the independence of Bophuthatswana or that of any one of those States, but one cannot deny that it has solved the power struggle between White and Black. What is more, that power struggle has been permanently solved.

Then Venda came, and this is proof of a growing consensus.

By means of the implementation of its policy the NP is the one party capable of establishing a growing consensus on the southern tip of Africa, a consensus between White and Black for the sake of peace for all.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether the policy to which he is referring is embodied in the draft Bill that was submitted to the Schlebusch Commission? Is this the policy of the NP?

The hon. member for Mooi River is all at sea. I am referring to the relations between White and Black and am confining myself to the policy of the NP. No proposal serving before this commission detracts from what I am saying here.

If one examines democracy in Africa in this regard, one realizes that when one has a homogenous society, one has a greater degree of democracy. One of the most homogeneous countries in Africa is Botswana. It is also the most democratic country in Africa. What the NP is doing in the implementation of its policy is to create different homogenous political communities in this large and heterogenous whole. This is being done for the sake of the maintenance of peace and the elimination of the power struggle between the various population groups. When it is done in this way, the practical result is that the exercising of power by the various leaders is limited to natural power base of each. This is the recipe for peace. This is the recipy for security for us all. This is much better than a “bill of rights” or constitution of which we do not know the end.

In the implementation of this policy it is undoubtedly necessary to create the right atmosphere in South Africa It is necessary to have good relationships in South Africa, to have mutual understanding, and that there should be mutual trust among the various population groups. In this regard the Government is doing everything in its power and deserves the support of every hon. member of the NP, as well as the support of every hon. member of the Opposition.

In conclusion I want to point out that there is no doubt at all that the NP has a major task ahead of it. The path is sown with thorns. There is no doubt about that. In the implementation of its policy the NP has major problems, as it is being stymied at every turn. However, because the NP’s policy is the natural policy for the people of South Africa, because it is the logical policy for South Africa’s people, because it is reasonable and fair, and because it offers everyone security, I believe that success will be achieved in South Africa in accordance with the plan and recipe of the NP.

Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to speak about constitutional policies. Therefore I am not going to react to the speech by the hon. member for Pretoria Central. I feel, however, that it is necessary, as the speech by the hon. member for Pretoria Central was in the nature of a second maiden speech, that I should say a few words about it. It sounded to us in these benches that he was actually making a reaffirmation of loyalty. [Interjections.] One could not help thinking, as one listened to him, that he was overstating his case. He did overstate his case. His speech was like a confessional before a communist court, restating his loyalties. One must not, however, be too unkind to that hon. member. Of course, after all he is perhaps in the nature of a prodigal son returning to the fold. [Interjections.] He is returning to the fold.

What a fold!

Mr. Speaker, is it permitted that the hon. member for Orange Grove refers to a speech of another hon. member here in the House as something like a confessional before a communist court? Is it proper to say a thing like that? [Interjections.]

It was an analogy, not an actual statement. [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon. the Deputy Minister referring to the words “it was like a confessional before a communist court”?

That is correct, Mr. Speaker.

It is an analogy, a comparison. I am not prepared to rule it out of order at this stage or to ask the hon. member to withdraw it. The hon. member for Orange Grove did not explicitly call it a confessional before a communist court. He said it was like a confessional before a communist court.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you further on this? I want to suggest respectfully that the integrity and the freedom of speech of the hon. member for Pretoria Central are in fact being put in a bad light in that his speech is compared to that of a person fearfully making a confession to a communist court. As far as I am concerned, this detracts from the integrity of the hon. member for Pretoria Central.

I shall give further consideration to the matter. The hon. member for Orange Grove may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps one should not be too unpleasant to the hon. member for Pretoria Central in his moment of triumph. Perhaps he can be likened to the prodigal son returning to the fold. The only thing that was missing was the father, the Transvaal leader of the NP, the hon. the Minister of Tourism. Perhaps he is off, killing the fatted calf somewhere. [Interjections.]

I wish to deal with another matter this afternoon. One of the more unpleasant features of the year 1979 was a rise in the consumer price index of 14,1%. This means that consumers in South Africa are paying, on an average, across the board, 14,1% more in order to live. Regrettably very few of them were in the happy position of being able to pay for these increases with commensurate salary or wage increases of over 14%. This simply did not happen at all. Incomes are not keeping pace with the inflation rate, which means that the living standards of the majority of South Africans are going down. I have here an interesting article in yesterday’s issue of The Citizen. The heading states: “Cost of living jumps by 66% since 1975.” Following on that headline the article actually goes a little further than that statistic by stating—

Well that is not, in fact, true, and I do believe that the hon. the Minister should talk to the editor of their house magazine and ask him, if he must represent the NP in an unfavourable light, at least to make his representation an accurate one.

I am just a little tired of hon. members on the other side who continually seek refuge in the fact that inflation is a world-wide problem. Of course it is a world-wide problem, but I also think that they would admit that South Africa should be in a better position than most other countries to deal with an inflationary spiral.

Why?

We are an extraordinarily lucky country. Hon. members ask “Why?” We have mineral wealth and raw material resources that are the envy of much of the rest of the world. Our exports have increased by leaps and bounds and we are being paid more for our exports. There is also the increased gold price. I therefore say that we should be in a better position than most countries in the world to fight inflation, but in spite of the fact that we have so much going for us, the quality of life of the average South African is deteriorating steadily. Hon. members on both sides of the House may have been present at a presentation by the Federated Chamber of Industries and may remember a graph that was shown to us. It indicated clearly that in the case of Whites the increases in salaries and wages have been less than the increases in the cost of living over the last four years, and for all races over the last two years, so that definite declines have occurred in real earnings. For Blacks the position of those who are earning has improved marginally, which is very encouraging, but of course unemployment has made the situation with regard to the whole Black community somewhat worse. Nowhere has this decline in living standards been more noticeable than in regard to food. South Africans are paying more and more for less and less. The increases in food prices last year totalled 14,7%, which was more than the rise in the consumer price index.

One must examine this situation. We are proud of our achievements in agriculture in South Africa. Our farmers are amongst the most efficient in the world. Why, therefore, have prices shot up as they have? We all know that farm costs have shot up as well, as has everything else, but it is also quite clear that the farmer is not getting all that much more for his produce. The farmer is not getting the benefit of the bulk of those price increases. Where is this benefit then going? I believe that the answer is very clear. In real terms farmers are getting less and consumers are paying more because of incompetence and inefficiency in the marketing and distribution of many of our agricultural products, this being the result of Government control. For the poor—and South Africa has many poor people—food constitutes a very large percentage of their spending, because people have to eat to live. The average pensioner spends a very large percentage of his income on buying food. He has to do so. Food is a necessity. It is not a luxury.

They live to eat.

The argument we invariably get from the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is that food prices in South Africa are among the lowest in the world. This sort of argument, apart from indicating to the farming community that they have had a very raw deal from the Government because they have been paid less for their products than anywhere else in the world, really has very little value because conditions and incomes in other parts of the world are very different. I do not want to hear the hon. the Minister of Agriculture make his usual speech about how much one pays for various commodities in other parts of the world. He has strings of statistics on this. He has statistics on how much one pays for bread in Tokyo, or cabbages in New York.

He is always travelling around the world. That is the reason.

This sort of comparison is completely nonsensical.

You hate the truth.

Sir, conditions are very different elsewhere, as are incomes. It is the job of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture to see that the farmer gets a fair price for his produce and that the consumer pays as little as he has to, giving the farmer a reasonable profit. What actually happens is that, in proportion to what the farmer gets, the consumer is being screwed into the ground.

As an example to prove my argument, I want to talk about the present situation in the meat industry where I can only say the most extraordinary things have happened in recent months.

You know nothing about the meat industry.

Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister says I know nothing about it. I can perhaps tell him this afternoon what I do know about it. I think the hon. the Minister of Agriculture once described me as a hyena because I was always looking for “vrot” meat. I can tell him that there is plenty of “vrot” meat in the meat industry at the moment as a result of the Government’s inefficiency.

I never said you were a hyena.

Sir, it stands in Hansard, but I am very glad to hear that.

A scavenger.

Maybe a beach hyena Sir, the worst part of the whole situation in the meat industry is the strange behaviour of the hon. the Minister himself. I believe, and hope, that he will be one of the first to admit that all is not well within the meat industry itself. Particularly in recent months we have had the most astonishing and unpleasant revelations concerning the South West African Meat Board. Allegations of corruption on a large scale have been proved correct as the inquiry led by the very courageous Mr. Hans Greyling has gone deeper into the matter. So much so that an article in Rapport of 21 October last year was headed “’n Vleis-Watergate Dreig in Suidwes.” It was made clear that the industry in South West Africa is in chaos. Ghost companies and farms have been set up to gain more permits. Records were incorrect and in disarray. Only farmers who had the right contacts were able to get permits and it seems certain that many bribes changed hands. Some farmers did not get permits at all. Unless one had a friend in the South West African Meat Board, one did not get a permit at all.

The hon. the Minister of Agriculture seems to find it very difficult to admit that a very large question mark hangs over the operations of the South African Meat Board. The permit system has not been operating satisfactorily and many farmers in South Africa are being driven to desperation because they just cannot get permits to market their cattle. I understand from a Press report, which I have no reason to disbelieve, that in March last year the National Marketing Council issued a confidential report—just how confidential it was one reads about in the Press—on an investigation which had been carried out into the meat industry. Sweeping changes were proposed, but in the main these seem to have been ignored. Nothing was done about them.

It was not confidential. It was tabled in the House.

Well, Sir, I am very pleased that it was, because nobody saw it. It must have been tabled very quietly.

That shows how little you know. You do not even know it was tabled.

Just to indicate how the situation looks, let me say that Mr. J. P. du Toit, the chairman of Asokor, said in his annual report that South Africa’s meat producers continued to produce at a loss. Still the hon. the Minister refuses to have an inquiry.

„Boerehater!”

He himself has complained that he receives telephone calls at night alleging malpractices in the meat industry and in the Meat Board. I must also say that there are definite links between the South West African Meat Board and the South African Meat Board. Allegations of corruption by officials are at present being tested in the courts right here. I cannot talk about those because they are sub judice. The whole industry is in a furore. The farmers and the consumers are both dissatisfied, and what is the hon. the Minister prepared to do about it?

Nothing.

The hon. member for Umhlanga has the right answer: Nothing at all is being done. The hon. the Minister is being urged by all sorts of people ranging from the Housewives’ League to many farmers who ring him up in the middle of the night, to appoint a commission of inquiry, but he is being very coy about it. At times it looked as though he might appoint a commission of inquiry, but another time he decided that he did not want to. He says that he has asked the S.A. Agricultural Union to investigate complaints and that if people will come up with sworn affidavits and evidence he will appoint a commission of inquiry.

I would like to put it to the hon. the Minister that the average farmer who has had a raw deal is not in the position to make sworn affidavits giving evidence of corrupt practices, as he will be jeopardizing his livelihood if he opens his mouth. Firstly, there have been ridiculous threats from the General Manager of the Meat Board, Dr. Jan Lombard, that should a commission of inquiry find no fault with the industry—which, I may say, is very unlikely—the complainants would face legal action for libel and defamation. I would like to tell the hon. the Minister that no farmer sitting on his farm is in a position to prove corruption or malpractice. He just knows that the allocation of permits appears to be very unfair. In addition he is petrified that if he complains he will get no permit at all, and this is his livelihood. This is indeed a matter for a commission of inquiry to investigate. If there is nothing wrong, the Meat Board will have had its name cleared, and I believe the hon. the Minister owes it to them as well. If there is nothing wrong the Meat Board should have its name cleared. There are other major reasons why the hon. the Minister should appoint a commission of inquiry. The stranglehold that monopolistic interests have on the industry is, to say the least, undesirable and not in the best interests of either the producer or the consumer. Independent butchers are being put out of business by the big undertakings, which also have a preponderance of representation on the board. The small man is being squeezed out, farmers are getting unfair treatment and the gap between producer prices and consumer prices is too large, and the hon. the Minister knows all this. All is not well within the Meat Board itself, and the hon. the Minister knows that too. Recently they appointed detectives, we are told, to look into their operations on the inside. Complaints about the Meat Board to the Press Council concerning allegations made in the Sunday Tribune, were thrown out by the chairman of that council. Another allegation is that Mr. A. J. Liebenberg, a member of the South West African Meat Board, paid money to the then manager of the South West African Meat Board, Mr. Heydenrych, who died in most unfortunate circumstances, to say the least. Mr. Liebenberg is a member of the S.A. Meat Board. Messrs. Andries Pretorius and J. P. van der Walt, both directors of Vleissentraal, are also not only on the South West African Meat Board, but on the S.A. Meat Board as well. A South African company, Karoo Lewende Hawe, which is an associate company of one of the big monopolies, was involved in a cash pay-off to Mr. Heydenrych. We read now that the Meat Board has employed detectives to look into the possibility of similar circumstances in South Africa.

Surely, this is enough to persuade the hon. the Minister that an inquiry is called for. The revelations, amongst many others, of the Sunday Tribune and the Rand Daily Mail should be enough on their own to persuade the hon. the Minister that he must have an inquiry. These revelations constitute grounds for an inquiry and the air must be cleared. At the moment the whole situation smells. I do not want the hon. the Minister to reply by asking the Opposition to do his job for him. We have no special knowledge, and proof, one way or the other, will only be discovered if a commission of inquiry gets into action. They must not just sit in Pretoria and wait for evidence to come to them. They must get out and have a look for themselves. I would like to quote from a letter concerning the allocation of permits which I received from an attorney in South West Africa. It refers to the high prices realized for meat over the Christmas period. This attorney had a client who was prepared to sell 200 head of cattle at short notice at that time at a price of R1,20 per kilo to any of the controlled markets in South Africa. This was far below the prices that obtained, but he was advised that the quota for South West Africa had been drastically reduced for the month of December. One wonders why, and the answer provided by this attorney in his letter was as follows—

I agree that this comment would be of interest.

