Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, Rhodesia, or now more correctly Zimbabwe, is of course the subject of most political discussions in this country at the moment. In some cases the discussion is tinged with pessimism while in others there is some degree of dismay and bewilderment. But what we should not forget, are the discussions that are taking place among the Black community, where one finds somewhat different sentiments. Whatever the emotional reaction might be, however, the reality of the situation is that South Africa must live with this. South Africa must live with the reality of what has occurred in Zimbabwe and with all the implications which it has for Southern Africa. South Africa must adjust to the new situation, and this entails a variety of things, some of which I should like to mention today.

First of all it entails accepting the outcome of the election and the right of a neighbour to choose whatever Government it wishes. The choice of leaders and ideologies is their own prerogative. It does not mean that we must necessarily like what they have done, but it does mean that we must accept their right to choose as they wish. I believe that what the Republic of South Africa wants is stability and good neighbourliness. Our policy should be directed to this end. We should seek to encourage commercial relations to our mutual advantage and demonstrate to the new Zimbabwe the value of good relations with the Republic. Those commercial ties can always be the precursor to other relations.

One hopes that stability will come about, that law and order will prevail and that basic rights will be available to all, whether they be Black or White, whether they be majority or minority groups. While one hopes this one must not pretend, however, that there may not be problems. We in South Africa cannot be unmoved by events in Zimbabwe, nor can South Africans forget the feelings that they hold, feelings that arise from generations of association, whether it be in business, whether it be by reason of language or culture or whether it be by reason of association either on the sports field or on the battlefield.

In discussions on Rhodesia, however, should we also not consider what sort of discussions on this topic are taking place within the Black community of South Africa? These discussions and the mood they generate, as well as the decisions and actions that may flow from those discussions, are vital in any assessment which has to be made. Here one must ask the question whether it is not now the appropriate time to look again at the ability of the Government to evaluate facts and situations. I ask the question whether the correct evaluations were made of the Rhodesian situation. For that matter, looking at history, were the correct evaluations made by the South African Government prior to Sharpeville, prior to Soweto in 1976 and prior to the collapse of Portugal in Africa?

I should venture to suggest that this whole evaluation process and the ability of the Government to evaluate the situation need very urgent attention in South Africa.

The further question that arises is the question of whether, when we look at the process of change, timing is not an essential ingredient in that process. Let us examine the history of Rhodesia, and let us look at the lost opportunities and ask ourselves whether the same mistakes are not being made here in the Republic as were made in Rhodesia and whether there is not yet still time for the Republic to act correctly and to make changes from a position of strength. Change and negotiation should take place before the revolutionaries get greater strength and take recourse to massive violence. We in South Africa still have the ability to do so, but we are fast approaching the point of no return. We need to take action before we reach it.

There is another question which I should like to pose. That is the question of what the reaction is of moderate Black leaders in South Africa to the defeat of Bishop Muzorewa and other so-called moderate leaders in Zimbabwe. There may be many reasons for their defeat, but one reason stands out clearly and should be heard and understood by all of us. Moderate leaders must be able to show to the Black community the fruits of a peaceful policy of negotiation and co-operation. Unless there can be real benefits seen and experienced, modern leaders of stature who can command following will fade away and there will be decreasing consultation and negotiation with moderate leadership. To negotiate with leadership without following is a fruitless exercise. Leaders must be representative and must command following. For Black moderate leaders to do so they must be seen to be able to deliver the goods. There must be some fruits of negotiation. There must be some proof that, in fact, to be moderate and to negotiate is of greater benefit than to be a radical. That is a lesson that I believe we have to learn in South Africa. We have to see to it that moderate Black leaders can deliver the goods to their people.

There are also other lessons we have to learn. In Rhodesia, in election after election, the representatives of the White Liberal Party were wiped off the political map. The feeling was that a conservative Government was, in fact, the answer to their problems. The truth, however, was completely different because the final result was far removed from the policies of the party they elected, and the so-called Conservative Party eventually negotiated a deal that went far beyond what many liberals had, in fact, advocated in Rhodesia. The lesson to be learnt from this—and I think that South Africa must learn it and understand it—is that conservative Governments are no protection against change in Africa. If anything, they tend to accelerate the process and have it deviate from a path of peace to a path of violence.

Do you think your policy will work?

Those who stand blocking the path to peaceful change in South Africa, including—for the benefit of that interjector—those who block the hon. the Prime Minister’s path towards change in South Africa, are unwittingly assisting the advocates of change by violence. The truth is that if one blocks the path to peaceful change, in reality, even though one may not know it, one is assisting the cause of violence in Africa. What we must also understand, and what Rhodesia demonstrated, is that change is an on-going process. Once one embarks on a process of change, it must be taken to its logical conclusions. It is not something to be dealt with on an ad hoc basis, from time to time. There must be a plan. We must know where we are going, and there must be an orderly process of change so that the clear road ahead can be shown. People must know where they are heading when they embark upon a process of change. These might not be very popular things to say, but they need to be said in South Africa before it is, in fact, too late.

There is also no doubt about the fact that we need to look at the strategic situation in South Africa and review it. The effect of the Marxist-orientated Governments, right across the continent of Africa, may have an affect on Malawi, Zambia and even Botswana, and this in turn has the potential of giving rise to an outflanking manoeuvre as far as South West Africa is concerned. In the months and the years that lie ahead we are going to need very determined diplomatic activity in order to deal with this situation. There is no doubt that this has affected the whole concept of the constellation of States put forward by the hon. the Prime Minister. There is also no doubt about the fact that it will have to be adapted to this new dispensation. It is obvious to my mind that its application will now have to be restricted to South Africa, as it was before independent homelands were created. It may even well be that this may turn out to be a blessing in disguise, as this makes confederation or federation a far more practical possibility. There is, in fact, a likelihood that the constellation may rapidly develop into this kind of constitutional dispensation.

The Rhodesian situation might cause concern, but it is certainly no cause for despair, and certainly would not be if we learn the obvious lessons that have to be learnt from it. The issues, however, need to be crisply put to South Africa We in this House all agree that we must spend money on defence and that we must be strong. The question that has to be asked, however, is: Strong for what? The dividing line is being drawn between those who want to act now to solve the long-term problems of South Africa by realism and negotiation for a secure future, from a position of strength, and those who merely want to hang on to privilege for as long as they can. The issue is not: Fight or surrender. There is a third choice, and that is: Negotiate from strength. The ultimate outcome has been shown for all to see. Rhodesia is there as an example for all of us. The scenario has been completed, at great cost to some, but the question that has to be put is whether we are going to learn, and whether we are going to learn in time.

The events in Rhodesia lead one naturally to economic issues and the challenges that were levelled by the hon. the Minister of Finance at us, and at me in particular, about economic policy. Rhodesian Blacks voted not only for what they regarded as a liberating force, but also for a party advocating a particular economic concept, viz. Marxism. The question that has to be asked, not only by Rhodesians but also by South Africans, is why they in fact voted for that force. The answer, I believe, is perhaps that it was not because there was no projection of a true alternative, but because there was probably no projection of a credible alternative to Marxism in a form which to them was a solution to their economic grievances. That is the reality, if we examine it. In other words, they were looking for an alternative to Marxism, but there was none to be seen in the electoral process, as they saw it.

In Africa—the reality of the situation is clear—the word “capitalism” is associated with colonialism and White supremacy. Whether we like it or not, that is a reality, it is a fact. Capitalism is seen in Africa in a 19th century context. The distinction between the old-style capitalism and the 20th century free enterprise concept, as pointed out by people such as Galbraith and Schonfeld, is not understood in Africa. The new concept of free enterprise does in fact give answers to the Marxist appeals which are made to the masses of Africa. It has been demonstrated in other countries that this new concept means that communal ownership of the means of production is not only unnecessary to achieve prosperity, but that on the contrary private ownership and incentive in a modern industrialized society is the key to a more adequate and satisfying life. Germany and the United States have both demonstrated that effective social services are a part of the armoury of such a system and that their effectiveness in fact creates a prosperous society.

“Planning” and “strategy” are not dirty words when they are undertaken by the entrepreneur and the worker together. Without direction and objectives the misdirection and misuse of resources can have serious consequences for a society. What makes the argument advanced by the hon. the Minister of Finance in the Second Reading such a farce, with great respect, is that the reality is that South Africa has been and remains a mixed economy. Public utilities and major industrial activities are State-owned in South Africa. That is a reality of life. There is legislation which affects industrial and business activities at every turn. That is a reality. There is straight action designed to influence economic activity. That, too, is a reality. It is a mixed economy. One cannot get away from the fact that South Africa is a mixed economy. What is so farcical is that many of the so-called advocates of 19th century capitalism appeal to the Government for action every time there is something in the economy which they do not like. In such a case they appeal for State intervention, but when things are going well they say the Government must not interfere, that only the market mechanism must apply and that the market place must be allowed to remain free so that they can do what they like. The reality of the situation is that it is a mixed economy, it has been a mixed economy and it will remain a mixed economy.

Sir, there is more to it than that. The fact is that in South Africa we live in a country with structural and historical economic inequalities. That is a fact and we cannot get away from it. It is a reality. Sometimes one should put the cards on the table and not pretend that things are different from what they are. The fact is that skills are not equally available without regard to the colour line. The fact is that education expenditure is unequal in South Africa. That is a fact we cannot run away from. The fact is that social benefits are not on the same level. That is a reality. Let us not pretend that it is otherwise. The fact is, too, that gaps of income are real and that the quality of life varies greatly in South Africa. I say there can be no more fertile ground to exploit, relative deprivation, than this situation in South Africa. It is no use saying one must compare what is in South Africa with what is in other parts of Africa, because relative positions in Africa are not known to the people and are ignored. What is material, is the relative position in our society, in our community. That is what influences people and that is what influences events. To seek now to project capitalism without a social face, is no answer whatsoever as far as I am concerned. If one wants to project capitalism without a social face one is heading for the same problems that Rhodesia headed for. Let us make it very clear: South Africa has only one economy, an economy in which all are participating and has to participate. Therefore, if they all participate they should participate in all its aspects and have an opportunity of sharing in all its fruits; in other words, if there is one economy in South Africa, everybody is entitled to share in that economy in every conceivable way. To solve the problems we have in the economy in South Africa, we need to find a means of closing historical income and opportunity gaps by democratic economic processes. There will always be differences of income and wealth in democratic societies. Some people will work harder than others; some will have greater ingenuity; some will inherit wealth, while others have no desire for wealth. What is required, however, is to give equality of opportunity or to follow Crossland’s dictum and to create conditions which give equality in the opportunity to acquire ability and then to use that ability, and not to prejudice an individual for reasons over which he has no control, and not to handicap him for racial, religious, or other irrelevant attributes. I say today—and it may be unpopular to say it—that the truth is that an answer needs to be found to this economic problem in South Africa if South Africa is to survive in the form in which we want it to survive. Military force as such is not enough. Every general tells one that only 20% of solution is military. The answer is not what has been advocated by some people in some publications with which the hon. the Minister of Finance has associated himself. The answer is not a system which rejects equal pay for work of equal value. It is not a system which rejects increasing social services to alleviate economic distress, rejects minimum wages, rejects subsidies for the basic foodstuffs for the lower income group and presents an image which is identified with old-style colonialism. That is the road to disaster.

The hon. the Prime Minister said that South Africa needs a total strategy. It certainly does, but it needs a total economic strategy to achieve what I ask. What we venture to suggest—and this is in response to the challenge of the hon. the Minister of Finance—is that what South Africa needs is a caring society. I do not care what name one gives to it. Whether one gives it the name that I use, namely social democracy, or a democratic democracy, or a caring society, the name is not important. It is the substance which counts. What does such a society involve? It involves 10 particular points. The first is commitment to a system where there are real incentives to enterprise and labour. There must be a reward for ingenuity and for hard work. Secondly, there must be safeguards for private property and protection for the savings of the citizen. Thirdly, there must be full employment as the objective and planning with private enterprise to create the jobs to achieve it. Fourthly, there must be the creation of the necessary social services to provide for the aged, the unemployed and the infirm. Fifthly, what we want is a society in which the environment will be preserved, cultural values will be safeguarded and in which the objective will be to ensure a reasonable minimum standard of the quality of life for all the citizens of this country. Furthermore we want equal educational opportunities and the provision of vocational training facilities for all who desire it and can benefit from it. Next we want machinery to provide for equal pay for work of equal value. We want laws and conditions in which there is protection against exploitation and equality of bargaining power in the market mechanism. We want a society where all forms of legislation and other provisions which are based on race and which act in a discriminatory manner, must be removed, and full opportunity must be provided to seek advancement based on work and skill. We want an economic system which works within a democratic political system in which the individual’s economic, social and political rights are protected and where discrimination by reason of belonging or adhering to a group is eliminated.

We believe that these 10 points are the solution to the problem in respect of the economy in South Africa. That is the answer to the challenge which the hon. the Minister of Finance put forward. I challenge the NP to state its economic objectives and to state what they want to achieve in South Africa It is no good their saying that they want growth, happiness, mother love and all these things. The reality is if they want a grand strategy, they must let us know what that grand strategy is. We have spoken about inflation and growth because the reality is that if the economy grows and if inflation can be restrained, we can achieve the objective that we have set ourselves, but we will have to let all enjoy the fruits of incentive enterprise. It is not only for a few privileged people that this can take place; it has to take place for all South Africans. If we do not do this, if we do not create a society in which all can participate, then all the fine talk will have no credibility and the person who feels himself deprived will turn to more radical philosophies which promise a land of milk and honey. And when he finds out that those people who promised it, cannot deliver it to him, it will, unfortunately, be too late and he will have no second chance. The problems which face South Africa are not just political. The problems are of a political, social and economic nature, because the basic objective of politicians is to seek to improve the lot of the people whom they represent. They have to face that reality, because the realities of the struggles that have taken place in the White politics of South Africa have been identical. The struggle of the NP in the days when it wanted to get into power, was also a struggle for their own people, for a part of the economy and for participation in the economy, because they regarded themselves as not having had a fair share of it.

You opposed us.

I never fought against it. That is an untruth, and the hon. member knows it. If they do not learn the lessons of Rhodesia and the lessons of their own struggle, they are not only leading themselves on a path of destruction, but are leading the whole of South Africa on this path. I therefore appeal that we must see the realities of today and learn the lessons of history.

Order! Before the hon. member sits down I must tell him that it is unparliamentary to say to an hon. member that he is telling an untruth and that he knows it. The hon. member must therefore withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them.

Mr. Speaker, if ever we have had a demonstration of the political bankruptcy of the Opposition, we had one this afternoon from the hon. member for Yeoville. In the first place I had thought that we were dealing here with financial legislation, but after the hon. member had told us what he really expected of a leader and, I take it of his own leader, and then showed us what he thought of his own leader, I felt that I had better start by replying to that. I had been under the impression that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was in fact the chief spokesman of the official Opposition on foreign affairs. If he had perhaps availed himself of this opportunity he would have known that there is a big difference between a colony like Rhodesia and an autonomous state like the Republic of South Africa. Apart from that I think that this is the most inappropriate time in history to discuss conditions in Zimbabwe. I do not wish to elaborate on that but I think that in any event that if the hon. member for Yeoville had discussed this matter with his leader before speaking here this afternoon, he would have done not only his party but South Africa a service and could perhaps have saved a neighbouring State embarrassment. In fact, the hon. member’s tirade today forms part of a theme we have encountered throughout the debate thus far, namely that the Opposition is doing all it can to evade financial affairs and what the hon. the Minister of Finance is doing in regard to his budget.

That is what the Part Appropriation debate is all about.

