Mr. Speaker, arising from investigations conducted by me, the hon. the Deputy Minister and senior officials of the department in various overseas countries during 1978 and 1979, the Government has decided in principle to decentralize the functions of the Department of the Interior in order to—

1. (i) facilitate the gathering of personal details and changes of address of individuals so as to ensure a more up-to-date population register and the most complete voters’ rolls possible; and
2. (ii) bring the other activities of the department closer to the population in order to eliminate delays and dissatisfaction.

† Interdepartmental committees were appointed by me to investigate and report on the ways and means to implement this decision. As a result of these investigations, the Government has now decided to establish, as from 1 July 1980, eight additional regional offices of the Department of the Interior, namely at Beaufort West, George, Pretoria, Pietersburg, West Rand, East Rand, Kroonstad and Pietermaritzburg. These regional offices, together with the existing seven regional offices, namely at Cape Town, Kimberley, Port Elizabeth, Johannesburg, Durban, Bloemfontein and East London will form with local authorities, who will be compensated for their services, a network of offices to carry into effect the decision of the Government.

A Press statement in this regard will be released later today.

Mr. Speaker, earlier on in this debate the hon. member for Yeoville maintained that this budget in actual fact lacked a total strategy in view of the dangers which were threatening the Republic of South Africa. To my mind nothing could be further removed from the truth than this statement. It is common knowledge that the greatest single danger threatening the Republic at the moment is that of Russian imperialism, and in this budget—and I referred to this yesterday evening—there is a specific amount which should undoubtedly be regarded as an investment in the struggle against the said Russian imperialism. I am referring to the amount of more than R816 million which is being appropriated directly for developing the various Black national units in the direction of self-determination, for giving assistance to self-governing Black States as well as those States which have already obtained their independence. In this regard I have already pointed out, in motivating this statement, that the awakening of Black nationalism, particularly on the continent of Africa, initially left the Soviet Union stone cold and that in fact, after the conclusion of the first anti-colonial struggle towards the end of the ’sixties, not a single Marxist-orientated State had seen the light. In Africa, with the exception of Egypt, the Sudan and the Republic of South Africa, not even one Communist Party of note could get off the ground. However, since Red China has started posing as a revolutionary model for the Third World, with its particular emphasis—and I stress “particular emphasis”—on nationalism, which precedes communism, the picture has changed considerably. Suddenly the Soviet Union, too, became a follower of the specific strategy which Mao Tse-tung spelt out very clearly in the following words—

Virtually overnight, following the example of Red China, the Soviet Union, too, decided to become a standard-bearer for each nation or group engaged in some struggle for independence. During the twenty-fourth congress of the Communist Party held in Moscow in 1971, Brezhnev clearly set out this new policy. He said—

It has indeed been the case, directly or indirectly with the help of the Soviet Union, that three of South Africa’s neighbouring States have managed to throw off the so-called imperial yoke in exchange for a Marxist form of government. The pattern followed by Russian imperialism since the beginning of the ’seventies, is quite simple: Declare yourself an ally, preferably a military ally, of any nation or group engaged in a struggle for liberation and try to entrench yourself so deeply in the territory that it will be difficult to get you out of the territory after this struggle for liberation has come to an end. I think the 20 000 Cubans and the nearly 2 500 East Germans who are at present active in Angola as Russian lackeys, provide adequate proof of this strategy. Now the question poses itself: What plan of action is to be followed to thwart this success plan of Russian imperialism? I think the answer should definitely not be sought in any endeavour to ban an awakening nationalism. To my mind this striving after independence, no matter by whom, should rather be regarded with understanding, and if there is one country that undoubtedly has understanding for the process of evolving nationalism, it is the Republic of South Africa. In fact, it was the two Boer Republics of Transvaal and the Orange Free State—and I am not necessarily placing them in any order of importance or with the specific exclusion of Natal and the Cape—that made war upon the imperial occupying forces while the rest of Africa was still sitting dreaming peacefully around the flesh-pots of other colonial powers. And if there is one party that knows how to deal with this phenomenon of developing nationalism, it is undoubtedly the NP. The budget testifies to the fact that the Government is not wrongly trying to put a damper on nationalism. As a matter of fact, it is appropriating nearly R1 000 million to give it momentum. However, what is even more important, is the fact that the Government distinguishes between the national aspirations of various peoples. That, I think, is certainly more than can be said of the Opposition parties in this House. No more than one can shut one’s eyes to the rise of nationalism as such, can one endeavour to cover under one blanket the expression of nationalism as it occurs amongst the various national groups. Moreover, I think it is wrong simply to speak of Black nationalism without any additional qualification. He who is of the opinion in this regard, that the hatchet will be buried in Africa, and specifically in Southern Africa, as soon as so-called Black nationalism has triumphed over White nationalism, is also living in a fool’s paradise. Up to now it has not been the struggle between White and Black that has taken the heaviest toll in Africa, but the struggle among Black nationalisms themselves. I think a good example in this regard is the events in Biafra. Only yesterday Die Burger mentioned the fact that up to this weekend Liberia had, so to speak, been colonized—not by Whites, but in fact by Blacks. He who simply wishes to cover under the same blanket, all forms of nationalism in a specific area, is, to my mind, merely creating new possibilities for colonization.

The struggle among themselves will only end when the independence aspirations of each group or nation have been accommodated in a meaningful way. I think the object of this budget is, inter alia, to make provision for the meaningful accommodation of various national groups and national aspirations. If such national aspirations are not accommodated, they are handed on a platter to Soviet imperialism, which will be only too keen to lend a hand in the so-called liberation struggle.

In my opinion it still happens too often, unfortunately, that Western powers drive a specific nation or group straight into the fold of the communist bloc because of their having been blind at a given moment in history to the national aspirations of that nation. China in particular became a communist country because Western powers had been blind to its national struggle against the Japanese occupying forces. When the communist party came to the forefront as the only champion of liberation, its services could hardly be refused. In my personal capacity I should like to say that in my opinion Western circles should reflect anew—and I am merely quoting this as an example—on Western support for Zaire in its struggle against the so-called rebels of the province Shaba, the former Katanga. This province’s struggle for independence, which was supported by South Africa in the mid ’sixties, has been going on for more than 20 years. Because of a lack of any other form of assistance, they are leaning heavily on their Marxist henchmen from Angola at the moment. However, this does not necessarily make them communists, not yet. I think it is important in this regard to take cognizance of what the present head of state of the Ivory Coast said in 1946 about the alliance between the Organization of French-speaking African States and the Communist Party in France. He said—

I think that a little more timely friendliness and understanding in respect of a national struggle of this nature may possibly prevent such a country ultimately becoming the prey of its Marxist allies.

The important point—and I think this budget points to this—is that the National Party certainly has understanding for the independence aspirations of the various nations around it and that they do not have to rely on the Soviet Union for assistance in this regard. Understanding for aspirations to achieve liberty—this I want to emphasize— which, within a unitary state, may lead to the suppression of one nation by another, is, of course, not the point at issue. The National Party would much rather create living space for each nation and possibly establish for it its own national state in which the expression of one nationalism would not stifle the other. To my mind the figures in this budget indicate that the NP is not only lending momentum to the process of liberation taking place in Southern Africa, but is also doing so in a responsible and efficient manner. The NP is of the opinion that the words of the prophet Micah should be applied literally to South Africa, viz. that swords should be beaten into plowshares and spears into pruninghooks. The Soviet Union, however, advocates the opposite policy. They advocate that plowshares should be beaten into swords and pruninghooks into spears. Small wonder, therefore, that during the period 1971 to 1976 economic assistance given by the Soviet Union to the Third World countries amounted to approximately $4 217 million only, while military assistance for the same period to the same countries amounted to $13 850 million. Small wonder, too, that the economies of the nations that came into power with the assistance of the Soviet Union collapsed immediately afterwards. Here one need only refer to Mozambique and Angola. Therefore I think that Black States relying heavily on Russia in its struggle for independence, may be well advised to take note of what the head of state of the Sudan has to say about this. He says—

With the nearly R1 000 million being voted by this Government for assistance to the Black States, we ultimately envisage building up those States and not breaking them down economically. Whether this amount will be sufficient to canalize the national aspirations of the various population groups rapidly enough, remains an open question. However, the mere fact that an amount of this magnitude is being voted, indicates that the NP is prepared to give effect, in a meaningful way, to a process of liberation that has caught other Governments in Africa off-sides, without the legitimate position of the White man in South Africa being jeopardized.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Randfontein makes a study of communism. I listened to his opinions with interest, but I hope he will excuse me if I do not react to his speech, because I wish to discuss a different sphere.

Yesterday the hon. member for Rissik gave me a good testimonial when he said that according to him I had become “more moderate” over the past few years. I accept his observation with appreciation, and I do not wish to shy away from it, but all I hope is that no one gained the impression that I have become more moderate in regard to injustice or that which is wrong in political policies or in our society. When it is an issue of injustice towards my people, or by my people or anyone towards others, I cannot and, indeed, do not wish to be moderate. However, where I am prepared to display moderation is when it is an issue of willingness to give a hearing to and to consider the standpoints of others and to give credit where credit is due, with regard, too, to my political opponents. In his time Disraeli said—

I agree with him. Healthy party divisions in Parliament are essential, but they can be put into practice in a civilized way. John Stuart Mill, in turn, wrote the following about this—

In other words, a Government and an Opposition can to a certain extent complement one another and not merely oppose one another. I, too, agree with that. I just want to say something with regard to the circumstances which our Parliament is experiencing at present. After the NP came to power in 1948, for a period of approximately 10 to 12 years, Parliament was still characterized by the traditional political power struggle between “Nat” and “Sap”, as the parties were known at the time. Hon. members will recall that it was only in 1958 that the NP could obtain a majority of voters at the polls. Since the Republic, which the United Party opposed— and that led to its final downfall—there has been another phase in the life of Parliament, and for a long time fragmentation of the Opposition was the order of the day in Parliament. I say this with regret. This continued until the UP eventually committed suicide in a ice-skating rink in Johannesburg. [Interjections.] Subsequently Parliament entered the phase we are in at present, a completely new phase. We have now entered a very dangerous period in the life of the South African Parliament, a time when the competition between the White parties— which is necessary—is no longer by any means the most important matter in the country. All of us are being placed under international and internal pressure from all sides and, as I see it, our problems have indeed become so great that no single party in power can solve them alone and in isolation. That is why we as a party are so strongly in favour of holding conferences between people and different groups, however difficult it may be and however long it may take.

A new Opposition has come into being in Parliament—with difficulty, but at least on a basis of clear principles—and has already shown that it has significant growth potential. It will continue to grow, and the party will prove this. However, I do not wish to intimate thereby that the PFP is going to be in a position, tomorrow or the next day, to take parliamentary power out of the hands of the NP. Nor am I trying to maintain that we are approaching the more or less equal struggle we had in the old days between “Nat” and “Sap”. We do not claim that, nor do we believe that that is in the offing. However, we do believe that the present official Opposition can play a very major and important role, and is in fact playing such a role, in assisting the Whites to sort themselves out in regard to the future power relations between the various population groups in our country—between us who sit here and the population groups outside the parliamentary structure.

That is how I see the priorities we are faced with, and that is how I see the special task of the present Parliament. I am of the opinion that we have reached a stage at which the Whites should first sort themselves out in regard to the path they wish to follow in the future. All of us are sitting here as representatives of the White voters of South Africa and as products of the special position of power which the Whites have. We are therefore all part of the structure, on whichever side of the House we may sit. We are therefore being faced almost immediately with drastic decisions about our future and the future of our country. As Whites we shall in the first instance have to decide what road we are going to travel in the future to ensure that all the peoples of South Africa may live in peace and may prosper. I believe not only that it is possible but also that it is indeed essential that Parliament should provide the strongest possible leadership in respect of what we must regard as matters of fundamental agreement, beyond party-political differences. For example, I refer to what occurred in certain circles in this country just after the general election in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. Suddenly we had a group of people and newspapers who lost their heads and maintained that the hour had struck for us, too, and that we should now make all haste to fetch Mr. Mandela to appear before the Government so that we could negotiate with him. [Interjections.] I want to state this clearly … [Interjections.] I am not attacking my colleague behind me. [Interjections.] We have discussed the matter … [Interjections.] … and we understand one another and I say that when the hon. member spoke, he spoke with the best intentions, and the party as such is not involved in that. As the hon. Leader of the Opposition said yesterday very clearly, the party is united as far as the issue of stated policy is concerned. [Interjections.]

What I want to refer to is those people in South Africa who, after the events in Rhodesia, lost all perspective and now just want to throw in the towel. I refer to one newspaper report concerning the “Free Mandela Campaign” which appeared in the Daily Mail—

How ridiculous can one get? That is why I said that I am suspicious of the aims of the petitioners and the organizers. I want to get to my point. I do not wish to mention names, because to me it is an issue of attitudes and not people. A woman who is a very important leader of a large women’s organization said the following, and this is the point I want to make. She said at the meeting in Johannesburg—

What she wants—and there are others who think this way—is that we should now waste no time in negotiating in bargaining, for so-called minority protection, as if we had no rights of our own. [Interjections.]

Order!

The whole point of departure is wrong … [Interjections.] … and what, apart from this, the people do not realize, is that there is no parallel between the situation in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and that in South Africa. In Rhodesia, even the party of Mr. Ian Smith—I do not wish to say that there are not lessons to be learnt from any situation, nor do I say that we should not learn the lessons that may be learnt from the Zimbabwe situation—never envisaged anything other than a unitary system of Government with a parliamentary structure based on the Westminster model. His model, too, was the Westminster system, and the outcome was that when his White domination collapsed under pressure of circumstances, he naturally had no choice but to negotiate for surrender within the system, for a subordinate status. That is the lesson we must learn.

Both sides of this House are in agreement that we are in a country with a plural society and that there is a variety of peoples and culture groups within our country, that this has nothing to do with the colour of their skin, and that all our population groups, each one of them, are in a minority position as against the whole. In other words, nationwise it is not in this country a simple question of a minority as against a majority. We are all minority groups, each of which has its own right to be safeguarded against domination by others, against oppression and against the loss of cultural identity and character. Accordingly we in this Parliament realize that in our circumstances we cannot continue to develop a political system based on the Westminster system with its built-in principles of “winner-takes-all” and “majority rule”. I believe that this message must be made clear to everyone outside Parliament. We on this side are certainly prepared to let everyone in South Africa know that we believe in the politics of negotiation. That is one of the foundation stones of our party. Then I must add that we are certainly not prepared to negotiate with anyone for surrender. The man who wants to come and negotiate for surrender would do better to stay at home. Nor are we prepared to negotiate for such a thing as minority status, whatever that may mean in the circumstances of South Africa. We are prepared, and we want to state this clearly, to seek co-operation and our whole policy is aimed at doing so, co-operation among all the different population groups in a new political structure in which there will be freedom and an equal status for all, but a structure which, in addition, eliminates the possibility that any of the peoples or culture groups in our country can attain a position in which they can dominate the others. It is the practical application and implementation of this standpoint that we should like to see, that the Whites should sort themselves out as soon as possible by means of the machinery of this Parliament, and we ought to do so without playing word games.

Yesterday I listened to the hon. the Minister of Police. He said, inter alia, that the sharing of power is out of the question. I ask him: Are we not playing word games that can only cause confusion? The hon. the Minister’s people talk about sharing of power. The Rapportryers, of which he was once a leader, talk about the sharing of power when they refer to the Government’s draft plans as submitted to the Schlebusch Commission. Prof. Gawie Cillié, chairman of the FAK—and I mention this merely as an example—said at the 50th anniversary celebrations of the FAK in Bloemfontein—

Therefore the hon. the Minister’s own people are talking about power-sharing. I do not mind if the hon. the Minister does not like the term “power-sharing”, or that power-sharing should go hand in hand with the greatest possible degree of division of power, because power-sharing always implies division of power, too, and the term power-sharing alone can therefore be misleading. What is also fundamental to the federalism and the confederalism that we advocate is the principle of decentralization of power, but in conjunction with a circumscribed field of joint decision-making. I want to put this to the hon. the Minister: According to the Government’s own proposals there must be a Cabinet Council, viz. a form of joint Cabinet Government, a Cabinet Council of White, Coloured and Indian representatives in which there will be joint decision-making or joint responsibility with regard to national affairs of common interest. I ask hon. members opposite: What would we call that? What name would hon. members give that? In point four of the hon. the Prime Minister’s 12-point plan he announces that as far as the Whites, the Indians and the Coloureds are concerned there must be division of power, in conjunction with “a system of consultation and joint responsibilities where matters of common interest are involved”. I do not want to look for trouble, but is joint responsibility, sharing of responsibility on matters of common interest, not tantamount to sharing of power, however limited it may be? As I have said, we do not mind using different words for the same concept if it would help, because what counts ultimately is the type of structure or structures we are going to bring into being in practice. That is why the commission, on the Constitution, the Schlebusch Commission, on which all parties have a seat, is of such paramount importance.

When the commission sat in the Cape recently and the Administrator of the Cape entertained the commission, he said that he regarded the commission as the most important commission in the history of South Africa. Time will tell whether this will in fact be the case. The task of the commission is certainly one of the most important in the history of the country. Outside and under the authority of this Parliament a whole variety of political structures for other population groups has come into being over the past decade. Some have been a success in the sense that they have been accepted by what I believe is the majority of the people for whom they were created. Here I refer to Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda. Other structures have not yet got off the ground properly, as in the case of the Indians, whereas that which has been created for the Coloureds has not been accepted at all and has collapsed. However, I concede that in spite of the opposition encountered and the partial failures there have been, the majority of efforts have had one clear, positive effect, and that is that among the most important population groups at least, both Black and Brown, sophisticated and democratic political parties have come into being with recognized and elected national leaders at the head of those parties. I advance the argument that the coming to the fore of elected and recognized national leadership in these groups and of established, democratic political parties is in my opinion far more important than the structures that gave rise to them, some of which were deficient. As members of Parliament we ought not to overlook that fact. I believe that that is the most important thing to have arisen out of that development.

I sympathize with the standpoint that we cannot ourselves simply appoint leaders and ask them to come and negotiate with us, whether or not they are committed communists who regard revolution as an aim in itself.

Hammer them, Japie.

However, I want to appeal to the Government and at the same time warn that where it has created structures from which truly elected national leaders and truly democratic political parties have evolved, it must consistently recognize those parties. We must then call them in to assist us in seeking an acceptable solution to our political problems, however difficult the process may sometimes be and however long it may take. If we do not do this and we do not reach an understanding with elected leaders and with democratic parties that have evolved out of the Government’s own creations, there is no hope that we shall find an acceptable solution in South Africa. Then our own credibility will collapse in ruins and we shall also be running the risk that these leaders and their parties will eventually, out of frustration, leave the path of democracy and peace and join those who choose revolution.

We on this side of the House are deeply concerned about the feelings that are running high in the Coloured community, the effect this has on the studying youth and the unrest which, according to what we read, is brewing at the schools. This could be a prelude to dangerous things. It is a pity that there has been a total break with the elected leaders of the Coloured community. In particular it is a pity that the Coloured Labour Party and the Schlebusch Commission have not been able to come together. We could discuss at length the question of whose fault that is, but whatever the facts of the matter are, I believe that the Government should regard it as a matter of principle not to withdraw its recognition of a group’s elected leaders where such leaders exist. In international politics, where one is dealing with the relations between countries, one has to negotiate with the elected leaders of a country, whether one wants to or not. One has no choice. In the case of South West Africa we even go so far as to negotiate with the United Nations. This is something that takes years. We are dealing with unreasonable people and we must display endless patience. Every inch of progress is achieved by the sweat of our brows. We ought not to apply other norms, or create the impressions that we apply other norms, when we have to negotiate with our own nations and communities.

The greatest shortcoming in our domestic situation is unfortunately the fact that we in this Parliament spend hours, sometimes months and sometimes years, in lengthy debates between party and party about matters of interest before steps are taken or legislation introduced. In the process standpoints are assessed, often tempered and often changed. There is a major shortcoming in the relations between our White parties in this Parliament and the Black and Brown parties outside Parliament. It is true that there is ad hoc liaison, talks are held periodically, visits are made to Soweto by the hon. the Prime Minister and to autonomous provinces by him and the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, and talks are held in their offices, all of which is well and good, but the basic weakness is still that the Coloureds drew up their own plans in isolation and are committed, while the Whites, for their part, do the same. There is no forum in which representatives of all groups are subjected to the process of extensive cross-debating on standpoints, the mutual understanding of standpoints and the elimination of what cannot stand up to the test of proper debating. I want to express the hope that such a forum will be created as part of the effort to reach a new and generally acceptable constitutional dispensation in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, it was very interesting to listen to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. In my view, he actually delivered an obituary to the PFP. Now, it is a fact that the hon. member has never yet missed the funeral of a political party in South Africa. [Interjections.] It is very obvious to us that he wishes to get out of the official Opposition before the coffin is lowered into the grave. After all, there is a very clear difference between the Government and the official Opposition. That difference was spelled out very clearly by the hon. the Minister of Police yesterday when he said we did not believe in power sharing. This was also stated very clearly by the hon. the Prime Minister when he participated in the no-confidence debate and stated what the policy of this side of the House was. However, the hon. member tried to do some fishing today while the Schlebusch Commission is still in session to investigate a future constitutional dispensation for South Africa and to make recommendations in that regard.