Absolutely scandalous.

Well, it has been said. One cannot close one’s eyes to the fact that this sort of thing is being said.

If you do not give the name of the writer, the letter is false.

I should like to challenge the hon. the Minister to publish that list of permits then.

If you don’t give the name, the letter is false.

I am quite prepared to show the hon. the Minister this letter on a confidential basis, but I am not prepared to mention the writer’s name in this House, because I am not sure that he would not be prejudiced in the future in respect of applications he might make.

It is not in the interest of national security.

Perhaps it is not in the interest of national security. However, I am quite prepared to show this letter to the hon. the Minister if he would like me to do so. If he is not prepared to call an inquiry, I believe the people are entitled to go on thinking that something is being hidden. If he is not prepared to publish the list of permits, people will be quite justified in believing that something is being hidden. I believe it is in the public interest that the matter be investigated thoroughly.

There are matters in the meat industry that have to be investigated. Why have the recommendations of the National Marketing Council report not been followed? I can also refer to the question of the City Deep and Cato Ridge abattoirs. We spent millions of rand paying consultants to ensure that those abattoirs were built to European Economic Community standards. We are told that these abattoirs are amongst the best in the world, but how can this be correct? We have now discovered that they do not even meet European Economic Community standards. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister where all the money went that was paid to consultants to build abattoirs to these standards. The hon. the Minister has a great deal to answer for. The fact of the matter is that the Government has, as in so many other things, made a complete mess of and has botched the whole affair because of a paralysis on the part of that hon. Minister.

I hope the hon. the Minister is not going to reply with one of his typical speeches. I must say that the hon. the Minister has a most likeable personality. Everybody likes him. He is an outgoing and friendly Minister of Agriculture. He tells funny stories and we all laugh, and the result of that is that he gets away with it. However, this time I must ask him to be serious. Both the farmer and the consumer are losing while he sits in indecision, doing nothing worthwhile.

Mr. Speaker, I shall begin by replying to the speech by the hon. member for Orange Grove and then I should like to deal with the speeches by the hon. members for Mooirivier and Wynberg who also took part in this debate yesterday. I want to remain calm. I promise hon. members that I shall not become angry and that I shall reply to all the matters raised.

Firstly I want to say that the hon. member for Orange Grove is forgetting one thing. We are battling with an inflation rate of 14% plus. The hon. member for Yeoville said that I was misleading the public. However, the argument I want to advance is that the South African farmer, using an imported tractor, imported implements and imported fuel, is producing more cheaply than farmers in the rest of the world, while our consumer price index is lower than that in the rest of the world, precisely because we have a system of control. The hon. member for Wynberg asked me what products in South Africa were not subject to control and I told him that 24,2% of the products were not controlled. However, the farmer’s share of that cake is 35%. Because the rest is not controlled, it has passed into the hands of the middleman and the distributor. However, where we implement control, the gap is far narrower. This is one of the reasons why we in South Africa have cheap food. The hon. member put a number of questions to me.

†He said that the farmer was getting less while the consumer was paying more and asked in respect of which product the farmer’s slice of the cake was getting smaller. Can he mention me one?

Yes, meat.

The net profit of the meat farmer has gone up. The farmers all want control over the floor price. It is increased annually.

You know that the floor price does not affect the meat price.

The problem is that the hon. member does not know that there is not one commodity in respect of which the farmer’s slice of the cake has become smaller. However, why is the consumer paying more?

*The processing costs of the raw product already amount to 50% of the total cost. Surely one cannot expect that that expensive abattoir that we have to build can be paid off in a jiffy, because heavy expenses have to be incurred with regard to cooling, transport, the cutting up of the carcasses, salaries of blockmen and electricity. 50% of the cost of the end product has already been incurred before it appears on the housewife’s table. The costs are steadily increasing. If the cost of electricity, etc., increases, the general costs increase as well. But South Africa is better than the rest of the world and I keep saying that. However hon. members of the Opposition do not want to hear it. The hon. member says:“This problem was created because of control.”

†Does the hon. member want us to abolish control?

I am not against control. I am against inefficiency.

The hon. member says he is not against control. I am for free enterprise, all the way. But as soon as business is handed over to free enterprise, the price gap becomes greater and greater in certain instances.

With reference to alleged corruption in the Meat Board, South Africa’s Meat Board has nothing to do with South West Africa and tragedies happened in South West Africa.

*As soon as I can get finished I want to approach the hon. the Minister of Finance in regard to the request for food subsidies. As soon as the Government comes forward with a subsidy I become very afraid when I consider how it is to be applied and how it is going to reach the consumer. What happened in South West Africa? The Administrator General granted R12 per head of cattle. Right from the outset I said that there was going to be trouble. How would that R12 be administered so that it would benefit the right people? Subsequently, one tragedy after another occurred. This has nothing to do with South Africa. The hon. member read about a meat scandal in the Sunday Tribune. It is always a “meat scandal”. I cannot say that everything in the industry was as it should be at the time, but what I have to ascertain for myself is whether there are problems here as well. And I went out of my way to do so throughout the recess. What happened there had nothing to do with us. The gossip began when the farmers of South Africa said that they wanted to enter the controlled market. The permit is granted and the quota holder is the agent. The other day I spelt it out to hon. members. That agent, who is a businessman—and there is a R1 000 million turnover in the meat industry—has access to the market, but I as a farmer cannot enter the market. Now the farmer goes to the auction, to the auctions which are not under control, and there the agent purchases that farmer’s cattle, but because he has the permit, he has access to the market. He makes his commission at the auction and he also makes commission on the controlled market. Give us a 100% permit system. To whom am I to listen? The hon. member also said: “The farmer will be jeopardized. ” If he gets letters, why do I not get letters as well? Why do no letters get written to me? The hon. member quotes a letter in which the writer says: “All is not well in the Meat Board,” and then he refers to Vleissentraal. I admit that the eight producer members of the Meat Board are for the most part members of Vleissentraal. Is the hon. member against that?

Yes.

When we introduce the Co-operative Act this year, I want to see what the hon. member’s standpoint is going to be. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must bear one thing in mind. A farmer in his senses could never even consider voting for that party. They would rather exterminate them; they would take them apart. That hon. member is opposed to co-operatives. However, what is my standpoint? If my farmers tell me that they want to unite in a strong co-operative organization …

†Is the hon. member against having the producers in the majority in the Meat Board? Is he for it or against it?

I am quite for having the producers in a majority.

The producers being in a majority?

Yes.

You are for it?

Yes.

Now those farmers come together and organize themselves into a co-operative.

The hon. the Minister knows that Vleissentraal does not represent the farmers.

Now the hon. member is condemning Vleissentraal. The Meat Board is wrong, the control board system is wrong and Vleissentraal is wrong. I wonder whether he is satisfied with his own church. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be angry. South Africa’s abattoirs were built according to EEC standards. The hon. member requested a commission of inquiry to investigate the circumstances surrounding City Deep. We appointed Mr. Prins, the magistrate of Pretoria—a judicial commission of inquiry. To do what? To do what? To cost us a lot of money and cause unrest in this industry. The hon. member for Orange Grove testified and the question was put to him: “Why did you make these allegations?” and he replied: “For political gain.” That is in black and white in the minutes.

That is not true.

Of course it is. What happened about that investigation? It cost us a fortune. It cost us a whole lot of money. The eventual finding was simply: There was nothing wrong here. Now I must appoint a commission of inquiry into the meat industry …

[Inaudible.]

I sat dead quiet when the hon. member was speaking. On 6 February I received a resolution from the meat producers of the Free State. The resolution reads—

Let me read a telegram received from the Oranje-Landbouunie—

The Meat Committee of the Cape Agricultural Union says—

Now I must listen to that hon. member!

What does Natal say?

I am coming to Natal. I am coming to that hon. member too. In Die Transvaler of 30 January the following report appeared—

There were no objections.

†Natal meat producers, representing 58 farmers’ associations, said—

*I can show the letters to hon. members.

The quota system?

The system as it is operating in Natal today. The hon. member states that all the farmers are up in arms about this scheme.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is prepared to publish the list of permits that were issued during December of last year?

I am coming to that. The hon. leader of the NRP said at a meeting in Standerton that he had received a whole series of complaints. He said so in public. I got to hear of it and asked the Meat Board to investigate them, and said that we had to pressurize him until he furnished us with the names of the people who had complained. Here they are. I am only mentioning two as examples. One person was Mr. De Kock of Koedoeskop. The Meat Board investigated this. Mr. De Kock was not registered with the Meat Board for the 1979 marketing year and made no application for a permit. He was one man who complained. The other complainant was Van Eck Brothers of Westdene. Applications for 28 head of cattle were made for June and July, and a permit for 28 head was issued. This represents a 100% allocation. From August to October no further application for a permit was made. These are the people who are complaining. I just want to mention one more name, because I want it to appear in Hansard. It is the name De la Tana. I wish the Opposition caucus would invite him to come and address them. They would walk out after five minutes. He has had a screw loose for a long time, and he is the man who is always complaining and telling tales to the Press, but I have so far been unable to obtain any concrete facts. Instead of speaking to me, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South wrote a letter, and before his letter reached me, I had already read it in the newspaper—

[Inaudible.]

Must I continue to quote what my clients, my customers, keep telling me? I now come to the other allegations. I attend every meat congress. I do not see any one of the Opposition members there.

†We have a meat traders’ congress, wholesale meat traders and retail meat traders. We have seven different organizations, each holding a conference annually, and I attend each one of them, and I never see a single member of the Opposition at those congresses. I invite them and I say: “Please come as retailers, as wholesalers, as people in this game; come with complaints.”

When did you invite us?

Why must I invite you?

*After all, I do not arrange those congresses. [Interjections.] Now I come to the other point. There is not enough time, but I just want to say that I am prepared to investigate this industry, and that as regards false allegations by an attorney whose name the hon. member is not prepared to mention here, I am not prepared … [Interjections.] There is not one person, either in the Opposition or on our side of the House or on the Press Gallery, nor is there a single farmer in South Africa who does not know what my telephone number is. Yesterday morning at five o’clock, after I had only got home at 2 o’clock in the morning, a farmer telephoned me, and when I asked him what was wrong he told me that he was drinking coffee and thought that I would be awake. That is the attitude, and why should a farmer not ring me to tell me that trouble is brewing in the meat industry? Why should they only send letters to the hon. member for Orange Grove? Surely that is ridiculous. The hon. member is dissatisfied because Vleissentraal is in control of the producers of this country. The farmer may not organize himself in his own co-operative. Farmers may not say that about a hundred of them want bargaining power and want to stand together to manage their own affairs. Even if hon. members complained for a month of Sundays, I could not turn my back on the co-operative movement in South Africa, because it is the farmers’ support and the reason why they are still in production. Hon. members can forget about that, because I am not prepared to allow myself to be convinced of the contrary.

I now come to the question of subsidies. Yesterday certain members asked for certain subsidies. I just want to say to the hon. member for Mooi River that if I can make a case for something with the hon. the Minister of Finance, or the Deputy Minister, they are only too willing to help to keep the cost of living down. I have already mentioned what happened with regard to a subsidy in South West Africa. If I am asked to arrange that the diesel used by farmers on the border be subsidized, I must also be told how I am to implement anything of the kind. Nowadays diesel cost 37 cents per litre for the farmer and 53 cents per litre for the non-farmer. There are already irregularities at the moment. If one tells Farmer A that he can get his diesel at 20 cents per litre and Farmer B that he must pay 37 cents per litre for it, there must be a way of implementing it in practice.

That is why I asked the question.

The hon. member for Mooi River said frankly that he did not have the solution, but I am seeking solutions. Hon. members of the Opposition say that the cost of living has increased by 14,2% as a result of food price increases. I am not quarrelling with them on that score, but then they tell me in the same breath that we must see to it that the farmer remains in production and that we must subsidize him. If we were to continue to subsidize bread for a full year after the new wheat price comes into operation in September, it would cost us R221 million to keep the price of a brown loaf at 16 cents. There are approximately 480 bakeries throughout the country, while the subsidy on a brown loaf is today more than 10 cents. It is a tremendous task to implement this subsidy system, and if anything goes wrong with it, I will soon be asked what I am doing with the taxpayers’ money. There must be a control board. Hon. members condemn the control board system, but if the Wheat Board were abolished we should be paying the same price for bread in South Africa as they do in America, where no system of control exists. The control board system is to the benefit of the consumer. There is also talk of a subsidy on milk. The milk price is to be reviewed in May or June, and if I say to the Minister of Finance that I want a subsidy on milk, he will give it to me if it will help to keep the cost of living low. However, I have to administer that subsidy. If milk is subsidized by one cent per litre, it will cost us R10 million. There is a gap today between the price of 20 cents per litre which the farmer gets today and the price of 36 cents per litre which the consumer pays for it.

That is the problem.

That is exactly what the hon. member does not understand. The milk has to be pasteurized and conveyed on diesel vehicles, and that is expensive. Then, too, it must be put into plastic containers. It takes a great deal of work to process, pack, transport and distribute that milk to people’s back doors. For whom does the hon. member want that subsidy? Milk is only controlled in our densely populated metropolitan areas. However, there is no control in rural areas, for example of the milk consumed by a Black child in Vendaland. How does one subsidize the milk drunk by that child, in a region where there is no control over it? The hon. the Minister of Finance can give me the subsidy, but I have to implement it. An hon. member also spoke about a subsidy on fertilizer. This year our fertilizer account is R360 million. What are we to subsidize? It is pointless granting a subsidy of R5 per ton on fertilizer costing R140 per ton. There must be a subsidy of at least R100 million.

