Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourned yesterday evening, I was issuing a challenge to the hon. member for Yeoville. We on this side of the House are still waiting for a clear statement on the question whether or not the official Opposition are advocates of a welfare state with the extremely high taxes connected with it.

They are.

I also told the hon. member for Yeoville that he and his party should stop making a political football of this extremely sensitive matter, the care of the aged, as they have been doing up to now. I also said that his party should stop continually holding up hon. members on this side of the House as a group of monsters who do not give the aged more than is provided for in the present budget. If hon. members of the Opposition claim that they are not advocates of a welfare state, it is their bounden duty to join us in exhorting our people to be self-supporting. In that respect, we have an ideal to pursue. If we can reduce social pensions by making our people more self-supporting, we will have more money at our disposal in order to provide for really compassionate cases and also better to care for handicapped people than we are able to at present.

If the official Opposition does not wish to make a clear statement on this, we are fully entitled to infer that they are advocates of a welfare state and that if they could have their way, there would be an immense increase in taxes. Then we are also entitled to tell the electorate that.

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

I am now also referring to the hon. member for Hillbrow who held such a rowdy meeting in Johannesburg. If we have to give more, we challenge the official Opposition to tell us from whom we must take away. Must we take away from the nurses or from the teachers? Must we take away from the police? Must we take away from the Black people? The Government does not have unlimited resources to distribute among all the people in South Africa. So, hon. members of the official Opposition should stop exploiting these matters for political gain. They should get down to reality for a change and explain to us what their philosophy is with regard to financial planning.

The hon. member for Yeoville also wished to know in what way a married woman was benefiting from this budget. In the first place I wish to put a counter-question to him. What is the tax policy, the tax philosophy, of the official Opposition? We have been struggling for years now to hear that from them. It really delights us to hear that they have now ultimately appointed a committee to investigate the matter. Evidently that is going to take them 18 months. However, we should be pleased if we could hear what their tax policy is before the expiration of those 18 months. When one adopts a particular philosophy, there are favourable and less favourable elements in it, and that means one has to keep both aspects of the matter in mind. In debates on economic matters the hon. member for Yeoville and his hon. colleagues argue as though it would be possible in economics to combine the best of both worlds for South Africa. That is wishful thinking and until such time as we hear their real philosophy from them, we shall keep on pestering them about this particular matter.

Talking of a tax policy, I want to know from the hon. member what he regards as a tax unit. Does he regard a family as a tax unit as is the case in France? Does he regard an individual as a tax unit as is the case in New Zealand, Canada and Australia? Does he perhaps regard the policy of his party as a policy of a choice between an individual and a family as is the case in the USA and in the United Kingdom? Or does he—as is the case in South Africa—regard a married couple as a tax unit? I ask this because certain facts arise from this. If, in any context I have referred to, one were to regard a married woman as a tax unit, it would mean that she would be a source of income to the State. If the Government were then to decide to tax her in a different way than is provided for in the present system, there would be a change in the revenue of the State and, if there were to be a reduction in the revenue of the State, the shortfall would have to be made up for by means of taxation in some other way. In the second place, it is a fact that malpractices arise from all these systems. After all, the hon. member for Yeoville who is a financial expert should know what is going on in Australia. He should know that wherever there is a tax system in which the individual is regarded as a tax unit, the difference in income between husband and wife is equalized as far as possible artificially to make their joint income tax as low as possible. In that way the State loses revenue. When the State loses revenue in that way, it has to obtain equivalent revenue by means of tax in some other sphere, for example, by increasing the marginal rate or something of that nature.

However, the hon. member also knows that Adam Smith’s four essentials for tax are still valid today. The first is equality. The second is certainty. The third is convenience and the fourth is economic collection. I wish to dwell on equality of tax for a moment. This deals with the ability of the tax unit to pay and the fact that each tax unit should pay in accordance with his particular ability to pay. All of us know—and it has also been proved scientifically—that when two people live together, it costs less to maintain both of them than it would cost if they were living separately. That is a fact. So if a married couple were to be regarded as a tax unit, a married couple with a joint income of R10 000 per annum would, for example, have a greater ability to pay tax than would be the case in respect of two individuals each earning R5 000 per annum. That is also the fact of the matter with regard to the tax system in South Africa. Moreover, it is a fact that when a spouse as the only breadwinner accepts a second situation or starts working overtime and so increases his taxable income that he has a taxable income of, for example, R15 000, whereas, for example, his neighbours both work as a couple and one spouse earns R10 000 and the other R5 000 per annum, it would be unfair, after all, for the single breadwinner to have to pay more tax than the other couple who are both breadwinners.

That is a silly argument.

It is not a silly argument, and if the hon. member for Houghton keeps on saying that it is a silly argument, let her get up and tell us what her tax philosophy is. Then we can debate the matter on its merits. She behaves exactly like the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member for Yeoville gets up but does not debate the merits of the tax question. He gets up and stirs up emotions in regard to the taxation of the working woman. That is something that stirs up emotions even outside the House. Let him or one of his colleagues get up and tell us what their tax policy is, what their tax philosophy is.

We do so every year.

The hon. member for Yeoville also made much of what the budget does for the man with an income of less than R50 a week. I want to tell the hon. member that, although I am concerned about these people, I am even more concerned about what the budget does for those people with an income of R0 a week, in other words, the people who are unemployed. I am more concerned about them than about the people who are at least earning R50 a week.

It is a pity that the hon. the Minister of Finance is not concerned about that.

The budget is exceptional in the sense that it brings relief. Under the circumstances, it might just as well have been a budget which required that taxpayers pay more. But it has been possible here to grant relief. The budget could also have gone even further and also stimulated demand. And if it stimulated demand, it would also fill unutilized capacity in industry. And if it filled the capacity of industry, there would be new employment opportunities as a result of fresh investment and then people who had no income at all could obtain employment. After all, the hon. member for Yeoville knows that we have certain bottlenecks with regard to industrial development in South Africa. He knows that the De Waal Committee was appointed to investigate these bottlenecks, also with regard to the economic development corporations and so on. The hon. member also knows—or at least he ought to know—that in the past certain distortions have taken place with regard to investment allowances and the creation of employment opportunities and that the matter has now been referred to the Standing Committee on Taxation. It is also being advocated strongly, and justifiably so, that instead of granting a tax holiday there should rather be cash allowances to decentralized industries. That makes sense because to grant a tax holiday means that the benefit only accrues to the industrialist once he starts making a profit and in view of the fact that during the first few years he does not make a profit, he would at least have cash to deal with the initial problems of cash flow. That is why the committee is looking into the matter and this is generally being welcomed by industrialists. However, it is not merely a question of simply being able to change over from a relatively capital-intensive economy to a labour-intensive economy. There are the problems of technology, of mechanization and of the training of people. All these things have to be taken into account in order to plan properly. That is why experts are investigating the matter at the moment.

Harry, behave yourself and listen, man.

As I have mentioned, the hon. member for Yeoville also made mention of people earning less than R50 a week. Does the hon. member not know then that the tax threshold for Whites without any medical benefit has been increased from R1 000 to R1 500 in the case of unmarried people and from R1 500 to R2 000 in the case of married people, and that this tax threshold is of immense benefit to people in the lower income groups? We cannot have a meaningful debate with the hon. member in the House because he uses every single possible platform for his political slogans instead of conducting a meaningful debate and listening to what we are saying to him. The hon. member turns his back on one and does not want to listen. He does not want to be courteous.

When the hon. member talks of people earning less than R50 a week, perhaps he means Black people. I want to remind the hon. member that from the surplus of last year’s budget R12 million was set aside for low interest loans for development schemes for Black people, R4 million was set aside for urgent hospital facilities and R15 million for consolidation.

I want now to say a few words about consolidation. The money this Government has spent on consolidation is a dramatic step in the economic history of the world because it is a redistribution of existing wealth. Where on earth does one encounter the implementation of the principle of the redistribution of wealth on this scale, and what better example of wealth can there be than land? And the further strengthening of the consolidation programme by R75 million in this budget will mean that this year Black people will again obtain ownership of so much more land, will have the further opportunity of possessing land, and this is a unique privilege. They will also have the opportunity of establishing their own enterprises on that land and they can launch labour-intensive projects. It is not simply a question of land being given and then forgotten. An amount of R10 million is being made available to independent states as loan funds. A further R15 million is being made available as a project fund for the Department of Co-operation and Development.

Let us look at the question of the taxation of Black people. That hon. member says this budget does nothing for people earning less than R50 a week. But has he forgotten that the tax threshold for Black people has been increased from R1 200 to R1 800 per annum, an increase therefore of 50%? Has he also perhaps forgotten that their rate of taxation has been decreased by 20%? Has he forgotten about the food subsidies which amount to far more than R200 million of which they are for the most part receiving the benefit? Has he forgotten about the allowances to farmers and industrialists for extra housing for their Black workers? What about the subsidized transport and other social services for Black people? That hon. member, however, is trying to stir up hostility to this Government by implying that the Government is turning its back on people earning less than R50 a week. [Interjections.]

There is another matter I wish to bring very pertinently to the notice of the hon. the Minister. I am referring to taxation in certain categories. I think the taxation structure that is now being introduced is one that certainly offers the best possibilities for an equitable redistribution of tax, a system that lends itself to easy adaptation and manipulation as an instrument of policy, if that should become necessary.

It operates to the detriment of families with children.

In the past there have in fact been certain distortions in the taxation graph, distortions which will now result in the fact that with the new taxes now being introduced certain people are going to receive relatively less benefit than others. There are a few specific categories that are being affected severely in the sense that they are in fact going to pay more tax this year than they paid last year and, because these are mainly people with big families, I really want to make a sincere plea to the hon. the Minister on behalf of these people today. I want to ask him to see whether he cannot do anything as an interim or temporary measure to accommodate these people. I concede that since the tax reforms became effective in 1978, these people have in fact derived the benefit but this year the new rates are going to require them to pay more tax than they had to pay last year, and so they will not be able to share in the benefits we are enjoying. I want to refer, for example, to married men with seven, eight or nine children, in the salary group R16 000 to R22 000. People in these three categories will in fact have to pay more tax. Then there is also the case of a man with six children in the taxable category of R14 000 to R22 000. He will derive hardly any benefit from the new system. I want to make a sincere appeal to the hon. the Minister. Will he not see whether he can perhaps do something to improve the plight of these people at this stage?

Strong views have also been expressed in business circles to the effect that this budget is prejudicial to exporters. It is being claimed that the budget operates to the disadvantage of exporters. But that is not true. The hon. the Minister did not mention this as a special aspect in his budget speech but this does not mean that he attaches less value to it or that he regards it as being less important. Looking at page 8 of Vote 8, we notice that the amount set aside for export trade promotion has been increased by 15%; in other words, by at least as much as last year. That is an amount of R138 million which is certainly not to be sniffed at. It means that this allowance has not been scaled down. It offers exporters the opportunity of nurturing and maintaining their dearly acquired markets abroad, because one can be sure that an unreliable producer or exporter will destroy his own market. It would cost him an immense amount of money to restore that market. So, there is a heavy responsibility on exporters to utilize these funds for the maintenance of the markets which have taken them so long to build up and in regard to which they have gained such excellent achievements in the past, and to make even more of them. One thing is certain and that is that we shall constantly have to devote a great deal of attention to our exports so that we can obtain the foreign exchange necessary to pay for our essential imports.

There is yet another important fact that also operates to the benefit of exporters. A few years ago, when the domestic market had virtually collapsed, the exporters turned their attention to countries abroad. It was an incentive to them to survive by making use of the support which the Government gave them to get their products sold abroad. But because of the increase in the demand and the steps the Government has taken to stimulate demand, there is nevertheless still immense benefit to be gained by exporters within South Africa as well. They are able to sell very many more of their products here than they were able to sell before, while at the same time they are able to sustain their export markets. Their margin of profit may in fact be very much higher than it was in the past in that their basic costs may perhaps be covered by their export trade. For that reason we want to appeal to exporters not to adopt a negative attitude with regard to this budget.

I wish to dwell briefly on the question of inflation. Inflation is still public enemy number one, both to the Government and to South Africa. The question is, however, how we can reduce it and how we can cope with it. The fact is that as long as there is an imbalance in the world between the price of energy and the use of energy, when shortages arise at the energy level as well as in the field of raw materials and when there are also other factors that play a role, we are going to be faced with cost-push inflation. That is a fact. Also in South Africa where there have been salary increases purely to help people overcome the inflation problem and to relieve their plight, and where this has not gone hand in hand with the necessary increase in productivity, we have an element of cost-push inflation that has devastating effects upon our economy. One can understand then why eminent people such as Dr. Du Plessis, economist and managing director of Sanlam, are concerned about the question of a demand inflation which could arise if we do not handle the supply of money and other monetary aspects in South Africa properly. Now, it is reassuring that the hon. the Minister has come to light with a package of fiscal and monetary measures which certainly place us in the best possible position to stimulate demand and yet contain inflation by, inter alia, curbing the money supply—in fact, there is a specific objective in this regard—by decreasing State expenditure to a certain level and by absorbing excessive liquidity by means of other measures. We wish to express the hope that the hon. the Minister and his department will keep a close watch on this matter and maintain a fine balance between the stimulation of demand and the overheating of the economy.

I have no doubt that this budget will go down in history as one of the most important in the history of the Republic.

Mr. Speaker, in the part appropriation debate I appealed for positive action with reference to what I called several structural weaknesses still existing in our socio-economic life in this country, such as our too great dependence on exports; too little manufacturing, conversion and refining of our raw materials and minerals; too great unemployment among non-Whites; much too low productivity; our tremendous backlog in training and education; much too high inflation; lack of equality of opportunity for some of our population groups; too wide wage and salary gaps which still exist; discrimination against married women; the great sensitivity needed with reference to taxing perks; and a marginal tax rate which is still much too high for a young developing country.

In its totality the budget in fact does endeavour to do something about each and every one of these particular weaknesses, some directly, some indirectly, and I therefore wish to thank the hon. the Minister and to congratulate him. But the most common mistake that some people make and the usual strategy of Opposition condemnation is to look at specific items in isolation. Of course, not enough has been done in some instances, but where in the world will the money come from to do enough about each and every one of our urgent needs and our vital and essential projects? On balance, which country in the world today can, or could for many, many years, produce such a positive budget, doing so much for so many at the same time?

On this occasion I wish to suggest that several world crises—one could also call them disaster pressure points—are building up around the world. For instance, there is the super-power arms race with its ghastly implications, the population crisis, the food crisis, the energy crisis, the vital resources crisis and the looming financial economic crisis, especially through massive debts of Third World countries and inflation, leading inevitably to an ultimate crash brought on either by continued inflation or drastic deflation. But the almost unbelievable truth is that it seems as if for each and every looming crisis facing us South Africa seems to have a special built-in endowment or safety valve, enabling us to deal with it in a manner not only to survive, but in a relative sense also to come out on top. We shall suffer too, yes, but relatively speaking less, and this is where the hon. the Minister’s budget is so vitally important, where caution is needed to stay out of debt and where we should take the lead in showing the way:

Firstly, continuing to point out and to propagate that the world needs truly gold-backed currencies to stabilize the international monetary system and to fight inflation. Since the present system and all the suggested systems so far are basically unsound, we can expect that gold, with periodic adjustments following temporary speculative excesses, will continue to follow an upward trend against other currencies. By being constructive and by promoting discipline we can set a pattern in this country for ourselves to develop into a leading and prestigious financial and investment capital in Southern Africa and, as a matter of fact, for a large part of the Southern Hemisphere. Just think of what fantastic, rich rewards this could bring us. Therefore, in my humble opinion we should go for it!