The hon. member says they have unity in their party, but really, while listening to him I could hear anything but sounds of unity in his party. He says they wish to negotiate with groups. One section of his party says they wish to negotiate with the communist group but with whom does the hon. member wish to negotiate? He has intimated that he does not wish to negotiate with those people. I want to ask him whether he is in the same party as the hon. members for Houghton and Pinelands. How could he try to make us believe that they support the same principles? No, that political party consists of only 19 members and those they obtained largely from a group of defectors from some party or other. They are sitting there today and they are still not able to reach unanimity.

However, I wish to turn to the budget. In the first place I wish to associate myself with hon. members who have congratulated the hon. the Minister of Finance on this excellent budget, the best South Africa has ever had. I can imagine with what jealous eyes the rest of the world are viewing this young Republic, a country which they regard as the polecat of the world. How is it possible that in such a country such an excellent budget could be presented? One can also imagine with what jealous eyes the Opposition are viewing this party. I think they would be willing to sacrifice anything to have the quality and the calibre of a Minister Owen Horwood in their ranks.

Having listened to the chief spokesman of the official Opposition on finance, the hon. member for Yeoville, it strikes one that it has been a long time since one last saw a man who could bumble along with his tongue in his cheek like that. I want to give him credit for at least succeeding in reading a speech better than anyone else I have heard do so in Parliament during the past 16 years. Even with all his reading he was not able to utilize all his time in expressing criticism of the Government. No, he reminded me of a Jaap Marais of old when he used that bunch of clippings to rant across the floor of the House and to try to cause embarrassment. I have never yet seen two persons so closely resembling each other as Jaap Marais and the hon. member for Yeoville. [Interjections.]

Looking at the budget before us, one has to analyse it and also give attention to the allegation that the necessary employment opportunities are not being created for people entering the labour market in South Africa. In this regard I wish to refer to two figures in particular. I wish to consider the amount that was appropriated last year. An amount of R11 480 million was provided then—only a mere 15% more than in the budget for the previous financial year. That indicates to us the basis that is being used in the light of the hon. the Minister’s announcement several years ago that he would apply strict financial control and discipline in South Africa.

If I may refer to a second amount, I should like to refer to the amount of R13 083 million that is being appropriated in this budget. This amounts to an increase of 14% or 15%, which is more or less equivalent to the inflation rate. Notwithstanding the fact that we have heard so much about the so-called gold “bonanza”, it is still true that the hon. the Minister of Finance, with financial restraint, decided not to make inordinate provision for Government spending in the present budget. As far as I am concerned this is of cardinal importance.

I wish to refer to a further aspect of this budget, namely, what the Government has in fact done to stimulate economic growth in South Africa. When we make an analysis we must not only consider the budget we are dealing with at the moment but also the budgets of the past three or four years. When we look at the budget of 1977 again, we cannot help remembering the ghastly economic position in which South Africa found herself at the time. At a time when there was no confidence in the economy of South Africa it was this hon. Minister of Finance who announced that money was being pumped into the economy to generate confidence among the industrialists of South Africa, even though this was to be done by way of Government spending. He followed this up with certain further announcements. Only the year after, 1978, the final phase of this was ushered in. What did the hon. the Minister do then? To ensure that the individual, the company, the entrepreneur, would benefit financially, the hon. the Minister announced that the surcharge of 10% on normal tax was being abolished. He also made a concession to companies by way of a rebate of 2,5% and, furthermore, he also repaid loan levies to individuals and to companies. That was in 1978. That put back hundred of millions of rands into the pockets of people in the private sector.

What did we find in last year’s budget? The hon. the Minister continued with his disciplined policy when he stated: “We grow from strength.” What did he do then? He immediately made certain announcements again. One of them was that a rebate of 2,5% was being granted on the taxes of diamond mines and gold mines. Last year, the hon. the Minister also reduced the loan levy from 15% to 10%, a step which injected more than R100 million into the South African economy. Then, moreover, he increased the primary rebates in respect of every single tax payer and once again he repaid loan levies. In that way an amount of R762 million was canalized back into the private sector. These were the positive things the Government did.

Shortly after the hon. the Minister had disposed of last year’s budget here in the House, other problems arose which could have disturbed the balance of the economy. That was when the prices of oil and fuel were increased once again. However, with a man such as the hon. the Minister of Finance at the helm, it was fortunately possible to tell us in September of last year that the economy was receiving a further injection by way of an amount of more than R511 million.

Oh, how you are praising that hon. Minister!

I knew the hon. member for Orange Grove would react with jealousy. I also know that it is not in the interests of his party that South Africa should progress. [Interjections.] He and his party always want South Africa’s image to be harmed. [Interjections.]

However, that was what was done. Last year, the hon. the Minister injected more than R511 million into the economy to restore its wavering balance.

And now we have come to this year’s budget.

The hon. member for Smithfield spelled out very clearly the concessions this year’s budget entails. For example, there is an amount of R651 million involved in the abolition of the loan levy as well as tax concessions over a wide spectrum to the amount of R365 million. There is an amount of R544 million in respect of tax reforms. When we consider the positive steps the Government has taken during the past three or four years, we find these make up a total amount of R1 560 million. We find that an amount of more than R3 000 million has been injected into the private sector. What greater stimulus could there be for the economy and the individual than an injection of more than R3 000 million into the private sector? After all, these are the people who create employment opportunities. It is also generally accepted that when one pumps money into the private sector one stimulates development because development by the government sector is far more capital-intensive than that of the private sector. So that is what the Government has done, but the hon. member for Parktown still makes the accusation that unemployment is increasing and that it is not possible to take proper care of people. This is, of course, a reference to the Black people. It is said that their standard of living should be improved.

Let us consider that. What is the unemployment situation? This is, of course, a problem which is not peculiar to South Africa. It is a world-wide problem. The Government has also devoted its attention to this matter. The unemployment figure for Whites, Asians and Coloureds was, according to the latest figures, approximately 25 000 at the end of January—a mere 1,1%. It would be foolish and wrong not to admit that we are in fact faced with an unemployment problem in respect of the Black people. However, this problem has continued to receive the serious attention of the Government. It has always been priority number one. However, we must also look at the positive side. It was the hon. member for Yeoville who attacked the Government and said we were not improving the people’s standard of living. Well, we know his old slogan: “You are feeding the fat cats.” [Interjections.] However, he is one of the biggest “fat cats” in this House. That is the charge that is being made. However, we need merely consider the development of our national Black States around us. After all, that is priority number one since we are encountering an influx of that human material on to the labour market and they have to be accommodated in the Republic of South Africa. It would be stupid if one were not to devote serious attention to this matter. That is why we have an Economic Development Council to determine what the need will be and what percentage of growth will have to be maintained to cope with unemployment problems. Between 1978 and 1987 it will have to be between 5% and 6% if we are to overcome that problem.

However, let us look at the development of the national Black States. It is in accordance with the policy of this party to lead them to full and equal autonomy so that they can be self-sufficient in the future. Let us consider the money that has been spent in our Black States during the past few years. It is not always so easy to develop all those States in the same way and at the same rate because one also has to consider the possible resources which the States involved have at their disposal and one also has to consider their geographical location. Perhaps we do not experience this problem to the same extent with Bophuthatswana and KwaZulu because they are linked to the regional economies of the PWV-area and of Durban and Pinetown.

Let us consider what the Government has done to set development in motion. I sincerely believe—and every Nationalist does— that we should do everything in our power to develop the heart-land of those Black States because that is where their prosperity and ours lies. Let us consider the expenditure over the past few years. Let us just consider what the development corporations have spent in those territories. Let us take, for example, the period from 1970 to 1978.

I want to quote a few figures. I want now to refer to the total assets of the development corporations in those states. One finds that these had increased from R400 million to R1 650 million by 1978. They therefore increased by more than 312%. Let us consider the capital investment of the development corporations and the industries in the border areas and also the amount expended in the national Black States. During the past year it amounted to altogether R1 550 million. We could also subject this to other tests. Hon. members accuse the NP of not looking after the welfare of and of doing nothing for the upliftment of the lesser privileged and for the upliftment of the Black man in this country. Let us consider how the real purchasing power in the national Black States and of the Black man in White South Africa has increased. It has increased from R237 million to R639 million. That is an increase of more than 170% between 1970 and 1976. That is the test to be applied. When we consider how the real purchasing power of the Black man in the Republic of South Africa has increased we find that it was not 170% over that period but only 61%.

Let us now consider the expenditure by the national Black governments in their respective territories. That expenditure, too, affects development and creates employment opportunities. This expenditure increased from R187 million in 1970-’71 to R1 130 million in 1978-’79. So there was an increase of more than 500%. That shows what this side of the House has done.

I now want to draw the attention of hon. members to another very interesting figure. To my mind this is a significant figure. Let us consider the development aid which the Republic of South Africa has given to the national Black States. Let us also measure this against the development aid on the part of the DAC States, those 17 countries that are members of a committee for development aid to the developing States in Africa, Asia and the rest of the world. The Opposition accuses us of not uplifting our people but if we consider the relevant figures we find that in 1976—unfortunately, I do not have the latest figures—this small country, the Republic of South Africa, gave aid to the extent of 2,52% of its gross national income. If we compare this with the assistance which the DAC countries gave to the developing States in Africa and in the rest of the world, we find that that assistance amounted to only 0,97% of their gross national income. In the case of the mighty USA which points a finger at the contributions of South Africa, the contribution was only 0,79% and in the case of Australia, only 0,57%. When we express the development aid which the Black man received as a per capita amount, we find that the assistance which he received from this Government was R73 as against the meagre R17 which the developing countries received from the DAC countries. That is the test to be applied.

They are not comparable.

I now wish to address myself to the Opposition and to point out the positive things that have been done. Before doing so I wish to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister in connection with two other matters. I appreciate it very much that we have been able to note that from this year’s surplus an additional R10 million has been appropriated for assistance on behalf of small businessmen. There is talk of the elimination of discrimination. I wish to plead today for the elimination of discrimination against married women when it comes to tax concessions.

The Minister must listen now.

I know it creates problems. Normally the married woman works with her husband in the small business undertaking. These are people who work long hours and who are productive. However, if the wife and her husband work for the same company, she does not receive the relevant concession which has now been increased from R900 to R1 200. When she works for somebody else, however, she does in fact receive it. I know this creates problems. There could be lacunae or anomalies where this could be abused, but I do wish to make a sincere appeal to the hon. the Minister to go into this matter thoroughly and to see to it that in small business undertakings where a husband and his wife have started their life’s task together and work together and one jointly making their rightful contribution in the interests of their fatherland, they should not be worse off than other people.

I am grateful that out of the surplus in the budget provision has also been made for the development of the independent States on a project basis. A further R15 million has also been appropriated for the Department of Co-operation and Development. My second plea is consequently that we should think more intensively in terms of undertaking the financing of our national Black States on a planned project basis. We have to see to it that this takes place on a planned project basis and it will also be necessary to look into the labour-intensiveness of such projects because this will also help to create employment opportunities.

I want now to devote myself to the official Opposition, the people who are accusing us all the time and asking what we are doing for South Africa. They ask what we are doing to create employment opportunities. I have already indicated the positive steps the Government has taken but what are the hon. members of the Opposition doing? Every time the Government does something good, there is nothing but criticism on their part because they are a negative party and realize that they can never dream of forming an alternative Government at the polls. So they look for other ways and means. They vilify the image of their own fatherland on every occasion when they have the opportunity to do so. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must not blame me for taking him to task for what he said after the terrorist attack at Silverton. Perhaps he did not mean it that way but although he paid tribute to the police and said they had taken the correct action, there is still a big question mark over his statement as to whether those terrorists did not have the right to act in that way at Silverton. The question is: What are they trying to achieve by that? I have never yet heard the hon. member for Pinelands say anything positive about his own fatherland.

Never.

No, never. He is always associating with underground movements. He maintains that Mandela, a listed communist…

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the words “underground movements”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them. He associates with movements that are doing harm to South Africa. He is the man who attended a Nusas meeting …

Order! The hon. member has made a statement with the same meaning by using other words. The hon. member must withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it, but he has never yet done anything positive in the interests of South Africa. What does the hon. member seek to achieve by his plea that Mandela, a listed communist, should be released? Does he no longer believe in the democratic system? Another member of his party said here that they were prepared to negotiate with all groups. The hon. member for Houghton said she would negotiate with the communists. The hon. member for Walmer asked the hon. member for Pinelands whether he would sign the petition for the release of Mandela, and his reply was: “Sure. Will you?” He asked the hon. member for Houghton whether she would sign the petition for the release of Mandela and the hon. member for Hillbrow said: “Sure she will.” What do they want to do to South Africa by hob-nobbing with those people?

The Government is striving to improve the standard of living of all our people in a positive way, whether they be Coloured or Black. We have been living with these people now for more than 300 years. We cannot wish them away from this southernmost point of Africa but this Government is prepared to do its rightful share so that there can be a livelihood for everyone at this southern tip of Africa. Those people have no interest in that. They have only one interest, namely to get rid of the NP, because they believe that is the only way in which they will ever possibly obtain a co-say in this country. I say unequivocally that I have misgivings about their patriotism towards the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark when he says that this year’s budget is in many respects unique. Perhaps the uniqueness of this budget lies in the very fact, if I may put it in the words of the hon. the Minister of Finance himself, that it reflects the inherent strength of the South African economy and the exciting prospects for a higher standard of living for all population groups.

Since the total onslaught on the inhabitants of South Africa is increasing in ferocity every day, it is extremely important for us that this should be the case. Dr. Anton Rupert, too, underlined this fact, when he said at the Carlton conference that the strength of a country depends upon its economic preparedness. We must promote this in the interests of everyone in order to afford everyone the hope and the knowledge of a better future. Therefore, this budget should also be seen in the light of Government’s earnest intention of warding off the total onslaught on South Africa by improving the living conditions of all population groups in South Africa.

If one reviews the events in Africa in recent times, one notices that the human rights of the White minorities have been trampled upon by Black racism. Those people have been oppressed, expropriated, deported or murdered. Among those people have even been the missionaries who had devoted their lives to the Black people. That is why one can understand that the skilled White man who has already partly civilized Black Africa, is now obviously shocked and worried about the future because of the famine and chaos being created by Marxist terrorists.

The traditional colonial territories in Africa were taken by surprise by the winds of change, with Black nationalist revolution, before evolution could take place. Selfish capitalism which wanted to retain everything, is now in danger of losing everything. Selfish capitalism in the Portuguese colonies, where 1% of the population owned all business enterprises and where the masses of workers owned very little, proved to be an outstanding breeding ground for communism.

In this way Russia with its communist agitators is exploiting the poverty and the ignorance of Black Africa in order to obtain its resources. The majority of the poor become freedom fighters in order to rob the minority of skilled people of their wealth and freedom. What is ironic, of course, is that that wealth vanishes in the Marxist system and that the erstwhile freedom is replaced by the yoke of a one-party dictatorship. We must accept, however, that the underdeveloped Black man is an easy prey to the communist, and the communist incites him to rob the capitalist of his wealth. He does not realize, however, that prosperity is created by knowledge, initiative and enterprise.

In view of Russia’s communist imperialism in Africa, the White man in South Africa is called, therefore, to make himself indispensable as the developer and the civilizer, for which he is better equipped than the Cuban. Underdevelopment and poverty, which is the breeding ground for Marxist revolution, must be eliminated by increasing the spiritual and material level of prosperity of all the population groups in South Africa.

In so far as the budget seeks to contribute to this objective, it will certainly meet with the approval and appreciation of everyone who means well as regards the future of South Africa. This challenge of improving the living conditions of all population groups in South Africa can only be met, however, if we can succeed in taking into account the realities with which we are confronted. Political ideals are often modified by the harsh realities. Ideal choices as one should like to have them, are not always possible. Circumstances over which one does not always have control, can limit one’s choice so that it becomes a choice of, if not the best, then the best available.

Thus it was for years the ideal to develop all the Blacks in their own areas under White trusteeship towards self-government in their own homelands. Economic realities, however, show that since 1933 a period of marked growth has occurred with the urbanization of 300 000 poor whites as well as Blacks because of the absorptive power of the large growth poles. Despite all endeavours to spur the development in Black States, to decentralize industries and to stimulate border industry development, there are 10 million Black people in their own territories and 10 million Black people in the White territory. This is a reality which we have to face.

It is a further reality that the Black man cannot make a living without the job opportunities in the White areas. On the other hand, it is also true that the White economy cannot function without Black labour.

The size and extent of the numerous Black urban residential areas are already such that even if the influx were to be halted, the natural increase in their population would virtually double within the foreseeable future. It is estimated that the 8 million urbanized Blacks will increase by 10 million to 18 million by the year 2000. Therefore one cannot simply close one’s mind to these areas. In the coming century the White population in South Africa will probably stabilize at approximately 5 million, while the number of Blacks in the cities will grow from 18 million in the year 2000 to 40 million in the year 2020. The fact that the Blacks in the urban areas are permanently with us is, therefore, a reality which we shall have to accept and which we shall have to learn to adapt ourselves to.

The handling of population problems will have to take place within a new dispensation in which one-sided and paternalistic decisions will no longer be possible. A bigger share in the consultation will have to be given to the other population groups as well. For that reason it is certainly essential that a say of some kind will be included for the Blacks in the urban areas in the concept of a constellation of States as already envisaged by the hon. the Prime Minister.

If it is our aim to improve the living conditions of all population groups in South Africa, we shall have to accept that it will also be our task and responsibility to do so within the Black urban areas. Since the Black urban areas have come to stay, we shall also have to help create more decent conditions for the Black people there. There can be no doubt that the Black man in the city has become one of our greatest responsibilities today.

Unfortunately the Black man in the city is also the best potential material for a communist breeding ground today. Our task of leading Black labour along the road of development and civilization, will be determined in the Black residential areas by the self-realization of these people on the economic, political and social levels. The future of the White man is going to be determined to a large extent by the spiritual and the material level of prosperity of the Black man working for him.

South Africa’s problem as regards the enormous population explosion has become a world problem today. Rich countries are becoming richer, while their numbers are decreasing in relation to the poorer countries, which are becoming poorer while their populations are increasing. In respect of the population explosion, too, the only practical law which limits unbridled population growth, is that of responsibility and civilized ideals which go hand in hand with development.

The National government is committed to a policy of improving the living conditions of all population groups. This is an enormous task and a policy which is not always popular to sell. Unfortunately it is also true that the political slogans and ideals which often sell best, are usually impracticable and cannot be implemented. That is why it is so that simple-minded adherents of slogans ranging from “Kafferboetie” to a call of “one man, one vote” cannot contribute anything towards guiding the future of South Africa along a safe road. The White and the Black racist, both of whom discriminate, exploit and polarize hatred, are both responsible for sowing revolution and chaos. The uncivilized ones are a breeding ground for Marxism and consequently it is our task and calling to civilize the Black masses.

Our choice is between evolution or revolution, equal opportunities or discrimination and hatred. Christian human dignity does not mean selling out the White man, but his salvation through his indispensability. The White man of South Africa has a calling to lead the Black peoples along the road of independence and civilization. He has a calling to halt, in this way, lust for power of Soviet imperialism in Southern Africa. Therefore, this is the task which has fallen to the White man in South Africa: to fight for his survival with the civilized weapons of generous prosperity, partnership in development, ethnic liberty and equal opportunity on the basis of law, order and justice. These are all counters to revolution, communism, dictatorship and chaos.

Therefore I believe that the budget testifies to our acceptance of that task and our will to solve the problems of the whole earth in microcosm as the guinea-pig of the whole world.

Mr. Speaker, the speech by the hon. member for Geduld who has just resumed his seat, came like a breath of fresh air in the present political discussion, and I want to congratulate him on the fact that he pinpointed the fundamental issue in the present political set-up in South Africa. The hon. member understands the problems arising from South African politics and I think he also understands the answers and solutions they demand from us. I only wish that we could listen to more such speeches in the House. [Interjections.]