What is the profit on fertilizer?

The profit on diesel has been withdrawn and the farmers are already only paying 37 cents per litre. The diesel account is R320 million. After reducing the price of diesel to 37 cents per litre it still costs the South African farmer R320 million per annum. By how much is the price of diesel to be subsidized? If the articles mentioned by the hon. members were to be subsidized, it would cost the country far more than R1 000 million. The hon. the Minister of Finance then points out to me that he also has to make provision for housing, schools, roads, education, defence etc. He is already giving a subsidy of 10 cents on bread. I think anything of the kind would be totally impractical.

†The hon. member for Orange Grove says the consumers in this country are struggling. I have sympathy for them, but does the hon. member know how consumer-spending on alcohol, soft drinks like Coca-Cola and Fanta and all such jazz increased compared with other foodstuffs?

*It is simply unbelievable.

You are a hater of wine farmers.

I do not hate the wine farmers, I am fighting on their behalf. However, we must maintain our balance between the various products. Take mealie-meal, for example. I say to the hon. member that we are looking after the maize farmers this year. Their production costs have increased and he is now asking that we should subsidize mealie-meal.

Would it not be better to reduce the price?

Very well, then, we must now subsidize mealie-meal. We consume 6,6 million tons of maize in this country. Now the hon. member wants a subsidy. Some of the maize is used for cattle fodder and some is for human consumption. Nowzone has to pay a subsidy! If I grant one cent per kilogram of mealie-meal, it would cost us R24 million. The retail price of mealie-meal is 25 cents per kilogram. Give it a cent My goodness, what does that help on 25c? Please be practical in this regard.

Reference has been made to the difference between the price for the consumer and the price for the producer. The farmer gets R10 a bag for maize. If one buys a bag of mealie-meal, one usually pays R13,40 for first grade. But people go and buy it in a chain store, where it is available in a handy 1 kilogram package. One pays 25c for that. That is where the big gap occurs. There is nothing wrong with that, because the Maize Board has decided that they will not interfere in free trade.

†There are enough mills in the country to mill the mealie-meal, and we give them free reins. Now the hon. member says that the gap is too wide between the farmer and the consumer.

*Must we have price control up to the consumer? Must we restrict free enterprise? I could ask many questions about this matter.

I now come to the final point, the matter of export abattoirs. The Rand Daily Mail reports—and I am not angry about this, but that a man can write in these terms when I do my job every day!—

A pressman ’phoned me and asked me whether I knew that Cato Ridge was not suitable for export. I told him that I did not know it. We are dependent on the EEC.

†I ask the Rand Daily Mail and like-minded people whether they want us to export meat under today’s conditions. Tell us. They complain because Cato Ridge’s standards are not suitable for export. First of all, do they want us to export? The second point is that we have inspectors at Cato Ridge, Kimberley, Port Elizabeth and Krugersdorp—in other words, all A abattoirs which are suitable for export purposes. The next time the same inspectors come and say that the abattoirs are not suitable.

*They do not want meat and accordingly they cancel the permit. The finest abattoir in the whole world is City Deep. They do not come any better. Do hon. members then want dirty meat? Why does the hon. member criticize us when we are striving to build abattoirs that comply with EEC standards? Why does the hon. member complain about that? The hon. member is dissatisfied because we are building model abattoirs in order to give South Africa clean meat.

I am now referring specifically to Cato Ridge. The reason for the refusal is that we do not strip the skin on the head of a sheep when we slaughter it, whereas our consumers, the Black people in particular, want the sheep with its skin still on its head. After all, we eat sheep offal. Once one has cleaned and cooked the head it is delicious. Why should one strip the skin as an Englishman does? That is the one and only reason why Cato Ridge is not suitable for export purposes. This is not something to complain about. I do not make a fuss about it. In any even, we have to pay a tariff of R1,25 to enter the EEC. We have insufficient meat to comply with their requirements.

We shall deal with this matter of the border farms in the agricultural debate. I am trying to work things in such a way that agricultural credit will be discussed separately so that the hon. the Deputy Minister can reply to the question relating to the border farms. Many important aspects have been raised in that regard. However, I want the hon. member to stop concentrating solely on the border between ourselves and Rhodesia. There are also the problems that arise in an area such as Queenstown, for example, and other border areas, where wire fences are cut, sheep are stolen etc. This is a matter which is going to cause tremendous problems in the future. Therefore we must not concentrate on one region to the exclusion of all others.

We passed legislation which still exists and can be set in operation at any time. However it is legislation with so many financial implications and so many complications that I feel we should argue the matter in a calm and sober atmosphere when the agricultural Vote is discussed.

I am not shouting at hon. members. I always say that I should like to be humble, plain and simple and without pretensions. I want to discuss these matters with hon. members, but when the hon. member for Orange Grove refers so sneeringly to the attitude I adopt towards the South African farmer, my reply to him is: “Old friend, you are making a big mistake.” Hon. members must bear in mind that I never get a chance to talk a little politics. The hon. Whips never give me the chance. However, there is one thing I want to point out. Hon. members opposite are dissatisfied when I say that the Black man is not oriented to agriculture. When one works with the Black man, one notes that he does not measure up to the basic principles of civilization. What was the first instruction to man? It was that he should work the soil. One cannot be fully civilized if one does not fully understand that first instruction to man, understand its consequences and implement them. South Africa’s food production is increasing by 6% annually. Africa’s food production is dropping annually by 2%. In these circumstances we cannot shout at one another. There are 77 000 farmers to whom we have to listen. We must not antagonize them by means of commissions of inquiry and all kinds of wild allegations. We must invite them to join our ranks so that we may produce food and set an example to the Black man in the future so that he, too, can realize a few things. It is pointless saying one wants to govern and then not even knowing how to work with money, or even knowing the most basic thing, viz. how to get away from agriculture as a pure subsistence economy and to approach it as a method of food production by means of which foreign currency can be earned by way of export.

If I could tell hon. members what I have seen in African countries! It is, quite simply, shocking. It is shocking to see what some people’s conception is of agriculture. We are dealing here with a task of education, and it will take centuries to develop that civilization. Accordingly, it is my conviction that we must discuss these matters with one another in a sober atmosphere. People must not continue to nag me about the commission of inquiry. If it is necessary, as it was in the case of City Deep, then I promise one.

†The hon. member for Orange Grove demanded that I should appoint a commission of inquiry. I wanted to know from him what it was that should be investigated.

*Irregularities took place at the gate of the abattoir at City Deep. I can discuss the matter although the case is sub judice. A man saw that a certain permit was not being used and sold that permit. The Meat Board came to hear of it. What did they do? The first thing they did was to call the police. It was then reported in the newspaper that something wrong had taken place. The same kind of thing could happen in the Banana Board, for example, or even in the PFP. Everywhere there are people who go too far or who overstep the mark. We encounter that everywhere. A court case will be the sequel to this investigation. People have been taken into custody. There are still further allegations of fraud that are being investigated. The hon. member mentioned names. I did not want to mention names. There is a certain name which has appeared in the newspapers, a name which appears time again in the Sunday newspapers. It has appeared once in the Sunday Times and three times in the Sunday Tribune. The man who was the bearer of news in this case was an official of the Meat Board. He was discharged due to fraud. I do not want to mention his name. He vented his spleen. [Interjections.] He is bitterly dissatisfied about various things. He is frustrated.

But he votes Nationalist.

Oh no, he cannot vote Nationalist. He is too much of a “bitterbek”. [Interjections.] In any event I do not believe that he votes Nationalist. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to create the impression that I am ignoring the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. Accordingly I should just like to tell him: “You certainly told them off.”

It is a great privilege and honour for me to be a member of this most important of all important bodies in our country, this House which has the last word on the weal and woe of all our people. Bearing in mind that one is never too old to learn, when the opportunity presented itself, I thought it could only do me good, before I retire from public life, to sharpen my perspective a little through experience in this House. I should like to say thank you very much to all the friendly people here who make it easy for a newcomer to find his way around. I am going to try to become involved and not to shy away from responsibility. One thing that I have become very aware of, is that I come from a place where I imagined that I knew almost as much as the people who knew the most. Now, however, I find myself in a place where it seems as if I know less than the people who know the least.

It is fitting for me to pay tribute to my predecessor, the late advocate Piet Krijnauw, whom I knew very well and whom I valued highly in his personal capacity and in public life. His passing was a sad loss for Koedoespoort and the country.

In a debate like this one that concerns more money, a great deal could be said about the question whether money is ever or can ever be enough. Those who have a lot, those who have enough, those who have little and those who have none, all want more. My share in the prosperity of the country was almost a battle cry not so long ago. The norm according to which one determines what is enough, a lot, or a little—I should think that nothing is always nothing, regardless of the norm—depends on fairly deep-rooted standards of living to which the community has become accustomed and the striving towards better standards which seem to be available. Anything more than that is, perhaps, a matter of dreams and not reality. For the new world, of which we form a part, better standards are a goal within our reach. In older, established civilizations, the maintenance of existing standards alone can be quite a challenge.

Civilizations are carried by people, by their character, their faith, their enterprises and their institutions, rules and customs that are so deeply rooted that the winds of change will have to reach storm strength to make an impression in the short-term. I feel I would be exaggerating if I say that a civilization that is worth its salt, is absolutely unshakable, but it is probably correct to say that the essence of a civilization is not easily changed. In our country with its many types of people, we would be running great risks if we did not keep this truth in mind at all times.

Changes are always taking place. The House of Assembly—a House of Assembly here or elsewhere—spends most of its time making changes by means of new laws, the amendment of existing laws and financial measures for the coming financial year. These changes, both statutory and in all other spheres of the public and private sectors, must make their mark on the nature and essence of the civilization they affect in the long run. But it remains a slow process, extending even over centuries, before there can be any question of a national character. By that we mean that the Greek or Chinaman who lived before Christ, and those who are living today, still have certain distinguishing characteristics in spite of wars, explosions of knowledge and technical advancement, which are supposed to change everything. Solomon’s statement that there is nothing new under the sun, is probably also very true in this regard.

Civilization depends on permanence. People want security. In the century in which we are living, we try to make projections in order to map future patterns so that we can plan with reasonable certainty in the shorter or longer term. Sometimes our projections are spot on, but sometimes those things that we accept as constant, are so changeable that our projections become senseless. Then we excuse our mistakes by calling unpredictability a certainty. Changeability plays an important role in the life of the individual, so important that the Psalmist had to ask: “What is man that You think of him?” But people as a whole have a driving force which will be stable if it is embodied in institutions with a built-in order which can be relied upon.

Now I should like to speak for a few moments about such an institution, i.e. the Public Service in the Republic of South Africa. It has become quite fashionable to think of the public service in terms of red tape. However, it remains an enormous machine with a tremendously stable inner current which is fed by countless branches which are delicately interwoven like the capillary roots of a large tree which then spread out and take up water. One can compare it with the fine jets of a sprinkler system that reach everywhere.

Obviously, everything is not always equally good—not because the system is a bad one, but because it is borne by human beings whose production carries the stamp of imperfection, unavoidable where human fallibility plays its role, in the process of gathering, processing and completion. However, this does not detract from the greatness of our Public Service as an institution. People in the private sector are inclined to write off the public service as far as efficiency is concerned. I believe that this is a completely unscientific generalization. The advertisement says: “Er is maar een Karel I.” In any country there is only one Public Service. Consequently, there is nothing else with which it can really be compared. Apart from officials of the public service, the Provincial Administration also has provincial officials, but the principles and the procedures of the Public Service are applied to those officials so consistently mutatis mutandis that it does not qualify as another service with which the Public Service can be compared. The large municipalities could possibly be comparable to a certain extent, but the mere fact that even the largest municipality’s activities take place in a very limited geographic territory and that its authority and activities are limited to predetermined, defined functions, also makes it impossible to compare it with that service.

The public service has to be comprehensive. It cannot limit itself to what it would like to undertake. It must always be taking on new responsibilities. This is forced upon it. A business makes decisions on a completely different basis as to what it is going to do, in which field it is going to operate. The Public Service not only provides for services that are already being provided, but it also has to be ready for anything that may be necessary.

Unlike other administrations and other organizations, however, being different is not a distinctive characteristic of the Public Service either. There is a very large variety of all sorts of organizations. With reference to the speech that we have just heard, I may put the question: How, for instance, does one compare Sentraal-Wes with the KWV, General Mining, Sonop or with the greengrocer’s around the comer? Efficiency must be measured within the framework of demands made by each organization. In this respect the Public Service is in a special position, I should say a privileged position. It has a variety of departments and spheres of activity whose knowledge, experience and efficiency can spread like a yeast by exchanging officials, by discussions, investigations, reports, etc. A distribution of knowledge and techniques can be promoted purposefully, but it cannot be stopped. The contact that the Public Service has with all other industrial sectors of the country, and sometimes outside the country too, exposes it to so many techniques and skills that it cannot but take note of them, and, depending on the initiative and openness of the officials concerned, they are always on the receiving end of information that can be utilized in order to increase their own efficiency.

With my experience, I am prepared to say that the degree of efficiency of administrations, departments, organizations and business undertakings differs just as widely as the competence of individuals and that it is judged in just as subjective a way. It is arrogant for a business to allege that it is more efficient than a department or another business, and the reverse is just as true. The Public Service would be arrogant to praise itself or to try to draw such comparisons. Even the criteria of the so-called efficiency experts are very strongly coloured by the nature of their own organization.