Secondly, reading the signs of the times correctly, by adjusting our domestic situation and assisting our neighbours and other Black African States, even if it means interim financial sacrifices, we have a very good chance that increasing numbers of Black African States and others will turn to us for food and for assistance in technology, in agriculture, in management and in administration to help them turn their economies around and to train, educate and develop their people. But there is an important proviso. The Marxists have not been a success in Africa in the economic sense. And with their many problems now building up around them, they will less and less be able to do anything for these nations, except to lead them up garden paths which invariably will turn out to be very thorny paths. One witness is the situation in Mozambique. However, we South Africans must also realize that it is an inescapable fact of human nature for man to want to escape inferiority, for man to want to escape discrimination and that many would willingly die for that. We have no option but to make our non-White people feel important in our company and to consider us as genuine friends, an operation in which each and every South African, of whatever colour or denomination, should take part. What must stop, however, is some White men everlastingly, for party-political purposes or other selfish reasons, playing off for instance the Motlanas against the Thebehali’s and Buthelezi’s.

I say this not to take a stance against Mr. Motlana, but only to state the facts. This brigade, including certain media, have chosen Mr. Motlana as the man to promote. He only needs to sneeze and every single sneeze is rapidly gold embroidered and splashed across front pages all over the country. However, when Mr. Thebehali delivers a long, worthwhile address, and when Buthelezi, as on Sunday, 21 October 1979, addressed 40 000 people in Soweto for four hours, three-quarters of the time slamming Mr. Motlana, the whole affair was played down into relative insignificance, if not totally ignored. Why was that?

Why do so many Americans, especially the official-rated ones make a bee-line for Mr. Motlana, including the Sullivan’s Sons? I campaign with most media for the elimination of discrimination. But, please, let us please stop the insidious but popular discrimination of splashes for some and black-outs for others. That is a blatant and blunt form of discrimination by those who so often talk against discrimination.

Thirdly, the nation should also be told that one cannot find a substitute for simple, hard and productive work and long hours as the best remedy for approximately 50% of the inflation we have to cope with in the South African context. While substantial concessions are being implemented in the educational field, may I humbly suggest that consideration should be given to longer school hours, shorter holidays and more rationalization of the system. While it is so that many teachers, vice-principals and principals do, in fact, work very hard they often have to attend to numerous details, such as copying, typing, etc., which should be done by clerical assistants. In order to prosper, training and education in South Africa will have to continue around the clock.

Lastly, what about operation dissemination of information (ODI) which I appealed for so often in this House, both amongst South Africans and internationally, but especially amongst South Africans? I hope that there is sufficient provision in the budget for launching and maintaining an aggressive campaign of spreading truthful, comparative information about South Africa and its relationships. This should be reinforced by a team of specially trained roving ambassadors capable of talking about economics, finance, politics, social realities and allied subjects to professional and other top echelon bodies around the world such as Rotarians, chambers of commerce, Jaycees, Press clubs and so on. Then they should come back to South Africa and talk to our own people, not only in the cities, but also in the remote areas of our country, like Olifantshoek, Fauresmith and Springbok. More of our people want to and should know more about the facts of life in today’s world and the limited options which are open to us. I agree with Mr. Louis Oosthuysen of Rapport that perhaps the banning of certain newspapers and writers should be reconsidered. Perhaps more of this should be available to Whites, so that, in his own words—

Truthful comparative facts and in-depth psychological analyses of realities are critically important to put the perspective right and to motivate more of our people, of all races and all colours, to come along and to support the new initiatives of the hon. the Prime Minister.

I hope that these points I have made can be read into the budget objectives of the hon. the Minister of Finance, and I again wish to thank him and to congratulate him.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear from the remarks of the hon. member for Pinetown that he is very eager to see the elimination of discrimination from our society and the improvement of race relations. For this we can only express our appreciation and wish him good luck in promoting his aims within his own party. I am not absolutely sure that I am entirely clear about the method the hon. member proposes to employ in order to reach his goal, but all the same I want to wish him luck.

*I should like to refer briefly to what the hon. member for Florida said yesterday, and today as well, with regard to a welfare state and our attitude towards such a concept. Where pensions are paid, one already has a welfare state. Where one provides free education, one already has a welfare state. Where one subsidizes food or transport, one already has a welfare state. [Interjections.] The fact that hon. members on the opposite side of this House are now eager to condemn everything relating to a welfare state, will simply get them nowhere. The differences which may exist between politicians concern the extent to which a welfare state already exists, and what I want to make bold to say is that there is no State in the modern world which does not spend the taxpayers’ money on the welfare of members of its society. It exists here and in every other country in the world. We may argue about the extent to which it is being done, but the childish type of question put by the hon. member for Florida, may be compared to the question, “Do you still beat your wife, yes or no?” The question as to whether we are for or against a welfare state, simply does not hold water in an intelligent debate. [Interjections.]

It is always pleasant to be able to commence a speech by saying something of a reconciliatory and peaceful nature, and I am happy to do so on this occasion. The hon. the Minister and his advisers have managed to keep Government expenditure in check to a considerable extent. Last year, with an inflation rate in the region of 12% in the course of the year, Government expenditure increased by 15%. This is a limited real increase. For the current financial year the increase in expenditure is estimated at 14%, and this at a time when the inflation rate, at the moment in any event, comes to more or less the same percentage. This figure reflects a praiseworthy control of expenditure, and more so in view of the fact that defence expenditure is still showing a tendency to increase. Given the circumstances in which we find ourselves, one cannot oppose the expenditure on defence, but at the same time no one who is sensitive to the enormous needs of many of our people, can refrain from dreaming with nostalgia of all the things that could have been achieved in South Africa if only we had a domestic policy which left us less isolated and less exposed so that we might have been able to use at least a portion of the expenditure on defence to the benefit of our people.

Now I should like to come to the budget for 1980-’81. A long time before 26 March all of us knew, firstly, that there would be a large surplus in respect of 1979-’80 and that probably an even larger surplus in respect of 1980-’81 could be anticipated. Secondly, all of us knew that steps would have to be taken to bring about more rapid growth in the economy. Thirdly, every one of us knew that if anything was to come of the repeated statements of intent by Government leaders that a better standard of living had to be created for all the people in South Africa, something would have to be done to narrow the wealth and privilege gaps. The latest statement by the Government to which I should like to refer was made at Oudtshoorn the other day by the hon. the Minister of Public Works. According to Rapport he said that we should make haste to ensure that the living conditions and the happiness of all communities were improved. All these things were common knowledge before 26 March 1980.

Consequently public interest in the budget concerned the question as to how much attention would be given to each of the said two objectives, to what extent the hon. the Minister would apply the means available to him in pursuing growth as a principal priority and to what extent he would make provision for expenditure which would in the short, medium and particularly the long term render it possible to create a stable, peaceful and prosperous community of South Africans of all races.

I know full well that this choice is not quite as simple as all that. On the one hand it is true that a more rapid real growth rate, if it can be maintained, will benefit each South African sooner or later. On the other hand, however, it is true that if too large a portion of the surplus were to be applied by Government bodies to the provision of services to the underprivileged, this might lead to an unsound increase in the size of the public sector, with a concomitant decrease in our growth potential.

It is equally true, however, that any Black South African looking with intelligent eyes at the quality of the services provided for Whites and at that of the services provided for his own community, will experience bitter disappointment, frustration and resentment and will probably show hostility. Furthermore, it is simply a fact that few Blacks care about the difference between the private sector and the public sector. They simply see one system. They call it “the system”, and they believe that it is unfair to them in the political, economical and social spheres.

In these circumstances this budget should have struck a balance between the stimulation of the economy and a necessary, visible gesture towards the underprivileged. But I am afraid the hon. the Minister did not manage to strike that balance. It is true that various amounts have been appropriated for various services to the poor of all race groups. The hon. member for Florida referred to this a few minutes ago. However, it is precious little compared to the tax concessions. Then it is, of course, also a fact that the tax concessions merely concern income tax and loan levies, concessions which, by definition, benefit only the relatively wealthy, and have no effect on the general sales tax which everybody, even the poorest people, have to pay.

What about companies?

Therefore, while we are not unaware of the purely economic argument that the budget will indirectly benefit the low-paid employee as well, we cannot but arrive at the conclusion that much more should have been done for them directly.

However, apart from the impact the budget has inevitably had on people and in the political sphere, there is also a sound economic reason why the hon. the Minister is following a dangerous course. In this regard I should like to refer to a matter which I have raised in this House time after time and which all of us are aware of, and that is the shortage of skills. The statement by the hon. the Prime Minister after the meeting of his Economic Advisory Council in February 1980, put it very clearly. It reads as follows—

There you have it. This was not said by the Opposition, but is contained in a statement by the hon. the Prime Minister himself. There is a growing shortage of skilled workers. That is inflationary in itself. We are experiencing an inflation rate of approximately 13%, and now the Government comes along with a budget which will increase purchasing power by R1,5 milliard. Has the question ever been posed what growth rate we are able to maintain before the bottleneck of a shortage of skills strangles the growth process or what growth rate we are able to maintain without that happening? I do not know whether that question has ever been posed, but I do know that where a growing shortage already exists, that shortage is going to become far worse as soon as that additional purchasing power starts giving rise to increased production and new investments. Then the shortage of skilled workers is going to fan the flames of inflation in our country. That inflation will once again begin to devour the real purchasing power of the people, and the end of the story may well be very, very different from what is being hoped today.

It is my contention that in drafting the budget there should have been a priority that should have been even higher than that of stimulating the economy. That priority should have been education and training. I realize, of course, that the amount appropriated under that heading is substantially larger. I realize, of course, that there is education expenditure which appears elsewhere and not under the Vote, but if one compares only the amount provided here to the more than R1,5 milliard going to the relatively wealthy income tax payers, one has to be struck by the serious lack of sensitivity and imagination on the part of the Government.

By allocating a really meaningful amount, for example several hundred millions of rand, to education and training, the Government would have achieved two vitally important things. Firstly, a process would have been launched by means of which we would ultimately have been able actually to meet our need of skilled workers, thereby rendering it possible at the same time to maintain an acceptable growth rate in the long run by escaping from the bottleneck of the shortage of skills. Secondly, by doing this the Government would have given proof to our Black population of a sincere intention to uplift them and to increase their quality of life. Surely everybody knows that our Black fellow citizens have education on the top of their own list of priorities and that discrimination in education is one of the grievances in respect of which they harbour the highest degree of resentment against us.

However, this golden opportunity has been allowed to pass and the Government is now investing by far the largest portion of its available resources into a risky endeavour to obtain rapid growth without its having due regard to the shortage of skills and the concomitant danger of inflation.

†I see that it is being said in praise of this budget that it creates opportunities for free enterprise and the private sector. I quote, for example, from an article by Prof. Jan Lombard in Beeld of 9 April—

This is all very well, but is the private sector being given a fair chance to meet the challenge? And are free enterprise principles being implemented to an acceptable degree?

I have an uncomfortable feeling that the Government may be seeking to manoeuvre itself into a position where, when this budget fails to produce the growth and the prosperity that we all hope for, the Government is going to plead “not guilty”, to spread its hands and say: “We gave all this money to the private sector, and invited it to operate in the free-enterprise system to the benefit of all South Africans and if this did not work, the private sector is to blame.”

I want to say in advance that if this attitude is taken up, it will be mendacious, misleading and malignant because the fact is that the private sector cannot operate in South Africa as it would in another Western country and that free enterprise as it exists in South Africa is a different kettle of fish from free enterprise in the major Western industrial countries.

In the economics text-books one will find it stated that if the purchasing power of the people is increased, then the volume of business will grow, so that productive and distributive capacity will be fully taken up—reducing unit costs as this process takes place—and then new investment in increased capacity will be called for which new investment will create new jobs, new earnings, new expenditure and new savings to finance the investment. This, I think, is the reasoning behind the hon. the Minister’s presentation. This is all fine and dandy but the economics text-books were written mainly by people whose experience was in countries that have never heard of apartheid. The economics text-books, in other words, assume the existence of a free market in labour—the right of every man to move about the country as he thinks fit, to associate as he pleases, freely, with his workmates, to live and work and, if he wishes, to own his own business wherever he wishes. Here, however, the pass laws deny the first of those assumptions, the Industrial Conciliation Act the second, and the Group Areas Act the third.

Even that is not the end of it. In any of the successful free-enterprise countries—shall we say the USA, or France, or Hong Kong, or Canada or Australia or Korea or Taiwan or Singapore—it is the case that there are open public schools to which all children can go to be educated. It is further the case that apprenticeship and other forms of training are open to all young people who have obtained in the school system the necessary entrance qualification. In South Africa, of course, there is no system of open public schools. The schools are segregated, which is bad enough, but what is much worse is that the standards of the different schools are vastly different, and are discriminatory on grounds of race. Furthermore, while the Apprenticeship Act is technically colour-blind, the fact is that an indenture for an African is extremely difficult to obtain.

The private sector in South Africa can therefore not be expected to perform like the private sector in those other countries I have mentioned, because it struggles within the toils of apartheid. Get rid of apartheid, and then we can talk about releasing the djinn of free enterprise from his bottle and bringing about the rapid economic growth we all need and want. Since apartheid still stalks the land, however, this budget will not succeed in bringing about balanced growth, because our Black people are chained down by the pass laws, the Industrial Conciliation Act, the Group Areas Act and the grossly discriminatory education and training system. Incidentally, the hon. the Prime Minister says that he is against unnecessary and hurtful discrimination. I should be most interested in hearing his explanation of why it is necessary and unhurtful to spend 10% per Black child of what is spent per White child on education.

Finally, I want to take my argument further. It is not just that the apartheid laws make free enterprise unworkable and therefore half paralyse the private sector. It goes deeper. Free enterprise is not just a set of economic rules. It is part of a system of government. It is not an accident that, by and large, the free-enterprise countries are the democracies, while those countries which reject democracy almost invariably go for centralized planning of their economies. It is essential to the whole system. Free enterprise is simply part of a free system, grounded upon the freedom and the equal dignity of all individuals.

I believe many hon. members will be familiar with the name and the work of F. A. Hayek. Hayek is regarded by many as the leading philosopher of the free-market system in the world today. Hayek is extremely concerned to make the point that what we are striving for is not simply capitalism or simply free enterprise. Actually, it is freedom itself. It is what he calls the “free system”. I quote from his recent book Law, Legislation and Liberty, Vol. 1, page 61—

The point I am driving at is that the free enterprise or free-market system is not an isolated technique. It is simply part of the free society. Freedom itself is the aim, in economic, in social and in political matters. The principle of freedom transcends those divisions. That is why Hayek expresses his frustration at the lack of adequate words to say what he means, and what Hayek means is also what I mean now and what this party means. Freedom in the economic sphere is indivisible from freedom in the political sphere. Hon. members are entitled to ask what freedom in the political sphere means. For an answer I am going to return to Hayek. On page 35 of the same work he begins a chapter which deals with order in society. Order is especially important because “order” is a favourite concept with the hon. the Prime Minister and because Hayek chooses to introduce this chapter with a quotation from none other than Adam Smith, whom my hon. friend from Florida was quoting a moment ago. Adam Smith is quoted as follows—

Adam Smith’s view of the free society again transcends economics. It refers to politics in the widest sense. The passage I have just quoted says, in summary, that there must be government by consent if there is to be order. Free enterprise means free. People must be able to do their own thing. When they cannot, it is not free enterprise. And in South Africa the majority of our people are not allowed to do their own thing. They are forced to do not their thing, but the NP’s thing. The bulk of our people do not consent to apartheid. Nelson Mandela, Percy Qoboza, Ntatho Motlana, Gatsha Buthelezi, Alan Hendrickse, Cedric Phatudi and Hudson Ntsanwisi do not consent and I doubt very much whether David Thebehali consents.