†There is no doubt that the issue raised by the hon. member for Geduld is one about which every thinking South African must have sleepless nights. That is why it is such a pity that so much time is spent in the House on matters which undermine the possibility of finding the solutions to these fundamental problems.

I now want to revert to the debate on Mandela which was initiated yesterday. I believe it was a calamitous demonstration of the consequences of polarization-thinking in politics and distracts attention from other fundamental issues. It plunged the House into discussing one particular person, a proven, convicted Marxist revolutionary, and whether he should be released and brought to the conference table to help to save South Africa from violence. We have now spent hours debating that subject.

On the one pole of the polarization stands a Government which, in an over-obvious, fumbling manoeuvre, was playing politics with a sensitive issue like this, using it to attack and attempt to smear its political opponents. However, I believe that in the process that attack was a serious set-back which damaged the initiative of the hon. the Prime Minister— almost in passing, as though it did not matter. On behalf of the Government the hon. the Minister of Police laid down conditions for dialogue and negotiation, conditions which almost guaranteed that few, if any, responsible and recognized Brown and Black leaders would be prepared to engage in such discussion and dialogue. To ensure effective dialogue we cannot enjoy the arrogance of saying that we will talk to others provided they agree with what we say, that we are only prepared to talk about certain things, and that all they will be able to do will be to agree or disagree with the detail within the framework we lay before them. That is the trouble with the NP Government and that is why the speech we have just heard was such a relief from the arrogant mental block of the NP, an attitude in terms of which everything it does must be done according to its rules and on its terms and in its way. I want to come back to this mental attitude towards South Africa’s problems later. It is an attitude which closes its eyes to the problems pin-pointed by the hon. member for Geduld, an attitude which says that those problems do not fit into our vision and therefore we do not see them. I shall come back to these later.

On the other pole of this polarized political thinking stands the hon. Leader of the Opposition, who walked right into the Government’s obvious trap. I believe that in the process of trying to defuse the differences within his own party, he too performed a disservice to South Africa. Let me look at those differences. This afternoon we heard the hon. member for Bezuidenhout saying that “we” stand for this, that and the other. I want to ask him who this “we” is.

It is all written in our programme. If you will only read.

Well, I am very interested to hear that he belongs to a party which accepts ethnic identity, which accepts the protection of minority groups as opposed to individuals, and which is not prepared to bargain for surrender or for an inferior status. If that is so, I think he finds himself in strange company. However, let us look at his attitude to the specific question of whether a proven and convicted Marxist revolutionary should be taken out of gaol and brought to the negotiating table to save South Africa from violence. [Interjections.] The debate was started by the Government, taken up by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and has become a political issue in respect of which any politician should state where he stands clearly and unequivocably.

I am not scared to stick my neck out and I am not equivocating or saying: “We are divided. This is my view and that is his view, we both belong to the same political party, but each of us can have different views.”! The hon. member for Bezuidenhout was very clear. He condemned the “free Mandela” campaign, but one of his colleagues is on a poster on which there is a picture as well as the heading “Free Mandela”. There is also the slogan “We stand by our leaders” and the name of the hon. member for Pinelands. How can two people in one party have such different views? One of them says, “We stand by our leaders” and the picture of the leader is that of Mandela. One member is supporting the leadership of Mandela and in the same party there is another member who says that he rejects the campaign for the freeing of Mandela. [Interjections.] I do not think I can be accused of sucking it out of my thumb when I say there are divisions on this issue.

In the process there were some clever debating points made, from the Jameson raid to Robey Leibbrandt—I must admit it was well done; it embarrassed the Government and it was good debating—but it was a specious argument. When Robey Leibbrandt was released, there was an uproar in South Africa. There were protest gatherings and protest marches. The police were called out because there was rioting. Hon. members on that side took part in it; they were part of the protest against the release of Robey Leibbrandt.

Who?

I was part of the protest. Even hon. members on the Government side took part. The hon. the Minister of Community Development was one of the speakers at protest meetings. It was a cause of conflict. Now that release of Robey Leibbrandt is being used as a reason for taking somebody out of jail who will then become a symbol of peace and not of conflict.

No, that was not the point.

The hon. member says that was not the point, but the difference is that Robey Leibbrandt was a White person who was convicted of treason and Mandela is a Black person who was convicted of treason.

What concerns me is the apparent inability of the hon. Leader of the Opposition to appreciate the implications of what he said, because in effect he identified the South African situation with the situation in Rhodesia. In fact he was saying that in the same situation, by implication, we will have to find the same solution.

I did not say that.

He said by implication that we must talk with the revolutionaries to ensure that violence ceases.

Where did he say that?

That is the whole argument.

Quote his words.

The whole argument is that the Government must consider whether Mandela is a recognized leader who should be released …

Under what conditions?

On the acceptance of non-violence. On this basis a man who is convicted of murder can be released two days after his conviction. A murderer can be released on his acceptance of non-violence because two days after his conviction he says that he will not commit murder again. One lets him out because he is no longer a murderer as he has agreed never to <u>kill </u>another man.

There is another extremely serious implication, because there is something else it does—and this is the key point I want to make this afternoon: By this campaign you are saying to responsible moderate Brown and Black leadership in South Africa that the achievement of a peaceful solution is not within their capacity. The implication is clear. We are saying to responsible moderate Black and Brown leadership at every level that we shall never get a peaceful solution by talking with them; we have to take the revolutionaries out of jail and talk with them if we want to guarantee peace. I want to place clearly on record that I reject this slap in the face to Brown and Black leadership. [Interjections.] I reject this insult to responsible and moderate leadership. On every level, from the induna, the headman in the kraal, to paramount chiefs and chief ministers, in school committees in councils etc., there are people, Black and Brown, seeking a peaceful negotiated solution to South Africa’s problems. We dare not say to them that the solution to achieving peace in South Africa must come about by coming to terms with revolutionaries.

We must get our priorities right. This is the issue: What is the priority? Surely our priority in South Africa is to talk with responsible moderate non-White leadership first. I do not say that we shall never talk with the Mandelas. I do not say no revolutionary can be converted and see the light; therefore we shall never talk with them. “Never” is a word one does not use in politics. However, let us get our priorities right. The priority for South Africa, unless we are crazy, is to win the confidence and the co-operation and the goodwill of the moderates of all races. We should forge them into a common entity— White, Brown and Black—which should be so powerful that it would not matter then if there were a few revolutionaries, because the combined force of Brown, White and Black moderates would completely disarm the radicals and remove the cause and effect of violence and revolution.

This is a question of symbolism. It is not a question of whether Mandela is an accepted leader. It is making him a symbol of Marxist revolution. It is taking him out of the context of a convicted criminal and giving him a different status, making him the standard-bearer of the road to peace. I reject revolutionaries as standard bearers of peace. I prefer to talk with people like Buthelezi, Thebehali, Motlana— [Interjections.] yes, even Motlana, whom so many people say is a radical—with people who are prepared to negotiate for peace. I prefer to talk with people like Dr. Phatudi and Prof. Ntsanwisi. They are the people whom we have to talk with. These are our priorities.

Only two weeks ago I spoke with a young, articulate Black man, a highly educated and highly qualified Black man.

Evidently for the first time in your life. [Interjections.]

I might say, Mr. Speaker, I was talking with him in Zulu. [Interjections.] Amongst other things I have discussed was how I visited Soweto in 1938 and 1939 and 1940. It was then still known as Orlando. [Interjections.] This young man told me he was 36 years old, that he never knew Mandela, that he never knew what Mandela stood for. He said that what he was concerned with were objectives he could support and leaders whom he knew and could respect. To him, he said, Mandela was just a name in history. This was only two weeks ago. As it happened, it was not in Soweto, but in one of the homelands. This is the attitude of responsible Black leadership, and young Black leadership as well. We the White people, this Parliament, are making of this man a symbol of leadership which, I believe, he is not, not even among his own people. [Interjections.]

The last opinion poll I saw showed that 18% of urban Blacks recognized Mandela as having any leadership position in the political scene in South Africa. I do not believe that was an unbiased investigation either. What this is doing is sabotaging the hon. the Prime Minister’s own objectives, his own objective of a negotiated and peaceful future. From his own Cabinet Ministers we have arrogant qualifications for dialogue by their telling people: “This is what we will talk about; only this and nothing else.” We also see them antagonizing in advance the people we should be talking with. One of his own Cabinet colleagues undermines the hon. the Prime Minister’s initiative. The official Opposition has done exactly the same. I have an appeal I should like to make to hon. members opposite. The other day the Chief Minister of kwaZulu asked that when the NP spoke to Inkatha they should speak with the authority of the Prime Minister. Let us not blow our tops at the first sign of provocation. We have also been provoked. We have had all sorts of horrible things said about the NRP. One does not, however, suddenly lose one’s head and one’s temper at the first sign of provocation, because often that provocation is there simply to test the sincerity of one’s willingness to talk.

One can often iron out the misunderstandings and get them out of the way as easily as they came about in the first place. The worst arrogance of the White man, however, is in telling the Blacks who their leaders are, and here I agree with the statements that have been made indicating that the leadership must come from the ranks of the Black people themselves. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has put it better than I could. From the various bodies, from the elected leadership of the different communities, must come the leaders with whom we must negotiate. I want to congratulate the hon. member publicly, as I have done privately, on the courage with which he stated his clear point of view on this issue.

This is not a time in South Africa to put our backs to the wall and say that we must dig trenches and fight to the last man. I do not believe that we have passed the point of “no choice” in South Africa. What is implied by so many people today is that we have passed that point, and that the only choice left to us now is to sue for peace with the instigators of violence. To my mind we are not anywhere near having reached that point in South Africa, but I believe that we are on the road to it if we ourselves cannot see what is happening in this country. If we do not accelerate the dialogue, the process of talking to people, we will move to that point, but to suggest that we have passed the point and must now take people out of jail and sue for peace with them, is to my mind an unrealistic attitude that endangers the very thing we are trying to achieve, and that is a peaceful future. I believe that the hon. the Minister who was agreeing with me there does agree with me as sincerely as he agreed with the protest against the release of Roby Leibrandt at the time. He remembers that well. He and I were together in the same party. He realizes the bitterness and symbolism that was built up around this one man. He became the symbol of division, a symbol of conflict, and we have enough real symbols of conflict in South Africa without creating others. At this time we have dangers threatening us inside and outside South Africa. It is a time when our responsibilities in South West Africa and our responsibilities on our own borders, but particularly our responsibilities in those urban cities to which the hon. member for Geduld referred, lie heavily on our shoulders, and I believe that at a time like this it is unjust and unpatriotic to South Africa to launch the sort of attack that the hon. the Minister of Police launched for political purposes and to respond to it as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did. This is a time when people are looking to this Parliament for leadership, and that leadership has to be leadership that can inspire courage and faith in our ability to create and preserve a secure future. If we send out, from this Parliament, the impression that we are more concerned with fighting each other as political parties than we are with creating a peaceful future, we are destroying the one thing that people are looking for, and that is a sense of confidence, trust and belief in the future of this country. We do not want to have a “chicken run” from South Africa, but it rests in our hands whether we have a chicken run or not, and in particular whether the faith of the young people of this country is destroyed by our uncertainty. I therefore plead with the Government, and with all concerned in politics, to give the lead that will create that faith.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point made a very responsible speech, a speech for which I believe one can thank him. I want to single out one aspect of his speech in particular, the idea that an unnecessary kind of extolling of a so-called leader, a certain Mandela, is taking place here, a so-called extolling of a man who is in reality not a leader, but who is regarded as the kind of leader who seeks the violent overthrow of an existing constitutional system and order we have in South Africa. I think we have reached the stage where we have now said what there is to say about Mandela. The hon. the Minister closed the subject yesterday and the reply was “No”. The less we continue to debate this matter with one another, the better for South Africa in general.

There is another aspect of the hon. member’s speech to which I should like to react, i.e. the question of dialogue, the discussions we have to conduct with Black leaders on development, constitutional development, etc., in South Africa. The hon. member made the statement that we held discussions with these people on the basis of specific precepts, that we told them: “Look, if you do not agree with us on specific aspects, we cannot conduct a dialogue.” In this respect I cannot entirely agree with the hon. member. We have almost weekly discussions with Black leaders—and I am now referring in particular to Black leaders of the National States. These are political leaders, economic leaders and leaders on various other levels in the National States. When we do so, we do not go there with precepts. We determine their needs. How can we negotiate with these people if we do not know exactly what their needs are? One of their principal needs is to have work every day for their people in the National States. What is also of importance is the process of development in which we are engaged in connection with these National States. I want to make another very important statement as well. If one goes to these National States and negotiates with these people one feels the sparkle of enthusiasm in respect of the preservation of their State’s own identity or in respect of the movement towards a National State with its own sovereignty, with everything this implies for a nation which is proud of itself. I can give various examples of this. It is on this level that we have discussions with these people and we are achieving exceptionally great success in this way. If we can meet these most fundamental needs of these Black people, we are in a much better position to set in motion the additional development operations and then all the other aspects coalesce into one logical case which we can argue with these people.

Now it is a great pity that one of the highly respected hon. members of the Opposition, the hon. member for Mooi River—and I am sorry to hear that he unfortunately cannot be present here today owing to illness—made a biting attack the day before yesterday on the fundamental principle of the Government. I am sorry to have to react to his speech at this stage. He said, and it is a pity that a South African like Bill Sutton says something like this (Hansard, 14 April)—

Twice the hon. member used the words “sinks of poverty”. He went on to say that consolidation was an absolute failure. He said that it was a myth. I do not believe that we can still argue today on the question of whether consolidation is a success or not. Not even the Opposition can argue about that, because it is a debate which has been conducted in this House from as far back as 1936, i.e. that consolidation is essential, not only in the sense that we want to move in the direction of national independent States, but also because we had a fragmentation of communities, particularly in Natal, little labour colonies and backward areas. One of the objectives of consolidation has been to make additional land available, thus making consolidation of these areas and greater economic viability possible. The hon. member said that the hon. the Minister of Finance had in reality done nothing in his budget to promote the development of the Black people in this country. I am going to focus on one aspect which I think is the most important in so far as the budget and the development operations for Black people are concerned. This is the allocation the hon. the Minister made for an increased amount for land purchases. The hon. the Minister said that he was making an additional R15 million available from the surplus, which boosts the total consolidation budget to R89 million, as opposed to an amount of R57 million last year. This represents an increase of more than 41%. Seen against a total budget this R89 million does not sound like a large amount, but what is important is the use to which the R89 million is to be put. What is involved is land, and what is land? This is a very simple question. Land is the territory in which people must find their living space. Land is a production factor, it has a strategic value, it affords people the opportunity to obtain proprietary rights out of which good neighbourliness arises, from which territorial sovereignty and pride can develop for a nation. Land is the basis of any development and consequently this allocation is particularly important in this budget.

If we examine the land account in so far as the promises of the Government are concerned, I think it is necessary to make the following statement for the sake of the record. This year we shall have R32 million more than in the previous year, and this ought to enable us to purchase an additional 120 000 ha, provided we have the necessary machinery at our disposal to be able to make the valuations, offers, etc. Thus we are moving more rapidly in the direction of the fulfilment of the 1975 consolidation proposals. At present we still have to purchase approximately 360 000 ha. This is quota land. In addition we still have to purchase a further quantity of compensatory land approximately 930 000 ha in extent. If we were now to deduct 250 000 ha which belongs to the State and which can be transferred to the Trust free of charge, it means that we would still have to purchase a total of 788 000 ha of land. We are rapidly approaching that goal. These are large amounts of money that have to be spent for this purpose, but I am of the opinion that if our financial position allows there is a very strong possibility that we shall be able to finalize the 1975 consolidation proposals within the next five, or say eight years, although I do not want to commit the Government to this. The Government will shortly decide with what speed it will carry out this operation, and I think that the hon. the Minister and the Government have the good intention of accelerating this matter. What is very important when we discuss land purchases is that we should take certain precautionary measures to ensure that this land, these thousands of hectares that are being purchased, are properly utilized, because if we do not ensure that the land is properly utilized, it has a negative effect on the total economy of South Africa, to say nothing of the development of the Black States. Cognizance must be taken of the fact that the buying out of land also means the withdrawal of any existing production and operating systems on that land. If the Government buys out a farmer’s farm, we not only give him his money to go and establish himself elsewhere, but at the same time he withdraws his operating capital; he sells his stock, he removes his implements from the land and ceases his operational activities there. Consequently these are all things that have to be replaced in the process. What is involved, therefore, is not only the amount which is spent to buy out the land, for at the same time provision also has to be made for certain attendant development activities. It is perhaps necessary for me to refer to some of the programmes in the budget. For example there are programmes such as population settlement, which is a very important aspect, the provision of employment and the creation of income, the rendering of social services, the establishment of an infrastructure, etc. These developments are all necessary to be able to utilize the land properly. If we did not do so, the losses incurred in the utilization would also have to be taken into account as a cost item of the consolidation process. But what is our policy at present in respect of the utilization of land? As far as possible we create funds to enable the South African Development Trust to proceed with these various development activities. I can mention various figures and methods, inter alia, that as soon as withdrawal from the land has taken place, then, if we do not need the land for resettlement—and I shall have something to say about resettlement later—we afford the previous owner the opportunity of leasing the land in order to continue with the production processes in this way. If he withdraws from and does not wish to lease the land, and sound production projects are in progress on the properties, we transfer them to the EDC. The EDC has several fine projects in progress. The EDC itself, as the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark pointed out, has already invested a total asset of R1 600 million in the Black States. This is not only in agriculture but also in the sphere of industrial development, etc.

In the nature of things there is, of course, a great desire and a strong tendency among most of the Black States. As soon as the Government has bought out the land, they want it. This is only logical. Sometimes the Trust finds itself in the position, before it can cause proper development to take place, that the desire is so strong to obtain this land for the sake of settlement that the S.A. Development Trust has in certain cases transferred the land. In my Department we are taking a serious look at this situation, and once again this indicates to the Opposition the way in which we are causing development to take place in co-operation with and by way of dialogue with these people. At present we are discussing joint development projects and development agreements on specific farms with the local Governments and then, subject to those development agreements, transferring those various farms. This also means that additional financing has to be obtained for the Black State itself to allow these various developments to take place.

I want to refer to one other aspect in regard to the utilization of land which is extremely important and this concerns the question of resettlement. This is one of the greatest problems in our development process and is one of the basic objectives of consolidation. This is to eliminate black spots and to consolidate backward, run-down and stifled areas, surrounded by White economies, for their own people and for their own States and to create better living space for them in this way. This kind of resettlement—or so-called “forced removals”—is one of the things that has been politically stigmatized to such an extent in South Africa by certain persons and bodies that we are experiencing problems and resistance among some of our Black people, because they are constantly being incited against resettlement. Surely this is not a cruel action, for it is being done by means of negotiation with the various tribal authorities. I want to concede that in certain respects this is probably accompanied by inconvenience for many of these people. Hon. members should bear in mind that the resettlement process does not come from one side only. It comes from the Whites as well. We buy out the farms of White farmers who have lived there for three or four generations. They also make sacrifices to make land available so that certain of these activities can be carried out. However, one constantly has to deal with all kinds of Press reports on the resettlement of people in poorly situated areas. I am referring here to one of the most recent reports with passages such as “One of the crudest…”, “Magato People’s Misery Spells Serious Trouble”. So it continues “Government will fish out tribesmen, says Chief Magato.” These are ostensibly people who did not want to move. It is reported that we are now going to fish them out, persecute them and throw them into gaol. There is nothing of the kind. I carried out specific investigations in this regard. I went to examine many of these places and I want to say that where some of these tribes have been resettled they are in a far better position than the one they were in before. In truth, when we have to provide compensatory land, we give even more in order to make it more viable than, say, a small, struggling farming enterprise which a resettled person had in the backward area. I can furnish several examples—we can argue on this matter in the debate on the Vote—of tribal authorities who since they have been resettled, are in a far better financial position. They are also in a better position in the social sphere as well. The rumours that we simply load people onto the back of trucks and dump them in the veld are unfounded. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, Dr. Koornhof, is a Christian. He is a sincere type of person and not a person who desires confrontation with Black people. He would not allow anything of that nature. What do we do before we start a resettlement programme? A proper survey of the reception area is done. The basic infrastructure is established, amenities such as schools, clinics, water supply, etc. Transport facilities are created.

What about jobs?

That is discussed with them. Provision is even made for that. The Government is going to cause itself a tremendous number of problems if it dumps people in the middle of nowhere without providing work for them. We are not doing this. We are making every effort to prevent problems of this nature from arising.