What is important, however, is that the Public Service affords security and certainty. It may not go into liquidation. It must carry on, and it does so. It must be good, and fortunately our Public Service is a good one. It carries on like a strongly flowing current, not without whirlpools and flotsam, but a tide that cannot be stemmed. It bears the experience of generations. It is not easily forced off course, not even by a change of government. It represents the worthwhile precipitate of governments that come and go. It has its own ways of reaching wise decisions, a method which limits changeableness and which even tends towards excessive conservatism.

Mr. Speaker, my story will be a long one if I try to join in the discussion on the rationalization of the Public Service. This is an on-going process. It is always being inspected, reported upon, and considered and decisions are always being made about it. Periodical revision, re-evaluation and consolidation are necessary. I think the Government deserves high praise, support and appreciation for what is being done in this respect at the moment.

The major limitation which ensures that the Public Service is forced to remain within bounds, is the budget. In times of prosperity this damper is not as effective as it might be, but if one listens to the voices asking for expansion and change in so many spheres such as education, housing, pensions, infrastructures, etc., there is reason to call for a sober approach, the realization and understanding that one must keep within the limits of what can be paid for, that the ability to pay is in turn determined by productivity, and that productivity cannot be achieved by dreams or agitation or slogans and threats.

It would be presumptuous to assume that in view of what it has learned from the experience of generations, departments, administrations, Governments and departments, the Public Service must necessarily be a good one, or that once it has become so, it will always remain a good one. Its diversity is a fair guarantee of better methods, techniques and procedures being learned and distributed. The other fact, viz. that John Citizen, one and all, are always questioning and criticizing, and that there is nothing hidden in the Public Service that will not be made public, is also a safety measure.

For the faithful it is encouraging to know that they have made a contribution to the nation and their fatherland in such a wide-ranging service—it is bread cast on the water, from which much that is good will emanate. Apart from all these natural safeguards, in the nature of the circumstances, it is an indispensable requirement that the required proportion of top quality people always be drawn to the Public Service. I do not believe that attractive conditions of service, salary scales and pension benefits are the only consideration, but I believe that in order to ensure that people of the right calibre are attracted, it is also absolutely necessary for the conditions of service to be attractive, so attractive as to compete on an equal footing with other services in the private sector, semi-Government institutions and municipalities. The Public Service is of such primary importance that it must always be a good one, and that is why it needs top quality people and it must be prepared to pay for them. When many of our young people were still poor and when employment opportunities were scarce, we were assured of good recruits for the Public Service as a result of those circumstances. The fact that we have had an excellent Public Service over the years and that we still do, however, should not make us complacent. We must make sure that it remains so and that we keep on drawing people of the right quality.

I believe that we have reason to be very grateful for an excellent Public Service, but nothing is accomplished without effort. Things do not happen of their own accord. Those who have the responsibility must see to it that these things happen. The Government and the Public Service will have to continue to ensure that the Public Service stays good. This involves a great deal more than paying good salaries but I should prefer to discuss that on another occasion.

Mr. Speaker, I regard it as a special privilege to have this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Koedoespoort most sincerely on his maiden speech. Although the hon. member is a newcomer to this House, he is certainly no newcomer to the public life in South Africa, certainly not in the Transvaal where for 30 years he has left his mark in the Transvaal Provincial Council. During 18 of those years I had the privilege of serving with him. Therefore I have personal knowledge of his experience and his ability and therefore I expect that the hon. member will make a very great contribution in this House. He proved his ability when he made history in South Africa by being appointed for a third term as Administrator of the Transvaal. On behalf of this House I should therefore like to say: May the years which the hon. member has ahead of him in this House, be very happy and pleasant years.

†Mr. Speaker, I want to continue with the argument that has been raised by firstly agreeing with the hon. the Minister of Finance who stated that the economic position can be viewed with sober and balanced optimism, that our currency, the rand, is sound and strong and that our credit rating in the world at large is excellent. I believe—and I think others share the view—that South Africa’s economic position is very strong. One need only refer to the balance of payments currently running at R3 000 million, calculated on a gold price of $308. This should now improve and the currency surplus for 1979 easily be twice as high as the previous record surplus of R1 454 million in 1978.

Internal business and consumer confidence has increased rapidly. The gold bonanza will yield unanticipated and undreamt of surpluses in the coffers of the Treasury, particularly from the mining companies. The prospect of gold fetching $1 000 or even $1 500 per ounce, as has been predicted by an Australian expert, is in fact not impossible. In the meantime it is consolidating at about $650 and will no doubt resume an uptrend. The net profits for companies have increased tremendously and will yield even higher revenue from taxation. Shares on the Stock Exchange have doubled and quadrupled over the last three years. The question now is how all South Africans, as well as the economy, can cash in on this bonanza. In addition to what my hon. colleagues have said here, I want to make several recommendations to the hon. the Minister.

Firstly I want to recommend a tax-free holiday for all individuals in respect of the first six months of 1980. This is self-evident for the simple reason that the inflow of taxation and revenue to the Treasury is beyond all expectations. In this way all taxpayers can benefit across the board. The mining companies should be able to carry this by the extra tax they will pay.

Secondly, I should like to see the complete abolition of the general sales tax, but if that is not possible because it is spread right across the board, at least food should be exempted. Alternatively the general sales tax can be decreased from 4% to 1%. In addition I want to make a special appeal that exemption be granted to provincial and local authorities from the payment of this tax and from the payments of sales duty.

The Browne Committee of Inquiry into the Finance of Local Authorities has, according to my information, been sitting since November 1975 without any relief being granted to local authorities which are being financially strangled, with the result that the ratepayers have to carry the burden and that municipal expansion is severely restricted.

Thirdly, I should like to make a few recommendations to the hon. the Minister with regard to social pensions. Firstly, the means test should be abolished and, in any event as far as military pensions are concerned.

I have made an analysis of the annualized rates of inflation as from March 1972 and I find that the average, right up until 1980, is 11,2%. This means that the rand of 1972 will need to have been increased by 101,2% for the purchaser to be able to buy goods and services of the same kind in 1980. I therefore recommend that as far as the means test is concerned the income limit should be increased from R984 to R1 868 and the asset limit from R33 400 to R68 800. Secondly I suggest that income from pensions should not be reckoned as taxable income for assessment purposes. Thirdly, both men and women should qualify at the age of 60. Fourthly, the gap between Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks should no longer be on a four to one basis, but should be narrowed if not eliminated. Furthermore, I want to call on the hon. the Minister to grant tax concessions to the donors of cash or goods to recognized institutions housing works of art, e.g. museums and art galleries. Individual donors to the performing arts theatre can claim deductions of R500 per year or 2% of taxable income, but for museums and art galleries, although there is exemption from donations tax, the value of the donation is not deducted from taxable income. In this connection I refer to Australia where 44 institutions are listed, as opposed to only three types of institutions in South Africa. There, over a trial period of 18 months, they received 1½ million Australian dollars by way of donations made to them. In the USA gifts of cash are deductible, subject to a deduction ceiling of 50% of the donor’s adjusted income. In Canada the position is much the same as in Australia, with a ceiling of 20%. In Great Britain, estate duty law exempts, from the estate of a deceased, objects of national, scientific, historic or artistic interest. In Eire, any donations made to the Minister and accepted by him are allowed as a deduction for income tax purposes. In New Zealand, gifts of $2 or more up to $200, and in the case of companies up to$l 000, are exempt. In West Germany, under the property tax and inheritance tax regulations art objects or collections are partially or entirely exempt from property tax. In Switzerland, any person who is legally bound to keep books of account may deduct contributions to organizations serving the general interest. In Italy, inheritances are exempt, including paintings, statues, porcelain objects, prints and other art objects. In the Netherlands a donor can deduct, from his assessed income tax, monetary gifts to bodies supporting the arts, museums and bodies supporting the theatre and cinema. I have only mentioned salient details. However, there is much more information which I could make available to the hon. the Minister. Museums, art galleries and libraries can only benefit from this, and in turn South Africa can benefit as well. I believe this is the time to do it.

I now wish to turn to another aspect. It is obviously essential, in order to keep up the momentum of progress and development in South Africa, for the rate of imports and exports to be maintained and indeed increased. In this way we shall provide increased employment and reduce the unemployment figure of approximately 1,5 million. This can also be done by concentrating on labour-intensive industry. For this we need machinery, transport and equipment, and export markets that will absorb our production in order to earn foreign currency and provide labour. One of our biggest trading partners is West Germany. The latest available figures I have relate to 1978 when we exported, to West Germany, goods to the value of R667 million. At that stage West Germany was our third largest market, with the United Kingdom and the USA running first and second. Our major exports were diamonds and Kruger rands to the value of R200 million; mineral products, R130 million; iron ore, R88 million; asbestos, R17 million; coal, R36 million and chrome ore, R15 million.

As far as our imports were concerned, we obtained most goods from West Germany, again with the United Kingdom and USA coming second and third respectively. Machinery accounted for R500 million, transport for R350 million and chemicals for R120 million. In that year we imported goods to the value of R1 043 million from the United Kingdom and goods to the value of R990 million from the USA. The total figure for West Germany was R1 275 million, which was the largest figure.

The importance of our trade relations with West Germany is self-evident, and today I stress this relationship, because of the concern and worry that I feel for South Africa in regard to the present position of our relationship with that country. It is obvious that the economic ties are inextricably bound with the political ties, and I am worried at West Germany’s view of South Africa’s credibility at this stage. My remark is based on the conversations and meetings which took place in Bonn, in an inter-South African parliamentary exchange with members of the Bundestag on 17 and 18 October 1979, only four months ago. I think the five Government members present in this House, the one member from the NRP and one from the SAP, my colleague and I, who were invited to Bonn by Mr. Hennenhofer, would agree that, generally speaking, the announcements made by the hon. the Prime Minister were welcomed.

In particular, the Wiehahn, Riekert and De Kock reports and the Government’s response to them was the major talking point of our evidence of change in the direction taken by this Government. We were told by the trade unions in Germany that they had welcomed this move, and it generated tremendous goodwill and made it possible for parliamentarians to speak more easily with us. I was most impressed by the deep knowledge and information that the West German Association of Chambers of Commerce, as well as the various political parties and the Evangelical Church, had with regard to South Africa. We must bear in mind that the reaction to these reports in South Africa were also echoed in West Germany. The September 1979 issue of Empact described the Commission of Inquiry into Labour Legislation as “the greatest break-through in race relations in South African industry”. It was stated that: “It adopts the principles of the full participation of all sections of the work force, implying the abolition of all forms of discrimination, such as job reservation, as well as the principles of freedom of association.” Ronnie Webb of Tusca, which represents 62 registered trade unions and five unregistered trade unions said—

The Afrikaans Business Association, through Mr. Lombard, representing 8 000 business organizations, stated—

In addition, we discussed with West German parliamentarians, at their suggestion, the statements made by the hon. the Prime Minister in regard to the Immorality Act and the Mixed Marriages Act and we were asked whether the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government were now serious about this and the other matters. Our leader, a senior member of the NP, who behaved exemplarily—and I commend him for his actions—stated on behalf of the delegation that the course set by the Prime Minister was irreversible. We therefore clearly left West Germans under this impression. The line taken by the hon. the Prime Minister was obviously echoed by the South African consuls, the South African ambassadors and senior Government officials in their discussions, and they mixed in the highest Government circles in the countries in which they are stationed. My only fear at that stage was that the timetable attached to the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement would not be repaid enough to bring about the changes expeditiously. I certainly never dreamed that the hon. the Prime Minister would back-pedal on his entire new approach, as he did in this year’s no-confidence debate, when he said, in col. 214 of Hansard—

Well, I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister is indeed going to cause a catastrophe if he pursues this.

I asked myself why I had hopes or expectations, and I thought of, inter alia, the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement at Upington when he said we must adapt or die. I also thought about the hon. the Prime Minister’s visit to the homelands and to Soweto. He was the first Prime Minister of South Africa who had ever done that. I thought of the business conference at the Carlton Centre and, of course, of the recommendations contained in the Wiehahn and Riekert reports and the reaction to them by him and the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. I reflected on the Press and its endorsement of the hon. the Prime Minister’s “verligte” line over all those months. If I felt let down, then how did South African representatives abroad feel? Is the hon. the Prime Minister not aware that he may have created not only embarrassment but also a lack of credibility in those individuals and, in turn, in South Africa as such? What will the people in West Germany think of us now after our discussions with them?

We have friends in West Germany. They would like to remain our friends and to carry on trading with us, but this sort of conduct causes many questions to be asked. What will they say now? They are bound by their party politics. The coalition of the Social Democratic Party and the Federal Democratic Party which is in power in West Germany has a definite policy on South Africa. I quote—

This quotation comes from a document marked Motion No. 66 adopted by their party executive. It goes on to say—

Turning to the Opposition coalition parties in Germany, I also have their document before me and on human rights they say the following—

They further call on the Government of South Africa to enter into talks with freely chosen representatives of all groups of the population. Sir, the removal of discrimination means in particular the abolition of the legal regulations about apartheid in Southern Africa, as well as of the existing inequalities in the educational system and in working life. The people I have mentioned are bound by the policies of their parties and that is their attitude.