We have known the hon. member for Yeoville for a number of years now. He is an expert on finance and has spoken on finance with a great deal of authority in this House in the past. Listening to his speech in this debate I think I can tell hon. members even at this stage what the hon. member is going to say when the budget is introduced on 26 March. He is going to say that the things he asked for, e.g. pensions for the aged, improvements in salaries and so on, will have been granted by the hon. the Minister because he, the hon. member for Yeoville, asked for it. In my opinion, his speech in this House was only really a preparation for what he wants to say when the main budget is introduced. One thing that is clearly demonstrated thereby is that the official Opposition, particularly its chief spokesman on finance, is unable to level any criticism at the additional appropriation of the hon. the Minister of Finance. I think the hon. the member also proved clearly to us that he knows in advance that he will not be able to advance any valid criticism in the discussion during the main debate either.

As far as the second part of the hon. member’s speech is concerned, I want to thank him sincerely because we are accustomed to his having 12 to 14 points, but he has now at least come down to 10 points. The hon. the Prime Minister showed by way of the Carleton Conference that in a total strategy for the future of South Africa he does not underestimate the importance of the economy. The hon. the Prime Minister showed that this was not an isolated struggle fought by the Government alone, but that the private sector, too, had a substantial part to play in this regard. Therefore, when reference is made to the new initiatives of the hon. the Prime Minister, which was so often regarded by the Opposition as a kind of window-dressing—this was said again here this afternoon—then one must consider not only the elimination of hurtful social discriminatory legislation, but also the creation of new opportunities for our population groups to share in the welfare and responsibilities of our country. I think that at this conference it is very clearly spelt out by the hon. the Prime Minister that our Government, in co-operation with the private sector, must create the necessary opportunities for every member of the population to be able to share in the general prosperity.

According to Keynes, economic growth, just like any other development, is based on a profound awareness of a feeling of dissatisfaction with the status quo. It is this dissatisfaction, and this strong urge to improve their standard of living, that motivates people to work harder and make sacrifices, and this in turn stimulates economic growth. According to this author, every person has absolute needs which must be satisfied if he is to survive, whatever his position may be in society. After that, people have relative needs, in the sense that they only feel them and that the satisfaction thereof elevates them and can give them a feeling of superiority vis-à-vis their fellow-man. It therefore goes without saying that in order to satisfy the absolute needs of people, a country requires nothing more than the employment of all its people, so that each can receive a wage wherewith to provide for his daily requirements. However, when we come to the satisfaction of relative needs of people, which is the essential stimulus for economic growth, other criteria apply. In the first place there must be a desire on the part of the workers themselves to satisfy their needs by working harder and making sacrifices. Therefore, the narrowing of the wage gap must not have a colour connotation, but must have regard to the striving for productivity and the resultant improvement of one’s standard of living.

In the light of what I have said we must now consider a few facts relating to the labour situation in South Africa. Over the years the Black population of Africa was geared to a subsistence economy. Accordingly no growth in the economy of Africa was possible over the centuries before the Whites arrived. Because the Black worker was content to satisfy only his basic requirements, there was seldom any real contribution on his part to the training of his own people. This is a task which has been left to the Government for the most part. This has also led to the Government being compelled to lay down minimum wages in legislation. Here I do just want to stress that maximum wages have never been stipulated by the Government in this country. But there have been stipulations of minimum wages because the Government felt that every person should be remunerated in terms of his own contribution to the economy. If, therefore, anyone maintains—as is so often done—that the wage gap is a consequence of the actions of the Government, then it is total nonsense.

In the second place we must note that in spite of the tremendous progress made in our country in the industrial field, particularly since the last war, our exports have still been largely oriented to the export of raw materials. The result has been that the demand for unskilled labour has always been greater than the demand for skilled labour. Rather than convert our vast labour resources into an export asset by exporting semi-processed and processed raw materials, we exploited our labour in a wasteful way. We are under a great deal of pressure from countries that are not well-disposed to South Africa, to pay a larger salary to people as regards labour relations purely on the basis of colour than they in fact earn through their productivity. I believe that in the economy every enterprise should be profit-oriented, because profit is the soul of the economy. If the management of enterprises is out to utilize the money of their investors for social services purely for political reasons, then I believe we are heading for political chaos.

I have before me a report which purports to reflect what the American Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Mr. Richard Moose, said in Port Elizabeth. He said—

No one could have said it better. I only believe that this gentleman could have added that we in our country have a Government and people who are prepared to convert those challenges into opportunities.

We are in a period of improved human and labour relations and an economic upswing. It is time for us to concentrate on the better training of our people so that we can make a determined effort by way of increased productivity to improve our position, and by doing so, to reduce the rate of inflation.

The hon. the Prime Minister has shown the way and created the opportunity for this. Over the past few years the hon. the Minister of Finance has in a masterly fashion created the climate for this type of development. We must see to it that our people are trained, but that is not all. We must also see to it that they are educated, because it is essential that our Black workers in particular should know that irrespective of how well-trained for one’s work a person may be, if the present unlimited population growth rate were to continue, the day would dawn when our economy would no longer be able to provide its people with a decent living. In the course of their training our people would have to be educated. There must be opportunities, not only for them, but also for their children and the coming generation as a whole to find work in this fatherland of ours, to produce and to maintain a standard of living which will be to the benefit of the entire population. For that reason training alone is not sufficient. There must first be training and education and then work and productivity.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Losberg has touched upon certain matters. He referred, among other things, to a total strategy that has to be devised now to ward off the onslaught against us. He said, quite rightly, that it should not only be a military strategy, but also a social and economic strategy that would have to be applied to stave off that onslaught against us. Today, the newly appointed hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance will deliver his first reply to an important debate, viz., the Third Reading debate on the Part Appropriation Bill. I think everyone can expect him to say something about how he views the matter and what part the financial policy of his department should, in his view, play in the total strategy. I am looking forward to hearing that from him, since a rising sun always casts a long shadow. One can expect the hon. the Minister of Finance, who has been sitting here for quite a number of years already, to retire one of these days. Perhaps we see in the hon. the Deputy Minister a person who can take his place and we therefore expect him to give us an indication of his views on matters in this country.

The hon. member for Losberg referred here to other criteria—I am not referring to monetary reward now—whereby the Black man is going to test the future. He is quite correct, since every person, White or Black, is going to face the challenge to do his very best and to strive for everything possible, whether it be social background or monetary income. I agree with the hon. member that we are facing a great challenge in this respect.

†The hon. member for Yeoville spoke about capitalism with a social face. I think I must discuss this concept very briefly, because I think that it is very important that this party says what it believes about the relationship between capitalism and socialism, about the part the State has to play and the part private enterprise has to play. I do not think there is any doubt about the fact that nobody in the world today ever again wants to see the old-style exploitative capitalism that meant that one should simply grab everything one could and hammer the daylights out of everybody.

Except the hon. the Minister of Finance.

No, I do not think even the hon. the Minister of Finance wants to see that. I am convinced that he does not. Nobody wants to see it and we in South Africa, least of all, can afford that kind of exploitative capitalism that is going to grind the workers into the ground and give them absolutely no kind of opening to the future. What we have to do in South Africa, I think, is to avoid the pendulum swinging the other way.

In Western Europe, for example, the socialism inherent in the demands of the working classes, in particular, have so thrown the economy out of balance that incentive is today in very great danger indeed. In Great Britain, for example, I believe it is only the oil bonanza from the North Sea supplies that has enabled it to stay solvent in the face of the increasing demands made by the poor—if one wants to use a capsule phrase, perhaps a bad phrase to use—in the community, e.g. by way of the dole and other demands for all types of services. These demands are overstraining the economic resources of a country like Great Britain which today still lives, to a certain extent, in the shadow of Empire. They themselves still cherish the ideal that they are a great, massive economic power which, however, they are no more. I think it would be absolutely fatal if Great Britain does not, one of these days, awaken to the fact that it cannot afford to go on in that way without coming down to the realities of what it can afford and what it can bear. The one thing that we in this country cannot afford—and we must never be led into the delusion that we can afford this—are all sorts of services, support mechanisms or anything else like that when the economy of our country is simply not able to bear it. The part that the State can play must be limited, and we have to exercise the utmost discipline. That is why this idea, this word “bonanza”, which has been so freely cast about in this House of late, distresses me so, because “bonanza” means “easy come, easy go”. As soon as one has a bonanza, one has hit the jackpot, as my hon. friends here did the other day. One gets it, but it is gone the next day because one is always entering for more jackpots. [Interjections.] A bonanza, if it is a real bonanza, is something that has to be handled carefully, has to be invested, rather than simply splashed about on a happy-go-lucky, keep-everybody-happy kind of expenditure. I think that is one of the things we have to be most careful about in the budget that lies ahead. This is something I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to say something about when he replies to the debate.

There is no doubt that with the current gold prices and the prices of our other exports, we are going to have a substantial surplus for a couple of years. There is no doubt about the fact that we are going to have money that we can afford to use in all kinds of ways. I think that the hon. the Deputy Minister, and the hon. the Minister himself when he comes to plan the budget, should consider the fact that it is time for tax cuts for individuals and companies. Everybody knows it is going to happen. Nobody is a prophet in this place—there are no prophets in one’s own country—but there are obviously going to be tax cuts. What I want from the hon. the Deputy Minister, however, is an undertaking that when the tax cuts are made, whatever our future planning is going to be, the funds required for the activities of the State will never again create the sort of situation we are in now, in which incentive is being absolutely destroyed by a system of taxation that is imposing impossible demands upon people, particularly that small slice of the population, the 5% of the people who are the entrepreneurs, the people who make the investments and make the economy work. I think that if there is one thing the hon. the Deputy Minister can do it is to say that that situation will never arise again. For that reason I proposed here in the House last year that we should have another look at the taxation proposals made by the commission in Great Britain, proposals which are based primarily on consumptions rather than on the individual and the income which a man works to earn. As soon as one begins to depress a man’s earnings, for which he has worked, one is endangering the whole economic position. I believe it is accepted and that it is true to say that the future of private enterprise in this country depends on Black involvement.

The country should be treated as a company.

Yes. The hon. member for Yeoville says we should treat the country as a company. Well, if I were the chairman of that company I know what I would do. I should like to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that. What we have to do is to involve a Black man in the private enterprise economy. We should involve him to the absolute maximum extent.

One of the problems that we face is that surveys show that there is a very strong antipathy among the Black population in the urban areas to the whole middle class concept. They are against the middle class. They are against it because it affects Black solidarity. They do not want to see people emerge from the Black mass because they see the Black mass as their strength in the struggle which they know they are going to have to wage, or which they are continually told they are going to have to wage against the White man. So, the concept of the middle class is something which we have to perpetuate and which we have to put forward and propagate. We will have to make it possible for Black people to emerge into that middle class and to establish themselves there. There are all kinds of things that are involved in this. The struggle in South Africa is not only a struggle against Marxism. It is a far wider struggle. It is not the old capitalist versus Marxist clash. That is something of the old order, belonging to past centuries. What we are facing here is a totally different way of life. The lifestyle of the Black man is different from ours, and when a man emerges from that lifestyle into a middle class lifestyle it involves a major change in his whole way of thinking. It is not only his income, not only his money, as the hon. member for Losberg said, but a major overall change, a total change. It involves a total change in the entire lifestyle, in the entire approach of that person. I believe the basic key to this whole thing is ownership and the ability to trade up, the ability to own a home or property of some sort, the ability to trade and to make a profit, the ability to work one’s way up in the economy and the ability to benefit from things one has earned and put together and with which one can then trade.

I believe that the need among the Blacks is much greater than simply a need for money to enable them to emerge into the middle class. It is what we in the NRP would call the ideal situation. It is necessary for Black people to have all the experience. Whether it is through manual labour or through all the shifts and grades of factory work into the field of management, etc., there should be no limitations on people. They must be sure that their mobility will not be hampered and that they will not be restricted in moving upwards. They should know that it is possible for them to emerge from among the mass of Black people into a middle class Western free enterprise system which is based on the individual as against the mass as a whole.

One thing perturbs me very much. The hon. member for Durban North, in his speech during the Second Reading stage, spoke about the proposal we made that the hon. the Minister of Finance should take steps to encourage, either by incentives or other means, labour-intensive industry. The hon. member for Durban North pointed out to the hon. the Minister of Manpower Utilization that in spite of all the plans that there are for in-service training, the number of Black people who can benefit from the training which is provided is minimal because they do not even have the basic skills or literacy to be able to benefit from that sort of training. I wonder whether we are not pitching our training at too high a level, whether the hon. the Minister should not give incentives for basic literacy training at the factory level as a first step towards whatever else may follow in the improvement of skills, wages and so on for the people concerned. I think we may well be demanding too high a level of achievement. When people think they are going to better their situation, when they look forward to it with enthusiasm and that enthusiasm becomes blunted, one gets a frustrated man who is not going to be of any kind of benefit in what one is wanting to do.

The point is that the encouragement of the middle class and of entrepreneural talents involves not just the money scene or the factory scene, but a total social scene. I think it is therefore important that we should understand this. Because of history, the areas in which the Black people live and the basic housing provided by the Government, the attitude to life of the Black people is different from ours. In many cases motor cars are a social status symbol. It is important to be seen in a big car, to be seen to be able to afford the petrol to drive it and so on.

Just like the Ministers’ cars.

Well, even the Ministers do not drive big cars anymore. What is happening is that a new set of values is emerging. The Government has a peculiar opportunity to help with the shaping of that set of values because there is now going to be a TV service introduced for Black people, which is a very, very potent weapon indeed in the hands of the Government The one thing we must pray for is that it will not be used as an instrument of propaganda or indoctrination. There is no doubt, however, that the subtle influences of television can be used in a very positive and constructive fashion.

What we must realize is that the Black scene is different. They have bigger families and extended family relationships. They like to associate in bigger groups. They like to talk loudly. They like to have lots of sound and lots of space around them. I do not think we have begun to think of the demands that society is going to make on our resources, on the sort of buildings we are going to have to erect and the sort of accommodation we are going to have to provide. If we are going to satisfy them and they are going to be part of our scene, we must not expect them simply to fit in with everything we have created and with our values. We must see our own values extended outwards and we must offer them something with which they are more at home.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to see a two-pronged effort by the Government to encourage a middle class. Firstly, there is the establishment of small businesses and the encouragement of entrepreneurship. The Black man should be protected in his area from competition in trading. I think it is vital that we state our attitude on that. Another absolutely prime requisite in all future planning in South Africa is the encouragement of labour-intensive industry. With the unemployment situation as it is and the new people entering the work force we have got to find some way of seeing that they are fitted into an employment situation of some sort. I think it is essential to understand that the Black people in this country will always be the proletariat, that they will always be the working class.

Why? Why can they not move up and be part of “capital”?

I am so glad that the hon. member has asked me that. He always asks the right question. Now I can answer it. The reason why the bulk of the proletariat will always be Black people is simply because of their numbers.

Yes, it is as simple as that.

That is exactly the point I am trying to make. The doors are open and the Black people will move up into managerial positions, but unavoidably, because of the numbers relationship in South Africa, the Black people will always be the bulk of the working class. What one therefore has in South Africa is not just the classic class struggle, but a White-Black struggle imposed on the class struggle. This demands of us answers that have not yet been attempted in other parts of the world. I think we must realize that our situation is that much more complicated than the situation experienced anywhere else in the world. I think one must accept that security of tenure is the prime requisite if one is going to involve Black people in the new system we are trying to introduce. They have to know that what they are handling, what they are doing is theirs and that it cannot be taken away from them. One of the problems which exists is that in Black agriculture that principle does not apply. It is an odd thing within our society that there are many White organizations which are interested in the Black man in the urban areas. The Black man in the urban areas is close to the White man’s eye and he is close to the White man’s conscience, and therefore there are many people who go out of their way to do all kinds of things for the Black man in the urban areas. But in the rural areas the Black man is the forgotten man of South Africa. I think this is a problem that has arisen …

Do you not think the farmers do their best?