In conclusion I want to say that if we cannot succeed in the resettlement programme we are going to experience great problems in implementing our consolidation policy. I have given thought to this matter and I do not believe I am wrong when I say that the enemies of consolidation are deliberately stigmatizing this resettlement programme among the Black people by means of the media at their disposal in order to make it impossible for the Government to implement its ethnic policy. But the time has arrived when many of these Black people have begun to reach other conclusions with regard to this matter. Why is this the case? This is the case because our intentions with our policy of consolidation are honest and sincere. The logic, reasonableness and fairness of our policy is now beginning to penetrate to the masses as well because we are conducting dialogue with them every day, as the hon. member for Durban Point expects us to do.

Mr. Speaker, from the very outset I want to say that I feel that the speech which has just been delivered by the hon. the Deputy Minister, was a very important one. Later on in the course of my speech I shall try to associate myself with his standpoint in a very modest way.

However, before I come to that, first of all I want to make the general statement that all of us who are present in this House today, every member of the Opposition and of the Government, started living in the year 1980. I know the NP from within and I know its creative ability, but because we are at the beginning of the ’eighties and because I want to participate in this debate, I listened very seriously to all the political arguments that were raised by hon. members of the Opposition in this House.

I want to say two things now. The first thing I want to say, is that the speech which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has just delivered, was an interesting one. I should like to tell him that. I believe that politics is the science of the possible. I want to tell him now that if I were a candidate in a constituency in which a small majority would turn the scale, as sure as fate I would have arranged for him to cast a postal vote.

A general, underlying noise which emanated from the Opposition side during this debate, was that the Government has lost its creative ability and that after so many years of being in power, the NP is no longer in a position to bring about change in South Africa. This was the underlying theme of the arguments raised by various hon. members of the Opposition. They created the impression of the NP being a springbok in a vast Karoo plain and tries to resist a summer drought instead of sniffing the wind to discover where the rain has fallen and then to go and quench his thirst. This was the general impression which the Opposition created of the governing party, its creative ability, its ability to change and its ability to adapt.

However, let us now take a look at the way in which Opposition politics in South Africa has been run since 1948. In which Opposition in any country of the world has there been greater stagnation in general, greater degeneration, greater decline, and if I may use an unpleasant word, greater coelacanthism than in the present official Opposition in this House in particular? What is the basic situation that we are dealing with today? This Government has been ruling South Africa for 32 years already, but if the bells ring in this building and an official vote has to be taken, the official Opposition must try to gather 15 people together so that a vote can be taken in this House. This is the situation in which the White Opposition finds itself in the House today. In spite of this, they accuse the Government of having lost its creative ability and being unable to make changes any longer.

I should like to express a few ideas today about this political terminology of change. I want to begin by saying that at the moment, under the Botha régime in this country, we are involved in political reconnaissance which has never been eclipsed in importance by any other events since 1910. Usually when a Government has been in power for many years, this results in static ideas and political attitudes, but at the moment policies and programmes are in the process of undergoing a thorough, extensive and, to be honest, even a painful revaluation in some crucial spheres.

It is this ability for self-regeneration of which we are being accused which is rendering White Opposition politics in South Africa sterile today and causing it to atrophy further. This philosophy, which I want to call the Botha philosophy, is not an unusual one when we consider the background of the long, historic years that the NP has been in power. In fact, throughout its entire existence, the NP Government has always accompanied its firm basic principles with a radical approach towards policy and methods which has made it an excellent instrument of orderly, evolutionary change, whilst retaining what is of value from the past. Where was Opposition politics that is now saying that the Government is not capable of change? Where has Opposition politics been, particularly since 1948 in view of the situations in the country? Just take three examples: Firstly, there is our Republican striving and the Republican order that we brought about, the order of political freedom. The NP was the first exponent of the principle of political freedom on the entire continent of Africa and it has achieved it in this period of time. Where was Opposition politics? Can what the NP has done, not be called change? Secondly, I take the entire process of industrialization in South Africa. Where was the Opposition?

I would like to know where the Government was …

In the third place I mention the magic formula by means of which we are in the process of accomplishing creative work with regard to separate territorial freedoms for the Black nations of South Africa. Where was Opposition politics in South Africa on the occasion of this dramatic, revolutionary change which was born of the NP? It is this very past of radical intrepidity which makes the National Government fit for the present which is in a state of ferment and the possibly stormy future which may be awaiting us. If this party has to change some of its own handiwork in the process or even has to demolish and rebuild it, why not? As I have known the party since 1948, it has the courage to do so.

Andries Treurnicht will not allow it.

We shall do so in any event. [Interjections.] I have already said what has been done and I am going to say what else has been done.

What is our greatest political challenge in this country in the year 1980? The answer is quite simple, viz. political freedom for everyone in the country. That is the answer.

The urban Blacks too?

Yes, we are coming to that. What is the National Government doing about this question and challenge?

It is doing too little.

In the first place, we are working on a new political dispensation for all South Africa’s non-Black people. I am not acquainted with the work of the Schlebusch Commission—I am not a member of the commission—but as a member of this party I am very sure of one thing this afternoon, viz. that no formula which does not have the implementation of equal rights as its clear ultimate objective, will comply with the demands of the present as regards the creation of the new formula. Particularly as a Bolander, who knows the Coloured people and who has always shown an interest in them throughout my political career, I should like to make the following remark: If I were to sum up the present situation with regard to White-Coloured relations in the Western Cape in particular, then I would be able to say three things very sincerely today. Difficult situations may arise. For instance, I am thinking of the difficult situation with which the hon. the Minister of Community Development is faced at the moment and which in my opinion he is handling brilliantly.

There may be such situations, but I am very, very sure of three things here today and these are viz.—I want to state them very briefly, without motivation—firstly, that there is a movement in the right direction as regards this situation. Secondly, there is promise, and thirdly there are reserves of goodwill which have been tapped in recent times with regard to this situation. People who are still talking about stagnation now, of insurmountable dead ends and everlasting suppression, are simply being stubborn. In this new, promising atmosphere to which I am referring, however, there is one aspect of which, I believe, the Coloured people in particular should take very, very serious note at this stage. The bombastic threats of the Labour Party to spoil the promising atmosphere to which I have referred, with “Black Power”—meaning a Coloured-Black united front—is absolutely stupid, inept politics at this stage. All the basic realities of South Africa are opposed to it at the moment. Is it not remarkable that this political game to which I have referred, is being stirred up at the moment by an English language press which calls Coloureds and Blacks “Blacks” indiscriminately. They draw no distinction between Black and Coloured people. They are indiscriminately referred to as “Blacks”.

When the Coloured people notice these things, they must always bear in mind that they are dealing here with something which is much tougher and more inexorable than the pathetic remnants of an imperialist era, which cannot stop hankering after a powerful Coloured vote to break the nationalist Afrikaner in this country. It is when Rev. Hendrickse lands in this political atmosphere, that he projects the image of being the Idi Amin of South African politics. He is violating the image of the Coloured people. He is not creating any love or confidence in South African politics as a whole today. He is not creating any love or confidence because he himself has too little of that.

Who in South Africa would ever mourn the fall of a Labour junta amongst the Coloured people in South Africa, if it were perhaps to happen tomorrow? The future of the Coloured people in this country is the future of the White people, and anyone who does not want to recognize this truth, is being just as unrealistic as the advocate of “baasskap” or the advocate of Black domination.

In conjunction with the previous hon. speaker I should also like to raise a few more ideas here. This concerns the question of more definite borders on the map of South Africa. In our search for freedom for all—to which I have already referred—in accepting power, the hon. the Prime Minister referred to the legislation of 1936 and said that it is not a sacred cow. When it suits people in politics, one sometimes has to listen to the argument that the Bantu Trust and Land Act, 1936, was definitely not meant as a measure for creating homelands for the underdeveloped Black nations of South Africa. This is the argument that they put forward when it suits them. With the attitude that the legislation of 1936 is not a sacred cow, the hon. the Prime Minister has put himself inexorably on the same path that the late Dr. H. F. Verwoerd travelled in South Africa, the path of political freedom through territorial division. If it is implemented fearlessly, this formula is a wonderful one. Allow me to predict that the time will come, when an H. F. Verwoerd and a P. W. Botha will both be lauded in time to come as fearless exponents of this magic formula.

The previous speaker referred to the fact that a specific territory inexorably and invariably forms part and parcel of political independence. Without that a national state or fatherland cannot exist. Nation and land are two sides of the same coin. Even the Jews with their own strong, cohesive identity—and hon. members of the PFP may do well to listen to this—could not achieve their own separate development for centuries until they had their own territory. The borders of that territory must be determined. There is no other alternative. Generally, borders are established as a result of wars. This Government, however, with its specific creative ability, wants to define those borders peacefully and justly. From a purely rational point of view, why are people prepared to die to keep the territory of a nation? Is it merely because such people are hoping to protect an economic asset, or is there also something much more irrational behind it? Why, for instance, are mercenaries much less motivated to fight for a strange country which is no patria of theirs? As we are seeking new, more clearly defined borders in a new dispensation at the moment, the issue is not capitulation on territorial claims, but the creation of a dispensation which strives for fairness for all and which tries to ensure the orderly, peaceful co-existence of all people in the subcontinent. The creation of fatherlands means that there has to be a geographic and pschycological basis upon which the relevant nationalism can establish and realize itself. Nations do not exist in the air.

If we in South Africa were to break away from a policy of territorial division today, there would be only two alternatives open to us. On the one hand Black majority rule in an undivided South Africa, and that is the politics of disaster, or a concealed form of colonialism and domination built into the state structure, and this, in essence, is a form of “baasskap”. During the visit of the Secretary-General of the UN, Mr. Hammarskjöld, during the ’sixties, a member of the Africa staff of his mission who was asked on one occasion what we must tell the countries abroad in order to create a better image of South Africa abroad. Do hon. members know what his answer was? His answer was: “Draw lines on the map of South Africa.” In other words, he said that we must point out the definite borders of our proposed free States. Since Mr. Hammarskjöld’s time, three Black fatherlands have already obtained their freedom in South Africa under this Government which is ostensibly unable to bring about change.

With the policy of homelands obtaining their freedom—take note—we have already made enormous changes to the face of South Africa, to both the Constitution and the borders, in comparison with what the founders of the Union ever had in mind. If I were to summarize my political view, I would put it like this. The South African problem is a problem of freedom. This is, in fact, a problem in the hearts of all the people of our country.

As I have already indicated, I see a totally new light under a Botha régime in three respects today, a new work of creation to be done, and no one sitting here can deny it today. Everyone who levelled the accusation that the Government has lost its creative ability over the years and can no longer bring about change, must listen now. Today we are in the first instance introducing a new light— take note—the joining of South Africa’s non-Black population groups within the same political set-up. Secondly, I see new momentum in the sense that we are going to define the borders on the map of South Africa more clearly.

The events at Mafeking recently are a fine example of what has already taken place in practice. I can mention something now which is history already. Two years ago I also requested here that Mafeking form part of Bophuthatswana and become its capital. At that time, my own political party rapped me over the knuckles. I can say this today. I can say this in a relaxed way. It is history. It just shows what creative ability the NP has.

The relief of Mafeking.

Furthermore—and I do not have the time to elaborate on it—we have a constellation of Black States in which our urban Bantu will also be involved in a meaningful way.

Having said all this, I want to say that deep in my heart I am concerned. In the practical implementation of the policy of separate development, if we begin to attach less value to the meaning of the numbers of Black people in our midst, it means that we are not being realistic about the dangerous implications which the future holds. In this respect I simply want to repeat the requests that I made in the past that the greater Western Cape always be considered as the habitat of South Africa’s non-Black people. If the presence of millions of Black people in the northern areas of our country even on a leasehold basis, is unavoidable, let it be so.

What do you think about Crossroads?

In the ’fifties and ’sixties the implications of such a situation were put by the NP in very sombre terms. This is history too. That is why I can say it here today. We on our part said that economic integration would invariably lead to political and social integration and consequently to the White man being overwhelmed. Today we are thinking of ways to clear ourselves from our earlier prognosis under the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister. Here I am referring in particular to the hon. the Prime Minister’s idea of a constellation of States in which the urban Black man will also have a say and in which he will be involved in a meaningful manner. [Interjections.] Where there is no vision, a nation dies; and the Government and the NP are acting with vision in this country today.

If on the other hand, in the Western Cape, the first part of our country that became civilized, we want to resist Black intrusion, I ask: Why not? Let me say why not. This is the central area of South Africa’s non-Black people. Just like the Jews with their strong cohesive identity and their distribution throughout the entire world, South Africa’s non-Black people also need a habitat where their hearts can beat.

When are you going to resign over Crossroads?

I am coming to that. In the history of this party and this Government the course that our party must take in this regard lies very clearly before us, unmistakably and as bright as silver. I cannot go into detail, and hon. members must listen carefully now. In 1840, cheap labour was used for the first time for building roads in the Western Cape. At the end of the last century, cheap Black labour—note the word “cheap”—was used to build the harbour at Table Bay. In 1902, the first Black location, the one at Ndabeni, was built for cheap Black labour in Cape Town. In 1954, Dr. H. F. Verwoerd expressed himself in very strong terms against Black penetration into the Western Cape in a speech on policy. In 1955 Dr. W. M. Eiselen, most probably one of the greatest brain-powers in South Africa, made his famous historical speech at Stellenbosch, in which he drew what was known as the historical Eiselen line in this regard. In 1960 Dr. Verwoerd once again confirmed the National Party’s intention of preventing Black penetration into the Western Cape. In 1964 levies were imposed on Black labour. In 1966 the late Deputy Minister Blaar Coetzee announced that Black labour in the priority area would be decreased by 5% annually. Chiefly due to opposition from industry, this measure was dropped later on. In 1967, the Physical Planning Act followed, in terms of which new factories, amongst others, were unable to make use of Black labour, but an economic boom—not the political aspect—in the late ’sixties caused this regulation to lose effect. In 1970, the Riekert Committee was appointed and this committee confirmed the policy that preference should be given to Coloured labour in the Western Cape. In 1976, the report of the Erika Theron Commission appeared and once again this commission confirmed the Government’s policy in this regard. Two years ago the Cape congress of the NP met under the leadership of the present hon. the Prime Minister and took its strict decisions against Black penetration into the Western Cape. Last year our present hon. Minister of Co-operation and Development made a strong statement about Black penetration in the Western Cape.

None of that is any use.

The hon. member must listen now. As I have tried to show hon. members, in the first instance, by means of change and by means of new creative work we are moving towards a new dispensation for South Africa’s non-Black people. Clearer borders are appearing on the map of South Africa and we are aiming at a constellation of Black States in which the urban Blacks will also be involved in a meaningful way. If all this takes place, I want to tell hon. members today that we cannot do it, just as Israel cannot do it. There are more Jews in America today than there are in Israel. This is what we will have to do in South Africa too. We shall have to build a geography, we shall have to have a geography and it is the geography here in the Western Cape that will be the habitat of South Africa’s non-Black people, who have not built their existence on the presence of a Black majority in that specific environment.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Moorreesburg has, I think, a reputation in this House for being something of a visionary. He has his own crystal ball into which he gazes. He sees visions of NP policy coming to fruition while many of those visions are not official NP policy at all. This afternoon he gave us an example of this. He is busy drawing his own lines on the map of South Africa, but I should like to know just how many of his colleagues would agree with the final result of the map as it emerges from the hand of the hon. member for Moorreesburg. The hon. member quoted the policies of Dr. Verwoerd and the present Prime Minister as being identical. He told us that the whole idea for the Western Cape as a preserve for what he calls the non-Black peoples of this country is in the process of being realized. It seems to me that the hon. member never walks into the streets of Cape Town and he does not walk into the townships of Langa, Nyanga, Guguletu and Crossroads because he imagines that the policy which was set out by Dr. Eiselen years ago has, in fact, succeeded. It is absolutely obvious to anybody who has eyes to see, or anybody who studies the demographic statistics of the Western Cape that the policy has been a dismal failure. It has, of course, been a failure for two reasons. The one is that the Black homelands have simply not provided the job opportunities to keep the people of the Ciskei and Transkei there. So they come and seek work in the nearest urban areas, which happens to be Cape Town and its environs or Port Elizabeth and its environs. The other reason of course is that the Coloured people are not about to do the jobs that have been so tenderly reserved for them. Therefore Black labour is used, whether the hon. member likes it or not.

I now want to come back to one or two other matters which have been raised in this budget debate and to perhaps add a few additional ones of my own. I want, firstly, to deal with the argument used by the hon. member for Florida, who I see is in the House and I hope will give me his attention, on the subject of the taxation of married women, which I know is a subject which interests the hon. the Minister very considerably as well. I want to tell the hon. member for Florida that after his excited remarks yesterday I doubt whether he will get the vote of a single married woman in the next election in Florida.

You do not understand the principles of taxation.

He was very interested to know what the policy of the PFP was about taxation for married women, and I must tell him it does not seem to me that this is really a subject that a caucus has to discuss. There is no fundamental party-political policy or principle involved. It is purely a matter of fiscal policy, and that changes every year, let me tell the hon. member. That is why we have a new Income Tax Bill every year. It is because the fiscal policy is geared to the economic situation at the time. I happen to believe, as many members of my party, if not all of them, that there is a very good case that can be made out for separate taxation for married women. If there is such a good case, then I think members of other parties should accept that as well. I am sure, for instance, that this is not a matter that the hon. the Minister would die for, although he has not changed the basis of taxation this year. I imagine that the hon. the Minister is open to conviction. If he were not, I do not believe that he would have ordered a departmental inquiry into this whole matter. Since then the hon. the Minister has received a petition, signed by 7 000 women in Durban, presented to him by the hon. member for Musgrave. He has also received a memorandum from the South African Society of Medical Women. I believe that some very excellent arguments were advanced in that memorandum, which I hope the hon. the Minister will study again.

There is a simple reply to the hon. member for Florida’s silly argument that it is unfair for single bread-winner families to be taxed at a higher level than families where there are two bread-winners in the family. The answer is very simple. There are two people in the second family who are contributing to the gross national product of South Africa. Therefore they deserve some additional reward. And, also, this unfair argument should surely then also be used in regard to families where sons and daughters are living in the household and are earning additional amounts. Those people are taxed separately, but they are still living in the same household and yet they are getting the benefit of separate taxation.

What if the husband takes a second job? That is a stupid argument.

He is a woman-hater.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister—and I am not going to dwell much longer on this subject—that women find it invidious not to have a separate tax identity. More and more women are entering highly-paid occupations. They have no tax privacy, but their husbands do have. So as far as the loss to the fiscus is concerned, I have to repeat that no in-depth study has been done either by the departmental inquiry committee or anybody else as to ascertain the loss which would be suffered by the fiscus in this regard. Other countries have an interest in the fiscal policy, but they do have separate taxation for married women. Canada has an elective tax system and many of the states in the United States have separate tax systems. The United States federal tax system certainly allows taxes to be levelled on each individual adult in the household. The United Kingdom is presently examining a whole new system of taxes and it is believed that the new system will not only give wives greater privacy of their income, but also allow them more independence in the way in which they handle their affairs. So I simply say to the hon. the Minister who used a rather irrelevant quotation from La Bruyère in his budget speech, that he should remember that although “a woman’s advice has little value, he who won’t take it is a fool”. That is a cervantes quotation, from Don Quixote.

I now want to come to the budget debate proper. It seemed to me that a budget debate is a very appropriate time to draw up a balance sheet of debits and credits, of goods promised and of goods actually delivered, and by so doing to try to assess the Government’s practical achievements as against all the glowing visions which have been paraded before our bemused eyes for the past year or so. In short, what I want to try to do is to measure what I call the delivery gap. There are items which one can enter on the credit side, such as the increased amount for Black education and Black training, although, as the hon. member for Parktown pointed out in his excellent speech yesterday, not nearly enough has gone into this. What will also hopefully be on the credit side are the results of Messrs. Rive’s and Knoetze’s endeavours to improve the lifestyle of the people in Soweto. But I believe that with all the goodwill in the world, the amount these two gentlemen have been allocated in order to try to make a small dent in the enormous housing backlog in the Black townships, is simply not going to help. An enormous shortfall has developed as a result of decades of neglect with regard to the building of houses in the township because of the ridiculous policy of “temporary sojourner” as far as the urban Black is concerned. The overall shortage has been estimated by Dr. Riekert as being approximately 141 000 houses in the Black townships in the so-called White areas and 126 000 hostel beds. He estimated that it would cost R764 million to wipe out the backlog. Therefore the current amount which is being allocated is less than one-tenth of that amount. In Soweto alone, an additional 2 000 houses per annum are required only to cope with the natural population increase, let alone to eliminate the shortfall which is now estimated at 32 000 houses by the Urban Foundation. Between 1970 and 1979, fewer than 10 000 houses were built in Soweto, which was less than half the number of houses required for the natural increase. This year, 3 620 houses are to be built, and this will be the first time that we have had any appreciable number of houses on the drawing board. All this is a very far cry from the affirmative action that is needed to revive Soweto and the other Black townships. I believe that we need heroic measures—and they are needed now—to rescue the Black townships from their dreary overcrowded state, which leads to an ominous increase in tension as the delivery gap widens between the promises that were made and the real changes which have in fact been effected. The townships need emergency measures, and I do not believe that the hon. the Minister is giving this the attention it requires. They need the kiss of life, and they need it now. The only channel that can provide the necessary finance is the central Government, and that is why I raise this issue here.