That is the crux. The hon. the Minister has produced a budget which on strictly economic criteria would be a good one in a free society. But, I warn him, in the unfree society which the NP has created and maintains in South Africa, this budget will be seen as “Whitey’s budget”—no more, no less. We in these benches are for free enterprise, for a free society, for government by consent. Certainly we favour the limitation of Government expenditure. Certainly we believe that the private sector should grow. We are with the Government on those two matters. But we understand, as the Government apparently fails to do, that free enterprise is inseparable from the free society, from equal human dignity, from government by consent. And that is why the handouts should have started with education and training and with a better life for our poor people. That this did not happen, simply shows that South Africa is still saddled with a Government too blinded by racialism to understand what a free society is. [Interjections.]

*Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will now afford me the opportunity to say just a few words on a personal matter. For reasons completely unrelated to politics, I have decided, with considerable sorrow, that I have to resign as a member of this House, and I have already done so as from the end of this month. Now, firstly, I should like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, your deputies, the parliamentary staff and the officials in general for the courteous co-operation I have received at all times. Secondly, I should like to express my deep appreciation towards hon. members of all parties for their warm friendship during my term of office here. Thirdly, I should like to place on record that it has been a great privilege to represent the Parktown constituency for some time. The people of Parktown must be amongst the best and finest people in the country. Finally, I should like to assure the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and my hon. colleagues in these benches of my unfailing love, loyalty and support.

Mr. Speaker, one listened to the speech of the hon. member for Parktown with a touch of emotion. He is a person who has intermittently represented constituencies here for many years. He made a good start by representing Maitland as a Capetonian. Finally he represented Parktown in the Transvaal. It is interesting to think that the hon. member gave good service over the years and that, like any politician, he also picked up problems. That is why one can perhaps be thankful today that his last speech in the House was a good one—I shall refer to the merits of it later on—in comparison to just before the last shift which the hon. member began here when he addressed a request to foreign investors to boycott our country as regards investments. If I were in the hon. member’s position, I would definitely also have followed the same course that he is about to follow now.

One can understand that he had to sit in those benches, frustrated and with a heavy heart, and see what progress his party made over the years. If he, as a hardened businessman, had to think of his party’s progress and future, it is no wonder—and I cannot hold it against him—that he is going where he is going today. In spite of all this, I want to wish him everything of the best, and I assume that the business world which he is now going to enter, will welcome him as an asset. He has already achieved a great deal of success there, and in spite of the mistakes that he made and the disagreements that might have arisen, I believe that he will provide good service to the Republic of South Africa there. We hope and trust that life outside Parliament will treat him just as well as life here within Parliament. We have already received tentative notice of who his successor is going to be, and as an opponent, I welcome hi<u>m.</u> We would rather have him here as an opponent than the present hon. member for Parktown.

Now I want to come to the contents of the speech of the hon. member for Parktown. I should like to refer specifically to a few points that he raised. First of all, I want to censure him for not having availed himself fully of this golden opportunity, because today he was so to say no longer really under the whip of his party and he had the opportunity to tell us exactly what his personal opinion is regarding his party’s standpoint on the question of a socialist State. He ignored the question of the hon. member for Florida. He tried to say that we have a socialist State at the moment. That is correct. I accept it. However, what we wanted to know from him and from his party, is exactly to which extent they go along with this. Later on in his speech, he repudiated his original statement to a certain extent when he said in an aside that if one goes too far, one can indeed exaggerate. That is why we would have liked an explicit reply from him and his party. Unfortunately, once again the hon. member did not avail himself of the opportunity. Consequently, we trust that one of his colleagues will provide an answer to that question at a later stage.

The hon. member made specific mention of the present situation in South Africa. He levelled an accusation at the Government. He said that as a result of the existing ideology of apartheid, the prevailing Government policy, private initiative could never be successful in the context of free capitalism in its classic form as he sketched it to us today. This prompts me to ask him a question in turn. If his statement is correct, would it have been possible for the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce this golden budget in this House this year, something which is accepted by all and is even recognized by him? The classic system of capitalism which he sketched for us here today, cannot be found anywhere in the world. At the moment, capitalism is limited to some extent in any country to which one can refer. For instance, in South Africa, there is the limitation of extraordinarily high defence expenditure, as well as extraordinarily high expenditure in regard to the pattern of development which the Government is establishing for bringing about full opportunities for all population groups. In spite of this, this system of ours appears to be a success and it has put the hon. the Minister in a position to introduce this fine budget this year, a budget which cannot be equalled anywhere else in the world. On the contrary, at the moment South Africa is the only country that is improving its growth rate and improving its economic situation whilst other countries, the bigger countries, are heading in the opposite direction, and are in fact experiencing a recession.

The final point which the hon. member made, is that the system of apartheid is a system which does not grant people representation through consensus, but that it is a system which suppresses people. He made mention of the fact that people must have freedom, that every person must have freedom of thought and freedom of choice to be able to be independent, to be able to move independently and to operate independently, whether it be in the economic or the political sphere. In this regard I want to ask him: If this is his principle, why then were he and his party opposed to more people obtaining independence than there are people whose independence the NP ever tried to oppose? Let me say what I mean. When the Transkei chose independence, when Bophuthatswana chose independence, when Venda chose independence, it was this side of the House and this party that was prepared to grant independence to those people according to their free will and choice and it was the party opposite that refused to allow people to exercise that freedom of choice according to the philosophy of the hon. member for Parktown. Millions of people made that free choice according to the philosophy of the hon. member for Parktown, but he and his party were not prepared to allow it. If this is the way in which that party behaves, I must say that in this context the NP has a much better background and philosophy for the country in all respects.

I want to come back to the budget. The hon. member for Parktown said—at least this is what it amounts to—that this budget is a rich man’s budget. I should like to refer him to the Supplementary Memorandum on Taxation Measures—Budget 1980-’81. On page 5 one reads—

This is the basic concept which this budget of the Minister contains. This is the basic principle and philosophy which is being elaborated upon in this budget. That is why this budget is looking at the necessities and the progress of various population groups and people in the higher as well as the lower income groups.

If one looks at this budget, one must congratulate the Minister and his department upon it. On the other hand, of course, one must also sympathize with the Opposition. Yesterday the hon. member for Mooi River raised the idea that the hon. member for Malmesbury had a very easy task this year and he said that he pitied the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke who has had a very difficult task over the past few years. This shows very clearly that in fact he has no understanding of what preceded this budget. In order to understand this budget and to appreciate it, one must in fact go back to 1973. Then the congratulations which the hon. the Minister and his department deserve, are much greater because they started work on making this golden budget possible as early as in 1973. Since 1973, the most important principle has been financial discipline. Throughout the years from 1973 to 1980, this basic principle has been maintained by the hon. the Minister and that is why we can reap the fruits of it today. Now hon. members will say that it is the good gold price which has made this budget possible. I want to dispute this at once and point out that, just as we have a gold price that was increased a great deal, England for instance, has had a sharp increase in its revenue from North Sea oil. However, because the British have not applied the same financial discipline that we have been applying since the ’seventies, they were not able to introduce a budget like ours this year. That is why it is not strange that this budget originated as early as in 1973. If one takes a closer look at the budget, one wants to point out that it is the first one which the hon. the Minister presented to Parliament as both a monetary and a fiscal budget. Previously we have not had this duality and that is why we are also welcoming the fact that this year for the first time we now have a monetary as well as a fiscal budget Particularly if we look at tax reform, we hope that this will not be the end, but the beginning of the change-over from direct taxation to indirect taxation to a greater extent, both as regards companies and individuals.

One can take a look at what has happened with regard to the relationship between Government expenditure and money in circulation since 1973. According to my information, it amounted to more than 20% at that stage. However, now we see that the hon. the Minister has succeeded in reducing the money in circulation to less than 10% of the GDP. This shows one what the result of financial discipline is and that we can now talk of growth from strength. The hon. the Minister is able to put this into practice now too.

The main contribution which this budget makes, is that it brings about a simplification of the system of taxation, and decreases the responsibility of payment above certain notches so that it is no longer oppressive, but that—various people have put it like this and I should like to make mention of it today—it can be compared to the best in the world. I am not talking about newspapers now. I made it my duty to take a look at what private bodies and private people are saying about this budget. Then we see what a person like Prof. John Morris, a lecturer at the University of Cape Town, says about it. He says it is a budget par excellence which can be compared in all respects to the best in the world. As he puts it—

I think this is where one obtains the criterion which must be followed in regard to congratulations concerning the standard which the hon. the Minister has in fact achieved. This is not the viewpoint of the newspapers, as hon. members of the Opposition have mentioned, but the opinion of private individuals when they were asked for their attitude. Those people have nothing but the greatest praise for the hon. the Minister and his department.

The next thing which becomes very clear from the budget, is the confidence prevailing throughout the world in the South African economy and the security of this country. I should like to read an extract from the report of the Chamber of Mines, Vol. 3, No. 2, of 25 March 1980 in which the following is said—

According to the Business Environment Risk Index, of the 45 most important economic countries that are judged by that institute, South Africa is the twelfth best and most secure investment. During 1979 we were the nineteenth best secure investment, but in 1980 we climbed seven places and we are now in the twelfth place.

I should like to put my gratitude on record and welcome the fact that we are returning to free market competition and negotiation which is being made possible by this budget. I think the simplification of the levying of taxation and the return to free enterprise is one of the things which will save the capitalist system in the world from extinction, if it can still be saved. Unfortunately, eliminating faults in the capitalist system has meant that many of the benefits of that system were sometimes lost. That is why I think it is gratifying that we now have a basic philosophy and concept in the hon. the Minister’s budget that there is a positive return to the free market system as expounded in this budget.

Then I should also like to express my thanks and appreciation for the hon. the Minister’s urgent plea for the training and better utilization of manpower, especially for his fiscal incentive for the better utilization of labour opportunities. In fact, there is the special directive to the Standing Committee to investigate this matter further and to make a further analysis as to whether any new, better means can be used in order to encourage this better utilization of labour opportunities. When considering this, one also thinks of stimulating the hon. the Minister’s thinking for the years that lie ahead, particularly with regard to the question of the role which married women can play in trained positions with regard to the shortage which we may possible experience in this regard in the future. Then I should also like to point out that the married woman in particular, with a husband who occupies a highly paid position, is usually a person who also has a special skill and training. Therefore, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to investigate the possibility of making special arrangements with regard to this question of skill, and to grant special permission for a certain amount of tax relief to be granted in this regard. As far as this is concerned, I should also like to point out that, since we are dealing with a very large percentage of women in our economy—particularly in the Public Service and semi-Public Service spheres—we could possibly think not so much of accentuating the question of “narrowing the wage gap”, but the conditions of the salary which they receive, in the sense that a married woman who is the breadwinner of the family, should enjoy the same privileges with regard to housing loans. Such a person must enjoy the same status as the breadwinner of a family if, for instance, she is divorced, because in this way one could possibly bring about a better utilization of the woman in economy than is the case at present. In that regard it may be interesting to point out that as early as in 1977, a man like Dr. Frans Cronje, warned that we should not move too quickly in narrowing the wage gap. According to Beeld, he said in 1977 that South Africa made a mistake in narrowing the wage gap too rapidly. He pointed out that salaries have increased by 97% over the past six years, whilst the increase in productivity was a mere 7%.

I should like to discuss another matter, viz. the question of the small business enterprise. I should like to express my gratitude and appreciation for the advancement thereof. I welcome the hon. the Minister’s invitation, on page 12 of his speech, to anyone to say which methods could be used to make an improvement in order to show progress in this sphere. Furthermore, he also mentions the question of providing R10 million to be used for investigating and promoting the matter. We have problems with the local authorities, and with the question of red tape. Then there is also the question of the regulations for anyone who applies for an ordinary commercial licence. I looked it up and established that he has to fulfil 2 538 possible conditions before he can obtain such a licence. He can land up in trouble if he is not aware of one of those legal regulations. This, as well as Government limitations with regard to licences, the lack of home industries, for which, to my mind, we have not yet made adequate provision, can do a great deal towards promoting the small commercial enterprise. This is why I want to give my greatest support to it.

The final point that I should like to raise, is the question of subsidies. I should like to associate myself today with the principle that subsidies on all food and other products be abolished as soon as possible, and then I should also like to hear what the hon. the Minister’s standpoint is in that regard. I question subsidies, because to me this means the obstruction of the free market system. I have support for my standpoint in Assocom’s paper No. 13 of 2 April this year, in which they allege that they are opposed to subsidies until such time as people receive realistic salaries. I also think it is time for us to have that realism in this free market system and do away with subsidies so that the market can receive its own free price.

Since we now have this golden budget, I believe that we all agree that the test for this budget is going to depend on what it is going to look like at the end of the year. This will depend on whether our rates of interest are too low, whether we are going to have too high an outflow of money, whether our liquidity is going to be too high, how the budget is going to be financed, and whether we are not going to have too high a gold price and too much liquidity, particularly in the mining industry. Since I have complete confidence in the hon. the Minister, I want to express my absolute confidence that it will still be a golden budget at the end of this year.

Mr. Speaker, over the years I have learnt to accept a budget as a moment of truth. There is so much that has to be done with so little that the Treasury has to help the hon. the Minister, and the hon. the Minister has to help the Cabinet to make as many people as possible happy and as few people as possible angry. For those involved—and there are many of them, each one of whom examines the budget from his own angle—the budget is always good news as well as bad news. The hon. the Minister takes with the one hand and gives with the other. People like the giving, but detest—I hope this word is Parliamentary—the taking. The opposite applies to the country since the people give and the country is the recipient.

With this over-simplification of a criterion against which a budget may be measured as norm, the present budget must be the best budget that has ever been introduced, or at least as good as any previous budget which was very well received. There is a great deal for everyone in this budget. There is tax reduction, the suspension of the loan levy, the raising of the means test, exemptions, increased pensions, larger subsidies, increased salaries, etc.

There is so much for everyone in the budget that the hon. member for Yeoville, having gone over it with a fine-tooth comb, could not find much of a factual nature which he could criticize. He had to confine his attack to the argument that there should also have been further concessions in respect of the depreciation of equipment and installations, that the pensions should have been larger and that inexpensive bread should have been made even more inexpensive. I believe that he has already received a considerable number of convincing replies to his argument and since he will probably receive a great many more, I shall leave the matter at that.

This budget is almost too good to be true. One knows that the Opposition does not envy itself the task of finding fault with the budget. This is apparently an instruction it has given itself. Like the rest of life, the budget is, however, a merciless reality and its realities simply cannot be avoided. The short-sighted decisions subsequently show themselves to be false, and the politicking which is now passing for criticism will subsequently boomerang on the Opposition. It is the Government’s unescapable responsibility to impose taxes. Those taxes which are really necessary and which the Government does not impose now, will subsequently have to be found somewhere with far greater suffering, and it will stand accused that, when it did not impose the taxes, it left South Africa in the lurch, not because the Opposition is indicting the Government—this it does in any event— but because a Minister and a Government that are serving their country, have to live with their conscience and give an account of their stewardship. On the other hand it is just as unescapable a truth that pensions and subsidies cannot be increased without limits. The moment one tries to create such an impression and says that pensions are not large enough and have to be increased and protest meetings are arranged in respect of this matter, one knows that one stands accused as having violated the truth. One can then appease oneself by speaking of a gold bonanza and try to create the impression that it is meant to be shared out; this can make one feel better and appear to be popular, but this does not bring one any closer to the truth. They who have sown the wind shall reap the whirlwind.