I believe that the impression created by the hon. the Prime Minister was one of a sincere and genuine desire on his part to effect certain changes, having made a political and military estimation of the situation confronting us in South Africa. I believe his steps have been retarded by the “verkrampte” members in the NP. The issue before us is, as the hon. the Prime Minister says, one of “adapt or die”, and therefore this Parliament must make its choice. We are standing at the crossroads, now is the hour. The first step must be the removal of all discriminatory legislation from the Statute Book of South Africa. We will support the Prime Minister on these issues, but he must be bold enough to face the problem squarely for the sake of survival, and he must jettison those members on that side of the House who refuse to tread this path. Only in this way will we have political stability and, with it, economic stability.

It is the duty of the hon. the Minister of Finance, on whose shoulders responsibility for finances rest, to back the hon. the Prime Minister in treading this path, or else we in South Africa face isolation, sanctions and internal conflict and his job will become impossible. Let the 1980s herald a new decade in our history. Let us take the path that will lead to stability, peace and prosperity for all the inhabitants of this country.

Mr. Speaker, all I can say in reaction to the hon. member for Hillbrow is that he delivered a well-read speech. I presume that he spent quite a lot of time preparing it. However, it is quite amazing that the hon. member for Hillbrow, who has not only had the taste of being in opposition but has also had the experience of being in authority as the mayor of South Africa’s biggest city, Johannesburg, could have made the speech that he has just delivered. He knows what it is like to be in authority, but today, as a typical Opposition speaker, he pleads for reductions in taxation across the board as well as for increases in State benefits across the board. How on earth does a person, who has had the taste of authority, justify pleading for a reduction in taxation across the board and increases in benefits across the board? I would be able to understand it if the hon. member for Pinelands for example did that, because he has never had the experience of being in authority.

Please do not bring me into it.

One cannot help bringing him into it. I can expect that of the hon. member for Pinelands and, in fact, of the most of the hon. members in those benches. However, for the hon. member for Hillbrow, who has been mayor of Johannesburg, to be so irresponsible and so naïve as to believe that he can make an impression on his voters and the public by pleading for a reduction in taxation and an increase in benefits, goes beyond my comprehension.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he is against a reduction in taxation and an increase in benefits at any stage?

Mr. Speaker, I am against the general principle of only reducing taxation and only increasing benefits, because that is completely unrealistic, and I wish to reiterate that it is typical of the hon. member for Pinelands to believe that such a thing is possible.

You are irresponsible. [Interjections.]

If the hon. member for Pinelands has a faint blush on his face, I think it justifies calling him “the Red Dean”.

Order! What is the hon. member implying by that?

That is not nice.

I was referring to the blush on his cheek.

The hon. member may proceed. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Hillbrow also referred to his visit to West Germany, together with other hon. members of whom I was one. He referred to the generally friendly attitude experienced there and added that there was concern about certain matters regarding the relationship between South Africa and West Germany. I would like to impress upon that hon. member that West Germany has its particular internal problems. It is on the very border of the Iron Curtain, so to speak, and to maintain its position it has to adopt a certain attitude towards the USA, towards Black Africa, and towards the world in general. Consequently, it will adopt a certain attitude towards South Africa as well. We in South Africa in turn have to face certain realities and certain facts of our situation in Southern Africa. We cannot allow ourselves to be dictated to as regards our internal situation by anyone, be it the USA, be it Black Africa, be it West Germany or any country for that matter.

Even the Progs.

The hon. member for Hillbrow must not create a false impression by stating that the hon. the Prime Minister has back-pedalled on the course he had set previously.

Oh, he has.

There has been no back-pedalling whatsoever.

How can you say that?

What I would like to make absolutely clear is the responsible role that is being played by the hon. the Prime Minister, who knows and appreciates the rather sensitive and difficult situation of a plurality of peoples in Southern Africa. When he speaks to his own people, he impresses upon them the need to appreciate the difficult situation in which we live. He has no compunction whatsoever in speaking directly, openly and frankly to his own people. If, however, false impressions are gained from that by the Opposition and by the Press; if the impression is gained that he is now turning his back on the stable course he has set, they must not in turn try to create the impression that he has back-pedalled, when he speaks in a different perspective to representatives of all parties in this House. He has not back-pedalled one iota. In fact, he is continuing to move in the same direction.

Is that the same direction?

Of course it is the same direction. When he speaks to his own people he will impress upon them the need to act responsibly in the situation of a plurality of peoples but there has definitely been no back-pedalling whatsoever. It is irresponsible of the hon. member for Hillbrow and of other hon. members of the Opposition to try to create the impression that there has been a back-pedalling by the hon. the Prime Minister.

I stand by what I say.

The hon. the Prime Minister has in fact done more in a shorter time than has ever been done before in order to try to bring about a better understanding and better relations amongst all the peoples of South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister, in his capacity of Minister of Defence, has over all the years in the S.A. Defence Force adopted an attitude of really caring about understanding and good relations, especially in a period in which the relations between Afrikaans and English-speaking were not always of the best. He has brought about a situation of building mutual trust, and he has extended that, not only throughout the Defence Force, but also into the way of life in Southern Africa in general. He has extended it to the various peoples of Southern Africa, to the plurality of the society in Southern Africa, in an attempt to bring about a relationship of mutual responsibility among the peoples of Southern Africa; not on the basis of anyone sacrificing his identity or turning his back on his own people, but on the basis of responsibility. Therefore it is highly irresponsible of the Opposition and of those who support them to try to create the impression that the hon. the Prime Minister has at all back-pedalled or soft-pedalled on the course he has set.

He is now running around in circles.

He has backpedalled, and it is there for all the world to see. [Interjections.]

*Mr. Speaker, there are a few other aspects to which I should like to react In his speech the hon. member for Simonstown indicated, in connection with the constitutional development, that his party was in favour of the representation of Indians, Coloureds and Whites in one South African Parliament. The condition he set was that representation should take place according to the contribution of every separate group to South African society. He did not specify whether this should be according to the taxes …

According to the standards of every group.

According to the standards of each group, the hon. member says. I realize that this was the policy of the old United Party several years ago. The hon. member probably took it over from there. However, on what basis does one determine the contribution of a group to national life? Does one determine it on the basis of the taxes paid by the group? Does one determine it on the basis of salaries and income, the earnings of entrepreneurs? How exactly does one determine it? If this can be laid down as the norm for representation in this House of Assembly—if the contribution that is made is the norm—does this mean that such a norm should also be applicable to the Whites on a provincial basis? The hon. member advocates this norm with regard to the Indians, the Whites and the Coloureds. Now he is already leaving out the Black people. If, for the sake of argument, the Transvaal made a contribution of 65% to life in South Africa, economic and otherwise, would this mean that they would be entitled to a 65% representation in this House?

No.

The hon. member says “No”. Why does he then propose that such a norm should be used with regard to the representation of Indians, Coloureds and Whites in the House of Assembly? In other words, if the norm cannot be extended to other fields, surely it is wrong to apply that norm here on a racial basis. I want to make the statement—and I do so without any malice—that such a norm is in itself immoral, because it means that those who contribute a great deal will receive strong representation, while those who contribute little, but who actually need the representation and the say and the development, will receive a minimum of representation. The norm is immoral, and I say this without any ill-will. I want to make a further allegation. Representation of various peoples, Indians, Coloureds and Whites, in this House is undesirable at this stage because of historic development and the whole course of history up to now. It is also undesirable at this stage because there are not only racial differences. There are social and economic differences running parallel to the racial differences. In an election on the basis of “one man, one vote”, or on whatever basis, people tend to connect the economic level with the political level in their process of evaluation. In the White sector we have a reasonable measure of political stability at the moment, but it would cause political instability in South Africa if representation were given to Whites, Coloureds and Indians, because the differences in the social and economic spheres are still so great. What will happen in 20, 30 or 50 years’ time, when the economic and social differences have changed, is not a matter about which I can make any recommendations today. It is a matter that future generations can decide about, but we have to spell out guidelines for today’s circumstances that can be implemented in practice. Under the present circumstances, it is not practicable and desirable to have representation for Whites, Coloureds and Indians in the same House. Apart from the immorality of the concept underlying the proposal made by the hon. member for Simonstown, there is also the prospect of political, social and economic instability. I know the hon. member’s party is not very large and not very vigorous, but I just want to destroy this concept once and for all. There is no question of such a thing being possible in the context of Southern Africa.

That does not mean the principle is wrong.

I am talking about the present practical circumstances. That is why I say it is totally wrong under the present practical circumstances to think or to create the expectation that such a thing is possible. Far too much water will have to flow under the bridges before such a thing can be implemented in practice.

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member opposed to separate homelands for Indians and Coloureds?

Mr. Speaker, the policy of the NP is quite clear. We are in favour of separate homelands for the Blacks …

I was not talking about the Blacks.

… who originally had their own traditional territories. However, the Indians are an imported group which has only been here for the past 100 years. There is no area anywhere which is known as their traditional home. In any event, most of them lead an urbanized life within a radius of 50 km around Durban. As far as the Indians are concerned, therefore, it is quite impossible to talk in practical terms about a homeland for them. The same applies to the Coloured people. There is no separate homeland which can be established in practical terms for the Coloured people. Therefore, it is not the policy of the NP to think in terms of a separate homeland for the Coloured people, although the Griekwas, who form part of the Coloured people, have now asked for an investigation into the possibility of having something of this nature made available to them.

Let me come to another very important aspect. I am convinced that what is more essential than anything else at this stage is a sense of responsibility in developing the human material in the Black states. The Indians have most closely approached the level of the Whites in their economic development. The Coloured people have a larger backlog, but they too are fast improving their position. In respect of the Blacks, however, there is still an enormous backlog. One of the factors contributing to this is the enormous difference between the net population increase of the Whites on the one hand and the Blacks on the other.

The Department of Statistics has published figures concerning the total population and the net increase or net growth of the various population groups. We find that the net increase of the Blacks is today estimated at 28 per 1 000 per year. The total Black population within the present borders of the Republic of South Africa, excluding the de facto population of Transkei and Bophuthatswana, was approximately 24 million last year. According to statistics, the total net increase in the number of Blacks in South Africa today is 457 000 a year. The net increase among the Whites is 8,8 per 1 000 per year. According to the 1979 statistics, there are 4,5 million Whites. In other words the net increase—i.e. the number of births less deaths—of the Whites last year was, in round figures, 39 000 as against 457 000 in the case of the Blacks. When the number of immigrants last year is added, the net increase among the Whites was 42 000. However, even if we took the most favourable immigration period, the one of 1975, when there were 50 000 White immigrants and 10 000 emigrants, the net increase of births plus immigrants would be 79 000 as against the net increase of 457 000 among the Blacks, 40 000 among the Coloureds and 15 000 among the Indians every year.

It must be realized that with the present economic structure and normal provision of employment, it is simply impossible to provide enough work to keep pace with that increase. If we have a net real growth rate of 5%, which we hope to achieve, we shall reach the stage where we shall be able to keep the unemployment rate static. That is what we can achieve with a growth rate of 5%, which is the ideal we hope to achieve by the end of the year. We would have to have an average growth rate of 6% per year over the next 10 years to bring about a gradual reduction in the unemployment figure.

In my opinion, we should concentrate on channeling much more development to the Black States. For this we need confidence, because the private sector is necessary to stimulate growth there. It cannot be done only by the State. State involvement must be much greater than it is today, but the main contributor to economic growth in the Black States must be the private sector. The private sector may ask: “We are prepared to invest there, but what security do we have against nationalization if the Black State concerned becomes independent?” So there are justified fears on the part of the White private sector because of what has happened in the rest of Africa. There is a great responsibility resting on the Black leaders of South Africa to adopt a standpoint which will give the White entrepreneur in the private sector the confidence that there is in fact an opportunity for him to make a positive contribution on the basis of private initiative to the development of the economy of the Black States. South Africa is now in the position where we are obliged for all practical purposes to think in terms of economic expansion based on labour-intensive enterprises, but in order to be really competitive today in the world economy we shall have to automatize to a greater extent in many spheres. However, we are forced by the circumstances and realities of Southern Africa to undertake labour-intensive expansions. If there is fuller employment without an accompanying increase in production to cover the increased remuneration, this will contribute to rising inflation, and that is not healthy for the economy of South Africa. These matters are all closely interrelated. That is why the Black leaders will have to come to a much more profound realization on the responsibility they have to make a contribution to the building of confidence in South Africa. The Black leaders should foster confidence on the part of the White private sector, and this they can only do by proving through their example that the White industrialists and White private entrepreneurs who are prepared to help them may be fully confident that there will not be any labour unrest and that there will be a willingness to recognize private initiative as the basis of economic growth. This is not possible if there is constant talk about possible bloodshed. It cannot happen if there is constant talk about tension and confrontation, especially when we look at the picture of what is going on in the rest of Africa. That is why the Black leaders of South Africa should further their own cause by showing a sense of responsibility in their practical conduct. I am convinced that we can all work together for a better future for all South Africa, i.e. for Blacks, Indians, Coloureds and Whites. For this, however, we need practical co-operation from Black leaders in many more spheres than at present, as well as the positive attitude of White South Africa, as demonstrated by the hon. the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Klip River has already built up a reputation as a debater of some stature. I want to pay him the compliment of having made another positive contribution this afternoon and of having maintained his usual standard.

In the course of this debate the particular political history of South Africa for the period 1914 to 1977 has been stressed. 1914 was the birth date of political parties in South Africa For 63 years the various governments of South Africa have sat on this side of the House and the Opposition, as the alternative government, on the other side of the House. But 1977 was the year of the death of the Opposition. The special task fulfilled by the Opposition in the past no longer exists. It is no longer the same.