I hope that the Browne Committee will make some positive recommendations as far as financial aid from the central Government is concerned. In the meantime I should like to commend to the hon. the Minister, the suggestion that a special urban development fund for the townships should be created out of the gold profits which the State has absorbed. This suggestion was made by Mr. Kane Berman at a recent conference which was organized by the Institute for Race Relations. I believe it is absolutely essential that money be provided for infrastructure in townships, to build the necessary houses and also to find the land which is so desperately needed for the new housing schemes. The other side of the coin is that, apart from positive action which is so desperately needed to improve the quality of life of urban Blacks, it is equally important for the Government to refrain from provocative actions which increase racial tension. One such action is the proposal to increase rentals in Soweto by something like 60%, and that is only for starters. It is true that a considerable number of tenants in Soweto can afford to pay higher rental than what they are paying now, but it is equally true that a considerable number of tenants in Soweto cannot afford to pay one cent more than they are paying at the present time. Professor Nel of the Bureau of Market Research at Unisa stated in a recent report that the maximum a township household could afford to spend on rent and services, was 10% of its income. The survey, done by Markinor at the end of last year revealed that the income in the Black metropolitan areas actually dropped from R190 per month in September 1978 to R181 per month in September 1979, which means a decrease of 5%, while the inflation rate rose by 14,3% over the same period. Of course, the main reason for this decrease was due to unemployment in the households in the townships. Almost every second household in the townships under investigation, and those were on the Reef and in Johannesburg, Pretoria, Durban, Port Elizabeth and East London, reported that there were one or more unemployed persons in the household, of whom just under 50% belonged to the 16 to 24 year old age group. I think this is particularly important in view of the fact that it is the youth in the townships that are the most militant and the most radical. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to use his influence and to see to it that before the drastic step of raising rentals is taken, the Government should have much more information at its disposal about the capacity of people in those townships to pay, and more especially about the figures concerning median incomes, which I believe are much more significant figures than those concerning average incomes. As the hon. member for Parktown pointed out yesterday, those measures in the budget designed to stimulate the economy and to increase employment, are going to take a very long time to seep through the economy and to accommodate the unemployed young Blacks. As he also pointed out, there are inhibitions—I should say unnatural inhibitions—to this taking place. These are the inhibitions which have been introduced by the Government by virtue of its strictures on mobility of labour, both vertical and horizontal, by the Group Areas Act and by various other pieces of legislation. However, I do want to say again that to put up the rent before the economic cure has even started to be effective, is looking for trouble. The issue of rent hikes is a very explosive issue and the utmost caution should be exercised before hard-pressed people have to fork out more money for accommodation.

While I am on the subject of provocative actions, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I am absolutely appalled by the 20% increase in the price of bread. I believe the hon. the Minister should have moved heaven and earth to avoid taking that step. For psychological reasons, if for no other reasons, bread, of all things, should not have been raised at this time in our history. Surely the hon. the Minister does not want to go down in history as South Africa’s Marie Antoinette? Why did the hon. the Minister not raise the excise tax on cigarettes, tobacco and liquor just by a few cents? I am perfectly sure that had he done that, it would have provided him with the additional millions of rands which he required in order to maintain the old bread price.

Why stir up the Blacks in Port Elizabeth by detaining and banning men like Thozamile Botha when the strike at Ford Motors had just been settled? Why infuriate Blacks throughout South Africa by confiscating the passport of Bishop Desmond Tutu? That was a very spiteful action for the Government to take and it earned the Government no credit with thinking people in South Africa and with democratically-minded people overseas, as a letter I have just received from an official at Harvard University demonstrates. Harvard University happens to be a university which has so far resisted the pressure to sell its investments in companies that have interests in South Africa. The letter reads as follows—

Finally, I shall raise with the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development why there has been an exacerbation of racial hostility by accelerated pass raids, despite all his brave words at Palm Springs, and by invoking the Group Areas Act to extend the curfew on premises occupied by domestic employers. I feel the hon. the Minister will agree with me that the last thing that South Africa can afford is a recurrence of the widespread unrest which escalated through the Black townships from June 1976 to the end of 1977. The hon. the Minister also knows that the Cillié Commission told us nothing new when it said that it was hostility towards race discrimination and bitter resentment towards the policy of the Government which caused the unrest. Do not let us exacerbate these feelings.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton will forgive me if I do not deal with her subject directly. I do want to say, however, that I was surprised that the hon. member for Houghton did not get on the Mandela bandwagon. I had suspected that she would do so. [Interjections.] The only conclusion I can come to is that she listened carefully to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development when he asked us not to discuss this any further. Furthermore, it seems to me that after the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had said a few things here, and after the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had said a few things here, and after the hon. member for Durban Point had effectively taken the wind out of the sails of the PFP with his yellow poster, the hon. member for Houghton was politically astute enough to keep out of hot water. I shall leave her at that.

Over the past year or two in particular, I have been asking myself: What lies at the root of the differences between the policies of the NP and the PFP? There are some superficial differences which one can see, but what are really the basic, philosophic differences? Something else which has struck me in recent years is that we so often find people who argue that we cannot mix politics with culture. In fact, people have been heard to say that a politician should not meddle with culture. I want to say at once that it would be an evil day if this where to happen in South African politics. In the time available to me, I should like to indicate the essential difference between the standpoints of the governing party and the official Opposition.

I want to relate this at once to the concept of culture. I want to say that there are two complete misconceptions concerning the meaning of culture. Culture is limited by some people to the finest expressions of the human spirit, in the form of literature, poetry and music, i.e. it is a status symbol of the few. As against this, we have another misconception, i.e. the disparagement of culture as being an old-fashioned and outdated concept, something for the senile, the archconservatives, the old people, something which has quite gone out of fashion, like “velskoene”, powder-horns, crinolines and so on. However, culture does not belong only to those who wear a dress-shirt and a stiff collar, or only to people who go in for folk-dancing, or those who get serious about politics, or those who know about Chopin, Beethoven and so forth, or who have seen La Traviata or are acquainted with Uys Krige, Van Wyk Louw, Opperman and André Brink. Culture is not only a thing of the past. As soon as a nation becomes aware of new needs, new things are sought and found, and if no principles are given up in selecting and accepting what is new, it is usually enriching to add new things to one’s culture.

So the meaning of culture has been vacillating between “boeremusiek”, “velskoene” and “jukskei” on the one hand and refined concerts, cultural evenings and formal education on the other hand. However, I want to allege that culture is a very wide concept. The way of life of the simplest people and the philosophical thinking of the highly intellectual person both serve to enrich our culture. Culture means to create. It comes from the Latin word “cultura”, the verb of which is “colere”. It means to build, to cultivate, to decorate; thus, to work. It also means to create, for the future as well; to examine critically the new things which we see and hear around us, to strengthen the positive qualities which we find in them and to weaken and even to neutralize their negative qualities.

Culture cannot be separated from one’s view of life. Man’s view of life constitutes the foundation for his actions, the way in which he or his group creates culture every day. The Afrikaner has a Christian view of life, and for this reason, our culture has and must have a strongly Christian foundation.

I wish to express a few thoughts about culture and identity. Dr. P. J. Meyer, a very, very well-known person in cultural circles, wrote in 1974—

The preservation and development of the identity of the Afrikaner nation are justified and essential. There are many forces at work, especially in recent times, which try to convince us that national identity and ethnicity are outdated concepts. In fact, these forces are making serious attempts to instill a sense of guilt about it in a nation which values its identity. However, when I say that there is a very close connection between culture and identity, and want to add at once that there is a condition to which identity and ethnicity are subject, which in all fairness cannot be ignored. After a penetrating study of Christian and national identity, D. C. van Wyk wrote as follows last year—

Prof. Pieterse endorses this when he says—

This is extremely important. After all, the reproach is made from time to time that we should not concentrate on our own culture, because in doing so, we are allegedly doing an injustice to South Africanism. However, professor Pieterse goes on to say—

Now we come to something that is very important—

However, what is the essential characteristic of the culture of the Christian Afrikaner? I do not want to elaborate on this; I just want to mention it briefly. The first is our origin in the Word of God. This is Characteristic of the Afrikaner. It runs like a golden thread through the history of the Afrikaner nation, right from 1652. However, Afrikaner Christian culture has a second very important essential characteristic. That is its Calvinistic, Christian national view of life. The Afrikaner nation is the child of Calvinism. We can never get away from that. The Afrikaner nation believes that it was created by God and destined to fulfil a unique calling at the southern tip of Africa.

However, there is a third essential characteristic which I want to mention, and that is its unmistakable historic awareness. The trek is to the north. The bearers of the aspiration to be themselves are a part of this Afrikaner nation. To be a part of oneself, to realize oneself, means, in simple language, that to live is to become what one is. A third essential characteristic is, briefly, that the Afrikaner nation’s Christian national view of life also involves a political aspiration. It is the Afrikaner that is a child of the republican tradition. The Afrikaner is a republican to the marrow, and we cannot dissociate ourselves from that.

I now want to say a few words about the connection between culture and politics, before I come to the various policies. It is very difficult to distinguish culture from politics, because the Verklarende Handwoordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal, known as HAT, in its definition of culture as the concept which includes the total spiritual possessions of a nation in every sphere, includes in this the nation’s unique political experience and its political self-expression. History has shown that the Afrikaner’s political attitude, experience and self-expression are very closely interwoven with his Afrikaner identity. For this reason, it is very important to realize that political disunity has always harmed Afrikaner unity. In developing Afrikaner unity in the future, therefore, it is essential that attention should also be given to a political dispensation which will not make Afrikaner unity impossible. However, it is also necessary to point out that although culture and politics can never be separated in any absolute sense, it is of course the primary task of a cultural organization to engage in and to promote culture and not to promote party political interests, or attempt to derive party political gain from its cultural aspirations or cultural function, and this in spite of the fact that it cannot dissociate itself from the concepts of “culture” of “politics”.

The preservation and promotion of a unique culture forms the basis for good relations between nations. This is also one of the most urgent political problems of the Afrikaner people. I think that members of a particular group can only co-operate with another group spontaneously and without giving up their principles if they really form part of their own group and if they are safe and happy there and do not feel threatened by other groups. Then the foundation has been laid for cooperation, consultation and planning for the future. For this very reason Prof. Pieterse writes, among other things—

What is our present political division? I said at the outset that I have often pondered the question of why there is a difference between the policies of the NP and the official Opposition. From what I have already mentioned here, it is clear that the close connection between culture and politics already constitutes the difference between the policies of the NP and the PFP. The policy of the NP was born of the people and is rooted in the culture, the tradition and the history of the Afrikaner people. Because it accepts that this is also true of any other people, this governing party wishes all other population groups in this country to have the same experience and is enabling other groups to develop and engage in their politics on the basis of their own essential characteristics.

From the acceptance of the principle of the importance of culture, tradition, identity and heritage arises the very well-known cardinal policies of this party, which I want to mention briefly. The first is the recognition of the ethnic diversity which forms part of the acceptance of the fact that every nation has been destined to find itself in a specific geographic territory with a specific identity of its own. From the same acceptance arises the separation of nations, each with its own cultural and political aspirations. It is also basic to the policy of this party that it wishes a particular group to have its own geographic territory. I am thinking, for example, of the various Black ethnic groups. The acceptance of this principle also gives rise to the separate residential areas, a policy which was again spelt out very clearly by the hon. the Prime Minister in the no-confidence debate. This party, which builds its policy on the Afrikaner, believes that if different groups are present, such close social contact is bound to lead to the mixing of cultures. This also forms part of the principles we stand for. From the acceptance of this principle arises, too, the Government’s standpoint of no integration in schools, of separate schools. Culture and education cannot be separated. This is universally accepted. Therefore integrated schools are bound to lead to impersonal and empty education. It is also true, from the same point of view, that the policy of this Government is separate political institutions where every nation has the political right to further its own aims and to work out its own salvation. This also arises from the acceptance of that principle.

As against this, we have the official Opposition, which has exchanged national pride, national heritage, culture and traditions for universal human values. This is a conglomerate of all nations and a glorification of world citizenship. That is the official Opposition’s starting point in working out its policy. That is why we find that “one man, one vote” is the official standpoint of the official Opposition. Because they disregard the things I have mentioned, they also speak of a common voters’ roll and they work for this. That is why they have no residential segregation either. The so-called forced integration they sometimes want to hold up is a smokescreen. They will not fool anyone in that way. That is why they disregard culture and advocate integrated schools. That is why they also advocate social integration. That is why the hon. member for Johannesburg North also saw fit, as far back as May 1978, to advocate multiracial political parties before the PFP branch at Stellenbosch. It is because they already deny this basic principle. That is the reason why, as far as I am concerned, the PFP will never be anything but the small opposition party it is at the moment.

I want to tell the hon. members of the official Opposition and their leader that because they disregard the Afrikaner’s loyalty to his own people in their political policies and in the functioning of their politics, that party will never find acceptance in the soul of the Afrikaner people. What is more, that party will also be rejected by other ethnic groups, the Asians, the Coloureds and the various ethnic Black groups. I do not find it strange that that Opposition party is branded by some people as the so-called “pink liberals”, that they have already received the message that they will not be heard by other groups by whom they would like to be heard. No wonder that Chief Gatsha Buthelezi and the young Boraine have clashed. If it has not happened already, I am convinced that the day will also come when an original national cultural organization like Inkatha will eventually join battle with the PFP. They will do this because Inkatha, as a national cultural organization, will not be able to agree with the policy of the official Opposition, and will proceed from the same principle as the National Party in determining its policy.

Having said all this, I trust that the hon. members of the official Opposition will reflect on this if they have any desire to make a positive contribution, in the light of the difficult problems we have to contend with at the present moment, especially in respect of the relations between the various population groups.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity of discussing a matter which has attracted considerable attention in the remote border areas in Transvaal lately. It is probably a mere coincidence that two questions should have appeared on the Question Paper in the name of the hon. member for Wynberg today, indicating that he also wanted to fish in troubled waters in that area, as they usually do. According to question number 2 on the Question Paper, the hon. member wanted to know from the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries whether the Promotion of the Density of Population in Designated Areas Act had been brought into operation; if so, when; if not, (a) why not and (b) when the Act is expected to commence. In question number 10 on the Question Paper, the hon. member wanted to know from the hon. the Minister— this relates to the fishing aspect—whether agricultural unions have recently made representations to him in regard to the plight of farmers on the Northern Transvaal border; if so, (a) which unions, (b) when and (c) what was the nature of (i) the representations and (ii) his reply. Quite obviously it is a mere coincidence that I should want to discuss that area today.

Before I come to that subject, however, I should like to refer to a remark made one of the hon. member’s colleagues who also likes to fish, but he fishes in post offices. I am referring in this connection to the hon. member for Yeoville, who is unfortunately not in the House at the moment, but who made certain remarks about that area in my absence the other day. I notice from the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville in Hansard that he insisted that I rise and tell him whether the post office concerned should be open or closed to all races. From his speech it is clear to me that the hon. member’s arguments with regard to the budget had dried up and that he then attempted to fish in the Zeerust post office. I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville in his absence that he is welcome to pay a visit to that part of the world. He can pay us a visit and he will find that the post office is still open and I want to give the hon. member the assurance that even someone like he will be well received there. [Interjections.] I have often listened to the hon. member for Yeoville and I have often been sorry that the hon. member did not live in the political days of Langenhoven.

He would have sold skins in those days.

I think that if the hon. member had lived in those days, Langenhoven would have given one of his very well-known books a different title. He would not have spoken of Herrie op die Ou Tremspoor, but of “Harry op die Ou Dwaalspoor” … [Interjections.] … because that was what happened to the hon. member. The hon. member tried to fish everywhere and then he thought that the Zeerust area was the very place to catch something. I want to assure the hon. member that the Department of Posts and Telecommunications is continually planning to keep pace with new developments and with population concentrations which require the services of the department. Consequently facilities are being created for population groups and additional facilities are created where necessary. In the course of this, local authorities and other organized industrial organizations and bodies are consulted. Representations, from Zeerust as well, will therefore be properly investigated and will receive the attention of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications, as in all other cases.

I shall leave that matter at that, but I should also like to invite the hon. member for Yeoville to pay us a visit in the Bushveld some time and to hold a meeting there. I do not think there are many members of his party in those regions. He knows that we have had a severe drought and that many animals have died. There are lots of old skins and the hon. member could buy some skins there cheaply which he could peddle, instead of these post office stories.

What is your attitude about that matter? [Interjections.]

The border farmers in those areas have expressed general dissatisfaction about the fact that the Promotion of the Density of Population in Designated Areas Act will not be implemented this year, as had been generally expected, although the Government has intimated that the Act concerned will remain on the Statute Book and will if necessary be implemented in its entirety or in part when circumstances require.

The reason why I am discussing this matter in this debate and not under the Agricultural Vote is that it has become quite clear to everyone who takes an interest in the problems with which the farmers have to contend in that area that it is not a matter which affects only the Ministry of Agriculture. Because there is almost no department which is not involved in rendering assistance in those areas, I believe, as I shall indicate, that the representations for assistance, especially financial assistance, to the farmers of the designated areas can fruitfully be discussed during the Second Reading debate on this Bill.

If all the departments concerned could receive more financial assistance from the hon. the Minister of Finance to do what they have to do in the areas concerned, it would do much to create a sound infrastructure in those border areas and to make the areas more viable. An established, financially sound farming community is in the long run really the only reply to the doubt which exists about the future of those areas. To create such a community and to keep it there is not only the task and the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, as I have already said. Primarily, we know, the farmer and his needs and everything related to that are the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture, but I believe that if the hon. the Minister of Finance does not give special attention to making sufficient funds available to the Department of Agriculture and to the other departments to which I shall refer, we cannot expect to have the necessary measure of stability in those areas, that stability which is required in the first place so that the farmers in those areas, which are mainly meat-producing areas, will continue to produce meat to ensure an adequate meat supply for South Africa as well as for marketing abroad. This is a stability which is necessary so that we may keep a farming community on those important borders of our country, which is also important for national security.

Mention has already been made in debates earlier this year of the border farmers of the Transvaal who are somewhat disappointed about the fact that the recommendations of the Steyn Committee in respect of measures to promote the optimum occupation of the remote areas are not being implemented by the Government. These measures to promote the optimum occupation of the remote border areas, as recommended by the Steyn Committee, are contained in the Promotion of the Density of Population in Designated Areas Act which we passed last year.

In a nutshell, the intention with this Act was to render financial assistance to farmers so that they could settle on unoccupied farms in the border areas. The idea was to attract new farmers to those areas so that they could settle there in order to swell the numbers of the existing farming communities in those regions. It was a laudable idea. In fact, the assistance which was to be made available in terms of the said Act excited great interest. There were literally hundreds of inquiries and applications for assistance. Many of my hon. colleagues have also testified to the great interest and the many inquiries addressed to them by farmers and prospective farmers who wanted to settle in those areas and to make use of the attractive assistance envisaged in terms of the Act.

However, another purpose of this Act was to help farmers already settled in those areas to obtain bigger farming units so that they could continue their farming operations on a more economic basis. Everyone knows that the assistance envisaged in terms of this Act was equally attractive to the farmers already living in the border areas. There are many farmers who are already settled in the areas and who could benefit from this assistance. That is why one understands the measure of disappointment which arose from the fact that the Act concerned was not immediately implemented.

I think one should also consider the reasons why the Act was placed on the Statute Book at the time. I believe this is necessary, especially because we should show some realism in spite of all the disappointment During the recess last year, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture announced that the Act would not come into operation at once, and he furnished the reasons for this. The disappointment not only arose from the fact that the special benefits in terms of the Act would not be put into practice; expectations were in fact aroused which cannot be met at the moment.