I think the farmers do very well, but I am talking about the homeland areas in particular. Let us understand this, because if we believe, and we are told this, that the Black in the homeland areas is the responsibility of the homeland Government, I think we are making a fatal mistake. If we think we can get away with it by saying that they are not part of our scene and that we can forget about them and shut our eyes, I think that will be a mistake which we will simply not be able to survive. I want to put it another way—it has already been said and I have said it myself in this House before—that revolutions are made in the middle-class while the counter-revolution comes from the country-side. It happens in country after country, wherever there have been revolutions, that counter-revolution comes from the country-side. One would expect that in a situation like ours, if there is revolution in the city areas, the conservatives in the countryside and the control of the chiefs would enable one to control that revolution. But what would happen if we lose the struggle for the mind of the Black man in the rural areas and they then become an adjunct to the revolution rather than a sort of counterrevolutionary force that one might expect them to be? Those are the two tight-ropes that we are walking on. One is to satisfy the Black man in the urban areas in the middle-class and the other is to find the means of so involving the Black man in the rural areas that he knows that he is part of a process which is also leading him upwards. I think it is possible if we were to create something like a rural areas development fund in co-operation with the homeland Government, because they are the people in authority there and they understand their local conditions. They know what the problem is, but they do not have the funds. I do not believe that they are going to attract the funds from overseas to invest in their own agricultural activity. That is too unspectacular. The people are farming on too small pieces of ground; 10, 15 or 20 acres of ground. They are the sort of people who are the peasants in other countries. People are not going to invest millions of rands in that type of undertaking. Yet, that is one of the sectors which absolutely cries out for investment here in our country.

How do you change their land-ownership scheme?

That is precisely the problem. Chief Gatsha Buthelezi will tell us that that is exactly the situation. However, I do not see why it is not possible in terms of some system of renthold rather than freehold. It has happened in so many countries of Europe that a man rented a property with permanence of title. Such a scheme could be arranged through the chief or the local headman, but it requires a change in the thinking of the people who are in control there.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he, with his knowledge especially of the Zulu people, thinks that those people would accept such a change?

I believe we are moving into an era now where the entire Parliament of kwaZulu realizes that agricultural reform is an absolute prime necessity; it has got to happen. I do not believe that the Zulu people, as I know them, are simply going to change over to individual tenure, to surveys, to plots owned by people and to leasehold, but there is no reason why it cannot be done. What pertains today, is that if a man is given a bit of ground and he uses it for a period without having security of tenure, until he gets that security of tenure, anybody who is a farmer here will know that that man will not improve that ground. If he knows that he can put in fertilizer, kraal-manure and build up the soil to enable him to raise crops on a permanent basis he might be more closely related to the people in authority than he is now.

I think the task that we have is not only to provide for the social stability of the people in those areas, but also for the food production. Obviously there is not time to talk about that today, but I do think one is entitled to ask that consideration should be given to a fund of this sort. If we have got money which can be diverted out of the economy, as we have at present, and which can be invested, I do not think there is a better place to invest it than in a situation like this. To whatever use the money may be put, whether it is used for creating facilities for this type of agriculture or whether it is used for co-operative ventures or something like that, it is something that we simply have to look at. I am asking for the State to do certain things because the State has the funds available now, but in the future the State can also involve private enterprise in those rural homeland areas by means of tax incentives or otherwise. Development is not a State to State thing, but a person to person thing. That is why it is so important if we are going to have free enterprise and capitalism persist in our country that the Black man has got to see the White man as a person who is involved in this process. For that reason I make this appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister. Let us hear what he has to say about it. Let us see whether it is the new wave of the future. Let us have his views on tax levels and let us see whether he agrees with me that the present system is out of hand entirely. It is far too much of a burden on the individual, on the private person in the economic situation. I would welcome his comments on this.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot find much fault with what the hon. member for Mooi River has said. I think he has made a few stimulating and interesting points, although the impression might have been created that the farmers in the rural areas are not trying their best to train their Blacks. In fact, they are doing as much as they possibly can.

I was talking specifically about the homelands.

I know that. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti was involved in a scheme with the sugar cane farmers where they offered a short course to their tractor drivers. I think there is one point one must bear in mind with regard to the so-called homeland rural areas and that is that these people go back to their homelands for three months and then go back again to work in the rural areas. It is just part of their system. This goes hand in hand with the figure of people who are unemployed. I think the hon. member also mentioned that we should try to create a middle-class Black society. This is in fact part of our policy. I do not think anybody can point a finger to the Government and say that we are drawing any horizontal lines. We are drawing lines and they are not all that rigid, but they are vertical lines. We know that in their own areas the sky is the limit for the Blacks. So we are making provision, not only for a middle-class Black person, but also for the top Black person. I feel, with the little bit of Scottish blood I have in me, that the hon. member’s appeal that we should spend less and work harder is most appropriate.

*Mr. Speaker, I shall refer to the Leader of the NRP later on in my speech, but since so much has been said about the South Coast constituency, I think I should first say something about that to put the record straight. I have not yet had an opportunity to speak in this House since the South Coast by-election. Hon. members will recall that I said last year that with the new delimitation, the NRP, on the basis of the majorities in the previous election, should have a majority of 2 000 there. It turned out to be a little more, a little over 2 700. This means that 300 voters out of a total number of 15 000 changed sides, i.e. 2%. Now one must remember that the electorate in the South Coast constituency is approximately 80% English speaking, and of these people, only 300 changed sides. However, that does not matter. There was a vigorous campaign, and unfortunately also an attempt at polarization between Afrikaans-and English-speaking people … [Interjections.] But in spite of that they did not succeed.

†If I may digress for a moment, I think I heard the hon. member for Berea refer to Black germs. [Interjections.] He made the interjection about Black germs. All that I can say is that there was a report in the Press at that time about Black germs, a report to which I objected. However, now that he has brought it up, I may say that I think that there was a vestige of truth in that report, because it was claimed in the report that I had the ability, inter alia, to spot micro-organisms with the naked eye and, Sir, when I look across the Chamber, I can see a few fat germs sitting there. But I must say that they are good germs. After all, if it had not been for germs, one would not be able to drink beer or eat bread or possibly even drink wine. But then again, I think that some of those germs are not saprophytic by nature, but parasitic.

They have a tape recording of what you said.

I just want to say that the NRP misread the results of the election in the South Coast constituency, which is typical of them. They became so ecstatic after those results that growing over-confident, they went to Edenvale and said: “Now we can hold our own; we are going to look the whole world in the face,” and what happened? They lost. We cannot get away from the fact that this affected the status of the leadership of that party. What was the meaning of South Coast? That was the Waterloo of the NRP, because they misread the results and then acted in a certain way because they had misread the results. Anyone of those hon. members is welcome to oppose me after the delimitation. I shall even contribute R1 000 to his election campaign. However, if he loses, he must pay me R2 000. [Interjections.]

I now have to refer to the so-called Natal plan. I was not in the House last night, but I understand that the hon. member for Durban North referred to it again, so I requested to see his speech. He repeated, among other things, that they had reached consensus with the other race groups in Natal—

He says the solution lies—

I think it is very important that we should take a good look once and for all at this Natal plan. They can reply to it again if they like. There is one person, someone who was chairman of the Natal Municipal Association, who served on this Natal local government committee, and that was Mr. Dugmore. He signed his name when the plan was discussed, and on the basis of that, there are people now who are saying that the Natal Municipal Association has accepted this plan. Whom did that committee consist of? There were two MEC’s, Messrs. Martin and Watterson. The rest of the members were people of Colour. There were seven people of colour, and then Mr. Dugmore himself. As hon. members know, Mr. Dugmore is a Progressive. These people signed their names. Jaco Maree was present, but he was not yet the chairman of the Natal Municipal Association. I have the statement here which was made by Mr. Dugmore. He said, and I shall have to read it, because we have to examine this thoroughly—

Later on he said—

What does NMA stand for?

It stands for “Natal Municipal Association.”

Do they govern Natal?

All I want to say is that the NMA did not accept the plan. [Interjections.] I shall come back to the Coloureds and also to Mr. Martin. The hon. member should have a little patience. Mr. Dugmore says this—

Nobody disputes that.

The argument was that the NMA had accepted it.

No.

The hon. the leader of the NRP referred to the hon. the Prime Minister and also had an altercation with the hon. the Minister of the Interior, but I may have misinterpreted it.

You are rejecting it because of one White man.

I really expected the hon. member for Durban North to do better in referring to this, because on the whole he is quite sensible.

However, I want to go further. It is said here in black and white in a statement by Mr. Dugmore and the Natal Municipal Association. He says here—this is the chairman, Mr. Watterson, and now hon. members should see how he tried to hoodwink them—

Now I ask: Which of the present members of the Cabinet accepted it? On what basis did he make this statement in an attempt to hoodwink the people?

I shall go a little further. What does Mr. Martin himself say? I think it has been quoted already. As hon. members know, Mr. Martin is actually the leader of the NRP. We know that. In any case, he is not officially the leader of that party.

But Vause is the leader.

Well, then he is at least one of the co-leaders. In the statement which was signed by Mr. Martin as well, it is said—

Of course not.

So Mr. Martin also says—now we have two MECs saying this—that they do not accept it as the final solution. Mr. Dugmore says that he is not compromising the Natal Municipal Association.

I shall go a little further still. The seven members who were there as delegates of the Coloureds and the Indians do not accept it either. When the plan was drawn up, they presented it to the public as one that would be based on group areas, but the Coloured and Indian delegates made it quite clear that they were supporting it as long as it would not be on a basis of colour or of group areas. [Interjections.] However, now the hon. members behave like a magician producing a fine rabbit from a black hat, and they say: Hey presto, look at this beautiful Natal plan. No, they produced a skunk, because no one accepted it. The Coloureds and the Indians did not accept it in that form, nor did the Natal Municipal Association. [Interjections.]

Order!

And I even thought the plan had some merit.

I have open evidence here which was given before the Commission of Inquiry into the Constitution by Mr. Maree, chairman of the Natal Municipal Association. He says—

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May I ask whether it is competent to quote from evidence which has not been tabled? [Interjections.]

Order! I must point out that the commission started as a Select Committee of the House, but it operated during the recess and up till now as a commission, which has been hearing evidence in public, and it was open to the Press. On the grounds that the evidence was given in public, and was available to the public during the hearing and through reporting, I must rule that it can be quoted.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for your ruling. I am only sorry that my time has been wasted in this way, because it is very limited.

Mr. Maree says—

That is not true. [Interjections.]

This standpoint was rejected by the Natal municipal committee. In doing so, they were saying that they rejected it in toto, and I could continue in this vein, but so much of my time has been wasted … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question?

I have only three minutes left, but I shall afford the hon. member the opportunity of asking a question.

Is it true or untrue that municipalities representing more than three-quarters of the municipal electorate of Natal—i.e. Durban, Pietermaritzburg, Pinetown, etc.—supported the plan?

But that does not mean that the Natal Municipal Association has accepted it. [Interjections.] One could take only Durban, and then one would already have half the population. One could argue on that basis. [Interjections.] It is said here repeatedly. [Interjections.] I cannot repeat everything, but the Sunday Tribune reports as follows—

And they continue in this vein. When they did not want to accept it, Mr. Watterson suddenly grew angry. He said the Natal Municipal Association was interfering in politics—

He tried to catch them with the story that the Ministers supported the Natal Plan. It is quite clear that this is not so. The plan goes much further than that, and the people know it I do want to point out to the hon. members that Mr. Watterson goes much further than that. The hon. member for Durban North also said that the Blacks, too, had accepted the plan at this indaba.

Tell us what you are going to do.

We shall not support this Natal plan, and I shall tell the hon. member what we are going to do, if only we have enough time. We know what we are doing; we know where we are going; we have a very clear plan. The hon. member knows that [Interjections.]

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

Will the hon. member answer a question? Order! Will the hon. member allow a question or not?

No, I cannot answer any more questions.

The answer is no. [Interjections.]

Now we must listen very carefully. What is the Natal plan based on? I quote from the “Aims and Principles of the New Republic Party”. They say—hon. members must listen very carefully—

That is to say, integrated or not integrated—

That is, open to everyone—

One should read this in conjunction with this plan. I may tell hon. members that this plan was rejected by the largest concentration of Indians in Durban. The Indians in Chatsworth and Phoenix said: “We are not economically viable.” They said they did not have any factories and so on and asked how they could be expected to constitute a separate town council. They asked: “How can we ever become economically viable?” They argued that they could not collect enough rates and rejected this plan. They said that if they were to take this plan to its logical conclusion, all the representatives of Chatsworth and Phoenix would have to serve on the same town council. Mr. Watterson went on to say—

All of a sudden they were subject to the framework of the constitution of the central Government, but otherwise they are rebellious and contrary. I quote further—

Do hon. members know what that means? It means that every small location, as we know them, would also be involved if they were to govern. It means that these town councils would now have to decide—this is all bound up with their local option policy—whether those schools should be “open” or “closed”, integrated or not integrated. What is the situation? [Interjections.] Those hon. members can reply to me on this point at a later stage. The situation may arise where a school in one town is integrated, and in another town it is not. Can hon. members imagine the chaos? Can hon. members imagine that the Whites will leave these schools and start attending the schools that are growing smaller? The same applies to the residential areas. [Interjections.] The hon. members protest, but it is written here in black and white. Those hon. members can say later whether they agree with this or not.

I should not like to leave the Natal plan on this note. Hon. members on that side of the House can tell me where I am wrong. However, I want to make an appeal to those hon. members. Times are too serious for all this double talk, egg-dancing and fence-sitting. I want to refer very briefly to their double talk, just in respect of the homelands. In this policy document of theirs, they say—

Last year I asked the hon. the leader of the NRP whether he was in favour of independent homelands or not, and he said: “They will have the option.” When Venda asked for this option, they were totally opposed to it. In their policy document they say that they will develop the homelands into “viable economic units”. At their congress they passed a resolution that the Government should buy even more land for the Blacks than was given to them in 1936. What is happening now in Natal? They do not even want to co-operate with the Eastern Consolidation Subcommittee. They make all kinds of statements—

This is the Natal NRP caucus—

They went on in this vein and the PFP now supports them in this. Sir, do you see this double talk? Can we still allow it today?

Let us look at the Natal Turnhalle of 1977. There they tried to hoodwink the people by saying that the Prime Minister supported it. They said Buthelezi had said he wanted it. They made a great fuss about this Turnhalle. I read from a newspaper cutting—

There is also the following—

They were still co-operating at that stage. Note the following as well—

What became of that Turnhalle? Buthelezi told them: You are just light-weights; I want nothing to do with you. [Interjections.] I am hurrying to finish my speech. I could point out further examples of double talk by the NRP. First it was said that they would not co-operate with the PFP, but now they are supporting them.

It has been asked what our plan is, and in response to that I should like to conclude on this note: We shall hold our Turnhalles and our indabas in an orderly manner through bodies which may be established by this democratic Government, but not in a circus tent. The hon. members on the other side know what bodies we wish to establish. We shall make progress by means of our proposed bodies. I really think the NRP can co-operate with us in this field, because the bodies for this have been created.

Order! Further to the ruling I gave a short while ago, I also wish to point out to this House that many commissions hear evidence in camera. Such witnesses are always assured that their confidence will be respected. I trust that all hon. members will have the good taste not to quote such evidence.

I should like to quote a ruling by a previous Speaker—

In the case of this commission, I personally should prefer hon. members not to use the evidence if there are other sources, such as newspapers, from which proof can be quoted.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for South Coast herded the hon. members of the NRP together along the south coast and chased them over the flats at Mooi River. I think that at the moment they are about at Berea. There they can get headache tablets at the pharmacy.