I want to explain my statement. After the hon. the Minister of Finance had moved the Second Reading of the Part Appropriation Bill, the shadow Minister of Finance on the other side, as he was known up to 1977, did not speak on finances but, as the hon. member for Malmesbury put it, indulged in matters of no consequence. Nobody expected him to give his unqualified approval to the hon. the Minister’s speech, but why did he not render South Africa a service and use the House as a forum to tell the world of our economic recovery? Why did he not enlighten the world about the Johannesburg Stock Exchange’s activities and our latest achievements? Why did he not tell the world that a growth rate of 5% is predicted for this year? The leading countries of the Western world are by comparison only expecting a growth rate of 2%. Why did he not tell the world that last year South Africa attracted almost R600 million from abroad? Why not? He did not because their minds are full of how to share political power. In Monday’s Daily Dispatch I came across a letter from a voter in Gonubie, one of our lovely towns about 20 km from East London on the east coast. The letter, written by Mr. K. S. Abbott, appears under the heading “Power”—

I want the PFP to listen now because the words that follow are philosophical—

I regard the NRP as the remains of the deceased United Party. As the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South has shown us, it is in the process of decomposing. Disintegration is still taking place which is accompanied by the seeing of sights and the uttering of strange sounds. The hon. member for East London North sees the carrot the PFP are holding out to him as an olive branch. The hon. member for Durban Central made noises here on Friday which sounded more leftist than those of the leftist clique of the leftist group on the other side of the House. I am not a prophet but I feel something is about to happen, and that is that the NRP will shortly so disintegrate that it will look just as strange as its objectives.

In the midst of all the politicking and gossip campaigns that are being waged by that side against this side of the House, it is, and it remains, as the hon. member for Pretoria Central has said this afternoon, good to be a Nationalist.

What is your policy?

Do hon. members know how good it is to be a Nationalist? It is so good that this side of the House is and remains the most stable government in the whole of the Western world. This side of the House accommodates one of the most well-known and authoritative Ministers of Finance in the Western World, a State financier because of whom we are envied by the whole world. This side of the House also accommodates an active and efficient Deputy Minister of Finance who deftly and solidly backs up his Minister. [Interjections.] These two people form a combination which makes an impact on the economy of South Africa and they give a positive picture of South Africa to the world. That is more than one can say of the PFP.

What about the Minister of Tourism?

He is just as good.

It is only faultfinding and obstinate parties that do not have enough appreciation to give credit to the hon. the Minister and his deputy. I do believe that this is the negativism, inter alia, of which the hon. the Prime Minister accused them. Negativism spells doom because thereby the PFP and the NRP are fostering a feeling of inferiority and disparagement within a section of the population. This feeling by no means promotes patriotism and the sowing of this seed does not bear witness to patriotism.

I want to come back to the hon. the Minister of Finance. I have a proposition for his consideration. As layman I do this with the greatest boldness because last year during the discussion of the Part Appropriation Bill the hon. the Minister reflected a positive attitude towards proposals affecting finances, taxes and so on from any private member of this House. I just want to take a deep breath. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister must please do away with the principle of estate duty. Hon. members might now rightly ask why I want to speak about this again. Firstly, I want to speak about it because last year the hon. the Minister in reply to my plea said the following (Hansard, 1 March 1979, col. 1580)—

Secondly, this is an important matter because during the previous session estate duty and related matters were raised in no fewer than 12 speeches. Thirdly, it is important because the farmer, the small businessman and many others differ with the hon. the Minister’s view expressed on the same date in the same column when he said the following—

I want to argue that it is in fact a bogy. Estate duty is a bogy in the sense that it is a destroyer of wealth because capital is sucked from an undertaking, yes, confiscated, sometimes simultaneously with the passing of its management; (b) a restraint on productivity because it has a depressing influence on the incentive to work; and (c) an obstacle, no, a stumbling-block in the way of the creation of job opportunities. Job opportunities are, after all, the result, the outcome of the harnessing of ability.

What is the history of estate duty? Estate duty has been in force since succession duties were abolished in 1955. During the five year period from 1960 to 1965 the State collected the sum of R45 145 924 from estate duty and, during the five year period from 1975 to 1979, the amount was R206 640 059. It is clear that the amount collected in this way rose by 457% over a period of 15 years. The latest statistics of the Department of Inland Revenue, which I have with me, are for the calendar year 1976.

Are those the latest?

Yes, these are the latest. I shall then refer to this year. The number of estates lodged was 26 310. Of these 1 838 were liable for duty and the duty assessed amounted to R35 105 812.

And how many cents?

That is not important. In the NP we only speak of rands and we are not concerned now with cents. In these times the children buy sweets with cents.

This form of tax is disruptive of economic initiatives, so much so that there are numerous experts who devote themselves exclusively to planning estates in such a way that the maximum amount of duty can be reduced. In contrast to this, the State has to employ numerous officials to check the large number of 26 310 estates and eventually to levy duty on 1 838 estates, a duty which is levied on less than 7% of all estates, so as eventually to bring in less than 0,4% of the total annual revenue. We must now examine the question to see if the State is not in fact spending more and if South Africa is not losing more in the way of brainpower than the fiscus actually gains. To put it pithily: “Is the game worth the candle?”

The estate duty set-up discriminates against the estates of those who are married out of community of property, to such an extent that it brings about social evils. One hears it said quite generally these days that couples who are married out of community of property consider divorce simply so that they may remarry in community of property with the specific aim of evading estate duty.

I want now to dwell briefly on some of the 12 speeches to which I referred earlier. I quote from Hansard, col. 5226, of 30 April 1979, where the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture had this to say—

I should like to know what amount of money flows out of agriculture in the form of insurance premiums to be paid in order to cover estate duty eventually. I think it is an enormous amount. It is money which flows out of agriculture, money which is therefore lost to agriculture. I think that we shall have to take a careful look at that as well.

Money is therefore drawn from agriculture and, with aversion and tears, manipulated into insurance. This money could flow back into agriculture and in this way agriculture could save more and borrow less. These manipulated amounts could have stayed in the small business undertakings.

I want now to quote what the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke said on 4 May 1979 during discussion on the Vote of Inland Revenue. At that time he was chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. He said in Hansard, col. 5680, of 4 May 1979—

The Franzsen Commission of inquiry into Fiscal and Monetary Policy in South Africa had this to say in paragraph 364 on page 90 of its second report—

Now, I do not wish to become involved in a debate with a team of experts like Dr. Franzsen and the members of his commission in the sphere of State finance, but I want to state categorically that I do not agree at all with certain arguments and views of the commission. In paragraph 362 of the same report we find, inter alia, the following—

This would seem to imply that “any heir who is otherwise able to do so” can or will now be changed into a good-for-nothing simply because his inheritance has not been subjected to tax. I cannot see that the hon. the Minister can maintain the principle of estate duty on a motivation which this argument advances as being a fair one. The paragraph goes on to say—

I find this conclusion just as strange, inexplicable and incomprehensible as the principle of estate duty itself.

Hear, hear!

My time has almost expired and so I quickly want to tell the hon. the Minister of Finance that the challenge for 1980 is that the tax system must be changed. Abolish estate duty and behold the creative effect as a result!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Klip River congratulated the hon. member for Hillbrow on “having delivered a well-read speech”. Perhaps I could make the same comment regarding the speech of the hon. member for Griqualand East, except for the use of the adjective “well”. But despite that, I would seriously like to congratulate the hon. member because I believe he has raised an extremely good point. He has obviously researched his subject extremely well, and I hope the hon. the Minister of Finance listened with sympathy to his plea. The point which particularly struck me was his suggestion that the hon. the Minister should perhaps inform us as to how much it costs his department to collect estate duty, because the question obviously arises whether the game is worth the candle. Is the expense involved worth the collection of the money involved? We know that expenses are increasing all the time. I believe it would do the House a lot of good if the hon. the Minister could give us some idea as to how much it does cost to collect estate duty. I do not know whether he has these figures available.

Earlier in the debate the hon. member for Pretoria Central gave a clarion cry to the effect that “Dit is lekker om Nasionaal te wees.”

Hear, hear!

Well, if I were a member of the NP, I would hang my head in shame. I would hang my head in shame at the things being done in my name.

Why do you not join the PFP?

I would hang my head because of affairs such as the Information scandal, such as the latest Dons story, where it has become increasingly apparent that State security is being used in order to carry out a surveillance of members of Opposition parties. One must query whether this was done for State security, or simply for political advantage. [Interjections.] There is another reason why I would hang my head in shame. A situation has arisen recently in Cape Town, on the comer of Kildare and Main Roads, Newlands, where an Indian by the name of Khalfey was ejected from a business in which he had been operating for some 27 years.

You have had your answer on that.

This was done supposedly in the interests of harmonious relationships between the colour groups. The answer which the hon. the Minister of Community Development always gives is that this is done in order that harmonious group relationships can continue. Yet, there was a man trading and living for 27 years without doing any damage.

I now want to get on to the two subjects which I basically wish to discuss in this particular debate. The first subject which I wish to debate is the popular one of gold. We are all aware that South Africa has had a gold bonanza. We are also aware of the important part gold plays in the economy of the world today. The hon. the Minister of Finance has been the first to encourage the continued use of gold as a major item of economic importance for every country and he has, correctly, encouraged countries to keep to the gold standard. He has done so in the belief that it is an extremely precious metal, which is very advantageous for people to hold, whether those people be banks, whether they be Governments or whether they be private individuals. In the gold debate we have had during this part appropriation I should like to introduce a new thought, because I think the hon. the Minister should consider allowing South Africans—and I talk now of individuals—to own gold. We have a situation in this country in which we are allowed to own gold as jewellery. Once it has been processed and some articles of jewellery been manufactured out of it we are allowed to own it. We are also allowed to own it in the form of a Kruger Rand, which is, of course, another form of the processing of gold. In this country we are, however, not entitled to buy a bar of gold, whatever the particular size of that bar might be, whether it is a 10-oz. bar or whether it is the normal sized bar into which gold is cast. I believe we in South Africa should be entitled to join in the prosperity of the Government, because the Government has done extremely well out of being the owner of a vast amount of gold.

People are allowed to own gold shares.

There are many countries, particularly the Eastern countries, in which people do own gold. Those people have also made for themselves a tremendous capital profit out of their ownership of gold. The South African citizen, however, has not been able to do that. I believe that is a situation which should be rectified.

The hon. member for Von Brandis says people can of course own shares in gold mines. That is perfectly true. As I have also said, they can own gold in other processed forms. To be able, however, to buy the basic raw material, the basic article that we export, is not allowed in South Africa. Had this happened five years ago, had we been allowed then to own gold, I believe South Africa would have been a richer country today because that gold in the hands of private individuals would have appreciated enormously. It would have generally increased the wealth of South Africa.

Now, I of course appreciate the fact that there is a problem. That problem is that we of course want to export our gold for the sake of foreign earnings. If one thinks of that it is, of course, perfectly true. We cannot, I believe, give carte blanche on this particular subject. If, however, we were to do as we have done in the case of Kruger Rands, if the South African Government would declare itself prepared to allow X quantity of gold—a figure to be set by the hon. the Minister of Finance himself—to be sold internally, in South Africa, to private individuals, I believe we would certainly be doing a very good thing. Another question which might be raised is the following. Of course, gold is very readily portable wealth. One can virtually put it into one’s pocket or into one’s suitcase and leave the country with it with a fair amount of ease. But that argument, I believe, no longer applies because there are so many commodities of this nature with which one can do exactly the same thing. I think Wainer was a case in point. There are other cases in point too. People can buy stamps, for instance, for enormous sums of money. Stamps are far more easily transportable than gold. So, I would urge the hon. the Minister to consider this situation.

The second point I wish to discuss is the leg of our amendment which deals with the economic advancement of South Africa. That is the first leg of our amendment. I should like to draw to the attention of the hon. the Minister the plight of the Cape Province generally. We have recently had a general registration of voters in South Africa It has become apparent from that registration that there is a move of population away from the Cape and into the Transvaal. In saying this I am not at all suggesting that the Cape Province has actually dropped in population, but the point is that the Transvaal has gone ahead in terms of numbers of voters far faster than has the Cape. If we were in fact to have a redelimitation I am sure the hon. leader of the NP in the Transvaal would be claiming that his province, the Transvaal, should get a number of additional seats in this House. In fact, the hon. member for Rissik indicates 10 additional seats. I think that is an indication … [Interjections.] That hon. member is either holding his hands up in horror or he is indicating “10”. Whatever the number is, however, there is no question that there is a large additional number of seats that should go to the Transvaal in a re-delimitation. I think this is indicative of the fact that the economic muscle and the economic development are increasingly being shifted to the Transvaal and I believe that this has, to quite a large extent, been to the disadvantage and detriment of the Cape Province. The situation is particularly serious when one realizes that the White man who lives in the Cape can, if he is offered a job opportunity in the Transvaal, leave the Cape, go and live in the Transvaal and work there. Regrettably, however, the same thing does not apply to the Coloureds, Indians and Blacks. They are not able to up and move because they cannot get work permits. They have great difficulty in doing so. There are many Blacks here in Cape Town who cannot get work permits. I am not trying to turn this into an apartheid debate.

I am simply trying to stress the point that in this situation the onus predominantly falls on the people of colour in the Cape Province. They cannot go to get the work and they therefore have a very great problem indeed. The point I am wanting to stress is that I believe that the hon. the Minister should seriously consider what he can do to reverse the trend of this, shall we say, depopulation of the Cape, or the improvement in the Transvaal at the expense of the Cape. In order to do this it is fairly obvious that one is going to have to create benefits to entice industries to move to the Cape Province.