There are a few things that need to be said, however. A great responsibility rests on the State and on the officials who ultimately have to implement the Act. The practical implementation of the Act would have cost the State a great deal of money, in order to resettle only a few farmers in the designated areas. No matter how anxious one is to provide the assistance envisaged in the Act, the realities had to be considered again. The Ministry of Agriculture cannot blindly try to push through a scheme which would have precisely the opposite effect of the one for which the farmers originally requested it, because that is exactly what would happen. Only a small number of farmers could be resettled, while the things the farmers actually asked for would not materialize.

I think it is essential that we should consider some aspects which have a direct bearing on the nature of the assistance which the border farmers actually desired, long before the Act concerned was passed. Over the years, at congresses and simposia, district agricultural unions in all the border areas concerned have repeatedly drawn the attention of the State to the serious depopulation which was taking place in those areas. The gravity of the situation regarding depopulation was increasingly underlined as it became more and more clear to all interested persons that the terrorist struggle in Mozambique, Angola and Rhodesia was lending a new urgency to the need for our borders to be more densely populated. Because of an increasing deterioration in the economic position of the border farmers and the fact that it was no longer possible to farm profitably in those areas, a spontaneous campaign has been launched by organized agriculture in the above-mentioned areas since the beginning of 1978 to bring the problems of the border farmers to the attention of the Government as a matter of urgency.

This campaign for assistance led to serious discussions at agricultural congresses, at various simposia and at party congresses, as we saw last year and the year before. Decisive factors which gave rise to an appeal to the Government to provide assistance in those areas included the drought conditions, dissatisfaction about the quota permit system for the marketing of livestock, the general dissatisfaction about low prices of products and high production costs, the enormous and completely untenable escalation of the burdens of debt of many of the farmers in those areas, the disappearance or lack of infrastructures and the continual withdrawal of basic services from those areas. These were all factors which caused organized agriculture to address serious representations to the State for urgent assistance. The Government did not ignore those representations and requests and undertook to provide assistance.

During November 1978, a committee, the Steyn Committee, was appointed to investigate conditions in the areas and to suggest steps to be taken by the Government in order to settle larger numbers of farmers in the areas again. There were also various subcommittees that gave attention to this. On two occasions I attended meetings held by the Steyn Committee in the areas concerned, and I also visited large parts of those areas with a sub-committee of the Steyn Committee. During the sessions which the Steyn Committee held at various places, memoranda were frequently submitted to the committee concerned. In the evidence that was given, all the problems already mentioned, which were being experienced by the border farmers, were very clearly highlighted. Short- and long-term assistance was requested to counter the problem of depopulation, but above all, the grave financial plight of the farmers was repeatedly pointed out and emphasized. In the memoranda submitted during discussions with the Steyn Committee, and also in the evidence given before the Committee, several priorities were repeatedly stated. The first priority that was stated was that the farmers who were still there should be helped to stay there. In the memorandum submitted by the agricultural union of the Zeerust district, one reads that it is urgently necessary, as the top first priority, to keep these people on their farms. In the same way, the agricultural union of the Thabazimbi district said in its memorandum that the first objective should be to keep the farmers on those farms.

I have already said that the hon. the deputy Minister of Agriculture revisited the areas concerned during the recess and told the farmers that the Promotion of the Density of Population in Designated Areas Act would not come into operation for the moment. It would not be repealed, but would in fact be put into operation when required. At the same time, the hon. the Deputy Minister announced a new aid scheme which was much more in accordance with what the farmers in those areas had actually asked for. The farmers who are still there should be helped to stay there. This is to a very large extent the purpose of the new aid scheme.

Louis, you should just add that the hon. the Minister of Finance has given us a provisional R10 million for that campaign.

There hon. members have heard it from the mouth of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. The assistance which is being provided at the moment is intended to keep the farmers there. Almost all the farmers very seriously emphasized this in their representations. The new aid scheme is a very favourable one. I can testify to many farmers in those areas who have already made use of that assistance and who are very satisfied with the conditions attached to the assistance which is being provided to our farmers under this scheme.

At the moment, however, it is still definitely only short-term assistance which is being provided. I want to make a serious plea that the hon. the Minister of Finance should give serious consideration to the possibility of making funds available to put the Act concerned into operation as soon as possible. There is a need for it, there is a demand for it. But I want to ask for more. I want to ask that active assistance should be rendered by the other departments in re-introducing the necessary infrastructures and that basic services should not be withdrawn from the areas. In speaking of infrastructures, I am thinking specifically of the problem surrounding our farm schools, and of our roads, and every time one approaches a province, they reply: When the central Government makes more funds available to us, we shall make available the roads you need in the remote areas. These are the representations I should like to address to the hon. the Minister of Finance. Railway services and post office agencies should be retained where possible. The people would appreciate it. There is a need for Escom power, police services and Defence Force bases to be made available, as well as irrigation dams. These are all infrastructures which definitely require a great deal of attention. As I have already said, it is not only the task of the Minister of Agriculture to make the border areas viable and attractive again. All Government departments must help. The hon. member for Schweitzer-Reneke, Mr. Hennie van der Walt, recently pleaded for benefits to be accorded the border farmers similar to those that border industries receive. Assistance of this kind would also be greatly appreciated in the areas, because they would be another factor which would keep our people there and would attract people back to these areas.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the argument by the hon. member for Marico. I do not have the knowledge to carry on the argument with him, for he is obviously an expert in the field which he discussed. Apart from that, I feel that his argument was actually directed at the hon. the Minister of Finance rather than at this side of the House. As far as the hon. member for Virginia is concerned, I was tempted to argue with him a little because his cultural philosophy, if I may call it that, is not the same as mine. I feel that there is room in South Africa for an acceptance of a wider culture which must be available to everyone who grows up in this country and shares in the broad civilization which is developing here. I now, however, want to leave the matter at that. Perhaps we shall have the opportunity of taking it further later.

I want to come to the financial aspects of the debate.

†I want to say to the hon. the Minister of Finance that I shall be dealing with a single financial matter because of the limited time. I hope that, since there has been a dearth of economic substance today in the debate, the hon. the Minister will welcome this modest drop of moisture which I shall endeavour to sprinkle on the desert which we have had. I believe that it is right to start by saying that the budget has considerable merit. It is a budget which took advantage of a situation which, though possibly of an uncovenanted nature, did give South Africa the opportunity to make large strides in directions which will be beneficial for the future development and growth of the country. I believe the hon. the Minister deserves praise, not only for that, but also for the fact that he was able nevertheless to maintain discipline over State spending. It is believed by many economists that discipline over the money supply and State spending is the key feature in any attempt one might wish to make to control inflation, and I believe the hon. the Minister has displayed firmness of character in this respect.

I want to speak essentially about the problem of inflation. I want to say to the hon. the Minister at the outset that even though I have praised him for his achievement in respect of the discipline over the expenditure by the State and the creation of money, that he must not assume that he will on this account succeed in controlling inflation. It has become fashionable to speak about inflation as though it were a kind of disease. I believe the metaphor is misleading. This evil is much more than a disease which can be cured by a specific drug. I do not believe there is any single way in which it can be cured. In recent economic writings it is argued that we have come to adopt a wrong approach to it by believing that the kind of inflation which exists in modern economies today is one that can still be cured by the old specifics, by the old conventional remedies, whereas it has become a functional thing, it has become part of the evolutionary mechanism of the modern free-market society. I believe that if we are going to approach this evil and find the remedies we are going to have to accept that there is something fundamental in the growth of a modern free market capitalistic society which has brought in train, as part of its character, this evil of inflation.

I hardly need to belabour the grave dangers which inflation holds for a modern economy. That has already been done in the course of this debate, but I certainly believe that it is right once again to stress the urgency of trying to find a method of dealing with it. Our rate of inflation increased to 10% in 1978. It increased to 13% in 1979. The indications are that it might be 14% or more in 1980. There are those who argue that it will be a great deal less, but I think that even they would admit that they are optimists rather than prophets in this regard. Let us look at the consequences if we proceed at this rate. If, for example, we were to take a further upward leap, as has just happened in the USA, what would happen then? One example is the quarterly results, just published, of the mining companies, members of the Chamber of Mines. They show an average working rate—that is to say the mining and milling costs per metric ton of ore—of R32. Out of the 34 members of the Chamber of Mines who are gold producers, no less than 21 have grades of less than eight grams per ton. They have to mine and mill roughly four tons of rock to produce one ounce of gold.

If one multiplies R32 per ton by four and adds to that a very heavy mining escalation rate—which was over 11% last year—one can, before very long, run into a situation in which a drop in the price of gold could in fact be disastrous for the weaker mines in the South African gold-mining industry. It is wrong to speak of averages only, although I have used average figures as an indication. There are some mines, however, which are highly vulnerable to rising costs and to any kind of drop in the price of gold. Since gold mining is the goose that lays the golden eggs in our economy at the moment I believe it is sufficient to draw attention to this and to emphasize once again the enormously eroding effect of inflation on our economy and its potential for further harm.

We can refer briefly to pensions. There are private pension funds throughout the country which have for some time been trying to absorb these high inflation rates. If we continue at rates such as 10%, 12% or 14% for very much longer—shall we say for the rest of this decade—I fear that many of these pension funds will disappear from sight. There will be no way in which they can maintain their solvency. The same will apply to insurance companies in many cases. The same will apply to investments. We may find here also a phenomenon as reported recently from Washington, where it has been observed that the recent rise to 18% in the inflation rate in America—a sudden and unexpected rise— has in fact paralysed the building of houses. It has also paralysed the buying of houses. People have stopped saving money. They can see no further possibility of borrowing money in order to buy houses. Nor can they see the possibility of speculating in housing in order to find tenants who might be able to pay economic rates. A whole society can be paralyzed by this sort of thing. One could go on labouring the point. I think that what needs to be said this evening is that there is of course wide disagreement about the methods used to cure inflation. Do wage increases lead to inflation, or do they result from it? Does an increase in the money supply cause an inflationary trend or does it accompany the inflation? Is inflation cumulative? Does it go on feeding upon itself, does it go on growing, until eventually the whole economy bursts as under, or does it have a kind of self-limiting mechanism in that when it reaches a certain point it begins to slow down and stop? I do not know the answers, nor do most economists. There are some conflict situations as well. We may all agree that to try to close the wage gap in South Africa, i.e. to create the means whereby an equality of wage structures may be created between White and Black people, does have inflationary elements. There is no doubt about that. On the other hand, it is also quite obvious that if we are going to create a vigorous society, a vigorous economic machine in South Africa, the inequalities that persist in South Africa cannot be allowed to continue. We must create an economic society within which the wage structure is such as to provide opportunities and incentives for vigorous participation by the whole of our economic population. If this costs money, in other words if it involves the expenditure of money, the payment of wages within a new and broader society in order to create this vigour, and if that expenditure is inflationary for a while, it is the kind of inflation that has to be borne or accommodated within our system in order to achieve the greater good.

We can agree with the hon. the Minister about certain of his arguments. For example, we would accept that high fuel costs have obviously been an accelerating factor in the inflation rates of many modern countries. We can all agree that defence expenditure has necessarily been inflationary. This is recognized worldwide to be a highly inflationary factor. I am not arguing that there is not a need in South Africa for defence expenditure. There obviously is in the situation in which we find ourselves. The question that arises, however, is whether in fact the high expenditure on, say, defence and the high expenditure we are still incurring on the administration of the whole apparatus of segregation in South Africa, and all that goes with it, inflationary as these aspects are, cannot be overcome by the adoption of a different kind of philosophy, a different kind of political system in this country.

I believe that if we were, for example, to have a society which was content because of the offering of equal opportunities, then the temptations to outside countries—either because of greed, hostility about the treatment of people of colour or because of imperialistic ambitions—would be greatly reduced by virtue of the fact that our potential enemies were faced with a contented society in South Africa. I believe that this is a kind of economy, a kind of anti-inflationary device, which could be adopted in this country. I believe that attention to the nature of our society, to the equality of our society and to greater opportunities in our society would not only be strategically wise in deterring hostilities from abroad, but would also financially be a very sound deflationary measure as well.

In Britain they have an inflation rate of 18%, and would you say that their system is different to ours?

I should like to reply to the hon. the Minister’s question in the space of time left to me. It is true, of course, that in Italy and in Britain there are inflationary rates as high as 18% or more. In the USA the inflation rate has recently been reported to be 18%. The causes of inflation are not, of course, identical in all countries. There are various reasons for inflation, and I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to the cases of the Federal Republic of Germany and Switzerland where there has been a steady economic growth. There has not been a recession in the economy there. There has nevertheless over the past years—five, six years and more—been a virtually old-fashioned rate of inflation, the kind of inflation our grandfathers lived with. In other words, in the case of Switzerland until this year or a year ago the inflation rate averaged about 2,5% per annum. They are living in a modern world. They are trading nations. They are importing inflation and exporting their goods. They are travelling and doing all the things that are necessary in a modern international community. They are doing these things, but they maintain an inflation rate of 2,5%. It has moved up towards 4%. The average inflation rate in the Federal Republic of Germany has been 4% over the last five years. How can this be achieved? I think we must look very carefully at their economies and see what it is that has enabled them in this troubled inflationary world to maintain equilibrium.

They import fuel—more than we do. A far higher percentage of their fuel imports are in the form of oil. They are exposed to the rigours of defence systems, being much closer to the Russian threat than we are. They have heavy defence expenditure. Yet they maintain this low inflation rate.

If we look at their economies we find certain things. One, of course, is the high productivity. That is a great help. Another one—and I commend it to the hon. the Minister—is a very strong currency. Both Germany and Switzerland have maintained a very strong currency, a strong mark and a strong franc, against the dollar and the whole basket of currencies. It may be tempting to argue that, if one maintains a strong monetary unit, one’s exports are thereby deterred and one does not build up the balances which strengthen one’s economy. I believe that this conventional wisdom may also work in the opposite direction. I believe it needs close examination. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that, since we have over the past decade voluntarily imposed on ourselves various devaluations, the time has come to do an honest stocktaking of the benefits and demerits of these devaluations. Clearly, there are certain classic advantages. There are also grave disadvantages. I believe we have weakened our currency and, even though there has been some recent freedom for the rand to advance, I believe we are still a long way below where we have been and where we should be. I believe that, if the rand were stronger, some of the very large costs we are now incurring, inescapably, in respect of our growing defence bill, our large oil imports and the inevitable importation of machine tools and sophisticated machinery for the growth and stimulation of our economy, would not have been as high. These things would not have cost nearly as much as they do if in fact we had a stronger rand and a rand more directly related to the potential of the South African economy.

I believe there is a great deal more to be said on this, but unfortunately my time has expired. I think I have nevertheless indicated to the hon. the Minister what my thoughts are on this. I do commend these things for further study in the light of some modern thinking, some of which I shall try to present to the hon. the Minister for his consideration.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Constantia participated in this debate in a very responsible way this afternoon. There is not much on which I wish to take issue with him. I do think, however, that in respect of several points he made, he based his argument on a wrong premise. I shall deal with these matters.

He raised the question of inflation here. I think we all agree with him and the whole world agrees with him that inflation is one of the greatest evils. I wish to tell the hon. member that nobody in South Africa is more concerned about inflation than the NP Government. Hon. members know what the Government has done over the years. Dr. McCrystal and others were appointed to find methods of combating inflation, and an anti-inflation campaign was launched. Since I am dealing with inflation now, I wish to tell the hon. the Minister that I think inflation is an even greater evil than we and the rest of the world realize. Inflation is a phenomenon that does not only consist of demand inflation. As the hon. member for Constantia has said, in this modern economy of ours there are many factors that become an inherent part of it. One imports inflation and it determines one’s inputs. The hon. member referred to the narrowing of the wage gap for example, implying that it could further inflation. But the narrowing of the wage gap has resulted in a far greater evil in this country than inflation, and that is unemployment. As a result of the narrowing of the wage gap, businessmen are compelled to retrench some of their employees and to mechanize so that they can continue to make a profit. I wish to tell the hon. the Minister that I think we should appoint a committee of experts to inquire specifically into the question of inflation. We are not aware of all the facts, because the matter is so complicated that the run-of-the-mill economists who normally deal with it, do not always know precisely what factors are actually making the greatest contribution to inflation. Is it the various inputs, or is it wages, or is it imports, or is it raw materials, or is it something else? So I think we should have an exhaustive study made of this phenomenon by experts from all branches of the private sector and of the Government. They should go into this and see what can be done to draw up a plan to curb inflation once and for all. If we cannot be ahead of the world, then we can at least provide South Africa with guidance.

Fortunately the hon. the Minister and I owe each other nothing, but I do wish to state now that I and this entire House owe the hon. the Minister the greatest debt of gratitude and tribute we have ever owed any Minister of Finance. I think the House should be unanimous in paying tribute to him. I think not only the House, but the entire South Africa— and I would go even further—the entire Southern Africa, the entire Africa, the entire Western World and the entire East, are all indebted to him. Why am I saying this? I am saying this because everyone specifically singles him out. As a result of proper discipline and proper budgets over a number of years, the hon. the Minister has enabled South Africa to become one of the strongest economic growth points in the entire world. We do have problems, but we are worth a great deal to the West. We are a source of security to the West, even though they will not believe this. We are producing so much that we are even able to export to the East. Not only are we exporting foodstuffs to African countries, but we are also supplying them with services in many other fields and I think they ought to be greatful for that. That is why I am saying that all of us should pay tribute to the hon. the Minister and thank him.

I am sorry that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not present at the moment because I wish to refer to the basic principles of the differences between us and the official Opposition. I am not going to say anything further about finance now. This budget is so excellent that no one on our side need defend it. In all the documents I have before me, there is nothing but praise and tribute from everyone. I could mention the example of the Federated Chamber of Industries which pays tribute to him. Well now, all of us are grateful. But what are the basic differences between the policy, the premise, of the official Opposition and that of the NP? There is a vast difference, so much so that one would have to violate one’s conscience if one were to participate in their policy and go along with them.

Ever since 1948 when we came to power the NP, the National Afrikanerdom in South Africa, has believed in separate development. There are separate nations in this country that were placed here by the Creator. The hon. members on the opposite side as well as I, should recognize and preserve those separate nations. Those members and I cannot undo the work of the Most High. It was His will that these separate nations were established here in South Africa and will remain established here. Over the past 300 years, things have gone well with everyone, and this has always been attributable to separate development. History also willed that the White nation should have its share and that the Black nations should have their share. That is why we should ensure that all these nations develop separately and that each has its own say in its own territory and over its own people among its own number. That is where we and the Opposition differ completely.

It is not going to work.

They want one mish-mash with everything lumped together. Surely that is not going to work. The hon. Chief Whip of the official Opposition has said that our policy is not going to work. Yet it has worked for centuries.

Where?

In South Africa. Now, if it does not work here, why are things not working out in England, now that everything has been lumped together? Why are their race riots in America? Why was there unrest and rioting in the United States of America? Those of us who have been to America have seen for ourselves the areas razed to the ground by the Negroes, which have still not been rebuilt. That is as a result of the hatred of the Negroes for the White man in America. And this hon. member knows it.

It is the result of discrimination.

If the hon. member does not know it, he should go there and see for <u>him</u>self. The official Opposition believe in a unitary state, with everything intermingled, and that is not going to work. They believe in “one man, one vote”. The NP, on the other hand, believes in a democratic form of government. We believe in the free capitalistic system. Moreover we believe that a nation should govern itself and should not be governed or prescribed to from outside. Consequently this NP Government will not allow itself to be prescribed to by any outsider, and certainly not by this official Opposition. We are implementing our policy, we see what is necessary, we see what must be done, and then this Government goes ahead and does it. We also believe that a nation is entitled to choose and maintain its own pattern of living. If those hon. members wish to lump everything together, what right have they to tell the Black nations that they can no longer arrange their own pattern of life as they want it? There is one thing which those hon. members must realize, and that is that each one of the Black nations has preserved its own way of life over the past 300 years. They are perfectly content to go on living as they have been doing, but that does not mean that good should not be done to them. The NP believes in one thing: It wishes to live, it wishes to see other people live and it wishes to let other people live. That is why the policy of the NP differs completely from that of the PFP. We believe furthermore that a nation should have its own language and its own powers. I wonder whether the official Opposition ever loves its own nation. Do they really love their own nation? Deep down, do they really love their own people?

That is an insulting question?

Or are they merely sitting here for the sake of cheap political gain?

Do not talk absolute nonsense.

This afternoon we heard a brilliant speech on culture by the hon. member for Virginia. We have to ask the official Opposition where do they fit into their national culture?

What do you think my son was doing in the operational area? That is an insult.

I wish to tell the hon. Chief Whip this: If that is an “insult”, then it is one. Then I am proud of my “insult”.

Do you think he was having a braaivleis?

I wish to ask the official Opposition today: What are they doing in South Africa to really promote the interests of the White man?