Somewhere in the series of debates on the Part Appropriation we expected to conduct a proper discussion on financial affairs, to add to, amplify or extend the views put forward on the occasion of the introduction of previous budgets. I must say that we are disappointed, and we are particularly disappointed in the speech made this afternoon by the hon. member for Yeoville. When the hon. the Minister presents a budget speech, he is trying, I believe, to impress upon the man in the street through the spirit of his budget that he should share enthusiastically in the thinking of the financial and economic development of our country. The general public is invited to share not only the responsibilities and the task, but also the pleasure of achievements. However, we do not hear this tone from the official Opposition. They may be entitled to reserve it, but for their edification I want to quote from an annual report submitted by Mr. H. F. Oppenheimer, in which he gives the lie to the PFP’s attitude. The hon. member for Parktown is looking wide awake at the moment. I think that I can exchange ideas with him on this matter. [Interjections.] I believe he and his party are acquainted with the attitude, the drive, the enterprise of Mr. Oppenheimer, a person for whom we must have appreciation in this sphere. This report must be read in conjunction with the annual report of 1979. It is hot off the press. I quote a paragraph from it because I have the feeling that the hon. member for Yeoville, as a great announcer, wants to urge us on here this afternoon, where to, I do not know. I do not know what right he has to do so.

He does not know where to either.

I quote briefly—

This is being said by Mr. Oppenheimer—

I believe this is a clear statement. I believe this is a clear endorsement of the thinking of the Government with regard to development in this country. However, I want to quote further, and am doing so to indicate the attitude and enthusiasm of businessmen, because we do not hear about these across the floor of this House. Let us listen to what the businessmen are saying. I want to quote from Barclays Bank’s business letter of April 1979, shortly after last year’s budget. In this business letter an economist of that bank speaks appreciatively, when he says—

Let me go on to quote from a leading article in Tegniek, dated 12 December 1979. The heading of the leading article, in bold black letters, reads as follows—

For the sake of completeness I emphasize that these are Afrikaans businessmen. However, these are sober businessmen who are in the first place businessmen and who do not hesitate to point out and identify shortcomings. What do these people say?—

Let me remind hon. members about the word they are constantly using, the word “socialism”. I quote further—

May I just proceed to quote the following about other spheres these people mention and regard with appreciation?—

Sekuriteit van eiendomsreg vir Swart mense is d.m.v. die 99-jaar huurpagstelsel ingestel. Die Regering is steeds besig om ondersoek in te stel na die lewensvatbaarheid van ’n verandering in die stelsel van instromingsbeheer ten einde sodanige beheer te verslap, mits behuising en werk beskikbaar is. Die rasionalisering van die Staatsdiens, die wettiging van Swart vakbonde …

And then this important aspect—

Then the article concludes with—

With these thoughts and this support the Government may certainly proceed with its task.

I should like to exchange a few thoughts on the free-enterprise system. Let us analyse the objective of the enterprise system, our economic system. Let us remove at the very outset the non-essential aspects and expose it to the core. If we do so, we find that the underlying objective is certainly the constant improvement of the quality of life of the community. This is the goal. We are also able to boast that by means of this system, with the aid of the Government, businessmen and industries, we have served, uplifted and developed the communities of South Africa and that this is an unending process. However, like democracy, free enterprise, or the free-enterprise system, carries the germ of its own destruction within itself. One must guard with vigilance certain virtues of this system and, one is tempted to say, jealously, because these virtues must form the criterion by which every business transaction can be tested. These virtues form the basis without which free enterprise could not have existed in the past, and could not exist in the future either. These virtues are honesty, integrity, ambition, diligence, respect for and sympathy with other people and the environment and the determination to sacrifice immediate satisfaction in exchange for a better future.

When productive ambition, which is a great concept—the ambition to develop and to grow and the ambition to secure profit—becomes destructive greed, when strong competitiveness is convented into unassailable monopolies, when the privilege of leave and rest—I emphasize the word “privilege”—becomes a right to luxurious indolence, and when weapons such as strikes, official or unofficial, the prohibition on overtime, work to rule, sabotage, demonstrations, parades and even violence are used instead of the mechanisms of negotiation that exist, then this germ has become a ravaging disease in the body of the free enterprise system, and all that remains of our previous system of free enterprise as an ideal is an ugly skeleton. Therefore the strict codes of conduct and disciplines of a balance between the brakes and counter-balances within the system is an indissoluble part and component of the free enterprise system. We can indeed say that the level of social responsibility, integrity and development is directly linked to the achievement of the economy.

Mr. Speaker, in order to operate a sophisticated economy, it is necessary for us to be in favour of maximum development and training of manpower for all members of the population. It is our constant ideal to putting across the free-enterprise system to the developing economies of the peoples in our midst. A nation without a developed labour force is simply incapable of accepting the free-enterprise economy. Free enterprise as an ideal requires a sophisticated training of the labour force.

In that case, can we ask that the Government should develop, our businessmen, our industries, every entrepreneur, employer as well as employee at all levels and structures of government in the fullest sense of the word, in the service of our country? We could rather accept over-expenditure than under-expenditure in respect of training. Only last year the National Productivity Institute mentioned in a report that we in South Africa spend R2 on training per economically active person as opposed to an average of R16 abroad. In that case we have a backlog. Mr. Speaker, when we bear in mind, recognize and strive to attain these virtues, when we strive for the maximum development and training of our people, we trust that we can have a stable and sound economy in our country.

Mr. Speaker, all that I should like to say to the hon. member for Standerton is that I do not believe that his quotation of what Mr. Harry Oppenheimer said clashes in any respect with what the hon. member for Yeoville said. Mr. Harry Oppenheimer states quite rightly that we must be given time and the hon. member for Yeoville said that the best way of gaining that time was to give urgent attention to the needs of the mass of lesser privileged people in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to address the hon. Minister of Finance directly this afternoon. I hope that he will appear before us shortly, not in the role of a clean-shaven Father Christmas, but in the role of a Father Christmas in the true, traditional sense of the word.

Two days ago I referred to the events in Rhodesia where a new Government had come into being under Mr. Robert Mugabe. At the time I said that the significance of that event for us in South Africa was as great, if not greater, than the fall of Portugal in Angola and Mozambique. I want to add at once that it is not the task of us in the Republic to prescribe to our neighbours whom they must elect and who is to govern them. Accordingly, I am satisfied with the announcement made shortly after the takeover by the hon. the Prime Minister. He did so on behalf of South Africa and said that the policy of his Government was and would remain the policy of non-interference in the domestic affairs of our neighbouring States. Since Union, this policy of non-interference in the affairs of others has been one of the cornerstones of our foreign policy. Our country has consistently upheld that policy. In the years from 1914 to 1918 we were involved in a war against Germany and as a result we invaded South West Africa and conquered that territory, but in spite of military conquest we did not incorporate that territory, but undertook to the world to administer it until the territory could stand on its own two feet. That stage has now been reached.

When Frelimo took over Mozambique the world expected that we would interfere there, but again we kept to our traditional policy of non-interference. Indeed, we proved to the world that South Africa was even prepared to co-exist with a Marxist Government on its borders and moreover, to maintain economic and practical links with such a country. Unfortunately, the image of non-interference we had had suffered a blow, in Africa in particular, due to the circumstances which led to our actions a few years ago in Angola. I do not intend discussing that now. I merely state the fact I hope that the Government will do everything in its power to root out the mistaken image for good and that we will hold fast with conviction to the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of our neighbouring States. I believe we should go so far as to warn people holding South African citizenship that even if they as individuals interfere in the political affairs of neighbouring States, for example, by hiring themselves to foreigners as mercenaries, or by acting there as political subversives, we shall reconsider their citizenship. Only if we show by way of convincing action on our part that we are opposed in principle to any effort to interfere in the course of affairs in other countries or to determine that course, will we be in a position to demand of our neighbouring States that they implement and uphold the same principle in regard to this country. However, that does not deprive us of the right—indeed, it strengthens our right—to say to our neighbouring countries that they can differ with the policy of the Government as much as they want, that it is their right to do so, but if they use their territory or allow others to use it for attacks and insurgence against South Africa, we shall have to regard that as an act of war and act and respond accordingly. Therefore, while we do not wish to interfere in the local affairs of the new State of Zimbabwe and we wish its lawfully elected Government everything of the best, we do have a duty towards ourselves. This is that we shall have to determine without self-deception how the latest changes to the north of our borders are going to influence our lives and our position.

There are a few factors which immediately strike one. The first lesson which the election in Rhodesia stressed was that when significant political rights are withheld from people for too long, they resort almost without exception to those leaders who adopt the most radical methods and advocate the most radical solutions. The desire to be free becomes a desire to be boss. The same dangerous tendency—I regret to say this—can also be detected in our country. Already there are well-known Black people in leading positions in South Africa who say openly in the course of discussions that they stand for Black “baasskap”, and that they no longer want to know anything about power-sharing, and reject every Black leader who is still prepared to co-operate with the Whites in South Africa.

I can even mention the case of the Coloureds, whom we have discussed at such length over the past few days. Compare the demands they made 10 years ago with those they are making today. Today the Du Preez Commission which is representative of a very strong majority in the CRC, comes forward and demands a unitary State and a common franchise for Black, White and Brown in that State, whether or not this will lead to a new form of domination for them and, of course, also for us.

In my opinion this session of Parliament has thus far been disappointing, in that on the basis of statements made over the past year by leaders of the Government at home and abroad, I had honestly expected that we should see more rapid and purposeful action, particularly in the field of the removal of Colour discrimination. But I do want to say this—and I say it as a person who has been sitting in this House for a long time—that in spite of what I have just said, this Parliament is nevertheless a better Parliament today than it has been for the past 30 years. There is more depth and more realism, and I ascribe this to the fact that in spite of the differences between the two sides—and there are major differences—in spite of the political differences between the Government and the Opposition, an important measure of consensus has nevertheless grown up around a few basic principles. One of these is that discrimination on the basis of a man’s colour is wrong, that it can no longer be defended and that it should be done away with. It was not long ago that we had debates here in which the former Prime Minister stood up and denied cold-bloodedly that there was such a thing as discrimination, and that is by no means such a long time ago.

No. That is not so.

Yes, Sir, I could give hon. members quotations, and if hon. members differ with me, then they might as well differ. We have conducted very bitter debates on that score. Nor, he said, was there such a thing as petty apartheid. Now, however, there is a general consensus as to the existence of discrimination and the fact that it is wrong. To my mind this is a remarkable development. Moreover—in any event, as I see it—the debate now concerns the question of how and how quickly and how much of it should be removed and what should come in its place. This is a far more intelligent type of debate. There are other important matters, concerning which a large measure of consensus has arisen here. It is now at least accepted in principle by both sides that all South Africans are entitled to citizenship to the fullest extent. If I am wrong, hon. members opposite can say so. Moreover, it is generally accepted that we are a plural society and that not only individuals have rights; nations and cultural groups also have rights which deserve protection. Moreover, it is accepted by both sides of the House that the Westminster system of winner-takes-all, of majority rule in a unitary structure, does not suit a plural community like South Africa, and that we shall therefore have to seek a different solution. It is in this spirit that we on this side of the House sit in the constitutional commission. [Interjections.] All this forms part of our policy programme and is nothing new. The difficulty is that there are hon. members who must necessarily place a different construction on our policy, otherwise they are unable to understand it. I hope I am not being misunderstood. There are weighty policy differences between the Government and the Opposition, and they come to the fore every day, but a perceptible consensus has grown up in this Parliament about certain very important matters of principle, and I repeat: If I am wrong in this respect, hon. members must say so. I should like to say to the Government, and particularly the hon. the Prime Minister, this afternoon: Use the consensus that exists, and build on it! Every reasonable person realises that one cannot achieve everything overnight, but unfortunately history does not stand still around us. Now that the ideals of the Blacks have been achieved in Rhodesia, the last White buffer on our borders has disappeared. We now stand exposed, and we are the last State in Africa in which the Whites still have a monopoly of political power over the country as a whole. We are also the last country which still administers a territory which does not belong to it. The Government has already decided that South West Africa should become independent, and we know what the factors are causing the delay. I shall not say anything more about that at this stage, because delicate negotiations are in progress. At the Cape Congress of his party, the hon. the Prime Minister said in Parow last year, with reference to the outside world—

He said that in September. Since then the position has not improved; in fact, it has deteriorated. Zambia is even planning a counterconstellation of States with our immediate neighbours, including inter alia, Mozambique, Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland. We do not know to what extent it will succeed, but what we must expect is that attention will now be focussed sharply on South West Africa, in other westwards, before it moves southwards and we are totally isolated. What the danger creates for us is the impression—and I stress the word “impression” because it is not I who say so—that there has been yet another victory for the use of violence and that violence wins every time. This could have a psychological influence which we must not overlook here. What we all recognize is that there are no instant solutions, because even our party’s standpoint of a national convention, of a national conference, were to be implemented, it would also take a considerable time. Therefore no one’s policy affords an instant colution. However, there are essential steps that can be taken by the Government in the interim and which we believe ought to be taken now.

Unfortunately time only permits me to mention two of them, but there are others, too. One of them is that it is time for a very clear declaration of intent. What must be said very clearly and unambiguously to our own people, far more than to the outside world, is (1) that we should accept that all discrimination on the grounds of colour must disappear; (2) that we must accept that every South African citizen is entitled to full citizenship; and (3) that we shall seek a new constitution for South Africa, one which will give all citizens a share in the process of government in a way that will restrict the domination of any specific group over the others. If we could accept such a declaration of intent by was of a unanimous resolution of this Parliament it would undoubtedly have a powerful impact.

†After all, it was the hon. the Prime Minister himself who said at the Cape congress of his party in September last year, and I quote from the official text of his speech—

I agree whole-heartedly. So why cannot we then, as a Parliament, sort out the principles on which we have reached consensus and declare those as national aims which have the backing of all the responsible White parties? I think that this is something that we should consider.

A second important aspect to which the Government ought to give its immediate attention is the position of the National States within the Republic, as they are now called. We all support the principle of a decentralization of power. It is basic to the whole principle, policy and philosophy of federalism. Let me say here that I find it a great pity that members of the governing party are unwilling to make an objective study of the philosophy of federalism. Their own party is a federal party, and if they start finding out why, they will get an interesting answer.

The answers to many of our political problems in South Africa affecting human relations lie in the philosophy of federalism, and time will prove it. I do not mind who differs with me. I am convinced it is going to be proved. Most of the world’s multinational, multi-cultural communities have adopted one or other form of federalism with success. Three-quarters of the total population of the world in fact live today under one or other variation of federalism. I want to add that when I talk about federalism, I include what is called confederalism. Modern students of constitutional law, particularly in Europe, no longer draw a clear-cut distinction between a federation and a confederation. It is all a matter of degree, of definition. I am pleased to note that certain Government leaders are at last openly talking about confederation between the various republics which have grown up out of the old Union of South Africa. It does show that thinking is turning to the answers which the broad philosophy of federalism offers us.

The point I wish to make is that the Government should complete the process of independence for those National States who wish to adopt republican status, as quickly as possible, so that we can stop living in theories and start working with realities. As long as any step towards independence for a particular National State reflects the true wishes of the inhabitants of that territory, and people are not forced to give up their South African citizenship against their wishes, there will be very little opposition to any National State becoming a republic. Let us deal with it and get it over and done with. Let us ask which of them want to become republics, and if that is the wish of the majority in a particular State, we must let it happen. We should then set to work to draw those National States who wish to remain members of South Africa, into a workable system of federalism. I want to tell hon. members that I think that we in South Africa should take much more notice of what is happening in respect of the European Parliament. There one has a case in which a large number of sovereign States in Europe now participate in a Europe-wide general election for a Parliament where major and important decisions are taken by consensus while fully respecting the autonomy of the various member States. It is a form of confederalism which is relevant too to some of our big problems in our country. It is time therefore that our public media should take more note of the workings of the European Parliament.