We are all aware of the fact that approximately 60% of the South African market for commodities lies in the PWV area. As an indication of the sort of situations that arise in the Cape one has only to look at my own area, East London. One only has to look at that area to realize the sort of problems that have arisen. I am certain the hon. the Minister has many times heard me plead the case of East London, but it is a case that one has to plead continually, because the only things I have seen happen in this House, since I have been a member of this House, have been detrimental rather than advantageous to East London. We had the transportation board offices moved out of East London. We had the hon. the Minister of Tourism cutting East London out of the tourist map. It was not one of the areas to be advertised, to the outside world, as a tourist areas of South Africa. The inevitable has happened. I want to refer to a report in the Daily Dispatch of Wednesday, 13 February, an article on the Quail Commission report. For the benefit of those hon. members who perhaps do not know, the Quail Commission was the commission that reported on Ciskei’s independence. The article reads as follows—

In a later paragraph there is the following—

An unemployment figure of 39%! That was indicated by the Quail Commission comprised of highly intelligent people who met for a long time and had all sorts of facts and figures at their disposal. This is nothing short of a tragedy for the people in this area. The report continues—

Surely we cannot sit by and continue to watch this happen, because what does unemployment mean? Basically unemployment means starvation and deprivation for a large number of people. The situation is a deteriorating one, as is further evidenced in the report—

I do not think there can really be any doubt left in anybody’s mind that we have a problem in the East London area, a problem which is becoming more and more urgent day by day. I seriously believe it is time the Government took some action in regard to East London. We had some very nice words from the hon. the Prime Minister last year. He gave us in the East London area a vote of confidence, but nothing has happened. I am afraid that confidence in this situation is not enough. In this situation we need the economic help of the Government, not necessarily in terms of rands and cents given to us, but in terms of concessions given to the area to encourage industrialists to go there.

We have, for instance, Escom rates which are virtually the highest in the country. I can tell the hon. the Minister that if I am to have electricity on my own farm just outside Queenstown—and we are spending currently R1 200 to R1 500 per month there on diesoline—the line charges are over R400 per month. This is a tremendous figure. Why do we not have a hydro-electric scheme in that area? There was at one stage a plan for the Orange-Fish River scheme to encompass a hydro-electric scheme for the Eastern Cape, but it never eventuated. It disappeared somewhere along the line. To take electricity from the Transvaal to East London, which is what happens now, is really uneconomic, because it has been decided that 400 km is the maximum distance over which one can transport electricity economically. Sir, I leave my plea in the hon. the Minister’s hands and I hope that this session will see something good happening for East London.

Mr. Speaker, firstly I want to deal briefly with the remark made by the hon. member for East London North at the beginning of his speech when he referred to what the hon. member for Pretoria Central had said about it being nice to be a Nationalist. I want to tell that hon. member that when the courtship between his party and the official Opposition has run its course and he has taken his seat in the official Opposition benches, he will come to the conclusion that it is exceedingly unpleasant to be a Prog. He must be careful when he argues about and refers in a derogatory manner to what the hon. member for Pretoria Central said.

Mr. Speaker, I shall come back at a later stage to what he said about the so-called gold bonanza. I first want to avail myself of the opportunity, since we are nearing the end of this debate, to refer to certain remarks made by the hon. member for Yeoville. During the past few days the spotlight has been focused on the Part Appropriation Bill. It is true that a wide field can be and was covered in this debate. However, it is also true that any reasonable person will expect the House to give proper attention to financial matters. It is the responsibility of the Opposition—and I am referring to the official Opposition in particular—to discuss with the Government the financial policy-and-financial discipline that is needed to place our national economy on a sound footing. It is a pity that the Opposition has once again failed to do this properly.

What did the hon. member for Yeoville do, Sir? He continued to build on the old tradition he has long since established for himself in this House by making one promise after another to John Citizen—a typical Father Christmas with empty hands. He makes wild and irresponsible promises that will give the man in the street the impression that he is championing the cause of the pensioner and the poor man in the street. I think the time when the public would simply accept that this Father Christmas role of his warranted serious attention is past. There may have been a time when hands were held out very expectantly for what he had to offer but I think those days are gone. His supporters have been disillusioned and his role as Father Christmas has come to an end. When one analyses the speech made by the hon. member for Yeoville as well as the one made by the hon. member for Bryanston on financial matters, one may presume that the pattern of the financial policy of the official Opposition is one of giving without any need for a quid pro quo. Let us consider what the hon. member for Yeoville is asking for and what he is recommending to the hon. the Minister. Firstly, he asked for the sales tax to be reduced. That is a very popular statement and one that will meet with general approval. If the Minister were to announce in his reply or in his Budget speech that the sales tax was to be reduced it would be a very popular announcement. If we are prepared to achieve that feat and to forfeit that revenue, we must also ask ourselves what the consequences would be. For example, where must the additional funds come from to make up for that loss?

He asked further that the surcharge on imports should be abolished. That sounds like a fine idea and we shall all be pleased if the hon. the Minister were to see his way clear to doing so. It is true that the Government is now beginning to reap the benefits of the higher gold price. Additional revenue is now reaching the State coffers but I want to warn against the possible danger of this giving rise to certain expectations.

During the course of this debate the hon. member for Yeoville deliberately created the impression that, in view of the so-called gold bonanza, money was freely available and that it could be spent and wasted indiscriminately. The actual benefits to be derived from the rising gold price will only be felt at a much later stage—only when the gold mines have paid their taxes in full. Even after we have derived the full benefits from it, surely financial discipline will still have to be exercised in the way that money is spent. Our oil position has not yet recovered to such an extent that we can sit back and say that the worst of that problem has now been overcome. The financial demands in this respect will still have to be borne in mind. Similarly, defence expenditure will continue to make ever greater demands on State funds. That is something we must bear in mind and answer for. We cannot shy away from that or ignore it.

However, we are grateful for the fact that we have a Minister of Finance who knows exactly what course he wants to take with the finances of South Africa. In his budget speech last year he urged us on with the slogan: “Growth with financial discipline.” Today we should be grateful to him for his foresight. South Africa is reaping the fruits of that policy today.

What does the future, this new year, hold for us? There could be possible increases and an alleviation of fiscal and monetary measures. Interest rates on loans will come down and are already doing so. The climate is being created for a most positive improvement in the financial position of the man in the street. We welcome that and gladly accept that the hon. the Minister has considered the economic plight of the man in the street and the pensioner. I have no doubt about that.

However, if financial relief can be granted, if one’s financial position is no longer as critical as it is today, and one has received an increase in salary or has made an increased profit, to what will that lead? Will that simply lead to reckless spending again? As happened in 1974 will that money simply be spent on leading an easy life or is that money going to be used judiciously and wisely in such a way that it does not afford us temporary pleasure, only to find at a later stage that our financial position is as critical as it was before?

I think salary increases, increased profits and economic growth go hand in hand with increased productivity. If we are going to benefit financially from the coming Budget—I am referring to our national economy in its entirety—if we are going to get relief in the form of salary increases or whatever form it may take, a special obligation will rest on the shoulders of each one of us to increase our productivity. We cannot simply take without being prepared to give. What must we give? We shall have to be prepared to work harder for what we receive and enjoy. We shall have to exert ourselves to the best of our ability to be able to take full advantage of our benefits.

The White man in South Africa will have to do that. Apart from his responsibility to furnish financial and economic guidance, he will have to be prepared to work harder and to become better equipped professionally and give a better account of himself. The other colour groups in South Africa who, in the nature of things, form part of the economic structure in this country, will have to realize that a higher standard of living and a higher wages and salaries go hand in hand with greater responsibility and obligations.

Yesterday the hon. member for Bryanston in his customary—and I am tempted to say irresponsible—manner, asked, inter alia, that the gold bonanza be used to narrow the wage gap. It is the policy of the Government to narrow the wage gap but it would be senseless and unwise to continue to narrow the wage gap if that is not accompanied by increased productivity. The quid pro quo in the form of hard work and of course increased and improved skills will have to receive more attention in future.

However, I also want to utter a word of warning against an irresponsible increase in the price of labour. Just like any other commodity, labour is bought; it is paid for. If the price of labour becomes too high, it may happen that less use will be made of it. We advocate labour intensive projects, especially in the present upward cyclical movement. Should the demands for a narrowing of the wage gap be met, it may happen that the Black man will contract himself out of the labour market and that capital intensive undertakings will become predominant, undertakings in which mechanization will play a very important part and will then have to be imported as substitute components. We shall have to guard against this happening. If we do not the position will be one of increasing unemployment. A splendid and economically sound financial future awaits us in the years that lie ahead. What are we going to do with it?

Sir, I conclude by saying the following: May I suggest that we view our financial future in the light of increased productivity, that leads to sound growth.

Mr. Speaker, up to a certain point in his speech the hon. member for Gezina touched on a number of important subjects, but towards the end of his speech I must admit that he shocked me somewhat by his cynicism. I refer to his reaction to the speech by the hon. member for Bryanston, in which the hon. member asked for a narrowing of the wage gap. The hon. member for Gezina commenced by saying that the Government, too, wanted to do so; and then he added at once that it could not be done unless the concomitant improvements in productivity took place. However, what did my hon. friend ask for? What was the first thing he asked that should be done with the funds that could be used in the budget this year? It was in fact the improvement of education and training. If the hon. member for Gezina wants to seek the cause of poor productivity in our country, then he will in fact find it—as we have said before—in the poor education and training our working classes receive. As long as the hon. member and his colleagues persist in saying that productivity should first increase before efforts can be made to narrow wage gaps, so long these services will remain poor, and productivity too, as a result of this.

Hon. members have discussed a number of matters during this debate, as they are entitled to do, and in the time at my disposal I want to refer to only three of these. These are, firstly, the general financial situation, and what the hon. the Minister of Finance should do. Secondly, I want to refer briefly to the dialogue that took place here at an earlier stage between the hon. member for Constantia and the hon. the Minister of Environmental Planning and Energy. Thirdly, if I have the opportunity, I should like to try and contribute something to the debate on constitutional matters.

I shall begin with the first of these issues. It is totally unnecessary to reiterate that the hon. the Minister of Finance finds himself in an enviable position as far as the balance of payments and his revenue are concerned. It is also true that certain signs of accelerated growth are apparent in the economy today, although the upswing in domestic consumption has not been very dramatic yet, and the upswing which has taken place has to a certain extent been based on export. Although fixed investments by the private sector are now apparently improving there is still much room for improvement. Hence, of course, the understandable appeals from the private sector for a budget which will reduce personal tax, for the purpose of stimulating consumption, and which will also alleviate the lot of companies. There is a great deal that is highly encouraging in the financial-economic picture, but there are also two vexing problems. One is unemployment, and the other is inflation. Let us note that both these factors weigh heavily on the lesser privileged among us, and consequently both are dangerous to the stability of our society. A few minutes ago the hon. member for East London North reminded us of the conditions in his part of the world. Whereas one is quite willing to see under these circumstances the economy being stimulated, it should not be thought that, in the particular circumstances of South Africa today, it would be sufficient merely to stimulate strongly and then to expect that the subsequent upswing will create new employment opportunities and consequently solve the unemployment problem.

It is not as easy as that. The reason for this, as some of us have often emphasized, is that our balance of manpower has fallen out of step with our economic development. We have an oversupply of unskilled labour and a shortage of skills and consequently a very grave danger exists that an upswing in economic activity is going to get stuck at the bottleneck of a shortage of skills and that this in turn will encourage inflation, aggravate further the lot of the lesser-privileged and increase our whole cost structure.

Incidentally, I also just want to say that there is a very definite upward pressure on the exchange rate of the rand, which will probably be yielded to a greater or lesser extent at some juncture. If inflation continues at anything like at the rate of the past year, the prospects in respect of some of our export goods, agricultural products in particular, will certainly not be good.

We noticed the other day that the hon. the Minister of Finance dropped a hint that he was considering possible monetary steps to deal with the liquidity problem, and that is to be welcomed. We can but hope that those steps will also be sound in respect of the inflation rate. One need not necessarily be a disciple of Milton Friedman to believe that the danger of inflation in the present money market conditions is substantial.

What, then, must the hon. the Minister’s priorities be? I said that stimulation can take place, but then it must be done with circumspection, with a constant eye on the shortage of skills and the danger of inflation. Secondly, the highest possible priority must be given to the education and training of our labour force. Note, it is education as well as training. Here I associate myself very strongly with what the hon. member for Durban North said last night, viz. that facilities established to provide industrial training have in many cases not made the contribution they should have, because there was a shortage of candidates whose basic education enabled them to benefit from advanced training. Everything possible must be done at all levels, among adults and children, to improve and expedite education and training, among our Black people in particular. Not only because it is a good thing, but because to neglect to do so, would act as a continuing brake on our economic progress.

Last, but by no means least, I believe that the hon. the Minister of Finance and the Government should utilize as many as possible of the available resources to narrow the socio-economic gap between our lesser-privileged and our wealthy people. Hon. members opposite like to talk about the total onslaught on us and on our country, and many of those hon. members also say that if we want to strengthen ourselves, it is necessary to bring home to our working class that they, too, have something to lose. It is already late in the day and that realization is still not very strong among our Black workers today. The matter is becoming urgent.

It is very clear that the top priority for South Africa today must be the improvement of the quality of life of the lesser-privileged. For reasons I have already mentioned, I put education and training at the very top of the list; then follows housing, and then services such as electricity, transport and many others.

Here I associate myself enthusiastically with the hon. member for Bryanston who put this case excellently in the course of this debate. He referred to a number of examples where Black people received services or wages that were not only inadequate, but were also on a basis that was clearly humiliating and unnecessarily discriminatory. To rectify such matters is far more urgent in the interests of the country than any of the other good things the Government can now do.