I believe the hon. the Minister deserves the gratitude of this entire country and all its people for his constant discipline over the years which has made this budget possible. I think I know what I am talking about when I refer to financial discipline. There is no end to the demands made on the State coffers. In the name of the nation services are demanded which have to be paid for; rather pay without imposing too many taxes. The present hon. the Minister, probably assisted here and there by a scarcity of money and a lack of loan sources—but as is now the case again when people thought up an expression such as a gold bonanza in order to create the impression of abundance—put his foot down as regards the restriction of Government expenditure without overlooking the real necessities. When I think of last year and the preceding years when the Transvaal did not receive everything that was essential, I should perhaps adjust my statement a little by saying without entirely overlooking the necessities. But the essence of financial discipline is that Departments and Administrations are compelled to make do with what is available to them after provision has been made for real necessities within the limits of what the taxpayer can afford and without violating sound economic principles. It is no easy task to apply the norms correctly in determining what is essential and what would promote a sound economy, even with a host of experts around one: Those who know the requirements of the infrastructure, those who know what is necessary not only to make economic growth possible, but also to promote it, those who know what is necessary to manage the country’s defence properly, those who know about the demands being made in respect of national security, peace and order, those who know that consolidation, which has been dragging on since as long ago as 1936, now requires positive action, those who know that illiteracy in Africa is no longer an excuse for illiteracy in the Republic of South Africa and that literacy is not the end of the road as far as studies are concerned, those who know that the further progress of those who have been upholding and improving a high level of erudition for years and for centuries cannot now be held back because other people in this country are lagging behind them, those who know how those who have and earn have to be asked to meet the needs of the State coffers, those who know that the goose that lays the golden eggs has to be fed, not only so that it can go on laying, but so that it can lay better and so that others can also be encouraged to start laying, and those who know many other things that a good Minister of Finance ought to know.

Apart from this host of people who are genuinely in the know, there is an even greater host of quasi-knowers and people who think they know better, those people whom we, as we do the poor, will always have with us. As far as they are concerned, one must pray for the grace to know when one, perhaps more often than not, finds oneself in the same category. Be that as it may, however, this year’s budget success is perhaps partly due to external circumstances, but I believe it was mainly due to constant discipline. Here we see that success has led to success. It is essential that it be said that the maintenance of financial discipline is not a unilateral exercise, in which the mouth of the money bag is pinched close to such an extent that Government expenditure does not increase too much, expenditure which has increased not at all or very little this year as far as real growth is concerned. It is also an exercise by means of which money is distributed from the State coffers to expenditure points in a way which promotes growth and which leaves money in the hands of the taxpayer who knows how to make the most of his talents. For this purpose careful judgement and aptitude are essential. I believe that I am correct in saying that at a very critical stage of its development the Republic of South Africa is fortunate to have such a Minister with such a team who know how to work with money and who know when to pull back on and when to ease off or to let go the reins when necessary—and it is sometimes necessary.

One is inclined to believe that the high gold price fell like manna from the heavens. I am one of those who believe that the Good Lord looks after us. When the oil price squeezes, the price of gold rises so that we can afford those necessities. I believe He knows that we have an important task in this country and that we are working with a large population and many different kinds of people. Those who allege that the price of gold fell out of the air, I believe, are talking absolute rubbish.

We shall never quite know to what extent, but South Africa’s handling of the gold situation over the years must have had a not inconsiderable influence on the movement of the gold price curve. South Africa handles too large a portion of the world’s gold for that not to have been the case. The hon. the Minister knows better than the rest of us in the handling of gold he takes the major decisions. He can do so because he is surrounded by know-how which is conveyed through and fed back to him and his Department along a network which involves all those concerned, all the sectors of financial expertise and of the mining industry. He may justifiably decide because he has contact and information, but he can only decide correctly if he is capable of separating the wheat from the chaff on the basis of the information he receives. He cannot allow the chaff to be fed into his computer as well.

What is true for the gold price is true for every other facet of the economy. Over the whole spectrum sound judgments have to be made and within the limits of available funds sound preferences have to be determined. This year’s decision to submit to the care of the private sector an additional R1 500 million which could have been funelled into the Exchequer without any increase in taxes, is a major decision, a demonstration of confidence in the sound judgment and enterprising initiative of the man in the street, from the individual to the large business concern. It is bread cast on the waters, seed sown in the earth which has to produce its fruit in its own time. It is an act of faith on the part of the Government towards the people of this country. I believe that the hon. the Minister will have a bountiful harvest; our country has the people who can use such opportunities with responsibility.

Now, it is necessary for those people, who have a lot to say and columns to write about change, to take cognizance of the fact that budgets such as this one, from which whatever change which is initiated by the Government has to be afforded, do not fall out of the sky either. It is the work and the know-how of many people within and outside the Public Service which is collated by an expert and highly competent Treasury-in-Council under the leadership of a Minister who provides guidance in the execution of his task as member of a purposeful Government. It goes without saying that the Opposition does not agree with the Government’s objectives in every respect, otherwise it would not have been sitting in the Opposition benches. It has every right to differ.

In the course of this debate we have heard little about the budget and a great deal about change which had supposedly been promised by the Government through the hon. the Prime Minister and which has ostensibly not come about. The prosperity, the skill, the order embodied in this budget cannot be taken over in this way by change for which there is only a few months time left, as was argued here. That kind of change means destruction; it does not take over.

I do not think we need additional evidence after everything that has happened in Africa. Everyone who has sincere intentions with all the peoples in our country will know that we do not want to and shall not undertake such an experiment. It is not the colour of an individual’s skin that is at issue; what is at issue is peace and order, know-how and prosperity. What is certainly at issue is that more people should have access to all types of know-how and that more people should be accorded participation in the prosperity with which we are blessed in this country. However, it cannot be taken over; it must be earned. Everyone—White, Brown or Black— who wants to be involved must, from where he stands today, gear himself positively to making some contribution to a better future. The know-how and the prosperity of those who have must also be promoted and not denigrated. In this way it can consequently be brought within the reach of those who do not have it yet. Constant thought and planning must be devoted to the way in which and how quickly this must take place. I believe that this is the reason why the hon. the Prime Minister announced his 12-point plan, in order to give momentum to what must happen—not because nothing has happened yet, but because an acceleration of the pace is essential. This acceleration must, however, be controlled and must continue to be controlled. Law and order must be perpetuated and maintained. The good machine must be made more efficient and must not be exposed to the risk of being dismantled.

Last night the hon. member for Bryanston said in very clear and unequivocal words, words that cannot be construed in any other way, that we have little time in which to effect changes in order to prevent violence. Such language is, I believe, inflammatory. To make appeals for that type of change amounts to a demand for surrender and consequent destruction.

Have you read the Cillié Commission report? [Interjections.]

Pleas for more and increased subsidies, appeals for increased pensions, are understandable. Where dire need exists the Government must listen with a sympathetic ear and a warm, compassionate heart. This it is in fact doing. However, it is a dangerous economic principle to subsidize or to pension too abundantly. If it were always true that the inability of those involved to provide for their own needs is their fate, then the increase in pension tariffs as a result of growing inflation could be taken further and further, even if other services have to be sacrificed in the process. The harvest is the fruit of labour. The greatest incentive to produce is a fair reward for an honest day’s work. That is why I believe that the R1,5 milliard which has been returned to the pocket of the private sector is going to work wonders.

In the Public Service, where we are dealing to a large extent with achievements which are difficult to measure, we had to work out a formula, and the formula of a percentagewise narrowing of the wage gap was accepted. The projection, as we were informed the other day, is that in the existing pattern and at the present tariff we shall achieve a situation of parity in 1994. Before 1994, however, a great deal of water will still have to pass under the bridge. Long before that time arrives, I believe that, in the normal course of events, and as a result of the participation of the private sector, a bargaining process will develop which will compel the state to determine wages with due regard for what is being paid elsewhere. At the moment the opposite applies to a large extent. The private sector will continue, with or without prescribed minimum wages, to negotiate labour prices that will be productively rewarding in the course of business. The tried principle of supply and demand is an indispensable element in a free economy. Price control is and remains a contentious practice which is justifiable only under specific circumstances, and which unfortunately has to be frequently applied.

I believe that this budget has succeeded in enhancing image of financial control in the public sector in South Africa. The Government deserves the highest praise for what it has achieved. The expression “greater growth from greater strength” has with this budget achieved practical significance.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Koedoespoort to excuse me for a moment because I would like to start my speech by addressing a few words to the hon. member for Parktown. Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, the hon. member earlier this afternoon announced that he plans to resign his seat due to the pressures of other work and for personal reasons. I would like to say to the hon. member, not only on my behalf but also on behalf of my colleagues in these benches, that we wish him well in the future. I would like the hon. member to know that, although I have never occupied the senior position he has, I did spend some years in business before coming to Parliament and I can therefore appreciate and understand the pressures which he particularly has had to work under in recent times. The hon. member holds a major position in a very large company in South Africa, and I also believe he holds a very important position in his party’s caucus. I am sure his party is going to miss him sorely in the coming months. I would like to say to the hon. member that in the short time I have known him I have found him, in the little I have had to do with him, to be a man who is sincere and a man of integrity. I would also like to say to him that I have found him, and I know my colleagues have also found him, to be a real gentleman. It is a pity that his constitutional philosophy does not coincide with mine and my party’s.

You will learn.

However, as I have said, I wish him well in the future.

I turn now to the hon. member for Koedoespoort who has just concluded his speech. He started his speech by saying that for the hon. the Minister of Finance the presentation of a budget is the moment of truth, and then the hon. member went on to say that this is the best budget ever, that has something for everyone.

That is the truth too.

The hon. member says that is the truth too. [Interjections.] But I think the hon. the Minister will concede to me that he has been extremely fortunate, as the hon. member for Koedoespoort has said, to have had behind him the high gold price and the bonanza it has brought to South Africa. That has enabled him to hand out a little to everyone. However, the point I want to put to the hon. member is that it is not only the hon. the Minister’s moment of truth, but in the position South Africa finds itself in today it is also the NP’s moment of truth. This may be a good budget, but I think I am correct in saying it is the NP’s moment of truth. [Interjections.] I, like my hon. colleague for Mooi River who spoke yesterday, believe that the hon. the Minister has taken some very positive steps to put South Africa’s economy on the right road. Most important is that he has disciplined the Government in its spending. This is something we in these benches have been pleading for for years, and it is also recorded in Hansard for all to read. The hon. the Minister has brought Government spending to virtually a zero growth point, which is absolutely essential. Also, he has been enabled, by doing this, to reduce income tax. These steps are required—and I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree—to give the private sector, which provides, let us face it, the drive and the initiative in the economy, the opportunity and the encouragement to expand its operations and thereby provide new employment.

We give the hon. the Minister credit for these developments which, as he himself said in his Second Reading speech, are requirements in the battle against inflation. However, I would like to put to him that we in these benches are very disappointed—and I am quite sure that he is just as disappointed as we are—that despite these commendable achievements of the hon. the Minister, South Africa’s inflation rate today is still running at a very high level of something like 14%. During the hon. the Minister’s speech earlier on he listed seven points or seven steps which were required to be taken in order to combat inflation. I have referred to two of them, namely controlled Government spending and a reduction of taxes. However, I sincerely hop the hon. the Minister is going to use the same determination and discipline, which we have seen in recent years in Government budgets, to see that the remaining five steps are in fact applied in South Africa’s economy today, especially the step of “a required increase in productivity” which he referred to. I think this is one of the major weapons we can use to fight inflation, namely to get our capital and human resources into a more productive position in the economy. The hon. the Minister also went further to say that we have got to check that there are no monopolistic tendencies in the economy.

I agree with him because monopolies, and often groups of firms that get together to fix prices, are a major cause of inflation. So I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether some of the big take-overs of companies in South Africa today—and let me refer here, for a moment, specifically to the breweries’ take-over a few months ago—have not, in fact, created monopolies. Is it not possible that some of these take-overs could be generating price-fixing situations?

The hon. the Minister went on to say that strict discipline is necessary in administered prices, especially the tariffs of the Railways and Escom. We have just heard in recent weeks, however, that both these organizations have raised their tariffs. So let me put it to the hon. the Minister again. Are these tariff increases in accordance with his fight against inflation? I should like him to answer that question later on when he replies to this debate. I am asking this because inflation has to be conquered in South Africa. We have seen what it has done in the United States and Great Britain. It is an evil—and I have spoken about this before—often born of slothfulness and greed. It is not something that creates wealth. It rather consumes wealth, destroys the wealth of a nation. South Africa is a young country and is in no position, when we consider all the things we have to do in this country, to tolerate this evil. So the sooner our people are made aware of the causes of inflation, the better. I believe that in this regard this Parliament, and specifically this hon. Minister, should come clean with the people of South Africa, and this hon. Minister can do it because by his own fiscal policy he has disciplined this Government in its spending. I believe that he, as well as other hon. members of Parliament, must tell the people of South Africa that if they want a prosperous future, free from inflation, unemployment and the dangers from outside, every man jack of them must work towards this. It cannot be had for nothing. I believe that it is here that the Government has an even greater role to play, because it is the Government’s responsibility to so manage the economy of South Africa as to provide work for those people who want to work. This is not happening in South Africa today to the degree that it should be happening.

The hon. the Prime Minister—and I regret that he is not here—and his colleagues persistently refer to the total strategy, the twelve-point plan designed to safeguard all South Africans. There are some questions I should like to ask, however, and I sincerely hope that hon. members on that side are going to answer these questions. Who is affected by this total strategy? Who is involved in it? What are the benefits of this strategy and who is going to benefit from this strategy? The hon. the Prime Minister and other hon. members on that side have not clarified these points that the people of South Africa want clarified. All we have heard so far are a great many words. I believe that the concept of a total strategy needs greater definition. It must give clearly identifiable direction for the future. It needs to set new objectives and new priorities with which all South Africans of all groups and races can identify themselves and which they can understand clearly in their own simple way of understanding things. I think that we must accept that the old idealism of apartheid, as was propounded by the Verwoerdian Government, is dead, despite what hon. members on that side may say. It is simply impossible for this dogma to be resuscitated. I therefore say that a new idealism, with new national objectives, is urgently required in South Africa.

The first objective, I believe, must surely be the introduction of a new constitution which will firmly entrench a free and democratic society in South Africa, and because of the plural nature of our people, this constitution must divide political power along pluralistic lines, along federal and confederal lines, based on ethnicity, and this is where I disagree with the hon. member for Parktown. I want to make it quite clear that this is the kernel of the disagreement between this party and the PFP. It is a question of constitutional thinking. I fully appreciate the fact that the Schlebusch Commission is working on this, but it is only dealing with part of the problem, and that is the non-homeland part of South Africa. Therefore it excludes the total Black population of South Africa.

One may also ask just how long the commission is going to take to come forward with some proposals. The country has been waiting since the election of 1977. How much longer must we wait for proposals from this commission? The NP, I believe, cannot equivocate on this issue. It must make up its mind on the basic issues involved one way or the other so that the people of South Africa know exactly where they stand as far as their constitutional future is concerned. For the NP to delay this is to put the future security of South Africa at risk. I go so far as to say that I believe that the squabbles within that party which are delaying these decisions are in fact today a security risk for South Africa.