We are trying to stop a war.

They are professing to do so, but in actual fact they are instigating it, even though they are doing so unwittingly, not deliberately. As a result of their actions, their acts or omissions, they are letting the devil loose. I wish to tell the hon. members that if they let the devil loose, they will never catch him again. I also wish to tell them that the NP Government has believed all these years that what belongs together, should be brought together. That was Dr. Malan’s slogan in 1948 and with it the NP won the general election. I want to ask the hon. members why they have fared worse in every succeeding election. They constitute a tiny minority group, yet they wish to govern this country.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke for almost half an hour yesterday, pleading for the release of a communist, a communist convicted of high treason by the law courts of this country. He began with Jan van Riebeeck and quoted many pages to us to try to convince us that we should now listen to a communist. He said a system of government should be acceptable to everyone. Those were the words of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He is striving for a system of government that would be acceptable to everyone. I think that is too silly for words.

How, in a country such as South Africa, with eight or nine different Black population groups besides the Coloureds, Indians and Whites, can one hold a so-called national convention and arrive at a system of government which would be acceptable to everyone? Let us analyse the matter. The NP, which represents the entire nation—the Opposition represents only a small group—has been elected by the nation on the grounds of the system of government which we advocate, and the Opposition does not even wish to agree to this. The White nation is in favour of the system of government, but the Opposition refuses to accept it. They are not satisfied with it. But the Opposition will simply have to accept it. [Interjections.] The official Opposition now wants a new system of government with which all the Black population groups would be in agreement. Surely that is too silly for words. Do you think, then, that all the Blacks would agree? What are you going to say at that national convention? What are you going to tell them you want?

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. They must please outline to us here today what the official Opposition is going to say to the people at that convention. The Western world, Africa, Europe and the East all wish to dictate to South Africa what form of government it should have. Is one going to satisfy the outside world now? That cannot possibly happen. The Opposition cannot even satisfy itself by accepting this dispensation of the NP, and so we say it is idle talk on the part of the Opposition when they say they wish to create a system of government which would be acceptable to everyone. It is absurd. It cannot and will not ever happen.

There is yet something else I wish to cast in the teeth of the Opposition. The hon. member for Yeoville moved the following as the second leg of his amendment—

Then the hon. member for Parktown also discussed education and advocated that far more than R100 million should be voted for education and training. The official Opposition talks of education and training. In recent years there have been complaints that too little was being done for education, that there were too few teachers, etc. Today I specifically ask the English-speaking members of the Opposition: Where are their people when it comes to education? The Afrikaners have to provide the teachers, but where are their people?

Ask your benchfellows.

The Afrikaners have to produce the teachers all the time, but where are their own people? Why should the Afrikaner teacher go and teach English-speaking pupils in English-medium schools?

Ask Bob.

It is a fact that that section of the population is not doing its duty and is not making its contributions. If they are in earnest and feel that the Blacks should receive a great deal more, why do they not encourage their own people to take up teaching as a career? The hon. member for Parktown has announced his resignation. Why is he now entering the business world where he can make a lot of money?

He should go and teach.

Yes, he should go and teach. I think he would make a very good teacher. [Interjections.] They will keep on casting that in the teeth of the NP and the National Afrikanerdom in this country. When I talk of National Afrikanerdom, I include the English-speaking people who side with the NP.

I now wish to discuss family planning for a while. The birth rates of the Black nations and of the Coloureds are among the highest in the world, while the Whites in this country are applying family planning. I therefore wish to suggest that the Black leaders should speak to their own people. They should tell their own people that it is high time they applied family planning. It is not our task to tell them this; those Black leaders should tell it to their own people. They are simply increasing, and then the White Government has to provide them with housing, schools, universities, employment opportunities, health services, protection, and so on. However, I think it is high time we asked the leaders of the Black nations to encourage their own people to consider family planning. One cannot have seven or eight children without accepting the responsibility for their care. The Black people want everything, but then they must also accept the accompanying responsibilities.

Since I am dealing with this now, I wish to ask the Opposition whether they have ever— after all, they have frequent discussions with the Black leaders—told those Black leaders— I have done so—that they should encourage the application of family planning among their own people? Have they ever done so? No, that they will never do.

Have you spoken to some of your own members?

I should also like to express a few ideas on training. As far as training is concerned, I think we in this country should exert ourselves much more to ensure that the training of all our people, the Whites as well as the Blacks, is technically and vocationally orientated. Not everyone can be academically trained, pass matric and then go on to university; where would they find work? Surely it is a fact that in their own Black States there is an enormous need for skilled artisans, technicians and so on? I am aware that this is being done, but I do wish to bring it to the attention of the Black States that they themselves and not the Government, should ensure that the training of their people is more technically and vocationally orientated. For that reason I also think that the high schools, the technical schools and the universities for Blacks should be situated within their own Black States, for then the people could be trained within their own communities, within their own geographical and ethnical environment and develop a love for what is their own, so that they could find peace in their own Black States among their own people. That also applies to our White people who should be trained technically and academically. Excellent progress is being made. In this regard I am thinking of the technicians. I am not saying that it is not being done, but I do think it would be a good thing to say that it should be stimulated further.

There is yet another field which we should look into. I think as far as our universities are concerned we should see to it that there is a more effective selection, for I think many of our people who go to universities could rather have had technical or vocational training; so there should be a stricter and more effective selection at universities so that all our people do not merely have a BA degree with some easy major or other, simply to have a university degree. Let us train every man and woman in the country in the direction in which we could make the best use of his service. If people were to be trained in this way, they could be good citizens of the country, and with such good training—and this applies to our Black people as well as our Whites—a person would have pride in himself, in his family and in his nation. He would also have the necessary self-respect to serve his country and his people and foster ideals for himself, and also for his country and his nation, and in this way he could succeed in doing something more for his people and for South Africa.

When we have such people who have been trained—and particularly as far as the Blacks in the Black States are concerned—there is a great deal they could do. If they have been trained economically, technically and vocationally, they would also be able to help their own Black States advance economically, so as to obtain security for their own people, to establish health services there, and they would be able to produce something—not only sufficient food for themselves, but even a surplus for export. Then they would also be able to provide their own homes and so on. I wish to refer to another point. This is something to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also referred, namely the Blacks in the White areas. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition yesterday made the statement that it was “too foolish for words” to think that the Blacks in White areas should exercise political rights in their homelands. That is the basic difference as far as the respective policies of the official Opposition and of the NP are concerned. Our policy is that every Black nation has its own homeland, its own State—even those that are independent—and that the Blacks in the White residential areas are citizens of those States and in future they are going to exercise their rights there.

Why are you giving them municipal rights then?

We are not dealing now with local conditions where they have a say in their local affairs, in small communities and municipalities and such things. They exercise their political rights in their own homelands. That is final as far as that is concerned.

And they vote in Holland.

Then, in conclusion, I wish to address a few words to the hon. the Minister of Finance in respect of our elderly people. A great deal is being done for our aged, and I do not wish to make these people a political football as the official Opposition is trying to do. I am aware of the fact that there is a great need in Pretoria. At the moment there are 28 old-age homes in Pretoria, which accommodate 2 531 inhabitants, and there are still another 1 800 people on the waiting list. These are our elderly people who were children, during the depression. These are people who did not have an easy time. They were not able to build up a pension for themselves, and they could not acquire wealth which could yield an interest on which they could live at a later stage. It is not such a great number of people, but I am telling the hon. the Minister that this is a part of the community that is really suffering. As far as pensions are concerned, excellent allowances have been granted to them over the years, but if old-age homes had to be built for the 1 800 people on the waiting list, then 20 old-age homes would have to be built. I know that the Department of Community Development is actively engaged in constructing buildings in Pretoria, and I express thanks for that, but I just want to emphasize this problem specifically this afternoon, and request that the Government and the hon. the Minister should please devote attention to the matter again in future. I think if assistance could be rendered in the form of further housing for these people, it would be a good thing.

I wish to conclude by stating that one really feels good, one feels proud, if one’s hon. Minister of Finance has come forward with a budget such as this. One can only say “hurrah” for it.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, like other hon. members, too, I have listened attentively and patiently to the speeches made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this session. I am sorry that he is not present in the Chamber at the moment. At least, I do not see him in his seat. I expect, however, that he will put in an appearance later.

On his assuming the office of Leader of the Opposition, we in these benches nourish certain hopes. On his election to his present office there was quite a furore on the part of the English Press because of the fact, as they put it, that a new political prophet had appeared on the South African scene. We nourished the hope that the negative attitude of the official Opposition, as we had been experiencing it over the past few years, would come to an end and that we in this House would consequently be able to debate positive policy proposals and the plans and principles which they would want to implement should it possibly ever happen that the PFP assume the reigns of government in this country. Just after the election of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to his present office, an English newspaper expressed itself about the matter as follows—

†I am not surprised at his past air of amused detachment when viewing the antics of his colleagues on the Opposition benches. I am not surprised that he was then not impressed by the level of debate maintained by them.

*We, likewise, listened with an “air of amused detachment” to the PFP’s chief spokesman on finance, the hon. member for Yeoville, when he participated in this debate, particularly when he launched his tremendous attack. Even the Press showed a similar reaction to his performance in this debate.

You look as though a part of your anatomy has been detached.

Heads or tails?

Hon. members on this side of the House are now beginning to lose patience. [Interjections.]

Order!

The time for exercising patience is now past. In the interest of South Africa and for the sake of the important decisions which still have to be taken with a view to the future of our nation, it is now essential for us to obtain clarity regarding the attitude of the PFP. We want clarity instead of the contradictions we have had from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members of his party up to now.

Consequently I should like to discuss a few basic principles with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this evening. Perhaps the hon. member for Bezuidenhout will jot down a few notes and convey them to his hon. Leader. However, in his absence I shall continue to say what I wish to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I wish to deal with a few basic principles. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is so fond of speaking of basic principles. In the three most important speeches delivered by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this session, he referred to basic principles time and again. For example, when he speaks of discrimination, he never does so without creating the impression that discrimination is a dirty word. Moreover, he always tries to create the impression that differences exist in the ranks of the NP. Then, what is more, he pleads for the release of a self-acknowledged communist. Those are the three most important issues the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has raised up to now in the course of this session.

†Before doing so, however, I should like to direct the attention of the House to an article that appeared in the Rand Daily Mail in about September of last year, at a time when the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had a lot to say about the cliques, clique manoeuvring and the differences that existed in their own ranks, differences so clearly illustrated in the course of this debate by the hon. member for Rissik. The article was headed by a picture of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The article appeared in the Rand Daily Mail on 30 August 1979. The caption to the picture of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated—

The caption to the whole article read—

The article goes on to say—

I am not going to quote all of it, but it gives one in particular called “Van’s Bredie”. A subcaption states that this is given in his own words—

If you were cooked that way you would still be very unpalatable.

With due respect, I should like to paraphrase this recipe of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and this is how I would paraphrase it—

No wonder the article concludes by quoting the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as saying—

No wonder, therefore, that their former leader, the present hon. member for Sea Point, publicly warned the present hon. Leader of the Opposition by saying, as reported in the Sunday Times—

If both these two factors are true—and I agree with him; the first time I have ever agreed with the hon. member for Sea Point—the official Opposition is completely irrelevant in the political scenario of our country.

What about Andries?

There is no leadership. A very poor performance! They fail to realize one basic factor, i.e. that the days of old-styled politics, as we have known it in South Africa, are past. We can no longer afford the political circus that we have had in the course of this debate, and other debates in the course of this session, from the hon. Opposition. We have a new situation and new directions and as yet for our country unexplored roads. We must walk into the future as a nation and to this end we certainly have received signposts from our leader, the hon. the Prime Minister, signposts which indicate a new road and new thinking for South Africa.

*Let me return to basic principles. The programme of principles of a political party is the constitution of that party. In order to make it quite clear to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. members of the official Opposition what the pillars are on which our basic principles rest, I should like to quote a few passages from our constitution. I shall point out a few important ones, because when we have discussions with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition here, we hear so much about his standpoint based on sacred principles. Let me quote—hon. members will realize in a moment what point I wish to make. [Interjections.]—

What booklet are you quoting from?

From our printed constitution, something which the PFP does not even have. Whenever the word “people” is mentioned in our constitution, it means the White population of South Africa. The issue, therefore, is the right to an existence of our own and the preservation of an identity of our own. I quote further. What follows is important too. It is the section dealing with relations with the non-White races. I quote—

And so it goes on. The NP is committed to these principles. It is clear from what I have quoted, that we want to assist the non-Whites and Blacks to develop a pride of their own as soon as possible, just as we as a White nation want to preserve our own identity and pride. We do not need the pressure of international liberalism, as spelt out by the official Opposition in debates in this House, to accomplish our task according to these principles. The words are very clear and I should like to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that it is very clear that there is no way in which discrimination can be read into the programme of principles of the NP.

Something else emerges very clearly from these principles as well, and that is that we as a White nation accept the responsibility to do everything to promote the interests of the other population groups.

†This is a responsibility which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party will not accept, something he again made very clear in the course of this debate by exploiting the imprisonment of a Mandela, a declared communist, agitator and terrorist, for party political gain. He did so by saying—and this I found most shocking—and using as an excuse that the imprisonment of a Black communist and the agitation for his release by a lot of liberals offers the opportunity for a lifesaving debate in South Africa. Who is to be saved? Is it the Whites, and what method does he offer? He offers a national convention where any irresponsible element can be represented and where Whites will have surrendered all responsibility for any fixed, orderly pattern of development for the future.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition fails to appreciate that should the White nation of South Africa disintegrate, lose its identity and surrender its inherited responsibility, it will mean the collapse of all that has been built up over generations and, what is more important, will also be disastrous for the Black people of this country. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition professes to speak here on behalf of the Black nations, the Black citizens, the Black peoples of this country, I can attach some value to what he has to say, but the fact is that he and his liberal colleagues are rejected by the Blacks of South Africa, not only by the established traditional leaders of the Black people, but also by the Black political leaders whom he is so keen to encourage to participate in this debate. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition in every main speech he has made in this House has presented it on an academic lecture basis and quoted from a number of books. He is very fond of quoting from books. We had it again in his speech during the course of this debate. I want to take the same privilege unto me to read to him and hon. members of the official Opposition how an elected urban Black leader—not an appointed one—views the anttics of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party when they profess to talk on behalf of the Black people. I want to quote what he says because it is very interesting to read how an elected Black leader talks of these people. I quote from a published article which reads as follows—

He says—

I take it that the etc. includes the Progs.—

Who said that?

The article goes on to say—

That we have had from the PFP—

He then goes on to say—

This we have had from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in this debate and others—

He then goes on to say, and the hon. member for Houghton should listen to this—

This is an utter rejection …

Who wrote it?

The hon. member wants to know who wrote it. It is a gentleman whom he has defended in this House for hours and hours. It was written by Biko. You will note, Mr. Speaker, the look of blank amazement on the face of the hon. member for Sandton. He can hardly believe it. The whole approach of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, apart from trying to share his and his party’s guilt consciousness with the rest of South Africa, is one of condescension in his entire attitude towards Blacks. Compare that with that of the hon. the Prime Minister and hon. members on this side of the House who meet and discuss problems with the Black leaders on a basis of full equality and respect and on an ever-widening platform—it is a continuing process—acknowledging in their discussions our rights as a White African nation as being on a par with those of Black nations.

*What we are entitled to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, is what the principles of his party are. Does his party have a programme of principles on which they could base a programme of action? Or is their whole standpoint simply that White South Africa has no right to the preservation of its own continued existence and that our entire future should be mixed around a conference table together with other races? The fact is that the direction of the PFP’s principles, as we have come to know them, if they are applied consistently and honestly, has to lead to the White nation’s loss of its political independence. I believe that the days of White supremacy in South Africa are past. But what should take its place, is government by negotiation and consent, such as the hon. the Prime Minister wants to bring about. A take-over of power by another group is the only thing the PFP would bring about if their policy were to succeed. Democratic majority rule according to the South African White model for a population of such ethnic diversity as ours, is to my way of thinking not only a vain dream, but also a foolish dream.

†As a White African nation we face a whole new changing situation, not only as regards the preservation of our own way of life, our political beliefs and identity, threatened as we are by an aggressive Marxist ideology on our northern borders, but also as regards the evolvement of a peaceful coexistence with our fellow Black Africans, whom we have—this is important and the Opposition should realize this—by our efforts alone brought to the stage of political consciousness where they now ask for a political say in their own future. In terms of the principles of our party, we have fulfilled an honourable and Christian task, but it is not yet finished. It is how we complete the task in the next decade that will ensure our future as a nation. One thing is as clear as daylight, and that is that whereas in the past we had the full responsibility to achieve this, to uplift these other people to full status, we shall in the future on the road that lies ahead have to share that responsibility with the Black nations who are emerging in our country today. Therefore I want to say for the benefit of the hon. Leader of the Opposition and hon. members in the Opposition benches, where they challenged us across the floor earlier in this session in regard to certain principles, that in terms of our principles and in terms of our beliefs we as White Africans have the right to our own identity. If that is so, we can declare that we believe in the right of every man, regardless of colour, to be heard when decisions are taken which affects his own destiny in his own society. We believe in the right of every man to equality before the law and to full citizenship in his own society. We also believe in the right of every man to equal chances and opportunities in his own society. Finally, I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that we are not racists, as he implies when he talks of discrimination. To be a racist implies subjugation of one race by the other. Where discrimination has existed in South Africa, it has never been discrimination by subjugation. The hon. the Prime Minister has stated that where unnecessary and irritating discrimination exists, we would get rid of it. Discrimination is not a one-way trade. It operates as much to the good of the other as to that of the one who is discriminated against. When one thinks in terms of multi-nationalism or in terms of people reaching the fulfilment of their own destiny in their own ideology in their own setup, discrimination exists of necessity, not only in South Africa, but also in other parts of the world.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member for Von Brandis will forgive me if I do not concentrate on the bulk of his speech this evening, but I am sure that an hon. member of the official Opposition will be able to give him the replies he is seeking. However, the one aspect of the speech of the hon. member which did catch my imagination towards the end of his speech, was his categorical statement that South Africa today finds itself in a changing situation. He has given recognition to this and has indicated in the latter part of his speech what his vision of that changing situation is. Other than that, I do not have very much comment to make with regard to what the hon. member has had to say, as it will be appreciated that he dealt predominantly with the official Opposition.

I would prefer, as is customary in this debate, to direct my remarks to the hon. the Minister of Finance with specific reference to the budget he delivered and perhaps to start off with an analysis of the fiscal policy which the hon. the Minister has laid before this House in 1980 and also to examine that fiscal policy in the light of a number of very important variables and critical factors in terms of the problems facing South Africa.

To start with, I think that the hon. the Minister and hon. members will agree that the fiscal policy of the NP probably is the most powerful weapon, arm or strategy the Government has to give effect to, to bring into practice, the policies of the NP Government. As such I think it will be becoming for us to pause briefly and examine the implications of the strategy as outlined by the hon. the Prime Minister in recent months, with specific reference to the discussions that the hon. the Prime Minister had with the leaders of commerce, industry and trade in South Africa. I am here referring to the concept of a constellation of Southern African States. I think it will be important to hon. members to decide whether there is a degree of congruence between the fiscal policy advocated by the hon. the Minister of Finance and the aims and principles and objectives outlined by the hon. the Prime Minister in recent months regarding his vision of a constellation of Southern African States. I should like to say that I have studied very carefully both the statements and the documentation issued by the hon. the Prime Minister and the budget speech that was delivered by the hon. the Minister of Finance, and should like to say that in the context of the objectives set by the hon. the Prime Minister, it should be obvious to every hon. member of this House, as well as to members of the public that it is an impossibility to achieve the peace, the harmony and the prosperity envisaged by the hon. the Prime Minister unless the hon. the Minister of Finance gives impetus in that particular direction. In this respect I believe, as the hon. member for Von Brandis has said, that a significant change has occurred in the Government benches over the last few months.

If one examines the record of the NP over the past three decades and two years, one will find that in previous decades there has been a widening rift between State and private free enterprise. I should like to congratulate the hon. the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and all the hon. members of the Government who are involved, for deciding to change that direction and to start talking and, perhaps even more important, as the hon. the Prime Minister has indicated, listening to private free enterprise in South Africa to determine their needs. If one examines the booklet “Towards a Constellation of States in Southern Africa”, one will find that the problems facing the Government and the hon. the Prime Minister in the implementation of that strategy, rests fairly and squarely on economic prosperity and development to precede political evolutionary changes in South Africa. If it were possible for the Government to bring about the envisaged economic goals set by the hon. the Prime Minister, I think we would have moved very far in the direction of finding a new and effective South African situation. However, what I find on reading the hon. the Minister’s budget statements and the hon. the Prime Minister’s statements, is that to a very large extent they have not changed sufficiently in order to bring about a successful conclusion towards a constellation of Southern African States. I say this specifically in the context of the attitude which I discussed and debated with the hon. the Minister of Finance in the part appropriation debate. Throughout the texts laid on the Table by the hon. the Minister of Finance and the statements made by the hon. the Prime Minister, we repeatedly find the word “co-operation” creeping in rather than the word “participation”.