†At this point, let me also support something else that the hon. member for Bryanston said. There are of course great flaws in our society, such as the shortage of educational facilities, housing and services, things that cannot be eradicated overnight, and the hon. member said so. But then, as he asked, let there be clear declarations of intent, clear commitments by this Parliament and this Government to find the money to carry out these reforms as quickly as possible. There are several advantages in issuing such a declaration, and not least among them, is the effect it could have on countries around us, and this, from what one hears, is relevant to the Government’s present policy and intentions. There is a willingness in these countries, even an eagerness to trade with us, but there is a reluctance to be seen doing so, because of our internal policies, perceived, as they are, as being based on racism and apartheid.

It was truly observed long ago, by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, that in many instances South Africa’s external policy consists, in effect, of her internal policy. That is apposite here. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his people do their best, and it is often quite a good best, but in the end it is what happens here in South Africa that determines whether our external relations improve or deteriorate. I am convinced that a strong declaration of intent, such as was sought by the hon. member for Bryanston, would do a great deal of good in that regard.

I now wish to say a brief word about the dialogue between my hon. friend from Constantia and the hon. the Minister of Mines. The hon. the Minister, if he will forgive me for saying so, Sir, appeared rather ruffled and annoyed—I think the fashionable word in that party nowadays is “krapperig”—when he spoke yesterday. Perhaps it was because some of the hon. member for Constantia’s criticisms went home, or perhaps it was just because the hon. the Minister, being human like everybody else, would have preferred to have said his say on energy before anybody else came along and as it were pre-empted the subject in this debate. Nevertheless, the hon. the Minister rose eloquently to the defence of Sasol 1, Sasol 2, Escom and other institutions which my hon. friend had never attacked, indeed had gone out of his way to praise. The hon. the Minister explained to us once more, and it does need explaining, his rather arcane formula for assisting producers of ethanol and methanol. Whether the assistance he offers will prove adequate or not, I think he will agree, is something we will see in future.

What the hon. the Minister did not do was to reply to the central criticisms my friend had made. The first is that while the only way to reduce crude-oil imports is to reduce the consumption of crude-oil for diesel, the Minister goes on harassing the motorist who uses petrol, while the situation, given the mix of consumption in our country and the products that come out of our refineries, is that under present circumstances, if we have adequate supplies of diesel we are always likely to have a surplus of petrol. The second criticism related to the under-financed and ill co-ordinated state of energy research and to the small progress made in developing renewable energy sources to the limit. The Minister would have added lustre to his already formidable reputation if he had met the criticism that was made rather than that which was not made.

I should now like to make a small contribution to the debate on constitutional matters. I shall not traverse ground that is well-trodden in this debate, but I want to pick up two themes from the Government side that have recurred. Firstly, the Government’s policy is to divide power by way of what the hon. member for Benoni has now clearly described as a confederation. Secondly, the Government alleges that Opposition policy means that the rights of minorities will be in danger. I propose to deal with the last-named matter first, namely the rights of minorities, and then let that lead me on to an examination of the latest version of NP policy. Clearly, as the hon. member for Bloemfontein North said, there is a danger to the rights of minorities, and to the rights of the White minority specifically, in South Africa. There is a danger of conflict, of clash and even of violence, but what defeats me is why that hon. member should suggest that this danger has anything to do with the policy of the PFP. The White minority is in danger in South Africa specifically because it is so ostentatiously more fortunate in every way than other population groups; because it has a monopoly of political power, and because, sometimes justly and sometimes unjustly, it is held responsible by the majority of the population for the state of affairs. In these circumstances one does not have to give people the vote in order to create danger. The danger flows from the sense of grievance and of deprivation, and from the flaunting of privilege by some unwise White people. There are only two ways to reverse this danger. The one is to remove the minority population physically from the source of the danger, and the other is to redress the grievances which give rise to the danger. The latter is, of course, the PFP’s approach. What hon. members on the other side are really saying is that the redress of grievances is a difficult, expensive, uncertain business and that racism, in any case, is a difficult sin to eradicate. That is all true, and the reason why this party proposes a number of safeguards against racist action in politics is because we realize that it is true. This is the real question. Granted that hon. members may have an argument of sorts for the proposition that the PFP’s policy leaves something to be desired, the real question is how they think they are protecting the White minority against danger.

A generation ago the predecessors of the hon. members opposite had an answer. I always thought it was a bad one, but still they had an answer. It was that they were going to bring about physical separation between the White minority and the Black majority, thus eliminating the danger. But this has now changed. The permanence of the urban black people has finally been accepted. Now the hon. members have a policy which is called “constellation” or “confederation”.

Now, for the sake of the argument, let us set on one side all the elements of the hon. member for Benoni’s confederation other than the central one, viz. the Republic of South Africa, or whatever remains of it. The first question is whether the White people will form a majority or minority in that State? I do not think it has ever been suggested that it would be anything other than a minority. Secondly, if they are a minority, how are they to be protected? In terms of that party’s policy, I have no doubt that effective political power is to be maintained in White hands. But how does that protect them against danger? In the Nationalist Utopia of the future, will the White minority not depend for its survival on the economic contribution of the non-White majority? What answer, what recipe has the NP other than a determination to maintain voting control? Sir, the vote is not power; it is simply a convenient and peaceful way of giving expression to a power that one has by virtue of one’s economic contribution and one’s social importance. In the future South Africa, as those hon. gentlemen appear to see it, the Black people will have both economic and social importance, but no effective political rights. If there is not to be a physical separation, and there is not to be power sharing, then what is left is actually White “baasskap” as we have it today.

I have appealed to the hon. the Minister of Finance, who has resources at his disposal, to do a number of things which can be very important in diminishing danger and alleviating the tensions which exist in our society. I hope he will do these things, because at the very least they will buy us time and at best they may be a major factor in getting us through to a prosperous and peaceful future. However, let me say at the same time, we cannot look to the hon. the Minister of Finance and to his economic measures to save South Africa on their own. What he may do along the lines of uplifting the underprivileged, what he may do along the lines of reducing the gap between the rich and the poor in South Africa, and what he may do to improve the productivity which the hon. member for Gezina spoke about and which is so necessary—all these things will not save us unless there is sensible thinking about the major political and constitutional questions. For me the quality of the Government’s answers on that were summed up very well earlier this afternoon: When the hon. member for Klip River was speaking and the hon. member for Simonstown asked him “What about the Coloureds and the Indians?”, he took three or four minutes to explain that there was not going to be a homeland for the Coloureds, and there was not going to be a homeland for the Indians, and then he changed the subject. That illustrates the political bankruptcy across the floor, which, no matter what the hon. the Minister of Finance may do to help us, is really going to create the dangers for this society in the future.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parktown, in the death throes of this debate, has spent about two minutes explaining negatively the policies of his party while supposedly discussing the constitutional future of South Africa by an attack upon the hon. member for Benoni. I have sat here throughout the last three days and made notes of, firstly, positive suggestions, and, secondly, times when members on that side of the House have made either positive suggestions or proposals in respect of the constitutional future of South Africa. I have a piece of paper here with four or five lines on it, most of which I can cancel out because they are meaningless, because as soon as our explanations were given, the suggestions fell away.

It is my pleasure to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Finance, not only on the Part Appropriation Bill before us, but also on what has happened over the past year.

I think the financial policy and the actions of the hon. the Minister have not only been good; they have been masterful. When one views the financial situation of South Africa in the light of the trends and currents of world history, and when one looks at our achievements in the light of the trends and currents of African history, it appears that the achievements of South Africa over this period are really outstanding.

Hon. members opposite have spoken very little about finance. I have heard from them pleas in respect of their constituencies. We have also heard from them a lot about how the national wealth should be shared, but we have heard very little from them about how national wealth can be created. That is the challenge, the economic challenge facing us; not how wealth should be distributed, but how additional wealth can be created in South Africa. The hon. member for Yeoville who usually—and I hope he will do it again during the main budget-displays a fertile mind and comes up with positive and interesting suggestions, did not put forward any positive suggestions in the speech he held during this debate. I am afraid that none of his hon. colleagues has come up with any constructive and positive suggestion either. The performance of the Government in recent times—and it is also clear from this part appropriation—shows that the Government has coped well and that it is a Government of compassion. In this respect I refer, for instance, to the bonus payments made to pensioners. One also realizes that this is a Government of compassion when one looks at the subsidies paid in respect of transport and food. [Interjections.]

It is important that these things be said because hon. members opposite have tried to depict hon. members on the Government side as people who do not care about the less privileged in our society. Hon. members opposite have tried to create the impression—not only here in the House, but also outside—that hon. members on the Government side are seeking to establish “Wit baasskap” in South Africa, that what the Government is doing now is simply a perpetuation of “Wit baasskap”. Through the use of oblique references they intimate that the reforms proposed by the Government are simply another way of maintaining “Wit baasskap” in South Africa Nothing can be further from the truth, however. [Interjections.] I cannot think of any people either in Africa or in the rest of the world who give as much service to a community than the White people of South Africa Small in numbers as they are they render tremendous services to the larger community within which they find themselves.

South Africans see themselves as servants in Africa, not as masters. They see themselves as servants to Western Christian ideals, servants to the ideal of finding solutions, servants to the ideal of creating independent countries, proud, sovereign countries standing side by side for the common good.

I put it to hon. members of the official Opposition that it is their duty to rally their supporters not by trying to prey on the carcass of the NRP …

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Bryanston is as noisy as always. Hon. members of the official Opposition should also not rally their supporters by way of pamphlets and slogans, but instead they should put forward genuine ideals, a justifiable cause with which they can rally their people around a genuine belief. The entire stance, the entire political tactics of the official Opposition are built upon sowing dissension. How I pity the hon. member for East London North. Hon. members of the official Opposition are right now trying to lure him away from the NRP. Like jackals around a carcass they are all trying to rip some more meat from the bones of the old United Party. [Interjections.]

One bit of information we have coming from the PFP is a book written by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Allow me to congratulate him. I told him I might refer to him in my speech, but unfortunately he is not here. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did a masterful acrobatic leap from a back bench to a front bench, and I congratulate him on that. I read his book, but I must say I did so with a mood of rejection. I shall tell hon. members why. I tried to read the book with an open mind and with as much fairness as I could muster. When one reads in the preface, however, how the hon. the Leader of the Opposition “thanks a number of colleagues and friends who helped him by criticizing all or part of his book in manuscript form”, one cannot help but wonder. Now, who are these friends and colleagues who assisted the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in writing his book? They are the people who wish to assist him in taking me and my children into the great unknown of the future of Africa.

Who are these people? I see one is Mr. Bill Foltz of the Department of African Studies at Yale University in the USA. Then there is Theodor Hanf, from Freiburg University in West Germany. Mention is made of a Mr. Morris Hirsch. I do not know who he is. There is Tom Karis, from Columbia University in the USA; Arend Lijphart, a Dutch academic working in the USA and Eric Nordlinger, an American academic from the USA. Then we have a lovely baby, Prof. Robert Rotberg, M.I.T., Harvard University. Now, we all know about Prof. Rotberg. He is a man who uses other people’s stationary. [Interjections.] I want to ask in all seriousness—and I ask it with tears in my eyes—must we in South Africa, as an African people, seek solutions in export model books like South Africa’s Options, in which the authors are aided, abetted and guided by people who are not friends of South Africa? I do not prejudge Dr. Robert Rotberg. I have taken the trouble to go to the American Cultural Centre to listen to Dr. Robert Rotberg and there is an hon. Senator of this Parliament who accompanied me and will endorse what I say. Prof. Rotberg called into question the sovereignty of the Government of South Africa. Is that the kind of man one would consult when one is seeking a future for one’s people in a difficult world? And my goodness it is a difficult world, and hon. members need not make it more difficult.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but my time is too limited to answer questions. Hon. members on the other side of the House say we must consult with Black, Brown and Indian people. Of course we do this, and of course there is no disagreement, but who did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition consult when he was seeking a future for his people? Did he consult any Black people?

Yes.

Did he consult any Brown or Indian people?

Yes.

Was he too ashamed to mention them in the credits?

Yes, he was.

Mr. Speaker, as an Afrikaner he did not even consult his own people and that I consider to be the greatest crime of them all.

What else has happened over this time? The most profound thing that is going to happen, is happening and has happened in this country is the revamping of the Public Service, which touches everyone of us, everyone of our constituents of all colours, no matter how humble, right throughout the country. Throughout this debate there was no mention of it by the Opposition, no mention of what should go where and no mention of how the enormous bureaucracy which governs all our lives should be ranked or ordered. They did not say a word. For them it is a non-event. For them the greatest reform of bureaucracy perhaps ever seen in the Western World is a non-event. [Interjections.] Where is the new policy? We are told about new initiatives, about the new style of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but where is this new style? No sooner had the hon. the Leader of the Opposition announced his new style, than we were back with the old gang talking about District Six and every other slum or problem they could dig up out of the problems of South Africa. That, I am afraid, is the truth, because the boldest and most profound reform that is taking place in this country absolutely passed the Opposition by as if it was a matter of little consequence. If we look at the performance of the Government with regard to the Wiehahn Commission, the Riekert Commission, the De Kock Commission, the Jacobs Committee, and all that flowed from this, and also the fact that we have the 99-year leasehold whereby something like 160 000 Black people in Soweto will get homes, we see that it has passed virtually unnoticed by the Opposition. There was a massive issue of Iscor shares so that the public could share in the State corporations. The rising aspirations born from the success of this society are being met by the Schlebusch Commission. All of these things that have taken place have almost passed the Opposition by.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 73.

Mr. Speaker, I believe hon. members will agree with me that we have debated for a long time. We have heard a number of very good speeches, and I think the speech we have just heard was a very good example. Under these circumstances I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.