The second objective which I believe a total strategy must have must be one of national solidarity, especially in regard to a new constitution. If there is no common cause in South Africa, if there is no unity of purpose amongst all the racial groups of South Africa, then can there ever be security in South Africa for our people. National solidarity must, I believe, have top priority status in any total strategy against the enemies of South Africa. However, I want to ask the question—and these are questions I should like the hon. members opposite to answer: Can there ever be national solidarity in South Africa as long as we have existing on our Statute Book these petty-apartheid racist laws which cause such harm and ill-feeling amongst the people of South Africa? Can we ever have national solidarity when narrow-minded politicians—not only White ones, but of all colours and of all political parties—persist in exploiting their people’s fears and feelings through the use of blatant racism, as we have seen in the past and in recent times?

The third objective of a total strategy must be, I feel, as has often been said in this debate—and I am sure the hon. the Minister agrees with us—a free enterprise economy for all. The Government talks about it, the hon. the Prime Minister has made an excellent start with his Carlton conference, but the effect of such a strategy must be seen and experienced by the people in the country. I am sure many hon. members in this House have read the article which appeared in the Sunday Times of this week, 13 April, about a lecture which Prof. Sampie Terreblanche gave at the Stellenbosch Autumn School. It was entitled: “Set the Blacks free to help themselves.” After reading this, I believe this lecture is a valuable contribution to race relations in South Africa because it is only through self-help that one can breed within the human breast self-respect. I believe that this approach of this professor makes good sense. But once again the Government must stop vacillating if it wants to win the hearts and minds of the Blacks in support of any total strategy which we put forward to the country. A top priority today, as the professor said, is the creation of jobs for Blacks, worthwhile jobs. To achieve this requires a far higher economic growth rate than we have had in the past years. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he really believes that a growth rate of 5½% will be sufficient to create the number of jobs required to meet the demand for new jobs in the next decade or two. I believe this is a valid question, especially when one considers that much of the growth which is occurring in South Africa today is growth within the high capital-intensive industries such as Sasol, the chemical industry, Escom, heavy industry, the Railways and others. This is a question I hope the hon. the Minister will consider and answer in his reply. Surely we must take note of what Prof. Terreblanche says in this regard and also of what the hon. member for Mooi River said yesterday when he talked about the need for rural agricultural reform in the homelands. This raises the question of just what can be done. I should like to quote what the sugar industry did in Natal amongst the Zulus, starting about five years ago. At that time they set up a R5 million—as they called it—Small Farmers’ Loan Fund. Part of the expenses of this Fund was the establishing of three training schools for Zulus. I have the figures here which I want to give to the hon. the Minister in order to show what can be done. R5 million was made available under the control of the sugar industry, for loans to finance the Zulu cane agriculture.

In the five years, from 1974 to 1979, the production of cane increased from 419 000 tons to 933 000 tons, and the value of that cane increased from R3,7 million to R14,5 million, an increase of R10,8 million. More than that, the number of hectares under cane increased from 13 610 in 1974 to 34 384 in 1979, and the number of Zulu farmers involved in cane growing increased from 4 741 to 10 878, and this was done with a meagre R5 million. I want to ask the question: Just how fully committed is this Government to the concept that all races must become involved in the economy? The sugar industry was, and look what happened.

Just what opportunities exist in the housing industry, for example? I am pleased that the hon. the Minister of Community Development is here at the moment. I want to ask him how many freehold housing schemes have been zoned, outside the activities of his department, for development by Coloureds themselves. Just how long does it take the Government to make decisions on these matters? The hon. the Minister knows—and he has letters in his files from me which show this—that more than four years ago I was appealing for the establishment of a Coloured township on the upper south coast. My records show that this problem goes back nearly 15 years, and I want to ask whether any progress has been made? Have any decisions been taken? Is the hon. the Minister aware of the frustrations which are burning in the stomachs, the hearts and the minds of the Coloured people on the upper south coast? On Saturday afternoon I had a Coloured cane farmer—a wealthy man—and the principal of a Coloured primary school in my home in Durban and they were pleading with me for help. I am sorry that the hon. member for South Coast is not here because he knows of this problem too. I am not making politics now, because we are trying to solve this problem together. There is an urgent need for homes on the upper south coast, and there is also an urgent need for a coastal resort town for Coloureds. The tragedy is that the money is there and these people are willing to invest it, but the Government cannot make up its mind. Is this the way to run a total strategy designed to unite all South Africans of all colours against the enemies of South Africa? I put this question to the hon. the Minister.

This raises the fourth objective of a total strategy, viz. opportunities for all. Surely for national solidarity against our enemies all South Africans must feel that there are equal opportunities for all people. However, do they feel this way? I appreciate the many difficulties in education, training and otherwise, but just how much commitment is there—and I think this is the essence, the commitment to do things like the sugar industry committed itself to achieving certain things—on the part of Government members, and also on the part of Government departments, the officials in the departments, to insuring that these opportunities are there, free from any discrimination based on skin colour?

I realize my time is short, and so I shall just conclude by saying that an essential part of a total strategy resulting in national solidarity against our enemies is the attitude of this Government, and the attitude of members of this Parliament, towards these problems and towards the groups involved. This Government, I believe, has often taken what I call an excessively paternalistic attitude towards people of colour. How often do we hear it, especially outside these hallowed walls of Parliament, that the Blacks are not ready for it, that they do not know how to run a business, that they do not have the education, the ability or the motivation? I am the first to admit that there are many who are not ready, that there are many who have not had the training and the education to be able to achieve these things, but surely the same thing applies to White people. There are many who are not ready, equipped or able to manage a business, but I know there are many Blacks who are. Surely we as parliamentarians must commit ourselves to assisting, and encouraging them and to the creating of opportunities for people of colour in South Africa to share with us the way of life and the standard of living which we desire for ourselves. The question is whether this Government is able to do this. I doubt it, and I doubt it because of their attitude, and that is why I support the amendment of the hon. member for Mooi River.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the hon. member for Amanzimtoti that I do not doubt for a moment the ability of this Government to do the things he has suggested today. The hon. member made an interesting speech and I should like to reply to him, but I regret that I cannot, because there is another subject I want to discuss this afternoon. There may be an opportunity for me at a later stage to enter into a debate with the hon. member. Then I shall try to make my contribution in response to the standpoint which he put. In any event, it is an interesting speech to which we have listened.

In the course of the debate yesterday, the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Walmer mentioned problems which they had experienced with regard to the combating of crime and they made representations for more policemen in their constituencies. I should like to assure the hon. members that I have taken cognizance of this and that I shall deal with it in greater detail when my Vote comes up for discussion. The hon. member for Bryanston made a speech yesterday about which I suppose one could enter into a political debate with him, but I refuse to do so because in the course of his speech yesterday, the hon. member referred several times, and repeatedly, to the hon. the Prime Minister or to other hon. members on this side of the House without showing them the parliamentary courtesy of addressing them as “honourable”. Therefore I am not prepared to take any notice of the speech made by the hon. member for Bryanston.

I learned with some regret this afternoon that the hon. member for Parktown had decided to retire from active politics as a member of this House. As other hon. members have already said, the hon. member for Parktown has had a long and interesting career in politics. When I heard a few years ago that this hon. member and some other hon. members, who were in fact known as the Young Turks of the Progressive Party, had decided to return to this House, I wondered what these men would look like and what we could expect of them. I want to tell the hon. member that it was interesting to listen to him and that one appreciates his contribution. I wish him everything of the best outside this hon. House.

I wish to discuss one subject this afternoon, and this relates to the so-called representations which are being made for the release of Nelson Mandela. These representations for his release arise from a standpoint adopted, inter alia, by the Sunday Post since the beginning of March this year and by persons and bodies outside the Press. From the outset, certain conditions were laid down. A national convention is to take place and Black leaders are to participate in it, but the Black leaders contacted by the Sunday Post laid down the four well-known conditions from the outset, i.e. the release of all political prisoners, permission for all expatriates outside our borders to return, the lifting of the ban on the SAANC, the PAC, the South African Communist Party and all other organizations, and the abolition of all forms of apartheid, supposedly to prove our good faith. These are the four conditions that have been laid down, and then a national convention has to be called at which Nelson Mandela must also be present. This call was made immediately after the results of the Rhodesian elections became known, in a period which was charged with emotion for those people and for others in Southern Africa. This opportunity was misused for this call. It was also done to coincide with the so-called Sharpeville day of remembrance, which was the second emotionally charged circumstance which gave rise to it. Immediately after this call had been made, with the support of certain bodies such as the S.A. Council of Churches and others, virtually every English-language newspaper in South Africa took up this call. I just want to refer very briefly to one of these responses, the one in The Cape Times of 12 March 1980, in which the following is said in an editorial—

The editor went on to say—

If this is not an outrageous influencing of the public of South Africa, then I do not know what is. This call was taken up, as I have said, by just about every other English-language newspaper in South Africa. But this is nothing new. This campaign for the release of Mandela is nothing new. It has been waged from time to time in recent years. We are having it again at the moment, where Nusas students at Wits and at the University of Cape Town, as well as other persons and bodies, are campaigning for this.

A person I want to cross swords with in this connection is the hon. member for Pinelands. Among all the persons and bodies that are known and can be read about in the newspapers, we find the hon. member for Pinelands. This hon. member joined the offensive launched by these Nusas students and others for the release of Mandela and said the following in The Cape Times of 29 March—

These are the words of the hon. member for Pinelands. I shall come back later to the official Opposition. Who is this person on whose behalf the hon. member for Pinelands is exerting himself? I should like to furnish some particulars because the impression is being created in the country, among our Afrikaans students as well, that we are dealing here with a man of peace, that we are dealing here with an organization of peace. The impression is being created that they want to talk to the Government quite peacably around a table at a national convention, and if the Government is not prepared to talk to these so-called peaceful people, then the Government will be the one who is at fault. But these are not the facts. What is the factual position? The factual position is that Nelson Mandela joined the ANC in 1944, and from 1952 until the ANC was banned on 8 April 1960, he occupied the position of vice-president. From 1952 he was also president of the youth wing of the ANC. In 1961 he tried to revive the banned ANC by organizing an All-African Conference which took place in Pietermaritzburg in March. He and other top communists in South Africa led that conference. The purpose of the conference was to plan similar conferences throughout South Africa at which the holding of a national convention would be propagated and demanded. What follows is important. During this national convention, the handing over of political power to the “people of the country” would be demanded. Surely the hon. member for Pinelands knows that those “people of the country” do not include the White people of the country. To gain support for this idea, they liaised with the Liberal Party and all other leftist organizations which existed in South Africa at that time. Then Nelson Mandela left the country with travel documents supplied to him by the Russian KGB. He visited African States and countries behind the iron curtain in order to co-ordinate sabotage and terrorist campaigns that were being planned against the RSA. He himself underwent military training. In a speech in court he said that he underwent it so that he would be properly equipped, after his return to this country, to lead this offensive as a trained person. That was why he did it. On his return, he and the communist Joe Slovo co-operated actively as founder members of Umkhonto we Sizwe, the military wing of the banned SAANC. The subsequent behaviour of Joe Slovo abroad, and also in Maputo at the moment, is well known to this House.

While Nelson Mandela was serving a sentence of five years after being convicted of having left the RSA with a false passport and incited people to break the existing laws of the country, the raid at Lilliesleaf and Rivonia took place on 11 July 1963. There the team of top South African communists was arrested and the document called “Operation Mayibuye”, among other things, was seized. Anyone reading this document will realize that if it had been put into effect, it would have meant the death sentence of the White man in South Africa. Another document was found at Rivonia, entitled “How to be a good communist”, and it is interesting that this document has a bearing on the person whose release is now being demanded. This document was written by Mandela. It is an outright communist document describing how South Africa should be changed into a communist people’s republic. During the investigation in connection with the Rivonia case it was found that Mandela had entered into agreements with communist countries such as Russia, Red China and Czechoslovakia about the supply of large quantities of arms. Underground factories were to be erected in this country for the manufacture of thousands and thousands of landmines and hand grenades with which the White man was to be finally wiped out. According to these documents, 48 000 landmines and 210 000 hand grenades were to be manufactured locally every year. It was on the basis of this and other information, and a whole series of crimes, that he was convicted and eventually sentenced to life imprisonment in 1964.

From his first day of detention at Robben Island up to the present time there is no doubt about the fact that Mandela has not changed his views in any way. He remains just as staunch a communist and just as staunch a member of the SAANC as he has been all his life. Even today he still liaises with these various organizations outside. Hon. members may accept that. This is the person and this is the organization for which the hon. member for Pinelands is campaigning.

He is the go-between.

In what company does he find himself in this campaign? Since 1965, even before the International Journalists’ Organization made a world-wide attempt through the mass communication media to obtain the release of Mandela, his release has been regularly called for in publications and propaganda documents of the SAANC, such as Sechaba, and in the regular publications of the South African Communist Party, namely The African Communist and Jana-Shakti. It has been advocated at meetings of Nusas and other students’ organizations. It is advocated by Amnesty International. The International Anti-Apartheid Movement is constantly pleading for the release of Mandela.

What is the standpoint of the South Africa Foundation?

Hon. members are free to examine the official standpoint of the official South Africa Foundation and then to quote this official standpoint in this House. The official Opposition is now associating itself with these groups in this international atmosphere and it is pleading for the release of Mandela. The hon. member for Pinelands finds himself in some of these out-and-out communist circles with his representations in this connection.

What is the disappointing aspect of this matter? Since the beginning of the year we have been told what a strong Leader of the Opposition there is in this House now, what strong guidance he can and will give on important matters. I welcome this in the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, because the country needs it. The House needs a Leader of the Opposition who can take a strong stand on matters. However, what have we found in reality? After all, his party’s policy includes the following—

Surely this is the policy of the hon. leader’s party. However, the hon. member for Pinelands does not say the same thing. When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was confronted with this, he said, according to Die Burger of 31 March 1980, and this is where he disappoints one—

And I quote his own words—

Now it is no longer a political group with a democratically elected representative leader. [Interjections.] Now it is “if it can be proved …” [Interjections.]

Order!

Just listen to the dog barking.

No, it is not a question of “Just listen to the dog barking.” The hon. member would do well to reply to me on this at a later stage. I contend that is absolutely naïve to adopt this attitude. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. member for Pinelands refer to the hon. the Minister with the words “Just listen to the dog barking”?

No, I would never dream of doing that, Sir. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that if you want me to. [Interjections.]

The official Opposition has been further involved in this matter. The standpoint of the hon. member for Houghton has been that prisoners on Robben Island should be released as a condition for a national convention. This is the standpoint of the hon. member for Houghton. It is her official standpoint which was introduced by way of an amendment at a party congress and which was then voted down. At the same congress, the hon. member for Yeoville said, and I quote from The Citizen of 18 November 1978—

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I am not here to play petty politics with hon. members opposite. This is a serious matter. Now I am just asking the hon. member for Yeoville, when he has an opportunity during this session, to tell this House and the country once again where he stands with regard to this important matter.

I shall reply immediately. I still stand where I stood at that time. [Interjections.]