*Finally, I want to remark that federalism is not, as some members regard it, merely a sharing of power. All federalism is based primarily on a division and decentralization of Government power so that there is a variety of points of Government…

What is its highest point?

No, there is nothing at the top; there is just something alongside. There must be decentralization of power complemented by a level at which there is a defined, agreed and limited sharing of power and political co-operation concerning matters of common interest.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened very attentively to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I must tell hon. members that I am quite amazed at a speech which, seen as a whole, I cannot find much fault with, particularly as far as the first part is concerned. It is very clear to me that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is moving to the right In fact, the last part of his speech corresponded absolutely with NRP policy. The idea of confederation which he expressed here, corresponds absolutely with it.

I expounded it here years before they did.

I shall come back to that in any event. I just want to tell the hon. member something else. He referred to Rhodesia and said that there were certain lessons to be learnt from it. I think I agree with the hon. member. We have learnt from what happened to Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. However, I want to say that at this stage, it would be extremely dangerous to draw any conclusions, it would be extremely dangerous to apply what happened there literally to South Africa. I think it would be extremely dangerous to draw any conclusions and try to build the future of South Africa on them. I want to ask the hon. member one question. In view of the lessons that have crystallized out of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, does he believe that the policy his party is following would have succeeded in Rhodesia?

We did not draft a policy for Rhodesia. [Interjections.]

The hon. member must not be so slippery. I ask again: Does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout believe, in the light of the lessons we have learned from Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, that his party’s policy would have succeeded in Rhodesia? I leave the question at that. I think that we can get a reply to that at a later stage. [Interjections.]

The hon. member went further and admitted openly today that ethnicity existed in this country.

We admitted that years ago. They are unshakable facts, not a question of policy.

The hon. member went on to admit that there were separate peoples, separate cultures and that we should recognize that. I ask the hon. member whether the hon. member for Houghton agrees with that.

It is written into our policy.

That question, too, I shall leave at that I want to go on to ask only one more question. Do all hon. members of his party agree that independent States must be established?

We do not say “must”.

The hon. member at the back over there is shaking his head. He says “no”.

I want to come back—and I am sorry that he is not present at the moment—to what the hon. member for Yeoville said today. This hon. member made a very interesting speech, too. One should have liked to make a more intensive study of it. The hon. member again expounded his so-called “social democracy”. He talks about “equality of opportunity”, and I just want to ask him a few questions with regard to these matters. The hon. member’s speech today sounded to me like a subtle onslaught on the capitalist system as we implement it in South Africa. I think the hon. member owes it to this House to say at some stage exactly what he means, leaving aside the flowery language and meaningless verbosity.

He was very clear.

The hon. member did not make himself very clear and this is my problem. He must say exactly what he meant by “social democracy”. We should really like to know since I think there are many people in this country who are interested in knowing exactly what that party means by social democracy. I want to go further. The hon. member referred to “equality of opportunity”. What does this mean? Does it also entail “redistribution of power, wealth and land”? The hon. members should tell us this. This is very important. If we refer to “equality of opportunity”, we want to know whether those hon. members understand thereby that there must be a redistribution of power, land and wealth? We must know.

Zac, you are going to lose all your money.

We must know this, because in a socialistic system this means nationalization and this corresponds exactly to what the hon. member said about social democracy. We now want exact replies to these fine words, because we cannot allow these things to hang in the air. Before the end of the session we must know where the hon. Opposition wants to go with the system we are implementing in this country at present. We must know whether they are satisfied with it or not, because there are many industrialists, merchants and many other people participating in private enterprise in this country who would like to know exactly what the hon. member means.

I should like to come to another point. In the Second Reading debate the hon. member for Wynberg made the following statement on the assistance granted to the drought-stricken areas (Hansard, 26 February 1980)—

Since this is a disaster area—we must have no illusions on that score—I should very much like to sketch to the hon. member today the course of events in two areas, viz. Namaqualand and Calvinia. I do this merely to demonstrate to the hon. member that we were not fast asleep and that every time those people made representations to us we gave them a hearing and introduced the called-for measures within days or weeks.

Namaqualand was declared a drought-stricken area on 3 August 1978. Calvinia was declared a drought-stricken area on 23 October 1978. The loan scheme, which is the first step, was introduced at the request of organized agriculture on 5 December 1978. What does this loan scheme entail? It entails that one could initially borrow R1,80 per ewe per month at 5% interest, up to a maximum of 1 000 ewes. Four months after the Namaqualand area had been placed on the list of pasturage distress areas, the scheme was introduced. This was only four months later, four months after that area had been placed on the list of pasturage distress areas. Initially, the amount the farmer could borrow was R1,80 per ewe per month, up to a maximum of 1 000 ewes. On 7 May 1979, organized agriculture conducted discussions with the Minister of Agriculture and made certain representations. I just want to refer to a few of them. In the memorandum they submitted to us, they said, 2 inter alia—

We recognize this. Their very first representation is that a subsidy of at least 50% should be granted on the loans as approved by Agricultural Credit. It should always be borne in mind that the loan scheme, also at the request of the Agricultural Union, is subject to a means test. In other words, if a man has sufficient means at his disposal, he is not entitled to the loan. Thus a person who is still able to help himself, must continue to do so. So much for the first representation.

The second representation amounted to a recommendation that the feed loan be increased from R1,80 to R2 per stud ewe. What happened? The representations were made on 7 May 1979. On 1 June 1979 the loans, as requested, were granted with a subsidy of 50%, and the R1,80 per ewe increased to R2. The period from 7 May to 1 June was but a brief one. In other words, immediate attention was given to the representations.

I want to discuss briefly the question of the linking of the subsidy to the feed loan. Hon. members should bear in mind that I have already said that the feed loan is linked to a means test. This is as it was requested. As soon as we link the subsidy to the loans, it is said that we are discriminating between farmer and farmer. However, this is exactly what organized agriculture requested. In spite of warnings by all the departments, they merely said that they wanted to act responsibly in this respect. I am sorry to say that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is now being blamed for having supposedly introduced subsidies in a discriminatory way. Surely this is untrue. The fact of the matter is that the hon. the Minister, with the assistance of the Treasury, approved exactly what was asked. However, we realized that the subsidy of 50% could not be linked to the loan because the system would then have to be applied in a discriminatory way. Representations in this regard too were received from organized labour and on 1 December 1979 a general feed subsidy of 50% was introduced on all feed purchases, again with a maximum of 1 000 ewes per month. Hon. members should bear in mind that the amount per ewe is R2. The subsidy is R1 and the loan is R1. Conditions then deteriorated further and further representations followed. Dr. Jacobs and Mr. Retief, the chairman of the Agricultural Credit Board, then visited the area on 7, 8 and 9 February. On 14 February the Jacobs Committee considered certain proposals and on 21 February came forward with a report. This was then discussed by the officials of the Ministories of Agriculture and Finance. I just want to indicate what those proposals entailed. Firstly, the request was made that the R2 per stud ewe per month be increased to R3 per sheep per month, so as to ensure not only that the sheep survive the drought, but that the sheep is also able to produce, i.e. that the ewe can lamb and receive enough fodder to keep the lamb alive as well. In other words we are sacrificing a principle which has always applied over the years. Our activities have always been focused on the survival of the sheep. Now, however, it is becoming a matter of the survival of the farmer. They are requesting us to increase this from R2 to R3. But it goes further than that. Whereas before this was only per ewe, representations were made to the effect that we should apply this to wethers as well. Let me declare my interests here and now. I do not believe in feeding wethers with subsidy money. One sells a wether as soon as possible and one farms with ewes, since it is a matter of survival. However, be that as it may, the representations were then approved. An amount of R3 per small stock unit per month was granted. Now it is no longer just per ewe per month, but per small stock unit per month.

That includes goats.

Yes, It includes goats. The feeding costs are being subsidized by 50% of the real costs per small stock unit per month up to a maximum of R3 per small stock unit per month. In other words, the subsidy, which was R1 per ewe per month, is now shifting up to R1,50 per small stock unit per month. Hon. members should really bear in mind that it was accepted that the fodder loan of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, as well as the feed subsidy, should be payable on a maximum of 1 000 small stock units, as I have already said. In other words, we are transfering it from ewes to all small stock units. The request was also received that molasses, registered stock licks and stock lick ingredients as well as caustic soda, should qualify for the transport rebate and subsidy. This was also approved. The request was made that owing to the transport problems in these large areas, licenced private transport contractors should also be included to qualify for the transport rebate. This was approved too. As I said, this was also on 21 February. On 25 February the hon. the Minister announced these measures, to come into operation on 1 March. This was within days of receipt of the requests. I want to go further. I now come to the last recommendation of the Jacobs Committee, and I should like to quote this recommendation, since there is a misunderstanding about this matter too—

This includes Calvinia, Namaqualand, and Bushmanland i.e. the Western Karoo—

These are not the recommendations of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. These people recommended this, and surely hon. members believe in the Jacobs Committee. In other words, there are areas that were listed on a subsequent occasion and which cannot possibly qualify in terms of the emergency measures at this early stage. This simply does not work like that.

I now just want to put the implications of this to hon. members so that we can put this matter in perspective. What do these measures, as I have just explained them, mean? Let us take it that a person has 1 000 sheep. He receives a subsidy, i.e. an allowance, of R18 000 per annum. However, he must give a quid pro quo. He must also purchase feed to the value of R18 000. In other words, if he buys feed to the value of R36 000 during a year, he receives a loan of R18 000 at 5% and a subsidy of R18 000. He also receives a transport discount on all feed that is transported.

Of 75%.

Yes, 75% of the real costs. We calculated that this could mean that a man could receive an average of approximately R3 000 per annum as a transport rebate. This amounts to a total sum of R21 000 that one pays out in one year to a farmer who has 1 000 sheep.

Sir, since we are dealing in this country not only with a cattle industry, but also with a wheat industry, a maize industry and many other industries in respect of which the principle of paying out a subsidy has never been applied even during the disaster situation which occurred in the winter rainfall region or in the summer rainfall region, since it was done only in the cattle regions, I want to ask in all fairness whether we should do more or whether we should treat the whole agricultural industry alike. When the hon. member says we are doing too little too late, he must reply to those questions.

The necessary money is not simply obtained by snapping one’s fingers. When representations of this nature are received, the departments have to calculate the number of cattle involved. They have to calculate exactly what amounts will be required from month to month. They have to submit a very well-motivated case to the Treasury. We cannot simply tell the Treasury that we want R17,5 million. It simply does not work that way in Government departments. Surely we must make out a motivated case.

I want to convey my gratitude here today to the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance and their staff. I have indicated how everything worked and indicated days and dates. I want to say that I believe that never in history have measures been implemented in an emergency area more rapidly and effectively than in this very case.

Hear, hear!

Thus I want to convey my sincere gratitude in this regard to the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister as well as the officials.

You had better ask again for a commission of inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude. I want to agree with the hon. member as far as one thing is concerned. On each occasion that a drought has struck, we have come forward with a number of ad hoc measures. In the disastrous drought of the late ’sixties and early ’seventies we introduced certain measures. We had a stock reduction scheme. When we introduced it, we said: “Never again drought relief measures.” What happened then? We introduced them again. What is more, figures prove that after each drought there have been more cattle in the Karoo than before. This indicates a very effective feeding system.

The Good Lord made the Karoo and gave it little rain. However, he allowed droughts to strike from time to time and those droughts have always removed the excess cattle. Now we have kept cattle alive artificially and have not given nature its chance to take its full course. Thus the Karoo is unable to recover again after a drought, because we are keeping the cattle that are there alive artificially. This is a principle we shall have to examine urgently. Now the Minister has asked me to meet with the relevant officials and bodies, agricultural unions, feed centres and everyone, to see whether we cannot formulate a policy for the long term with regard to droughts in the Karoo. I see the hon. member is laughing. I am still going to surprise you.

I am smiling. I agree. This is a very good plan.

When examining this matter, we must take everything into account, for example the transportation of feed, the production of feed, under what circumstances a district should be listed, etc.

Thus you must work out a policy.

We shall examine all these things. As a person who has grown up in the Karoo I can say that this matter is extremely urgent. We cannot allow this area, that produces 60% of the mutton of this country to go under. We cannot introduce a number of ad hoc measures every time a drought strikes and then be accused of doing too little too late. Therefore it is my considered opinion that everything we have done in the North-Western Cape will certainly not relieve the distress of those people entirely. They are in absolute distress. We are now again examining certain measures. What we have done, we have done—and I have quoted the figures—with the co-operation of the Ministry of Finance, and for that we are very grateful. However I believe that we shall have to sit down together and formulate a long-term policy in this respect.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture may conclude from the attention with which this House has been listening to him that the farming community of South Africa is fortunate to have a Minister and Deputy Minister of their calibre. I think the entire farming community of South Africa is grateful for the sensitivity with which the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister and their department have acted in respect of this problem. I do not think the hon. the Deputy Minister should pay any attention to the absured remark made by the hon. member for Wynberg. This was the only discordant note. Even the hon. member for Orange Grove—the farmer of Orange Grove—listened very attentively.

I want to dwell for a moment on the speech made by the hon. member for Yeoville. Unfortunately neither he nor the hon. member for Hillbrow is present in the House at the moment. However, while listening to the speech made by the hon. member for Yeoville, particularly the 10 points listed by him, I foresaw problems for the hon. member in the hereafter, because the hon. member certainly wants to have heaven on earth if all 10 of those requirements of his are to be met.

Just recently during the no-confidence debate the new hon. the Leader of the Opposition—unfortunately he is not present in the House either—said theatrically that every leader should be able to depend on the support of his followers. He pointed to the mob behind him and said that he as leader should similarly be able to depend on the loyalty of his followers, and that we should not drive a wedge between them. A question occurred to me: Perhaps that is true, but can South Africa and its people depend on the loyalty of that mob? I hear that an hon. member of the PFP said in the Other Place that South Africa would soon have a Black President or a Black Prime Minister. I asked myself this question: Why does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout not say that there is no top structure in their federation or confederation? After all, he was asked who occupies the top position by way of a question across the floor of this House. His colleague in the Other Place said that there would be a Black Prime Minister. Why not a White, Coloured or Asian as Prime Minister?

It is this type of question that the official Opposition still has to reply to, because this is the type of dilemma in which one sometimes finds oneself. I am not going to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout whether he agrees with me. Why should I? At some stage, however, the hon. member will have to ask his leader to tell this House and South Africa what they have in mind.

I do not believe what you are saying. Why do you not bring the quotation?

That is unnecessary. The hon. member can ascertain that for himself.

I want to dwell on another, less political, issue. According to all the data at our disposal there are at present 19 million unemployed people in the developed countries. In 1980 there will be 66 million unemployed persons in the developing countries. The projection for 1990 indicates that there will be 88 million unemployed. Many countries are afraid to face up to these problems, but surely South Africa is not afraid of them, in spite of our own problems. We on this side of the House have on occasion admitted that we do have unemployment. We have unemployment amongst our untrained Black people in particular.

How many unemployed are there in South Africa?

I shall come to that hon. member in a moment.

We have already appointed two commissions, the Wiehahn Commission and the Riekert Commission. The Government has already decided to implement these recommendations as it is possible to apply them. Let us not make a political football of the unemployed in South Africa. This does no one any good. It does not do us as Government any good and there is no point in our denying their existence. Nor does it do the Opposition any good, for then one is exploiting the circumstances of these people for political gain. And I do not think that this is what should be done.

It is said that the Government must act and do something. However, there is a problem in a free economy such as South Africa’s. It is said on the one hand: Less spending by the public sector; the Government, local authorities and provincial administrations must spend less money. Leave the money in the hands of the private individual. Give him tax rebates, give him subsidies, give him larger salaries so that he can create opportunities. After all, we are on the eve of, or already in the midst of a wonderful revival in the economy. Then I believe the Government is entitled to ask: “And you in the private sector, what are you doing?”