We are dealing now with an official Opposition which under different circumstances would govern the country. What is interesting is the opinion of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. When he feels like it, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is capable of adopting a responsible standpoint about these matters. He immediately felt that he did not belong in this company. He immediately felt that he did not belong in the company in which the hon. member for Pinelands found himself. So the hon. member for Bezuidenhout wrote a letter to Die Burger. The letter was published in Die Burger of 4 April 1980. Unfortunately, my time is limited and I cannot read the letter in full. However, the hon. member says, among other things—

This is the agitation of the hon. member for Pinelands, among others. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also wrote, and I do not want to do him an injustice by only quoting from his letter here and there—

Of course, everybody in this House is suspicious of the hon. member for Pinelands. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Bezuidenhout went on to say a very important thing, something on which I agree with him—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition can reply to this. What is the standpoint of the Government? The Government’s standpoint concerning the representations for the release of Mandela is quite clearly just the one word “No”. [Interjections.] I shall tell the hon. members why. [Interjections.] And you will hear it again in the future. The reason is that Mandela is a communist. He has not changed his views in any way. He advocates the violent take-over of power in South Africa. He is a founder member of, and if he had the chance, I think he would still be an enthusiastic participant in, Umkhonto We Sizwe, which still exists and which confirmed the other night that it had been responsible for the attack on Booysens police station. This was confirmed from London. Furthermore, Mandela was sentenced in terms of the laws of the land, and he will serve out his sentence. [Interjections.] We in the Government say that the leader of an organization which commits one act of violence after another— Moroko, Orlando, Soekmekaar, Silverton, Booysens, Ermelo and many more—will not be favoured in any way by this side of the House, whether he is sitting on Robben Island or anywhere else. [Interjections.] I should like to go further with regard to this matter, because there are other aspects that also have to be mentioned. There are other things, too, which one has to consider in this connection, namely what this struggle is actually about, a struggle of which just this one aspect is being singled out. It is basically concerned with the handling of power among developed people. That is basically what it is concerned with. In this connection the standpoint of the Marxists is well-known, and we utterly reject their standpoint. However, there is a more responsible standpoint among other Black and Coloured people of which we do take cognizance, and this is that responsible Black leaders are telling us: “We not only want to build bridges with you; we want to cross the bridges with you as well.” Surely this is so; we shall have to take cognizance of this, and the Government is in fact taking cognizance of it. But serious regard must also be had in this connection to the White man’s standpoint in South Africa, namely that he wants to survive in South Africa and to preserve his right to self-determination. Cognizance should be taken of this in the midst of the representations which are now so lightly being made. In this connection, the Government has a clear standpoint, i.e. that our national strategy is to create a state which can be accepted and defended by all its people. Surely this is what the Government is doing, i.e. it is creating a state which can be accepted and defended by all its people. This requires very hard work, and the Government is indeed working very hard on it. There is no time to waste and we do not have time to drag along with us the hon. members who are muttering on the other side. We shall do these things which fall within our national strategy as soon as possible. In this connection the Government says quite clearly that the concept of power-sharing is out. It is not part of our national strategy. The hon. the Prime Minister spelt this out very clearly in the no-confidence debate, and I do not want to go into it again at this stage. The concept of “division of power”, and the way in which it has to develop, are processes that are being worked on.

Ian Smith.

Furthermore, the Government says quite clearly to anyone wishing to take part in these constitutional deliberations that it stands for a confederal Council of States. Surely this is something that can be worked on. Furthermore, the Government says that the Black man outside the national States remains tied to the homeland nation. Surely these are concepts that can be worked on. We are always being told that we have to talk to the true leaders. What is our reply to that? It is our policy which is creating the opportunities for true leaders to identify themselves and to prove that they are really the true leaders. We take cognizance of all leaders that are legally elected and/or designated by their own community or by nations or national groups. These are not only chiefs or headmen. They are politicians, financial leaders, academics, leaders of local authorities, church leaders and leaders in all other spheres that this Government takes cognizance of and to whom this Government talks. They are the people with whom this Government is prepared to negotiate about any subject which has to be brought to their attention. However, we do not take cognizance of self-appointed leaders or of people who only want to attract attention to themselves, such as some people in this “Release Mandela” campaign. We do not take cognizance of people of that kind. We are not prepared to waste our time on them. We shall not allow ourselves to be influenced by emotional calls for a so-called national convention with so-called true leaders. The Black people have their own leaders; those people are the true leaders. There are so many of them, but allow me to identify just one or two. There are men such as Dr. Sebe, Dr. Phatudi, Chief Buthelezi, Mr. Thebehali and many more. However, there is a further point which I should like to emphasize. This Government welcomes the development of leaders from their own groups, from the middle class and/or from the intellectual groups or classes. This Government cannot be accused, as some people wish to do, of not encouraging the development of leaders or not taking any notice of them. This is the standpoint of the Government. However, there is also the standpoint of the South African Communist Party, the South African ANC, the PAC, other Black radicals and liberals such as the Boraines of Pinelands …

The “hon. member for Pinelands”, please!

I shall refer to him as an “hon. member” when I refer to him as a member of Parliament in this House.

You might find us ignoring you just now.

The standpoint of the S.A. Communist Party is that South Africa belong to “its people”, i.e. Blacks and Coloured people, and that the White man can remain here, if he likes, but without any authority. I have the evidence to prove this to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. As against this, the White people in South Africa say that we are entitled to our right to self-determination in South Africa. We are entitled to be citizens of South Africa and to share in the authority of the State, and we shall not simply stay or live here. We shall also exercise our right to self-determination and we shall not negotiate about it. Furthermore, we also say that all White liberals and Black radicals should take cognizance of the fact that every person who wants to make a vident attack on this right of the White man will be exposed to the full force of the authority of the State.

Mr. Speaker, it has become customary in this House to react to a previous speaker only if one has a bone to pick with him. It stands to reason that I do not disagree with the hon. the Minister who has just spoken. In fact, in the light of the facts furnished by him, I fully agree with what he has said and I fully subscribe to his unambiguous standpoint that Mandela will not be released. In the course of his speech, the hon. the Minister has also given the hon. member for Pinelands less of a swollen head. After all, he is a member who rushes into a matter before his being au fait with the facts.

However, with the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, who spoke a short while ago, I wish to cross swords. This hon. member posed the rhetorical question: Who is actually going to benefit from the 12-point plan of the hon. the Prime Minister? That reminds me of what a certain hon. member told me a short while ago. He said two farmers in his constituency had a discussion about this 12-point plan and what it actually involved. One of the farmers said he did not know of the 12-point plan and would prefer to confine himself to the Ten Commandments. I gain the impression that the hon. member for Amanzimtoti came very close to breaking one of those Ten Commandments, the Commandment concerning the giving of false testimony. He almost broke that Commandment when he said he did not know for whom this 12-point plan was intended or who was going to benefit from it. After all, the answer is very concise and clear: Everybody is going to benefit from it. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti is going to benefit from it in the same way as all the White people in this country are going to benefit, as well as the Black people, the Brown people and the Indians. After all, the hon. the Prime Minister told us clearly that the whole object of this 12-point plan was to improve the quality of life of all people in this country. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti also posed other questions to which I shall react in the course of my speech.

The hon. member for Yeoville, as chief Opposition spokesman, said in his wisdom yesterday that this budget was a budget of “lost opportunities”, that it was a budget which made no contribution towards the implementation of the total strategy of the hon. the Prime Minister.

What strategy?

As the old cock crows, the young cock learns. The hon. member for Bryanston, too, who spoke after him, made the statement with reference to the Carlton conference that the hon. the Prime Minister had created certain expectations at that conference which had not been satisfied, that the hon. the Prime Minister had given certain undertakings which had not been honoured. It is simply amazing that the spider derives his poison from the very same flower from which the bee derives honey. As I was sitting here on 26 March listening to the hon. the Minister of Finance delivering his budget speech, the immediate and predominant feeling I had was: Here we have a budget which is an extension of the Carlton conference; here we have a very clear implementation of the principles discussed at the Carlton conference. This is the inference any normal person would draw. The hon. member for Bryanston, however, says the plan discussed there that day is not being implemented.

I wish to deal with this matter and motivate my standpoint when I maintain that the budget of the hon. the Minister is indeed an implementation of the plan discussed that day, and when I refute the standpoint of the hon. member for Bryanston, which he did not motivate, when he maintained that nothing was being done to implement that total strategy. The speech which the hon. the Prime Minister delivered on the occasion of the Carlton conference was probably one of the most interesting speeches ever made in our country. The conference that followed on that speech was an historic one and probably unique in our country.

Now, the hon. member for Bryanston did not tell us what the undertakings were which were given by the hon. the Prime Minister on that occasion. Let me tell the hon. member what undertaking was given by the hon. the Prime Minister that day. We find it in a booklet which the hon. member must certainly also have had available but which he evidently did not read before making his speech yesterday. The hon. the Prime Minister referred in his speech to “our goal”. He said—

Well, this does not constitute an undertaking as yet but subsequently in his reply the hon. the Prime Minister did give a very clear undertaking. As far as I am concerned—and I have scrutinized the speech—the only undertaking given in that speech was when the hon. the Prime Minister said—

By saying this the hon. the Prime Minister gave us a very clear and very comprehensive undertaking. Then the hon. the Prime Minister also gave us his view of the way in which this objective could be achieved and he dealt with the economic strategy which had to be formulated, in which the private sector, free enterprise and the market mechanism would play an increasingly important role. Then, at the end of his speech, the hon. the Prime Minister addressed himself to those prominent business leaders in our country and said they had not been invited to come and listen to him or to the Government, but that they had been invited so that the Government might have the opportunity of listening to them. Every single member of the Cabinet as well as the departmental heads were present there. The private sector then had the opportunity of stating its point of view. Theirs was a very clear and unambiguous point of view and were it to have been put to the vote, it would certainly have been an unanimous one.

The message from the private sector that day, was the following: Mr. Prime Minister, give us in the private sector the opportunity of showing what we are capable of achieving. We in the private sector have a contribution to make towards improving the quality of life of people, referred to by you. Unemployment is a vexing problem in our country. We as the private sector believe that we are able to make a contribution towards the solution of that problem. After all, it has been proved that with less money, the private sector can succeed in creating more jobs than the public sector can do. The public sector is primarily capital-intensive. The combined cost of the Sasol projects and the Koeberg project—these were mentioned there that day—will be R7,5 milliard and provide jobs to 26 000 people. The private sector is geared more for and is able to operate more readily, labour-intensive industries so as to provide more jobs with a smaller outlay of capital to many more people.

On that day there was a discussion on the problem of the economic development of the backward areas, and the private sector advanced recommendations on the contribution they could make towards the agricultural development of the national States, towards mining, and industrial development. The private sector said very clearly that they would accept the challenge. They said they would carry out the task. Reading the newspaper reports, one gains the impression that there was a group of inspired people together on that day. But they also requested certain things from the Government. They asked the Government: Create the climate for us in which development is possible. Ensure peace and stability in the country. Promote the development of human potential by means of education and training. Come forward with a fiscal policy in terms of which we of the private sector would have the means to carry out this ambitious programme.

Now my contention is that this budget is the reply from the Government to that very plain request by the private sector. With this budget, the Government ensured that the Carlton conference would not remain beautiful, striking rhetoric only, would not merely be a blueprint that would be filed away, not merely a temporary upsurge of enthusiasm that would run out with the sands. The hon. the Prime Minister himself said in his reply that at the Carlton conference they were on the mount of transfiguration but could not remain there. Down below, on the grey flats, there was distress, human suffering, the problem of unemployment and the problem of people living below the breadline. That was where the task was awaiting them to improve the quality of life of those people.

Then the hon. the Minister of Finance introduced the budget and very clearly said to the private sector: “We have heard your request. We have given favourable consideration to your request. Here is R1,5 milliard to carry out your programme.” Something of this magnitude has never happened in the history of our country as yet. It is absolutely unprecedented in our history. In the 70 budgets which have been introduced since 1910, it has never yet happened on a single occasion that the private sector obtained an injection such as the one it obtained on 26 March. And yet the hon. Opposition sneer and speak of a “patchwork budget” and of a “budget of lost opportunities”. Moreover, the hon. member for Yeoville gives his reply which is that we should have subsidized the price of bread even more, in that way raising the standard of living of people even further. However, we have done far more than increase the price of bread. We have given jobs to people so as to enable them to have the self-respect and pride to buy their own bread, or rather, to pay that 59% of the price of a loaf of brown bread which is not subsidized by the Government. We heard yesterday that the Government was subsidizing the price of every single loaf of brown bread by 41%. Must it be subsidized still more?

A budget reflects the success or failure of a Government in its national administration. A budget such as this could only be introduced in a country in which there is prosperity. This budget will create still further prosperity. There can be prosperity in a country only if there is law and order, peace and stability. There can be peace and stability in a country only if there is a good Government in power. That is why this budget is a triumph for the hon. the Minister of Finance. It is triumph for his financial planning, for the work which has laboriously been done to prepare the soil for this flower budget. If the most prominent business leaders of our country and the rest of South Africa pat him on the back and say: “Bravo!”, I just wish to add that we in Natal are feeling very proud. [Interjections.]

This budget is also a triumph for the hon. the Prime Minister and for the policies this Government has been following over the years; in the political, social and economic spheres. Other Western countries, too, introduced budgets during this period. As in our case, there were some of them that also curtailed Government expenditure. They did this of necessity. From a purely accounting point of view it was not necessary for us to curtail Government expenditure. We have curtailed expenditure for other reasons. They increased their taxes, simply because otherwise they would not have been able to balance their books. We reduced our taxes so that we may be able to stimulate the private sector to create further prosperity and to create new sources of revenue so that the Government, the private sector and all the inhabitants of this country may benefit in future.

Tell us about the gold price!

Surely the hon. member knows it is not merely the “gold price” or “gold bonanza”. Surely he knows it is also a matter of financial discipline. One cannot consider a budget in isolation. It is an on-going process which the hon. the Prime Minister has been following over a period of years, a process of planning and laborious work and we have been reaping the fruits thereof. It is not merely a “gold bonanza”.

A budget does not reflect only the success or failure of a Government in its national administration. A budget is also an instrument for implementing policy. In general our policy, as spelt out by the hon. the Prime Minister, is to effect peace, freedom and prosperity in this country and to improve the quality of life of all people—not only that of the Whites, as the hon. member of Amanzimtoti thinks. In order to achieve success in national administration, one has to have the means to do so. This budget is an instrument to demonstrate our faith in private enterprise. It is significant that 20 years ago, America represented 6% of the world population and controlled 45% of the world economy. It is possible to express the reason for this in a single concept: It was the system of free enterprise that rendered that possible. Since that time the American economy has lost a little of its lustre. The reason for this is also clear: There were politicians who wanted to be popular with the electorate and consequently came along with “hand-outs”, which took America progressively in a socialist direction and introduced more and more welfare state ideas. That was the beginning of the decline of the American economy. Consequently we on the Government side are telling the hon. member for Yeoville in the clearest possible terms that we are not going to be captivated by his social democracy. All over the world, socialism has brought nothing but stagnation, and even decline. We are not going to allow ourselves to be seduced by his ideas of a welfare state. We believe in the system of free enterprise, and by means of this budget we have put our words into action.

If we wish to implement Government policy, we must not only have the means to do so, the means in the hands of the public sector and the private sector, but we also need an effective administration. This budget also reflects what has been done to ensure that effective administration. It coincides with the rationalization of the Public Service—which is reflected in the budget—so as to effect greater efficiency, to make the Public Service more streamlined, and to meet modern requirements.

To have sufficient financial means, to have an efficient administration, still does not ensure success at all times. If the Government wishes to achieve success, it is of overriding importance for it to have the co-operation and goodwill of its people—White, Black and Brown—for whom that policy is intended. Consequently the third important component to ensure success in the government of the country, is a struggle which is being waged on the political front—a struggle to win the goodwill of people and a struggle to win the hearts of people. The hon. the Prime Minister and the Government have been giving increasing attention to this. With all the conviction at my disposal, I want to say here this afternoon that in this country we are going to win that struggle for the goodwill of people. In fact, we are already winning that struggle.

Ian Smith said the same thing.

Providence would have it that our generation should be instrumental in promoting this magnificent and challenging concept of a constellation of free nations. That concept is the blue mountains we see in the distance, and we are not going to rest until we have reached our objective. We are not going to forsake that magnificant grand dream, that exalted ideal, along the road. Then, if the Opposition, like Tobiah and Sanbállat in the time of Nehemiah, have to be the obstructionists, it will be their loss. We are going ahead. There is a great task to accomplish.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Port Natal will excuse me if I do not do justice to his speech. In any event, I think the hon. member for Parktown referred to many of the aspects he touched on. I should like to react to the speech by the hon. the Minister of Police.

In general, that hon. Minister’s discussion of this matter was sober and to the point, and I think the silence in which the House listened to his arguments about this whole matter attested to the fact that we are dealing here with the essence of survival politics in South Africa. I want to assure the hon. Minister that I am going to react to all the points he raised, and I hope that the House will afford me the opportunity to do so, just as we afforded the hon. the Minister such an opportunity.

The first point I want to touch on is the issue of the campaign waged by the Sunday Post. The point I want to make here and now in this connection is that it is not a PFP campaign, and that the PFP has taken no decision in regard to this campaign, and accordingly I want to say that the people who took part in that campaign did so in their personal capacity. In the second place, I want to say that there is indeed a difference of opinion within our party concerning the merits, the effectiveness and the nature of the campaign. We have discussed it. I do not intend creating the impression of an artificial unanimity concerning this matter if unanimity does not exist. We discussed the matter openly with one another. The third point I want to make is that if the Government—and this is why I originally said this to Die Burger—thinks is going to be able to chase up hares in this regard, they will be disappointed, because it does not affect a fundamental matter of principle in our party. [Interjections.]

Order!

I shall deal with the fundamental matter of principle shortly.

To begin with, I want to discuss the issue of Mandela himself. Not one of the members of the PFP in this House ever said that Mandela was the only Black leader of significance in South Africa. That has never been said. We have said repeatedly that there are a number of Black leaders and that it is important to determine whom these Black leaders are. We have also said repeatedly that there are very clear indications that there is a likelihood that Mandela could be one of those leaders. We cannot deny that. There is a possibility that he could be one of the most significant leaders among the Black people. We cannot shut our eyes to that, because it is part of the political reality that confronts us. If we were to deny that, we should be short-sighted, particularly if one has in mind the possibility of setting in motion a process of peaceful, constitutional development in South Africa.

We can now, against this background, consider the problem of freeing Mandela. The hon. the Minister stated the Government’s standpoint in this regard very clearly. I want to stand our standpoint equally clearly, because I think that the two standpoints afford an opportunity for what I regard as a debate of vital importance in South Africa.

The hon. the Minister referred to Mandela’s record and said that he was sentenced by a court to life-long imprisonment on a charge of high treason. I do not in any way deny the facts of the case.

You cannot, man.

Order!

I do not deny it. Against that background I want to mention the kind of consideration that could apply with regard to the possible freeing of Mandela. When I do so, let us not forget that we form part of the whole pattern of South African political development. I cannot deny that. I must see myself, my party and my country in the context of the developments that are taking place in Southern Africa, and indeed internationally as well, in this field.

One consideration that could apply with regard to the possible freeing of Mandela is the humanitarian consideration. It is common practice throughout the world that the sentences of so-called political prisoners are reviewed from time to time. In this regard there is no exception with regard to Mandela, because he is not the only prisoner. There are others, too. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to request hon. members to afford the hon. the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to complete his speech, just as they listened to the hon. the Minister in silence.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The first point I want to make is that it is common practice or custom in many countries of the world to review the sentences of so-called political prisoners from time to time. In my opinion a judicial commission could be appointed in South Africa on that basis to review these sentences and make recommendations in connection with the possible freeing of so-called political prisoners. When that is done, Mandela must not be made an exception. Indeed, he is one of many. This may sound strange to certain hon. members opposite, but this is not a tradition that is foreign to the NP. It was one of the first acts of the NP to free people who had even been condemned to death due to high treason. I do not want to make a long story out of this. However, I just want to quote one excerpt to hon. members in this regard. It dates from the time when the then Minister of Justice expressed himself as follows with regard to this matter. The matter in question was one which sharply divided the Whites, in particular. This is what the then Minister of Justice, who later became our first State President, had to say about this matter on 9 September 1948 (Hansard, Vol. 64, col. 1908)—

Who at the time was general J. C. Smuts—

I refer to this because I clearly …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a question?

Unfortunately my time is very limited. If, towards the end of my speech, there is an opportunity to do so, the hon. member may put his question to me. However, I am sure that I can anticipate his question. If I am unable to do so, the hon. member can say what he wants to ask.

You are not that clever, man.

No, but it is nevertheless possible. [Interjections.]

Order!

Why were those steps taken at the time? It was to create a climate in which reconciliation could take place. We know that in Southern Africa, particularly in regard to Zimbabwe and South West Africa, the same efforts are being made. I do not believe for a moment that when the then Minister of Justice made that plea for liberation he associated himself in any way with the deeds or the high treason of those people. Indeed, he himself said that he dissociated himself from that. That is the first consideration I wish to put forward.

However, that is not the most important consideration. The second consideration one could bear in mind when the question of the possible freeing Mandela is raised, is a political one. When I speak about a political consideration, I am referring to the politics of survival which we in South Africa will be facing.

… communist.

Order! Which hon. member said: “He is a communist?”

The hon. member for Kimberley South. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was a communist. [Interjections.] What I did say was that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was delivering a plea for a communist. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I ignore what the hon. member said. As I said, the second consideration is a political consideration. I can put my party’s standpoint in this regard. My party is committed to calling a national convention. That is well known. Everyone knows it. We believe that at such a national convention the true leaders must be present and must negotiate. That is also general knowledge. This has been stated with respect to Mandela, and it has also been stated that if it is ascertained—and the hon. the Minister read it correctly—that he is in fact a representative leader …

How?

I shall come to that in a moment. If it can be ascertained that he is prepared to negotiate in peace and renounce violence … [Interjections.] That implies precisely what I am now saying. If he renounces violence, then he can enter into negotiations. We are committed to that. Now hon. members can ask me: Very well, that represents what the standpoint of the PFP would be if it were to come to power, but what about now? I say that it is now the responsibility of the Government—because it has the power—to ascertain the extent and nature of Mandela’s leadership. Let us say the Government were to do so—and it need not necessarily hold a referendum. There are many other ways of finding out. The Pearce Commission did not make use of a referendum. One can utilize the techniques of social science to determine with great accuracy what the extent of his leadership is—and were to find that the vast majority of Black people support this man. Would the Government then do nothing to find out whether there was any possibility of preventing bloodshed and violence? Is it not even going to try? Is it simply going to say that it is inevitable? That is the type of question we are being confronted with. That is why I say that it is a responsibility to find out not only whether Mandela is a representative leader, but also how many of them there are, who they are, and what their attitude is towards constitutional change. We have stated this standpoint time and again. What amazes me now, what really amazes me, is the sham indignation on the part of the hon. the Minister of Police and of Prisons, the way in which, in a very calculated way, he … [Interjections.] No. He is almost piously outraged about the fact that we stated this standpoint. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister …

I am not almost outraged; I am plain annoyed about it. [Interjections.]

For a man who is annoyed, the hon. the Minister is laughing too heartily. I just want to say that the hon. the Minister is now being piously outraged about the fact that we are now adopting this standpoint in public, and moreover he is trying to insinuate that by doing so we are supporting terrorism and that that means that we are in favour of violence. I reject that with contempt. Exactly the opposite is true. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister … [Interjections.]

Order!

On a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to say that the hon. the Minister is piously outraged?

I do not accept that as a point of order. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now I want to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister. The Administrator-General of South West Africa has declared an amnesty for Swapo terrorists. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether that is right or wrong. I quote from Die Suidwester of 24 January 1980—

There it states “any Swapo terrorist”. [Interjections.]

Order!

Read the conditions, too.

I know there are conditions; I have them all before me. However, the principle has been accepted that terrorists are granted amnesty. The point is that amnesty has been granted to them. I ask whether that is wrong.

Conditionally.

I also set conditions for the freeing of … [Interjections.]

Order! I should not like to take the extreme step of imposing a total prohibition on interjections, but instead I appeal to members once again to afford the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to complete his speech in silence.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What I want to know from the hon. the Minister—because he expressed himself in strong terms and said that this implied that we supported the activities of this organization, is this: When the Administrator-General takes this step, is he thereby supporting the activities of Swapo? Of course not. Is he supporting communism, of which Sam Njoma is one of the leaders? Of course not. Does he support violence? Of course not. He does these things specifically with the aim of preventing violence. The very reason he does these things is to see to it that a situation prevails in which violence cannot escalate. I can understand why he does it. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the South African Government had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Mr. Ian Smith eventually spoke to people like Sithole, Mugabe and Nkomo? Did this Government have nothing to do with that? Did they not encourage it? I want to quote from Survey of Race Relations, 1978, page 499—

Now I come to the then hon. Prime Minister, and I quote from Hansard of 27 May 1977, col. 8711 …

Sorry, I missed the point. Was he a convicted criminal or not?

Yes, of course he was. After the then Prime Minister of South Africa had returned from his discussions with Mondale, he said the following—

That is, he and Mr. Mondale—

I could agree to that because it has always been the policy of the South African Government that the parties in Rhodesia should settle their own case, that the various sides in Rhodesia should themselves reach an agreement. That is why I could go along with that and with what followed. At my insistence—we had to argue for quite some time to get this included as well—it was also said—

Now, there is just one thing I want to say. There are vastly important differences between the respective positions of South Africa, Rhodesia and South West Africa, but they have one thing in common, and that is that terrorism occurs in all three of them. Something else they have in common is that there are political prisoners in all three. However, this Government has persuaded or encouraged those in power in South West Africa and in Rhodesia, or it has used its power, to involve organizations which are apparently communists, which are apparently involved in terrorism, in a process of peaceful negotiation. Now I just want to know whether the lives of our young men in the Police Force and the Defence Force are more valuable there, than they are here in South Africa. Are their lives so much more precious there that steps of this kind are taken? If, then, I look at the situation in South Africa and say that we must find the kind of solution which will make it possible for us to negotiate peacefully, and if I ask that we should consider, under the most qualified of circumstances, to what extent Mandela is representative and whether he can be freed under certain conditions, it is said that we are associating ourselves with the activities of the ANC. Surely that is foolishness! Does the same type of argument, then, also apply to the Administrator-General for South West Africa and in connection with Zimbabwe-Rhodesia?

However, what is in fact the issue at stake? This brings me to the formulation by the hon. the Minister himself, because I myself could not formulate it better. He says that the issue is that of a system of government which is acceptable to all the people. That is the issue at stake. That was the issue at stake in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and that is the issue at stake in South West Africa/Namibia. That is the issue around which the whole struggle revolves. The fate of all of us depends on that. When the policemen storm the bank in Silverton, they want to know what we as politicians are doing to prevent incidents such as those from increasing. That is what they want to know. We cannot sit and wait for them to solve the problem. The Defence Force has told us that this is 80% a political problem, and the police will say the same. We cannot simply sit back and praise the police every time there is an incident of terrorism. Of course we praise the police, but we cannot rely on them to solve the problem.

They rely on us, and if we rely on them, then we must conduct a responsible debate in this House, and that debate must be about how one can have a system of government in South Africa which is acceptable to all. That is what the debate must be about. But the moment the hon. the Minister stated the issue involved, he deprived his words of all meaning by saying that it excluded sharing of power, that it would have to be a confederal conference of States, and that Blacks outside the homelands would have to remain linked to the homelands. However, there is sufficient evidence from urban Blacks and homeland Blacks, from Buthelezi, from Phatudi and from Ntsanwisi, all of whom say that it is foolishness to believe that the political home of Blacks outside the homelands will be in the homelands. They all say it. Now the hon. member states that he sets that condition in regard to these peaceful and moderate Black leaders too. I am not even speaking about the Mandelas. I am not even speaking about the radical groups. How does the hon. the Minister think he will create a situation on that basis in which peaceful constitutional development can take place so as to create a state which will enjoy the support of all of us? That is where there is a fundamental difference between the hon. the Minister and ourselves.

Accordingly we say that we must give realistic consideration to the situation in which we find ourselves. We must ask ourselves how we can prevent what happened in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, from happening here, and how we can prevent ourselves from eventually being caught in a whirlpool of violence. That is what the debate on survival must be about. [Interjections.]

Order!

Oh, really, Sir, that hon. member does not understand the argument. He does not begin to understand what this is all about. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Mossel Bay must not make so many interjections.

To make it clear to the hon. member once again, I want to say that it is a question of how one is to create a constitutional system which can enjoy the support of more people than support it at present.

The greatest symbol of political and constitutional bankcruptcy is the new Coloured Council. We all know it. Hon. members opposite know it too. It is not going to work. It is meaningless. It is true that it exists and that it is going to accommodate a few of these people and that, in the nature of the matter, we are going to listen to their opinions, but it is not a political institution of any significance in the process of constitutional development. We know it. How did we get into such a situation? We got into it because we followed the same advice which the hon. the Minister has just given in respect of the Black people, viz. “You will accept my conditions that it be done in this or that way, and if you do not wish to speak to me, I shall decide with whom I wish to speak.” The Government can continue along those lines, but it is clear that that recipe leads to conflict. That is clear in Southern Africa. It is that conflict that we seek to avoid and that we are going to try to de-escalate through our contribution—just as was done in regard to South West Africa and Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. Hon. members can try and give the wrong impression of our standpoints if they like. It is obvious that a peaceful constitutional development is going to depend on whether the Whites in South Africa are prepared to really talk to the representative leaders—and I use the plural form—of all population groups here in South Africa and whether they will be able to confer meaningfully about a constitutional system which can enjoy the support of all those political interest groups. That is our standpoint and we are not going to deviate from it.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and although I made an effort to follow the trend of his arguments, I want to say that there are a few things which were even more obscure after he spoke than they were before. In the first place the hon. the Leader touched on a wide spectrum of matters, and if one were to analyse or make an exegesis of his speech at one’s leisure, one would find a thousand and one holes in it. In the second place, he quite obviously did not succeed in camouflaging the serious differences in standpoint within his party on the safeguarding of South Africa. I want to state categorically that this debate today, which dealt specifically with Mandela, was the result of two clear standpoints within the party of the hon. the leader.

There is third point I wish to make. The hon. the Leader, like a typical academic discussing these matters in a coffee shop, touched on all the real issues and then shot down his own arguments. He quoted quite a number of examples, and unfortunately I do not have the time to go into them. He quoted the example of amnesty which had been granted. The first question which he raised was the question of humanitarian considerations. In this respect he very clearly agreed with the hon. member for Pinelands. However, he did not present to this House the ambiguous norms which exist in the world today in respect of amnesty which is granted to people. Another argument which he raised was of a political nature but which as he stated it to us, was very vague. Then he referred to South West Africa, Rhodesia and to arguments dealing with the aftermath of the Second World War. One could give meaningful replies to all these points when the time is right, but in presenting these arguments he must begin to learn, particularly as Leader of the Opposition, to state very briefly and succinctly what his party’s standpoint is. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not now in the academic circles of Stellenbosch or anywhere else for that matter, where he can hold long dissertations on various topics. Here in the arena of practical politics he must give us an answer on what his party is doing.