I say this is a problem which must necessarily be solved collectively, but far too much non-involvement has been shown by the private sector. Let us be honest about this. The hon. Opposition members will not hold this against me. How many times has the Government’s policy not been used as a smokescreen for the non-involvement of the private sector? Surely it is true that it is only in the most recent past that large organizations, large investors and major industrialists have really become involved with their employees in respect of housing and sport and recreational facilities. Surely this is a fact, but there are not yet enough of these people who are indeed prepared to say that they will plough back some of their profits in order to create more employment opportunities, to create better relationships and to improve the conditions of the worker.

I now want to come to something else. It has already been mentioned by three speakers today. I want to examine our problem in a little more detail. Of what avail is it if our Government plus the private sector create sufficient employment opportunities so that everyone may be employed when we do not have the trained man-power to avail itself of those employment opportunities? It is estimated that we shall have to maintain a growth rate of at least a 5% to be able to meet the annual growth in the supply of workers. If we maintain the 5% growth rate for the first year, what shall we then do with the new posts that have been created? I think the answer lies in training and more training and retraining. We cannot get away from this fact.

Up to now we always have carried on in the old, stereotyped way and have trained artisans, operators and other workers, but what we need urgently in South Africa is a new, dynamic concept of training. We need a new and all-out effort and in this all-out effort I see four components: The Government, of course; the private entrepreneur; the academics; and, probably the most important of all four components, the employer or the employee himself. It is the duty, the task and the function of the Government to create a favourable economic atmosphere so that the necessary growth may be maintained. The Government is of necessity responsible for the creation of training facilities, facilities that keep pace with the requirements of the time, and perhaps we have failed in that to a certain extent. Perhaps we did not do this to a sufficient extent. The Government is also responsible for continuous analysis and control, therefore we must congratulate the hon. the Minister of Manpower Utilization on the establishment of a Manpower Commission on which persons with experience of the labour situation, as well as academics and industrialists, are serving.

I believe the Government should also begin to play a greater part in respect of the establishment and regular revision of the syllabuses of all these bodies. I am not even mentioning the fact that I want to plead with the hon. the Deputy Minister for more money for these purposes. I believe that the Government should also ensure that better vocational training should be provided at our universities, schools and technikons.

The private sector, too, has a duty to fulfil and a part to play. It was good to see that some of our top industrialists and labour movement brains were present at the launching of “Project Manpower 2000”, people who said spontaneously that they were prepared to co-operate because they understood the problems that lay ahead for us between 1980 and the year 2000. Between 1970 and 1977 there was a growth rate of only 3% in the productivity of our manpower, while all hon. members know what the increase in salaries was. That is why a mine manager told me: “My firm now has R1 000 million available to open another mine, but I know that this would be madness, for where would we find the manpower to work the new mine? What is the use of my firm and I buying General Mining’s skilled labour, only to have them buy it back again?” This is senseless competition.

Who suffers first in the case of such an economic revival? It is always the Public Service. The Public Service always suffers first, because the Public Service always serves as a training centre for the private sector, and therefore I believe that the private sector indeed has a great task and a great obligation to play a more prominent part in respect of the training and retraining of manpower.

We can say that this is a trained artisan or electrician, but with the more refined processes existing at present, and the sophisticated instruments and machinery which are available, it is essential that even the trained technicians and artisans be retrained from time to time, and I feel that this should take place within the labour and service situation. The productivity of a Black trained worker drops, and if his productivity drops, the growth rate of the country drops, and once the growth rate of the country drops, it means that fewer employment opportunities can be created.

The academics also have a task. It is true that our schools, technikons and universities will have to play an ever greater and more important part There are many thousands of dedicated teachers, lecturers and professors, but one sometimes gets the impression that the needs are not really being determined, that as many BA students majoring in psychology or sociology as possible are being churned out by the universities, whereas the real need is for more trained technicians, perhaps more people with BSc degrees, or geologists. I believe that we as the Government, as well as the private sector, have the task, even at school level, of explaining these requirements to our teachers, so that they can know that we must let the emphasis fall in this direction.

The more people there are, the more food is required, the more mines have to be exploited, and greater quantities of our own products have to be refined. Therefore it is essential that the fourth component, viz. the employee should also display greater farsightedness and, by means of self-tuition and private study, play his part as well. Too great a measure of laissez-faire has developed. I believe the secondary task of our trade unions is being overlooked by them today. A trade union’s task should not merely be to demand higher salaries and better working conditions. In my opinion it should also encourage its members, whether White, Black, Coloured or Asian, to improve their own situation by self-tuition and better training and by availing themselves of the facilities that are available. It is of no avail if the Government or the employer creates facilities while the employee does not have the will-power to make use of them.

I believe that the employees, White, Black or whatever, should feel as proud as we do of the achievements of South Africa.

At times it is said, even in Opposition newspapers, that we should not encourage immigrants, but should train our own people to a greater extent Surely we must obtain people, from wherever we can, in cases where a real emergency exists. If we must buy them, then we must buy them. If we want to train our own people, surely we need the information officers and experts to do so and therefore it is essential for us to allow people to immigrate to South Africa from time to time.

I want to conclude by pointing out a practical example.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member what he believes the unemployment figure in South Africa is at present?

Mr. Speaker, the only real figure which is verifiable is the figure pertaining to people who register themselves as unemployed. Thus I want to concede to the hon. member that I do not believe that the figure with which the Department of Manpower Utilization furnished me is a true reflection of the actual number of people who are unemployed. Nor does the department believe this, because surely they know that not all people register. Even the hon. member cannot tell me how many people on farms are unemployed. Surely this is true. How many nomadic or migrating people are there not who are unemployed? I would not go so far as to hazard a guess at the figure. I want to concede to the hon. member that I do not believe that the figure we have is necessarily a correct one. To tell the truth I do not think it is altogether correct. I trust I have satisfied the hon. member with this reply.

There is another matter with which I want to conclude. We refer to the electrification of Soweto. Have we ever considered how many houses there are in Soweto and how many people we are going to require merely to do that electrification work? What is even worse: Have we ever considered, if there are refrigerators, irons, stoves, etc., in each of, for example 100 000 houses in Soweto and these appliances break, where we are going to find the technicians, experts and artisans in the vicinity of Soweto just to cope with that work? For that reason I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance. I believe the time has arrived in South Africa, since we want to take advantage of this higher growth rate and economic revival, to make a maximum effort in co-operation with the private sector to create training facilities and to encourage people to equip themselves as well as possible.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I wish to thank all the hon. members who participated in the debate, in particular the hon. member for Mooi River who promoted me here today. I am very grateful for that. This occasion, on which I am dealing with my first budget debate, is a great occasion for me.

I do not think that, on this occasion, it will be inappropriate to mention in passing the Decoration for Meritorious Service which is soon going to be awarded to the hon. the Minister of Finance. I should like to place on record today that I wish to pay tribute to the hon. the Minister of Finance, Senator Owen Horwood, for his contribution to the financial administration of South Africa and for his contribution in general as Minister of Finance. He is very highly regarded in business circles in South Africa as well as abroad, and even the hon. members on the opposite side sometimes find it difficult to contain their admiration. Senator Horwood took over the portfolio under difficult circumstances in 1975. Our problems were for example the large deficit on the current account of our balance of payments, there was a recession between 1973 and 1975, we had to cope with a drop in the gold price, and internally we had to cope with Government spending which had perhaps increased rather rapidly and with a money supply which had also increased rather rapidly. In the face of what was often great opposition, Senator Horwood had to lay down a new policy of absolute financial discipline, and he also had to limit Government spending. We know that over the past three years this policy has been so successful that in real terms there has been no increase in Government spending.

In other words we confined our Government spending to the same level as the inflation rate. Today this is regarded by financial experts and writers throughout the world—I repeat: throughout the world—as a unique achievement. During the last four years the hon. the Minister also succeeded in keeping the increase in money supply below the inflation rate. That is also a unique achievement, and is also an anti-inflationary measure that has been applied.

This financial discipline has produced extremely good results. The current deficit on the balance of payments was converted into a large surplus, and I want to emphasize that this was long before the gold price rose so steeply during the past few months. Consequently the country was able to repay foreign loans and credits on a large scale and furthermore show a considerable increase in the net gold and other foreign reserves. In this way the credit standing of our country abroad was enhanced tremendously. Anyone who knows anything about finance realizes that it is never easy to apply this kind of financial discipline, but the hon. the Minister dug in his heels, he stood firm, and today we are plucking the fruits of his actions.

The hon. the Minister has also won renown as a champion of the system of free enterprise and private initiative. To this not only his budgets of the past three years testify, but also the purposeful and dynamic way in which he made the rand independent of the dollar and introduced a new exchange rate system of controlled floating for South Africa. This system, which went hand-in-hand with the introduction of the financial rand and the relaxation of exchange control, is everywhere being termed a great success by experts and has already attributed much to the strengthening of South Africa’s economic position. Then, too, there are the foreign contacts which Senator Horwood has built up. Among foreign bankers and financiers results count, not fine-sounding words, and the hon. the Minister of Finance has very definitely produced results.

There are also the developments on the gold front in recent years and the role which the hon. the Minister has played in them. At the same time I also wish to pay tribute today to the role which the late Dr. Diederichs played in respect of gold. Looking back, it is clear that Minister Horwood correctly interpreted the development on the gold front step by step and played his cards very well. In 1975, for example, when many people believed that gold was going to be demonitized, the hon. the Minister predicted that precisely the opposite would happen and that the monetary role of gold would become more rather than less important. He also predicted that the price of gold would in the long term show an upward tendency. Today we all know that he was quite correct. The result is that when the hon. the Minister of Finance discusses gold these days, people listen to him. This was particularly noticeable on the occasion of the annual meeting last year of the IMF and the World Bank in Belgrade, at which the Ministers of Finance and the Presidents of Central Banks of approximately 138 member countries were present. Although the majority of these representatives made formal speeches during the meeting, the London Financial Times reported only four of those speeches. They were the speeches made by the Ministers’ of Finance of the USA, Britain, West Germany and South Africa.

It is therefore encouraging to know that we in South Africa have a strong economy today and that we have a Minister of Finance who knows what he is doing.

When we consider this part appropriation we note that since the Second Reading already we have had a very interesting debate.

†Looking back at the no-confidence debate and at the Second Reading debate of the part appropriation—and, to a lesser extent, even today’s debate—I am reminded in a way of an invitation to a spending binge party by the Opposition.

A spending what?

A spending spree, if the hon. member does not know what the word “binge” means. When we arrived at that party the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in the no-confidence debate, began by offering us doubles. He told us to spend. He was followed by the hon. member for Yeoville who insisted on our having triples. The hon. member for Yeoville spent even more. Then, however, the hon. member for Hillbrow came onto the scene and said: “Listen, boys, let’s throw away the tot measure. Let us drink directly from the bottle and get drunk quickly.” [Interjections.]

Well, that’s the spirit!

I read in a newspaper the other day that the hon. member for Hillbrow was called the “fastest voice in the West”. Today, however, I should like to knight him again. I should like to knight him with a new title, namely that of the “fastest spender in the West”. [Interjections.] If we follow his advice, I believe he will go down in history as the last of the big spenders. [Interjections.] Should the Government accept the invitation to carry on with this spending spree to the extent to which hon. members opposite advise us to do, this country will suffer from a financial hang-over which will be quite something to behold. [Interjections.] The trouble is that there are not any “regmakers” available for this type of “babalaas”. [Interjections.] I am sure that on the day after this spending-spree party the hon. member for Hillbrow will be going on a tax-free holiday trip to the Caribbean, only to discover that there is no money left to pay for his holiday trip.

I am sure he will be wearing dark glasses too.

Now I wish to continue and speak very earnestly to the hon. members of the Opposition. During the no-confidence debate one Opposition member after another accused the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government of ostensibly having created political and other expectations among people of colour in South Africa. They told us that we were not keeping the promises we had made, that we were not satisfying the expectations we had created. But what happened during the Second Reading debate of the part appropriation? In that debate hon. members of the Opposition created expectations among all the people in the country. They created the impression that there was a bonanza in this country, that there was so much money that the Government could give everyone anything they wanted. But there is nothing which hon. members on the other side of this House did not ask for, nothing which they did not advocate, except perhaps something for the farmers, because I cannot really recall them advocating anything for the farmers. Those hon. members created expectations among the general public, and they did so deliberately, because they know very well that the gold bonanza is not as large as they want people to believe it is.

Tell us how large it is.

Because we cannot now in a budget satisfy all those expectations which have been created by them over a period of weeks they are trying to make political capital out of the situation. Because they know that we cannot satisfy those expectations, they hope that the general public will be dissatisfied with the coming budget. I think the Opposition is at present playing an absolutely irresponsible game, particularly the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Hillbrow.

But we must be realistic and see what happened. There is something which we must definitely bear in mind. With the increases in the gold price South Africa receives only the dollar income which is paid for gold, and we must remember that we are dealing with a dollar which is dropping in value. Consequently this will not give us quite the same buying power among our foreign trading partners. In addition this money is also paid over to the mines first, and from the time the gold is sold, it takes between six to 18 months before it finds its way to the Exchequer in the form of taxation.

With this increased gold price we must also remember that the mines have now, in order to increase their own life expectancy, begun to exploit low-grade ore, and for low-grade ore the production costs are higher per ounce of gold than in the case of high-grade ore. In other words, the profit margin of the mines diminishes in proportion to the amount of gravel that has to be milled.

Moreover we must also remember that as a result of the increased gold price and the fact that it is now financially possible for mines to exploit low-grade ore, considerable capital expenditure is being incurred, for example in respect of new shafts, etc. All those capital development costs are tax deductible. Consequently our State coffers are not suddenly bursting with money. All of this takes time. As a result of the system of provisional tax payments it takes, as I have already said, from six to 18 months before the money finds its way to the Exchequer.

I come now to the advice we have received on how we should distribute this income. One can utilize this income on two ways. One can incur increased expenditure, and surely we have already had increased expenditure now, as may be seen from the additional appropriation. The other way in which one can get rid of this income is to allow the payment of lower taxes. Our answer—and I say this without anticipating the budget—does not lie in either of these two extremes. We must maintain an equilibrium, we must continue to exercise financial discipline in this country.

Now I should like to put a question to hon. members opposite. This question was put to them during the Second Reading debate by the hon. Minister: On the basis of which gold price should we budget? Let me explain what the simple truth of the matter is which the Opposition did not spell out to us. They spoke of the bonanza, but at what gold price should we calculate that bonanza? Should we base it on a gold price of $600?

No one said that. You were not listening.

I was listening to the hon. member very attentively. His spending plans would be quite a few times the value of the gold bonanza, if we had to accept everything which he proposed here. I want to say that the hon. member was being irresponsible. The Opposition wants us to go on a spending spree. Suddenly there must be parity in everything in the country. We have made it our goal to wipe out the historic differences and achieve parity, but it must now be done in one day. The gold price could drop tomorrow, or next month. I do not think that it will fall dramatically. In the long term it will continue to move upwards, but in the short term, over two or three years, it could fall. If we no longer have the money then, where should we begin to deduct? Should we then begin with the pensioners or with education? That the hon. members did not tell us.

With your salary.

It is perhaps difficult to get it into the hon. members’ heads, but gold does not have a fixed price or a floor price. Gold has a free-market price. We must look at what is happening around us. Surely we know that the security of South Africa is making heavier demands on the Exchequer. We must spend the money which we have sensibly. Should we now be like a Father Christmas doing his rounds and simply distribute the bonus we have received?

They are real old hide-sellers.

Farmers who had a good crop this year will not suddenly buy new tractors, increase salaries and carry on like profligates. They will make an investment for the future. That is how this money is being spent. It must be utilized for providing employment, creating incomes, for creating stability, security and permanent prosperity in the long term for everyone in South Africa. We must not go on a quick Father Christmas round and spend all the money on sweets and ice-cream.

I cannot debate in a meaningful way with the hon. member because his sense of responsibility does not allow me to argue with him on that level about the finances of the country. After all, this is a responsible Government. If hon. members opposite want that hangover, they can have it with the greatest of pleasure. I shall not join them in a drink that evening. That is certain.

Remember the Churchill story: We will be sober in the morning but you will still be ugly.

Mr. Speaker, that hon. member has had his turn now. I listened to him very courteously. I am not angry with him. I am speaking to him today like a father to an adopted child. [Interjections.] It is not my fault that the hon. member for Yeoville got such a sound drubbing from the hon. the Minister of Finance. He should not become angry with the Minister either. He should become angry with the Financial Mail. In spite of it all, the hon. member for Yeoville and I are good friends. [Interjections.]

There are a few points that I want to make. The hon. member for Hillbrow, who is also an old acquaintance of mine …

Good lord! He as well?

Yes, sometimes my friends count against me, but I shall accept it [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Hillbrow proposed that we pay more subsidies on food and that we abolish the general sales tax at the same time. However, the Government cannot become irresponsible. To single out a commodity such as food, as the hon. member requested, is looking for trouble. Let me explain why that argument is futile. If a loaf of bread costs 25c, one pays one cent GST on it. If I remember correctly, the subsidy paid on that loaf, with the GST which we get on it, is approximately 8c per loaf.

It is nine cents.

The hon. the Minister of Agriculture says it is nine cents. Surely it goes without saying then that if we were to abolish the GST with which we, inter alia, subsidize foodstuffs, that loaf of bread is not going to become a cent cheaper, but is going to cost eight cents more.

If one buys half a loaf of brown bread, one pays no tax on it at all.

That is correct. I should like to return to the hon. member for Yeoville. He got the fright of his life after the election result in Rhodesia. When I was listening to the hon. member I thought that Mugabe had taken over here, and not there. Surely we do not allow ourselves to be frightened to death. Surely we are not a colony of Britain which has now held an election. We are a sovereign, independent country.

The hon. member for Yeoville then spoke about our “evaluation”. He said: “Was the correct evaluation made of the Rhodesian situation?” I do not quite understand what the hon. member meant. Did he want us to support Mugabe so that he could win the election? Surely we did not pledge our support to anyone. Rhodesia is a neighbouring State which runs its own affairs. I am not going to whine about Rhodesia tonight. I am praying, in all earnest, for these people and I hope they will have peace and prosperity in their country. That is our wish and our prayer. But the hon. member was paralysed with fright. After what happened in Rhodesia, he suddenly wanted us to learn from the mistakes which had been made there. However, a completely different situation is prevailing in South Africa.

The hon. member also discussed the struggle for freedom. I want to tell him what the principal objectives of my party’s policy are. We stand for freedom, welfare, order, peace and stability for everyone in South Africa, regardless of colour, language, or creed or whatever. This is our policy and the hon. member cannot question those objectives, for that is the direction in which we are working.

Again I wish to talk to the hon. member like a father to an adopted son. To my mind he is displaying certain socialistic tendencies which make me feel uneasy. Prosperity cannot be obtained in South Africa with a policy which consists only of making hand-outs. Prosperity is being built up with the capitalistic system. We are not advocating a system of naked capitalism in which people are exploited, and our record proves that, but a free capitalistic system with a market mechanism. We can criticize the system, but show me a better one.

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

I shall give the hon. member a chance to do so in a moment.

The essence of the system we are propagating is that it must give the individual an incentive and bring out the spirit of enterprise in the individual. This, in turn, brings prosperity to everyone around him. The entrepreneur brings prosperity to everyone around him. I now wish to tell the hon. member for Yeoville …

Reply to a question.

I shall do so in a moment First I want to complete my argument on this matter.

The hon. member said that only the radicals are the people who are receiving power and authority in Africa. Because of that he was almost paralysed with fear. I wish to tell the hon. member that there are people in South Africa who are talking about bloodshed, but they should not underestimate the determination of the Whites in this country and their God-given and inalienable birthright to also have a place in this country. We could also cause the blood to flow, and we shall not allow ourselves to be bullied or threatened. We stand for being at peace with everyone. We stand for fairness to everyone, freedom for everyone and I challenge anyone to take us up on those points. However, it should be clearly understood that we shall not allow ourselves to be extorted or held to ransom. The hon. member for Yeoville may now ask his question.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he agrees with the kind of capitalism which is proposed by Mr. Mulholland and the Financial Mail?

Surely the hon. member knows what I stand for. We stand for a controlled, democratic, capitalistic system, as it is now functioning. Our declared objective is that the State’s share in the overall economy should decrease as a percentage of the gross domestic product, and not increase.

You are evading the issue.

I am trying to give the hon. member a fair reply. We do not want increasing State interference so that the State must become concerned in all the undertakings in the country. The State cannot tax the State. We want to leave it to the private sector to utilize and look after the capital, because if one eventually causes the entire economy to be looked after by the State and its officials, one eventually begins to have inefficiency. The secret of the free capitalistic system is that it gives the individual an incentive to improve his situation through his own efforts, and by improving his situation prosperity and welfare spills over to the people around him. Surely our entire tax system, our entire financial policy, is opposed to a naked capitalistic system which could lead to exploitation. The hon. member became extremely excited here and enumerated his ten points. Surely we stand for all those things. Surely we stand for equal opportunities. We stand for prosperity for all. We did not lay down maximum salaries in this country, on the contrary, the Government laid down minimum salaries. Consequently the hon. member must not talk about inequality. I can also speak of inequalities. Surely the hon. member knows that these things have an historical background. Surely he knows that the Government has openly declared itself in favour of narrowing the wage gap and improving educational facilities for all, regardless of colour, language, culture or creed. Surely we stand for these things and are doing these things. In spite of the fact that there are perverse elements in this country that are berating us for doing this, we are continuing to do so. We are doing so because it is right. However, we are not living with Alice in Wonderland. Surely these things cannot be done overnight. These things must be done within the financial means and the realities of the country in which we are living. It is very easy to tell wonderful stories and try to be a do-gooder, but who pays the account? And will we still be able to pay the account tomorrow as well? That hon. member must acquire a little equilibrium in his financial philosophy and display a little more responsibility. We are not opposed to his “caring society”. We are a caring society as far as financial means allow us to be, but we are not irresponsible.

I want to thank the hon. member for Losberg for his neat and splendid speech. He said that opportunities should be created for every member of the population.

Sometimes I came near to applauding the hon. member for Mooi River. Actually he replied to the hon. member for Yeoville on my behalf today. I have very little fault to find with the speech made by the hon. member for Mooi River. He said that we should never again return to the old scales of taxation. Surely we had the Franzsen Commission, which proposed a tax policy. We began a tax reform programme which entailed a broadening of the base, the introduction of general sales tax and the reduction of marginal scales. We have not yet decided that we are no longer going to follow that policy, we are still following it, within the financial means of the country. No one would like a return to those high scales. That is how the hon. the Minister feels and so do we on this side of the House.

I am in entire agreement with the ideas of the hon. member for Mooi River on a Black middle-class. It is they and the farmers who form the backbone of a country.

I wish to thank the hon. member for South Coast for his politically skilful speech. He spoke of saprophytes and parasites, and I could not make out whether the NRP or the PFP were the parasites. In any case it was one of those two.

The hon. member for Standerton quoted Mr. Harry Oppenheimer very knowledgeably. The hon. member used very beautiful language, and I sometimes got gooseflesh while listening to him.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout discussed foreign affairs more than anything else. In my opinion that hon. member is becoming more of a Nationalist by the day. I am beginning to worry about it.

The hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture told us in a brilliant way what was being done for the farmers. If something has to be done for the farmers, and the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture are doing it, then no one can improve on that.

The hon. member for Pretoria East touched on one of the key problems in South Africa today. The key to the controlling of inflation is, inter alia, the increasing of productivity. I am a 100% ad idem with that hon. member, and I think he stated the matter in a very proper and brilliant way.

I want to close with a sombre warning. After the expectations which have been created by the irresponsibility of some members of the Opposition, I feel sorry for the general public, because they expect the world. I have just tried to indicate here that we should continue to remain level-headed, that we cannot do things which would violate the financial means of the country, and then be unable to continue with those things the next day.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, we in these benches opposed the Second Reading of this Bill with a reasoned amendment, and we indicated during the course of the Second Reading debate the reasons why we believe this Bill should not be proceeded with. We now come to the first clause in the Bill which aims to establish a fully-nominated body. Sir, we are opposed to the establishment of a body which consists entirely of nominated persons. It is replacing a body which was partly-elected and partly-nominated and we on these benches would far rather have seen a fully-elected body.

However, the principle of the Bill has been passed at the Second Reading, and when one looks at the contents of the clause which is now before the Committee, one immediately trys to ascertain the functioning of this proposed council and also of the persons who will be nominated to this council. During the course of the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister indicated that this was to be an interim body. In the White Paper which was tabled, the question of this body being an interim one was highlighted, and many speakers on the Government side indicated that it was certainly not meant to be a permanent body in any way. It was also indicated, however, that the reasons why it was an interim body were that there was a vacuum which had to be filled, and also that it was intended to be a body to be constituted until such time as the new constitutional dispensation has been reached, or until an election of a new council has been organized. With this in mind, I placed an amendment on the Order Paper, and this amendment is an amendment to subsection (4) of clause 1 of the Bill, which deals with the period of office for which a member is appointed to the council. It is stated in subsection (4) that—

First of all, it is of great importance to have some indication of what those conditions will be, because, obviously, at the time of nomination these conditions will be prescribed. No provision is made anywhere in the clause for a person to be removed from office, perhaps because of misconduct or for any other reason, such as being convicted of an offence, unless it is stipulated in the conditions prescribed at the time of the nomination of the person to serve on the proposed council. Therefore, there is that aspect about which the hon. the Minister should give further clarity to this Committee.

Let me motivate the proviso contained in this amendment, the proviso being that—

In view of the fact that the proposed council is to come into being on 1 April 1980, this means that the two-year period for which a person can be appointed to this council will be the maximum period. We feel that this would be a reasonable time and a sufficient time for the Government to have arrived, on the basis of a new constitutional dispensation, at some arrangement as far as the future of the Coloured community is concerned, or to have decided to hold an election and have an elected body again, instead of having the appointed body as proposed at this stage. We believe that two years would be quite sufficient time to give an indication of what further arrangements are to be made for the political dispensation of the Coloured community.

The question of the definition of what an interim body is was raised during the Second Reading debate, but in the reply to the debate we did not receive any answer as to what the Government had in mind as far as the definition of an interim body was concerned. The purpose of my amendment is to add this proviso in terms of which the Government will at the end of a two-year period have to come to a decision as to what the future of the Coloured community should be. I therefore move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, in the Second Reading debate we in the official Opposition indicated that our opposition to this Bill was outright and we moved as an amendment that the Bill be read “this day six months”. For these reasons we have not put amendments on the Order Paper and shall we be voting against each of the clauses as they are put to the Committee.

As we are discussing clause 1, we have the opportunity to restate our objection. We believe that the Government is cynically misusing the request for dissolution which has come from the CRC. They did not ask for this dissolution to have the CRC replaced by this fully-nominated body with no legislative power. In September last year there was a unanimous resolution by the CRC in which its members combined to state what kind of South Africa and what kind of dispensation they would like. They called for a national convention and for full and equal participation. For the Government to use their cry of frustration with this body to get rid of it and then to create another council for which it will select or nominate leaders from the Coloured people, is simply too disgraceful for words.

So we have reached the situation where the Coloured people will have no elected body. They will have no body with legislative authority. This situation will make any move towards a new constitution much more difficult, because no doubt it will arouse fears and suspicions amongst the Coloured people that in fact this Bill, and this clause in particular, is merely a strategy to try to destroy the elected leaders of the Coloured people and to try to make it more difficult for the real voice of the Coloured people to be heard in the process of constitution-making in South Africa I think the best words we have used to describe this, is that this Bill—and I think the hon. the Minister will almost agree with this—as it stands, is an insult to a section of the South African community who have shown their loyalty to this country, who have been of service to this country and who do not deserve the kind of insult which this clause heaps upon their heads. For these reasons we shall vote against this clause and the others which follow.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the attitude of the hon. member for Sea Point and his party. They have made it perfectly clear during the Second Reading debate. Unfortunately the hon. member for Sea Point was not in his seat last night. I do not blame him, but it was unfortunate that he did not hear what I had to say, and therefore I can understand why he persists in his attitude, because he had no opportunity to reconsider his position.

You did not convince any of my colleagues either.

I accept that, on behalf of his party, he will pursue the course he has followed up to now. There is nothing I can do about it.

Withdraw the clause.

Withdraw the Bill.

They are welcome and perfectly within their rights to vote against every clause of this Bill.

The hon. member for Umbilo has moved an amendment with which I have sympathy. I would prefer to have the term of office of members of a body which is clearly only an interim body limited by the legislation which establishes it However, as I have explained in the White Paper which accompanied the introduction of this Bill, the Bill is intended to tide us over a period in which we have to await clarification about the future constitutional vehicles that will be offered to the Coloured people as a result of the Schlebusch Commission’s deliberations. In other words, it has to be interim until something is achieved, over the timing of which I and the House have no control. That is why I regret that I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Unfortunately, neither the Bill nor the White Paper indicates anything about a period of time.

I know, but I think that as adults we simply must accept that a purely nominated body cannot in any society be considered a final answer to its constitutional problems. I think the hon. member can accept that, and also that we will be eager to substitute something more democratic in the council’s place as soon as possible. I want the hon. member to realize that it is even possible that a change will be made in this body before 1 April 1982, the date which my hon. friend suggests. I want to be frank with hon. members. We must appreciate that should we decide, as a result of the constitutional advice we get, to continue with some special representative body for the Coloured people, a body which is to be different in its constitution from the present body, a body which will be fully-elected and which will have a larger membership, several consequences will flow from that decision. For example, we shall have to have a new voters’ roll, a new delimitation and other things, which take time. That is why I feel hon. members should not insist upon this limitation of the life of the council. They must please accept the assurance—and even if they persist, I shall still assure them—that the intention is to replace this body with something more democratic as soon as there is clarity regarding the future of our relations with the Coloured people.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—96: Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Blanché, J. P. I.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Cronje, P.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Durr, K. D.; Geldenhuys, B. L.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Heyns, J. H.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, E.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Myburgh, G. B.; Olckers, R. de V.; Poggenpoel, D. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Rabie, J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rossouw, D H.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scholtz, E. M.; Scott, D. B.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Eeden, D. S.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Niekerk, S. G. J.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mossel Bay); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. G.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Veldman, M. H.; Venter, A. A.; Volker, V. A.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: J. T. Albertyn, F. J. le Roux (Hercules), A. van Breda, H. D. K. van der Merwe, P. J. van B. Viljoen and A. J. Vlok.

Noes—23:Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; Eglin, C. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Widman, A. B.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. L. Boraine. Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 3, in lines 29 and 30, to omit paragraph (a) and to substitute “(a) a chairman;”;
2. (2) on page 5, in line 2, to omit “designated by the State President” and to substitute:

1. (3) on page 5, in lines 3 and 4, to omit “the designation by the State President of’;
2. (4) on page 5, in lines 6 to 10, to omit subsection (3);
3. (5) on page 5, in line 11, to omit “designation” and to substitute “election”.