Before I come to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Pinelands I just wish to say, by way of introduction, that the hon. the Prime Minister made a very prophetic statement here a few weeks ago when he said that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was just like a young rhinoceros who went charging in. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition took cognizance of that with great consternation, but the first question which a political correspondent of an English-language newspaper asked me was: “What do you think of the new leader of the PFP now?” The previous leader of that party, the hon. member for Sea Point, and I are quite good friends in our way and I was sorry when he was ousted. Perhaps my hon. colleagues will take it amiss of me, but that is the way I feel about it. I did not say that the new hon. leader was a young rhinoceros; I said he was a “sitting duck”, for as the debates in this House proceed and as politics in South Africa develop, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will be shown to be a “sitting duck”. One can shoot at him from any angle, from the scientific angle and from the angle of practical politics. Every community and every interest group will do so.

Shortly after the hon. member became leader of the PFP on 3 September 1979 at a special meeting, he made a speech. As we know him he was quite probably well prepared, and I now wish to refer to that speech and quote a few passages from it to hon. members. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition began his speech by saying—

A baton (staf) and a race do not really go together if one knows relay races. However, it does not matter. Hon. members must now take careful note of what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said at the time. Bear in mind that these are the first words he spoke after becoming leader. He said—

In other words, the hon. the Leader is not only saying that his party has a set of principles, but that they also have a detailed policy. Consequently I now expect the hon. the Leader to spell out that detailed policy on every facet of government in this country, and not in the way in which he stated this very important, very real question of security in South Africa to us today. This jumping about from one side to the other with petty academic arguments just does not work in the real and difficult world in which we are living today. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went on to say—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition committed himself to discipline within his own party. At this stage I consequently wish to state categorically that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not capable of exercising discipline. I shall show hon. members why in a moment. The hon. the Leader went further, and what he said in this instance, was very interesting—

He refuses to recognize them, even if they are there. [Interjections.] The great scholar says in fact that they are not there. As also happened with his speech this afternoon, there are major problems. This one will simply have to accept from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: If he does not wish to, he does not perceive something; he refuses to perceive it. He continued—

That I think he succeeded in doing this afternoon. He also said—

Well, he has the shepherd’s crook in his one hand and the wagon leader’s rope in the other. Now this very interesting statement follows—

This is what the hon. the Leader said on 3 September, but what is very interesting is that on 4 September 1979 the following headline appeared in the Rand Daily Mail: “Schwarz blames radicals.”

Is that Harry? [Interjections.]

The report read—

Furthermore—

The hon. member for Yeoville went on to say—

He also said—

The last and most interesting extract from the report is the following—

It is interesting to note that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition carries on in a tranquil, calm, academic and in many respects theatrical, as well as in a high-flown fashion. He does this in spite of the background which is delineated by what he himself said to his party and the admission of one of his most senior leaders that there is a clique within the PFP which is not moderate. Within the PFP, therefore, there is a group of people who are not moderate. One does not serve for 14 years in Parliament and see people in the lobby or in the coffee lounge or serve with them on Select Committees without coming to realize which people are in fact moderate. During the past few years the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has in my opinion come exceptionally moderate. I am not saying this for any specific reason; this has merely been my experience. The hon. member for Yeoville is indeed a moderate member.

Perhaps it is you people who have become rather liberal. [Interjections.]

But within the PFP there is, if I may use the words of the hon. member for Yeoville, a clique which is not moderate. Hence this sudden standpoint on Nelson Mandela. I believe that most of us in this House are old enough, and know the history of the period immediately after the Second World War in South Africa as well. I believe that the moderate members on the opposite side could probably have many faults to find with the NP, but one thing on which we can take a stand on the platforms of the world is that we have made an honest attempt to assure the ethnic groups here in Southern Africa of a secure existence. That is the first point. The second point is that other Western powers have adopted policies in Africa which we told them a long time ago could not succeed. Such policies were, inter alia, followed in Rhodesia and hon. members also know what the circumstances in South West Africa are. At this stage of the events in Africa, with all the problems which this part of the world is experiencing as a background, we suddenly have a call for Nelson Mandela to be released. To me it is very clear that the hon. member for Pinelands, with his personal ties with Nusas, and as we have learned to know him over the years, would adopt the standpoint that Nelson Mandela should be freed without qualification.

That is nonsense and you know it!

The hon. member can play with words if he likes. If the hon. member is as pious as he is now trying to imply, why did he not adopt the same strong, principled standpoint which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout adopted.

I am 100% behind him.

The hon. member for Pinelands says he is 100% behind the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. However, I want to tell him that he is not then 100% behind his leader. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition admitted here today that there was a division in the ranks of his party. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that there was a difference of opinion. However, it is not a difference of opinion on a trivial matter. A few questions occurred to me which the learned hon. Leader of the Opposition did not deal with here this afternoon. He did not ask what the consequences would be if Nelson Mandela were to be released. Within what milieu is this plea for the release of Nelson Mandela taking place. Another question which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not reply to is this: Who are the people who would very much like Mandela to be released? We cannot, as a responsible Government with all the problems we have in Southern Africa, proceed to take steps in accordance with the arguments which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition presented to us here today.

In the first place, as far as my interpretation of this matter is concerned, I am afraid that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not adopt a clear standpoint as to whether or not he supports the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. In my opinion his, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout’s, was the correct standpoint. Secondly, he did not reject the standpoint of the hon. member for Pinelands. Before the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does that, he will also as the former Leader of the Opposition was associated with a telephone call, be associated with Mandela. I wish to tell him that if the issue is the security of this country, I know that there are enough members of the PFP who will adopt a very strong standpoint in that regard. I know it is said that the old prophets are dead and the young ones eat bread, but I wish to venture the prediction that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will not only be a “sitting duck”, but a “dead duck” who will no longer be able to wear the mantle of leader of the PFP. [Interjections.] However, I shall leave the matter to the academic conscience of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

I come now to the actual speech which I want to make today. [Interjections.] I am going to devote my attention specifically to the prototype of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Hon. members may perhaps find it interesting, or amusing. When Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert was elected Leader of the official Opposition, I was pleased to have an opponent who was more easily visible to me, although I felt sorry for the hon. member for Sea Point. I think the hon. member for Sea Point was given a raw deal by his own people. He sat in this House for many years and had to do the hard work. However, he was ousted by a small clique, as the hon. member for Yeoville said, and we had a new Leader of the Opposition—a political nova prima donna. It had also become essential in our debates which we conducted among ourselves as Whites, that we should have a clearer concept of the milieu from which the Opposition chose their leaders.

As a very small boy I was engrossed by the history of my people. One of the first things which thrilled me as a child was my deceased grandfather’s tale of the struggle in the Anglo-Boer War, the last of the gentlemen’s wars to be waged. As a young boy there were two words which stuck in my mind. There were people who did not participate in the struggle for freedom of the two Boer Republics. There were burghers who followed two different courses. In 1948 the NP, that had an insight into the problems, not only destroyed the United Party with its phenomenal strength, but also the Afrikaner liberalist, who was personified by the late Mr. Jan Hofmeyr. The ’fifties was characterised by an ignorance amongst the coming generations in South Africa of Afrikaner liberalism. At the end of the ’fifties, however, Afrikaner liberalism began to revive around a small group of professors.

In the ’sixties there was another revival of Afrikaner liberalism in South Africa. At this stage I want to make it very clear that in the NP there was initially a group of people who were engaged in gaining their own freedom. One of the first population issues which we dealt with correctly with the help of the two-stream policy created by Gen. Hertzog was the relationship between the English- and the Afrikaans-speaking people. Our third priority was concerned with our various Black peoples. Now we are turning our attention to the Coloureds and the Indians. It was a difficult and arduous road which we had to follow, but as the English- and Afrikaans-speaking people found one another within the NP on the basis that the one would not harm the other, we were solving the other problems as well.

At the end of the ’fifties and the beginning of the ’sixties, a period during which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was still a student, the Jan Hofmeyr immage began to grow again. I think it is essential today to understand the politics of the PFP and of the small stream of Afrikaans-speaking persons who support the PFP. To be able to do so, one must be able to place them in their historic perspective again. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition displays certain characteristics. I am not referring to him only as an individual, because as an individual he is only one link in the long history of a nation. He represents a specific standpoint which is as old as the Afrikaner nation itself.

When one makes an historical analysis of Afrikanerdom—in this connection I want to say this to my English friends sitting opposite—one sees from the beginning a dualism, not only in the political sphere, but also in other spheres of life such as the theological, educational etc., between two groups which were in a state of conflict. Throughout this history runs an unbroken thread. I want to say that this historical thread, of which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is a personification, displays various characteristics. I wish to refer to them briefly.

In the first place it is a characteristic of the Afrikaner liberalist that he has no love for what is his own. He has no love for his own language, culture and history. Some of them do not have a love for what is their own from birth, and others lose it along the way. Of these the hon. member for Johannesburg North is a typical example. This happens under various circumstances. It is one of the basic characteristics of the Afrikaner liberalist.

Like Van Wyk Louw?

At a certain stage of one’s life that line moves upwards or downwards, and when one has ultimately made one’s choice, one ends up in the position in which the hon. Leader of the Opposition finds himself—without a love for what is one’s own. In other words, his power base from which his reasoning and thinking emanates, is unnational.

You are insulting, that is what you are. [Interjections.]

There is a second characteristic—and it is an important one—which I wish to point out. The power base from which this type of Afrikaner operates is usually an international power base and is usually associated with foreign imperialism. At present one finds that their power base is rooted in American liberalism and the Black power movement as one finds it in America and also in Southern Africa. I have no doubts whatsoever about this. The power base is international and imperialistic.

A third characteristic of this type of person is that they have no respect or conscientious objections in respect of whatever organization or institution they use to achieve their objective. I wish to remind the hon. member for Pinelands briefly of the Bible text about Naboth’s vineyard which the hon. member used here at the beginning of the year and in regard to which, after an interjection from me, he admitted that he had been wrong. I want to tell the hon. member that one of the worst things one can do is to use a quotation from the Bible, only to admit shortly afterwards that one was not correct.

Are you afraid of the truth?

The hon. member for Pinelands must withdraw the interjection.

Mr. Speaker, I asked the question: “Are you afraid of the truth?”

There is nothing else I would more gladly embrace and nothing I want more badly than the truth.

Why don’t you look for it? Open your eyes, man.

While the hon. member is questioning my desire for the truth, something to which I shall return later in my speech, let me quote a passage from a book.

Andries Treurnicht’s book?

No, it is not Andries’s book. The name of the book is “The World of Nat Nakasa”. The hon. member has heard of Nat Nakasa.

Yes, I have heard of him.

Let me tell the hon. member that in his book which consists of a whole series of articles and which appeared after his death, Nat Nakasa wrote the following at the end of the second page of an article entitled “A Visit to Pretoria”—

This was in 1962, if my memory is not playing me false. Remember this was 18 years ago—

I can tell hon. members that one does not quote this kind of thing to boost.

Who was the young man? Was it you?

The “young man” was I. [Interjections.] The hon. member may laugh about it if he wishes, but the hon. member for Pinelands asked whether I loved the truth. Not only do I love the truth, because it is part of my outlook on life and philosophy, I also love my nation and my neighbour, and not only myself.

Let me tell the hon. members that this was the third or fourth visit which Nat Nakasa paid me. He had come to ask me for assistance in respect of certain matters, and I had an open, honest conversation with him in accordance with my public image as that of a great verkrampte I told him candidly what I thought, believed, professed and what I wanted for my people. At the end of the conversation—we had a long conversation— we also, as hon. members can read for themselves, referred to Nelson Mandela. Now the hon. member for Pinelands is questioning my honesty today.

No.

Whatever he asked me, I want to say …

He asked whether you were afraid of the truth.

The hon. member is saying that I am afraid of the truth, but one of the characteristics of the Afrikaner liberalists is in fact that they question the integrity of the people who really care for their identity, their survival, their country, and those things which are dear to them, and they play them off against Black people. [Interjections.] I have not changed in the 18 years since Nakasa wrote the passage which I quoted. Perhaps I have become a little wiser.

Never.

Eighteen years ago I had this conversation with a man whom held in very high esteem. This is what Nat Nakasa wrote about me, and I quoted it to the hon. members as Whites, the bearers of Western civilization, but who, as far as the hon. member for Pineland’s views are concerned, do not care a rap for justice and equity in this country, and for the security of not only the White people and not only my children, but also their children. I have quoted Nat Nakasa today. He is dead; he is no longer with us.

What happened to him?

He committed suicide, in the USA; not in South Africa. [Interjections.]

He was so depressed about South Africa. [Interjections.]

Hon. members may say now that he committed suicide as a result of the situation in South Africa, but I want to tell hon. members that the real cause of his suicide was that he could not endure the loneliness, the commotion and other aspects of New York. That is what I was told.

He was depressed about coming back to South Africa.

Order!

After I had honestly told the man what I believed, namely that I stood for my people, Nakasa wrote that at least I was honest. I did not even know that he was going to write that. That is why I want to tell hon. members opposite that Afrikaner Nationalists, or Nationalists who are English- or Greek-speaking, or whatever, are not dishonourable people when we are dealing with Black people. I said that that hon. member displayed no respect, regardless of who or what he uses. The hon. member for Pinelands used the Old Testament here and he distorted it when he quoted it. We could go into that again later.

A following characteristic of these people is that the Afrikaner liberalists always seek a moral purpose to begin a crusade. They seek a certain moral purpose and wish to create the impression that they are scared people. So bad has it become in the modern world—and I say this as a person who, just like the hon. member for Pinelands, studied theology—that nowhere in the world of Western thought, nowhere in the world of Western liberalism, and not in Afrikaner liberalism either, do I find a person who really stands for the preservation of the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments have disappeared, but an Eleventh Commandment has been added, viz. the liberalistic precept. That Eleventh Commandment is: “You may not be yourself if you are White.” One may as well abandon all the other Commandments. One may steal, one may covet one’s neighbour’s wife and do all kinds of things, but one may not, if one is White, preserve one’s White identity. White is not merely a pigmentation. Perhaps the hon. member for Pinelands, as a sociologist, should have studied social anthropology a little further. Pigmentation is only one aspect. The difference between myself and an albino is not only that of skin colour. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made no speech and the hon. member for Rissik made two speeches. Consequently I shall try at this late hour to make half a speech. Besides the R2 074 000 which has been appropriated for the defence of the Republic of South Africa, there is another figure which in my opinion should be regarded as an investment in the struggle against Russian imperialism which is inundating the world. I am referring now to the amount which has been voted to promote the development of the various Black ethnic units towards self-determination, as well as the amount which has been voted for independent Black States and which amounts to approximately R816 258 000. If indirect forms of assistance are also taken into account, this amount totals approximately R1 000 million. This amount should be seen as an investment in the struggle against Russian imperialism which is inundating the world. I should like to motivate my statement briefly. Initially the awakening of nationalism, particularly on the African continent, left the Soviet Union cold. Consequently it did not surprise anyone that towards the end of the ’sixties, after the culmination of the anti-colonial struggle in the whole of Africa, not a single …