This clause deals with the question of the executive of the proposed council. When one reads this clause it becomes apparent that the chairman and the four other members of the council will all be designated by the State President. The clause also provides that any vacancy in the executive will be filled by the designation by the State President of another member of the council. In addition to that there are two other consequential stipulations which deal with the position of the executive. In both these instances the State President will be empowered to follow his discretion.

The amendments I have moved aim at creating a situation in which the chairman and the four members of the executive will be elected by the members of the council themselves. This would surely be a democratic method of providing for an executive of this council. We know that the hon. the Minister, in motivating the Second Reading of the Bill, and also in the White Paper, said that the persons who would be appointed would be of a very high calibre. Indeed, in the White Paper he said that they would be persons of high esteem and ability in the Coloured community. So, consequently, the implication is that the people who will be appointed are going to be people who have had experience in various fields of administration, whether in local government, education, welfare, the sphere of labour matters, in business or economic activities or in the agricultural sphere. In other words, this covers the whole wide range of what the administrative duties of this council would be. If these are to be people of such a high calibre, we in these benches believe that the hon. the Minister should have sufficient confidence in their ability to decide who should be elected as chairman of the executive and who the four members of that executive should be who will be responsible for administrating the various portfolios of that executive.

The first of my amendments refers to the fact that the chairman should be elected by the council and not be designated by the State President. The second amendment relates to the fact that the four members of the executive should also be elected by that council and then, if any vacancies should occur, the council could fill those vacancies by electing someone from amongst the members of the council itself. Then there is the question of whether or not there would be a vacuum until such time as the executive is elected. Clause 2(4) reads as follows—

This is a transitional provision which is important, because obviously the wages and salaries of teachers, the social benefits, the pensions and other matters will still have to be paid to the relevant persons until such time as an executive is elected. Therefore the relevant amendment seeks to delete the word “designation” so that clause 2(4) reads “the election of an executive in terms of subsection (1)”. This would mean that the administrative side would still be continued with in the sense that the hon. the Minister would have the authority to have those payments made. So the aim of these amendments to this clause is to find ways and means to at least allow some form of discretion as far as members of the executive and the council itself are concerned. I say this because in terms of clause 6, a clause the Committee still has to deal with, it is also designated that the chairman will be in charge of finance. The other portfolios, however, will also be designated for members of the executive. I know we are not discussing clause 6 at the moment, but this is just a further indication of a lack of confidence in the ability of the members who are going to be appointed to this council. If the hon. the Minister believed that these people would be capable people who would be held in high esteem and who would be experienced in various fields of administration, he would at least allow them the democratic right to elect their own chairman and four members of the council to serve as the executive of that council.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that hon. members of the NRP are fulfiling their Parliamentary duties in regard to the Bill so conscientiously. That is why I gave special attention to the amendments moved by the hon. member for Umbilo. To my regret, however, I cannot accept the amendments, not because I do not recognize their merits, but because of practical reasons which I am going to mention. Let us take the example of the name of the chairman of the Executive. This name is being changed to “Administrator”. It is necessary to do so for practical reasons only, viz. because confusion prevailed among the Coloured people, the councillors and the public about the fact that there are two chairmen on the council, i.e. the chairman of the Executive and the chairman of the council itself, i.e. the person who is known as the Speaker in this Parliament. It was in the first instance to overcome that confusion, which does exist, that we thought that the name “Administrator” would be more practical and more desirable.

That position is already in existence.

Yes, the position exists, but the name is the same as that of the chairman of the council, and this causes confusion. Because of the nature of the duties of the chairman of the Executive, we also believe that the name “Administrator” will be more fitting and more descriptive of his actual duties. In many respects his work corresponds to the duties of an Administrator of a province. In actual fact he administers the budget. That is why I think we should accept this name for practical reasons.

Now I want to turn to the hon. member’s amendment to clause 2(1), page 5, line 2. We would very much like the various portfolios to be dealt with by people who have special knowledge concerning the business related to their portfolio. This is what we want. I have no doubt that when a council is compiled in the usual way after an election during which people fight under party colours, get to know one another and share a communal discipline, that these people can be elected in a democratic way by the leader of the party concerned or that council may be given the right to elect these people. Hon. members must bear in mind that the council I am appointing is a nominated one. Every member is appointed on the basis of considerations such as his knowledge, his capability and his competence. When the members come to the council they will not be acquainted. There will not be any party connection either. Surely it is asking too much suddenly to ask them to elect an Executive.

What is wrong with the Senate?

Order!

Many of them will not know one another. It is for this very practical consideration that I cannot accept this amendment either. Since it is going to be a nominated council, if possible I also want to prevent the formation of cliques with a view to promoting the interests of any particular groups. As soon as one makes this type of matter the subject of an election, a tendency immediately develops for people to organize themselves and urge people to vote for a “ticket” as they call it for the budget. These are the things that I want to prevent, and it is for those practical reasons that I regret that I cannot accept this amendment.

As far as the amendments to clause 2(2) and clause 2(4) are concerned, I want to say that for the same reasons that I advanced in connection with the amendment to subsection (1), I can unfortunately not accept these amendments either. Nor can I accept the amendment to clause 2(3) for practical reasons. We must make provision for the duties allocated to a specific member to be continued when that member is temporarily unable to carry out his duties due to illness or absence. This happens at Cabinet level too. If a member of the Cabinet is temporarily abroad or ill, the Prime Minister immediately appoints someone to stand in for him on a temporary basis. This is merely a temporary arrangement.

But not by legislation.

It is a matter of convention. Since the proposed council is a new body that does not yet have any conventions, I must make the necessary provision in this legislation. It would be wrong to cause a delay in the proceedings of the council. That is why an appointment of this kind must be able to be made immediately, even if the council should not be in session. Whilst I appreciate the standpoints of the hon. member and definitely understand his motivation, it is not possible for me to accept the amendments for these practical reasons.

Mr. Chairman, I am just rising to my feet to say how disappointed I am that the hon. the Minister is not prepared to accept these amendments. The hon. the Minister, in very civil terms, said he was sorry that he could not accept the amendments …

I am sorry.

He gave the reasons for being sorry, but I think he is overlooking one thing, and this is that in these amendments we are firstly taking into account people who are really going to be appointed to serve on that council. The hon. the Minister wants these people to be of a high quality. The hon. the Minister must think of the self-respect of those people. If they are going to declare themselves willing to serve on a nominated council of this kind, the members of the Coloured community are going to exert pressure on them. Therefore, they will have to be courageous people. We moved an amendment which could mean something to the self-respect of those people. If this amendment is accepted, they can at least say that they are in fact serving on the council as nominated persons, but that they did at least participate directly in the process. They can stand back and have an answer for their enemies, the people who are going to blacken their names, by telling them that they do not sit there simply to applaud; they can at least have some say in steering matters in a certain direction. The hon. the Minister now has the opportunity to make it as easy as possible for these people, whom he and all of us need. However, he says he cannot accept the amendments because the Government has already decided on the name “Administrator”. An Administrator is appointed and not elected. [Interjections.] Surely this is what the hon. the Minister said. The hon. the Minister says they have decided on the name “Administrator”. However, life is not always that easy. Then he gave the example of the present chairman.

The present chairman is appointed too.

The present chairman is appointed, it is true, but this is an entirely different matter. The hon. the Minister is trying to compare the present situation of a partially-elected council with this council which will be a completely nominated one. It suits him now to say that the present chairman is appointed too. If he experiences problems with terminology, he can think of another name. I simply cannot understand why the Government always displays this innate mistrust. [Interjections.] They have an inherent mistrust They have to regulate everything from point A to point B. In fact, they regulate so well that the whole affair comes to grief whilst the hon. the Minister now has the power to make the whole affair work properly. I ask the hon. the Minister to think about this matter once again. It is no use simply telling the hon. member for Umbilo that he has good arguments and that his heart is with us. This is not what it is all about. We are not concerned with good intentions, but where there are in fact good intentions, he must prove them. He must put some confidence in the people. It is no use saying that these people are going to be of a high calibre.

All they can do is talk.

They are going to meet, but they are not going to know exactly who is the best.

We will know.

The hon. member said they will know who the experts are. Once again we have a case here where decisions are being made for them. They are simply there to be counted. They are only there to fill up the place. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister said so himself. The hon. the Minister says that this proposed council should be a fine little body. They must not even form cliques, and if they are going to choose their own chairman, they are going to form cliques. Surely this is absolutely rubbish.

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

Oh no, Barnie man!

Order!

If one were to snatch away the pleasant mask that the hon. the Minister has donned, one would be able to see what his real intentions are. In the five to ten minutes during which the hon. the Minister was speaking, when he rejected this reasonable amendment, he motivated his rejection by saying a few things which once again contain the germ of the ultimate failure of the system. In actual fact, he said things which are an inherent insult to the Coloured people.

Mr. Chairman, there is another aspect with regard to the appointment of an executive, because if one looks at this clause—and the hon. the Minister has also indicated that for administrative reasons he would rather see the executive as an appointed executive—and compares it with clause 8, if I may just refer to that briefly, one sees that it will be necessary for the votes to be discussed and for the members of the executive to be responsible for the administration of certain portfolios. In terms of clause 6 the portfolios and designated, and in terms of clause 8 it is necessary for a member of the executive to appear before the council and to give an account of the administration of his particular portfolio. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister about a position which could arise if there were four appointed members of the executive and the council decided that a particular member of the executive was not administering his portfolio correctly or efficiently. If they were to pass a vote of no confidence in that member of the executive, the council would then be stuck with that member of the executive who might be completely incompetent. There is no provision in this clause at all for an appointed member of the executive’s period of office as a member of the executive to be terminated. There is no question of what steps can be taken to have a person replaced, apart from his being replaced, on a temporary basis, if he is unable to perform his duties in connection with his particular portfolio. I therefore believe this is a very important aspect because there will be an executive which has its administrative duties and which is answerable to the council in terms of the provisions of further clauses in the Bill, but at the same time the council would not be in a position to replace any member of the executive once the executive has been appointed by the State President. I do hope that the hon. the Minister can give some indication of how this particular practical difficulty, which may arise, could be met in terms of the clause as it now stands.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened carefully to the two hon. members on the other side. The hon. member for Durban Central made a very ardent speech, but there really was not a great deal of substance in what he had to say. I want to indicate why I am saying so. We all know parliamentary procedure, and one is elected to Parliament, one is elected—even if one is aspiring to a post in the Cabinet—as a member of a party. Before being elected, one knows that one’s appointment to the Cabinet depends on the way one is judged by the leader of one’s party. One comes to this House and one is appointed. Parliament does not meet and elect the members. Now I am proposing a council which is nominated, but which does not contain any party organizations, which does not contain a leader of a majority group, and for that reason, while the principle remains the same, the procedure is somewhat different.

The State President, with his special knowledge and with the advice he will receive from the people responsible for the nomination of the members, will be best able to judge, as the hon. the Prime Minister in this House is best able to judge who should serve on the executive. [Interjections.] My hon. friend for Umbilo tried to motivate his argument further by referring to the fact that the members of the executive are responsible to the council in terms of clause 8 of the Bill. I am sorry he did not think of that before moving the amendment, because the authority of the new South African Coloured Persons Council is not based on the fact that the executive is elected; that is not important. What is important is that the law will now provide that something which is not done in the case of the existing council will in fact be done here, and that is that the new council will be obliged to discuss each vote. If a situation were to arise in which the council lacked confidence in any member, this would come to the notice of the State President, and he would then deal with that matter as he deemed fit. I am fully confident that the matter could be solved, either by another appointment or by a reconciliation between the council and the member of the council concerned.

[Inaudible.]

No, but the council has the power to make it impossible for that man to function, because they control the finance.

If that were to happen, what could the State President do about it?

If I find that the right of appointment does not include the right of discharge, I shall see to it that an amendment is introduced in the Other Place, providing for that authority to be given to the State President, if he is satisfied that a member has forfeited the confidence of the council.

Amendments (1) to (4) negatived and amendment (5) dropped (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause 3 agreed to (Official Opposition and. New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I rise to seek a little clarity from the hon. the Minister on the point that I raised during the Second Reading debate regarding clause 4(2), which, as I interpret it, means that the present Coloured Persons Representative Council is actually merely being put into mothballs and that, at any time, by a proclamation of the State President in the Gazette, this council could be reconstituted. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what sort of circumstances he envisages would have to arise before the council, as it exists in terms of the Act, could be reconstituted.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad the hon. member has raised this question, because it gives me an opportunity to explain to him why I could not deal with it in the Second Reading debate. It was not because of discourtesy or out of any desire not to assist the hon. member that I did not discuss it then. I said that it could be discussed in the Committee Stage. The reason for that was that the hon. member asked me a simple question, namely whether this measure meant that the present council could be reconstituted at any time. In order to answer that question at that stage he and I would have had to enter into a discussion about exactly what he had in mind with the word “reconstitute” and I would have had to give a long explanation, which would be more fitting in the Committee Stage. It would have led to arguments which could not be conducted in the Second Reading debate as we do here across the floor in one short speech after the other. It is only for that practical reason that I could not assist the hon. member there and then. Now I shall assist him. If he looks at the Bill he will see that, contrary to what has been said again and again by hon. members on the other side of the House, the CRC is not abolished, but only dissolved. He must look at the Bill. That means that the council as an institution does not end with this Bill; it is just not being re-elected. The hon. member asked me whether it would be reconstituted and I want to say at once that it cannot be reconstituted under this Bill with the membership as it is at present.

This is the sort of thing I would have had to discuss with the hon. member. What he wanted me to do at Second Reading, I could not do. What can happen, however, is that the State President can, if necessary, issue a proclamation under the present Act calling for the election of the council under the present Act. That can be done. We have that in the Bill in case the situation should change and it should become both necessary and advisable to reconstitute the present council with a new election. I think it is most unlikely that it will happen. I would prefer to see that something more effective and more acceptable to everybody concerned will be devised under the new dispensation as a result of our discussions and deliberations on a new constitution for South Africa It is in the Bill merely as an extreme precaution against an urgent necessity that might arise as a result of developments that we expect to take place in the future.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister what, in case of reconstitution, the relationship would be between the reconstituted council and the one which is now to be nominated? Would it not give rise to an extraordinary difficult situation? Will the CRC have to be abolished first? What is going to take place?

The nominated council would have to go. One cannot have two councils. The nominated one will have to go. However, I think it is most unlikely that such a situation will arise. I think we are being over-cautious in this matter. Yet it is there should the need therefor ever arise.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause 5 agreed to (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause 6 agreed to (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause 7 agreed to (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause 8 agreed to (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, to indicate the nature and the extent of our opposition to clause 1 we divided on it and so we shall also divide on clause 9. When one looks at the wording of this clause, one feels that to call a council nominated by the NP Government, a White Government, a “South African Coloured Persons Council”, is in itself an exercise in misshapen semantics. How can one possibly call this a Coloured Persons Council when it is a nominated body of the White Government? Because of our principal objection to this Bill and because we do not believe that it should start its life on 1 April 1980, we shall vote against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I have heard what the hon. member has had to say. I understand his motivations, but I disagree with him and I think we must vote and be done with it.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—91: Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Blanche, J. P. I.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, P. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Cronje, P.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Durr, K. D.; Geldenhuys, B. L.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Heyns, J. H.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, E.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Myburgh, G. B.; Olckers, R. de V.; Poggenpoel, D. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Rabie, J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rossouw, D. H.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scholtz, E. M.; Scott, D. B.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Eeden, D. S.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Niekerk, S. G. J.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. G.; Veldman, M. H.; Venter, A. A.; Volker, V. A.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: J. T. Albertyn, F. J. le Roux (Hercules), A. van Breda, H. D. K. van der Merwe, P. J. van B. Viljoen and A. J. Vlok.

Noes—22: Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; Eglin, C. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Widman, A. B.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. L. Boraine. Clause agreed to.

Preamble and Title, with leave, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.