This suggests to one very strongly that in this year, 1980, the Government is standing back and is saying to private free enterprise that it is now going to leave it to them to develop the economy of South Africa in order to develop a firm base for a constellation of Southern African States. I believe that that attitude of co-operation only, rather than one of active participation, will retard the process of development in South Africa. One repeatedly finds this word “co-operation”. I think this attitude of standing back and saying to private free enterprise that it must now do the job while the Government stands back, is in fact going to retard the process of development in South Africa. I specifically say this because if one looks at the budget for 1979-’80, one will find in the discussions I had with the hon. the Minister that year, that the hon. the Minister found that in terms of his fiscal policy he was not going to achieve the 4% growth in the domestic product which he predicted in the budget last year. I think it is important that we should review the past year and the predictions the hon. the Minister made for that year and then examine the possibility or the probability that he will be successful in achieving his objectives in 1980. Last year the hon. the Minister of Finance predicted that the real growth in the gross domestic product would be 4%. At that stage I reminded the hon. the Minister …

Could I have been nearer?

I want to remind the hon. the Minister that at that time I predicted that unless he made an early repayment of the loan levy for 1977-’78, he would not be able to achieve that figure. As it turned out … [Interjections.] It was merely good economic sense. No prophecy was involved in it at all.

He listened to you.

I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that during the latter part of 1979 he probably realized that he was not going to achieve that growth in the gross domestic product unless he made the repayment—earlier today the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark referred to it—of R732 million to the public. I shall contend …

I never doubted that we would reach it.

Then I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance why he then found it necessary towards the end of last year to actually make that repayment of over R700 million to the public. I think the hon. the Minister would agree that without that early repayment of the loan levy it would not have been possible to achieve the figure of 3,75% that was actually achieved. The hon. the Minister over-estimated by 0,25%. I believe that my prediction as compared to that by the hon. the Minister, was quite accurate. However, I think the hon. the Minister will probably agree with me when I say that I had a better economics tutor than he had. He will find that very difficult to deny. However, I think that what we have to look at in the forthcoming year, is the prediction by the hon. the Minister that we are going to approach, approximately, a 5% real growth in the gross domestic product.

Again we must examine the principles elucidated by the hon. the Minister and the suppositions and hypotheses which he has tabled to substantiate that possibility. And I think that, as the hon. the Minister has quite correctly indicated, the gold bonanza is not going to have any material effect until later this year. However, I would like to say to the hon. the Minister that this year he, the hon. the Prime Minister and the rest of the Cabinet must change their attitude from one of pure co-operation to one of active participation in promoting growth in South Africa. The difference is not very subtle; it is a real and practical difference. We find, if we examine what the hon. the Minister has given the country—and there is a lot to be grateful for in terms of taxation—that our largest single problem in South Africa this year is going to be to cope with the dichotomous labour problem which we are experiencing in South Africa. By 1984 the country will have a shortage of 50 000 skilled workers minimum, yet at the same time we have the unfortunate situation where unemployment stands at 1,5 million people in South Africa. On the one hand we have a tremendous shortage of skilled workers and on the other hand we have a massive unemployment figure of 1,5 million.

That is an over-exaggeration. Where did you get your figures from?

This is the dilemma which the hon. the Minister should have coped with in his budget by presenting the means for overcoming the problems which we have in terms of this dichotomous labour situation in South Africa. I would like to say right now, and place it on record, that I think South Africa should be grateful for the fact that the Government has seen fit, through the hon. the Minister of Manpower Utilization, to depromulgate the regulations of the Black Building Workers Act. That is one of the positive moves one gets when one participates and not only co-operates with private free enterprise. Labour is the key factor not only towards the better utilization of all the production factors in South Africa, but also as regards the quality of life of every citizen of South Africa. Therefore I believe it is imperative that we should focus upon the provisions made by the hon. the Minister in his budget to cope with the labour problems and also to examine the consequences of not having coped adequately with those problems.

I would ask hon. members to bear with me for a minute in order to find out what the factual position is at present, what measures the hon. the Minister of Finance has taken and where we in the NRP belief the hon. the Minister should take further action. Between January 1977 and October 1979 we find that the economically active population of South Africa dropped by 223 000 workers. That means there were 223 000 people in South Africa as at October 1979 who were previously employed, but no longer after at the end of that three-year period. If one examines the official statistics that is the sort of figure one comes up with. But the official labour statistics do not paint the whole picture. For a start, one must add to that figure at least 300 000 farm workers, agricultural workers, which figure is not reflected in the official statistics. Here we find a similar trend, viz. that between 1977 and 1979—a three-year period—the number of farming units in South Africa was reduced by 20 000, and that left a further 300 000 people unemployed.

Where did you get that?

Those are the official statistics. If the hon. member for Von Brandis has the time, he can take these figures out of the official statistics.

He has got the time, but not the intelligence.

Then we also find that the ¼ million people, the new workers, the people leaving school and coming onto the labour market every year, were also unable to find work in that three-year period. When one adds up all those figures, one comes to the figure of 1,5 million unemployed, 2 million under-employed, and the prospects of solving that unemployment problem in the forseeable future are fairly bleak. I would like to point out to the hon. the Minister that if one examines the various economically active sectors of South Africa which are supposed to provide the opportunities for these people, we also find a fairly dismal picture. I would like to remind the hon. the Minister of Finance that in terms of current day political and economic situations, employment is one of the most important factors which should enjoy the consideration of the Government, for revolution, communism and socialism find their root causes in unemployment and dissatisfaction. One should also bear in mind in South Africa that for every Black breadwinner there are five other people dependent upon his earnings. When we talk about 1,5 million unemployed people we should bear in mind the other five people of each family who were dependent on each one’s salary. That is the breeding-ground of discontent, aggression and ultimately—if one is not careful—revolution. If we examine the prospects that the mining industry can provide, employment opportunities, I am afraid hon. members will be totally disillusioned. The mining industry of South Africa, as it is structured at the moment, has reached saturation point in terms of the numbers of employees it can accommodate. In fact, we find that between 1977 and 1979 there was a decrease of 19 000 employees in the mining industry.

The manufacturing sector was slightly more fortunate, and during the same three-year period it was able to take in an additional 44 000 people. The construction industry is down and there are 13 000 less people employed in the construction industry today than there were three years ago. Commerce was fortunate in that it was able to provide an additional 5 000 jobs, and the public sector is up by 28 000. It should be borne in mind, however, that the public sector gets paid out of the taxes of commerce, industries, trade, manufacturing, mining and the private individual. Therefore, the chances are that private free enterprise, in cooperation with the Government, will not be able to provide the job opportunities which are so desperately necessary in South Africa today. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to take immediate and effective action in three particular areas in order to elevate this situation.

I appeal to the hon. the Minister of Finance to review the tax structure of the mines, and in particular the gold-mines in South Africa. If one examines what has happened to taxation, capital investment and dividend rates in the gold-mining industry it will come as no surprise to find that the ratio of the State’s revenue earned from the gold-mines has gone up by 33,3% over the last three years—the same period I mentioned earlier. Yet, the gold-mines find themselves in a position in which they require increased capital expenditure in order to do deep-level mining and to open new mines. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister, in the light of the limitations on the mining industry to provide job opportunities, to make a serious attempt to review the tax structure for mines, in particular that for gold-mines.

What do you mean by “review”?

What I mean is that there should be a re-investigation of the current situation of the gold mines. Not only am I thinking in terms of their earning capacity overseas, but also of their opportunities of providing employment. Under present circumstances the gold mines are going to go for capital investment. They are going to go for plant and equipment rather than for labour. Therefore, they will dry up as a source of employment.

Secondly, in terms of training I have made a previous appeal to the hon. the Minister to look again at the situation. The hon. the Minister mentioned in his budget speech that an additional R4 million was going to be provided for skilled training. I believe that is totally inadequate. He should not only discuss with the hon. the Minister of Manpower Utilization the need for retraining, but he should also tell us what he intends to do in connection with providing tax incentives for training skilled workers from among the unskilled working corps. Our problem in South Africa is that we have too many unskilled workers and too few skilled workers.

Thirdly, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister the following. I appreciate the fact that he has dropped the import surcharge in order to combat inflation in South Africa. When we examine, however, the capacity utilization for all sectors of industry we find that they are approaching the 90% level, and therefore expansion in mining, in commerce, in trade and in manufacturing is limited at the moment. They will not be able to employ the massive numbers of people in the market. Therefore, although the hon. the Minister has reduced the import surcharge in his budget in order to combat inflation, it means that the companies are not going to expand their facilities, but that they will rather import. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to re-examine export incentives. On the one hand the hon. the Minister is going to fight inflation by allowing easier imports. On the other hand, the manufacturing sector are going to take advantage of that and are not going to expand their productive capacity unless the hon. the Minister of Finance plays an active part in giving them export incentives. Then, just to come back to the labour aspect, I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to reexamine the priority which he set in his budget regarding additional funds as tax incentives, financial incentives, to industry to train illiterate, unskilled workers to a standard of literacy where they could be trained to do skilled work, an area in which we are going to experience a dearth of 50 000 skilled workers and which is going to grow geometrically in the next few years.

In this sense I should like to come back to the point I started at. If the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Finance think that the constellation of States is going to work in the long run, they must first tackle the constellation within the constellation, and that constellation within the constellation of Southern African States is the constellation of practical problems we face in South Africa. I therefore appeal to him, as the one hon. Minister who can ensure that the economic welfare and well-being of every citizen increases over the next few years, to seriously consider those areas that I have highlighted for him this evening.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban North, who has just resumed his seat, is usually a very good speaker. This evening again he was eloquent, but I must say his arguments were really very thin. He based one of his important financial arguments on the fact that the hon. the Minister had ostensibly predicted a growth rate of 4% a year ago whereas it is only 3¾% now.

Plus R700 million.

However, we must bear in mind that the hon. the Minister said that it could be in the vicinity of 4%.

Last year?

Yes, this was a year ago. In my opinion it was a correct assessment on the part of the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.]

He could not have done it without the R700 million.

I do not want to elaborate any further upon what was said by the hon. member for Durban North. [Interjections.] I should actually like to address a few words to the hon. member for Constantia who discussed inflation. The hon. member praised the hon. the Minister for the steps he had taken but added that the hon. the Minister could not win. I do not think that the hon. the Minister thinks that he has won the fight against inflation either. He added that we should accept the fact that inflation is an element inherent in modern economics. That is correct too. I have no problem with that. Then the hon. member mentioned the method of fighting inflation, and in the process he referred to West Germany where the inflation rate is only approximately 5%. He then asked: What are they doing? They have a higher production but higher production requires heavier and new investment.

This brings me to the hon. member for Parktown. He is now leaving politics to enter the financial world. Of course, all of us on this side can only wish him everything of the best. However, in his new career he will meet many people with a great deal of money. So I want to put a final request to him. If some of those people want to invest money in South Africa, he must please encourage them.

Do not discourage them.

We are not raking up old grievances. The hon. member can also tell those people that they need not be afraid because the NP, which he knows well, will keep this country stable and so they can invest here with impugnity.

That is the only great disadvantage.

I want to come back to the budget. I think there is consensus throughout this country, among friend and foe of this Government, that the budget can be regarded as nothing other than an exceptional and remarkable success. There is even talk that South Africa as a country with a free enterprise system and with low taxation could become the world’s next economic wonder by means of purposeful and judicious planning—and the hon. the Minister is well-known for that. We must examine the Opposition’s criticism of the budget against this background. The most important direct criticism of a financial nature concerns the increase in the price of bread and the increase in pensions which in the Opposition’s opinion is inadequate. Viewed against this background this criticism of the Opposition makes me think of the Biblical injunction to certain imprudent leaders, to those of course, who strain at a gnat but swallow a camel.

Now the Opposition are not following the prescriptions of the Bible either. Instead of swallowing the camel they have been given, they are choking themselves to death on the gnat. In saying this, I am not at all insensitive to the people to whom an increase of 4% per loaf is important. Despite this increase, the price of bread in South Africa is still the lowest in the world owing to the Government’s contribution. Furthermore, there will be no worker or pensioner who will not receive a corresponding increase in wages and pension, respectively, as well, which will enable him to pay this small increase very easily. However, the reduction in the price of bread is not the point. Even free bread is no solution. The important point is that there will be employment opportunities and that is the precise objective of this budget. Moreover, the hon. the Minister has not hesitated in the past even to increase taxation in order to increase pensions.

The hon. member for Yeoville said in his brief speech after the budget speech that it was easy to make concessions to a person with bags full of money. He was probably referring principally to the increased revenue we are now receiving from gold which amounts to approximately R1 600 million. I concede at once that this is a considerable sum of money which has come in more than handy to the Minister in enabling him to achieve his objective. However, to regard the gold windfall as the overriding factor in the success of this budget is to create a totally distorted and unbalanced image. The overriding success factor of this budget is the direct result of disciplined and calculated monetary and fiscal measures that have been implemented systematically and have been clearly visible throughout the budgets of the past four years. To my mind it boils down in particular to three simple principles: Keep Government spending down; increase the money supply in the hands of the public and the private sector for greater stimulation of the economy and more possibilities for the establishment of new enterprises; and—and this is very important—the systematic and drastic decrease in direct taxation which places more money in the pocket of the entrepreneur and the worker and in that way encourages him to work harder and increase productivity. The latter result has been achieved in particular not by pinning hopes on gold—on the contrary, the Minister has constantly warned against this— but by the expert enlarging of the tax base by means of the introduction of the general sales tax in particular.

I want to devote the rest of the time at my disposal to the problem which has been raised repeatedly in this House, to which I have already referred and which has been labelled by an eminent American “as one of the horrors of the ’eighties”, namely inflation. Hon. members on both sides of this House may well ask me why I dare to broach such a subject which really ought to be reserved for economic experts and specialists. In lighter vein let me put it as follows: In Namaqualand we have now come quite a long way. If we become ill, we visit a doctor. If the doctor says we must see a specialist, we do so, and some of us drink his medicine. If the medicine of the specialist does not help, we have no objection whatsoever to trying a home remedy again. Now it seems to me as if the medicine of the economic specialists throughout the world is not helping to cure the inflation malady so we may as well look at a home remedy again.

I think that to talk of a solution to inflation at this stage is naïve and indicates a misconception of the problem because this international problem began as far back as 1932-’33 when the world decided to go off the gold standard. This was the direct result of something which has grown over the years up to today when there is virtually a total lack of confidence in the world’s monetary systems. That is why the insistence of the hon. the Minister of Finance in the international money world upon the remonetizing of gold cannot be emphasized and appreciated strongly enough.

In our struggle against inflation there are two aspects in particular which I want to emphasize. In the first instance, producers, industrialists and traders have to display greater discipline and economic morality in increasing prices because price increases are the basis of inflation. On one single page in a newspaper I note reports of profit increases of 22%, 33%, 37%, 40% and 90%. Note well that these are increases in the profits of business enterprises which already in the previous year showed a steady profit.

At the beginning of 1979, the unutilized industrial capacity was 15% as a result of the recession, and when these profit figures were published on 31 December 1979, the unutilized capacity was still approximately 13%. In other words, this does not indicate a significant increase in production. If then the profit figures rise to the extent I have indicated, the reasonable conclusion can be drawn that unjustifiable price rises are taking place and that there is unjustifiable profit-taking.

In the process of price-forming, the chain take-overs of interests and the acquisition of interests that curb free competition play no small role. That is why the Maintenance and Promotion of Competition Act which was passed last year was a temporary measure and that is why it is also as well that the role of the small entrepreneur be emphasized once again, as has in fact been done in the budget as well.

In the second instance, there is unanimity that harder work, which gives rise to greater productivity, and a downward adjustment of living standards are important measures to combat inflation. However, I have two problems in this respect. We do not want to lower at least 70% of our population’s standard of living; we want to raise it. In the second instance, under our capitalist system no one works harder if he cannot earn more money. In other words, a way will have to be found to encourage a greater volume of production and to enable the entrepreneur to make a greater profit without necessarily increasing his price. For this purpose I want to confine myself in particular to the production of raw materials and manufactured goods because this is where our major problem lies. Apart from subsidies, the State can encourage an entrepreneur in only one way, and that is to take less from him in the form of taxes. At the present juncture, with the favourable taxation scale that we have now, there can scarcely be any question of an improvement in or reduction of the taxation rate. I suggest therefore that the possibility be considered that the State completely exempt producers and manufacturers from taxation on the production in volume of goods by which they exceed their previous highest achievement in volume. In other words, the principle—and I am referring only to the principle, the formula—should be investigated that new production which has the effect of increasing even further the previous highest production per volume should be tax-free in the year in which it is new. In this way the Government will not be sacrificing existing revenue while an entrepreneur will only benefit if his achievement is higher in real terms. This will stimulate fixed investment and encourage higher production. It also has an in-built formula for better profitability without necessarily increasing prices. If the hon. the Minister discards this idea of mine completely, then my defence is that it is intended only as a home remedy and that it does not detract in any way from the brilliance of the 1980-’81 budget.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Namaqualand on a fine, sound contribution in the economic sphere. I want to vary that a little with politics. I want to tell the hon. member for Namaqualand that I really enjoyed listening to him. As he told us, he has been tempered, steeled and honed by a hard world, Namaqualand. But it is also a beautiful and grateful world; beautiful, as is described so well by the name of the town from which the hon. member comes, Loeries-fontein. To my mind that is one of the most beautiful names in that region.

I should like this evening to discuss three facets of our present political course of events and in the process I want to do some personal soulsearching since one often hears outside that some people and groups of people are saying that the pace of the political course of events is so rapid now that it is almost impossible for one to keep up with it. Therefore I, as an individual, want to examine this argument and ascertain for myself whether I can keep up with this political course of events. My first question is whether I as an individual am satisfied with the political changes that are taking place in South Africa at a reasonably rapid rate. The second question is: If I do not like them, what are the alternatives?

Join Andries.

Thirdly: What are the realities of our situation if I have to weigh up the alternatives? I should like to commence with the last one, viz. what are the realities of our situation in South Africa? The first reality is that we are inextricably part of Africa and its people and this cannot be changed. The second is that the West will no longer be favourably disposed towards us— not to mention alliances—in the event of a confrontation with whomsoever throughout the world, even with Russia. The third is that our only possible allies are the Black people of Southern Africa themselves. However, so far we have excluded them completely as possible allies or possibly ignored them completely. These are the realities against which I as an individual have to weigh up the alternatives.

The first alternative is to continue imperturbably in this country as if no other ethnic group exists and as if this is simply a place for the interests of White people in Southern Africa. However, the result of this may be that, as in the case of South West Africa and Zimbabwe, we may possibly be compelled to do things we did not envisage and for which we consequently did not plan either.

The second alternative is to try to subjugate everyone around us by means of military force, but the results of this will be so horrifying that it would be practically impossible for us to calculate the end result. Perhaps one could after all predict what the end would be, viz. that no person on this large and powerful continent will survive, not even we as Whites in South Africa.

The third alternative is that we have now judiciously to effect changes that are fair and reasonable while we are still in a position to be able to do so peacably. [Interjections.]

I shall be pleased if hon. members opposite will do me a favour and show me the simple courtesy of affording me the opportunity of completing my speech. I listened to them in silence. [Interjections.]

These are the only three alternatives. There is no other alternative and neither will the international community allow us to exercise unhindered our options under the first two. On the contrary, they will oppose us in that respect. We must not be so stupid as to underestimate the power of the international community when it breaks in full force over our heads. Consequently there is really only one path open to us, viz. that we have now to implement the changes that are fair and reasonable while we are in a position to do so peaceably and from a position of strength. [Interjections.]

This brings me to the first facet of our present political course of events to which I referred at the beginning of my speech. That is the rate at which political change is taking place in South Africa and the question of whether I as an individual am satisfied with it. The reply is: Yes, I am satisfied. I like the initiatives of the hon. the Prime Minister. The direction and the course is correct, and the rate should be accelerated rather than slowed down.

For that reason I should like to begin to see the moulds of concepts such as a constellation of Southern Africa States, a council of States, an economic power bloc, political accommodation for the urban Blacks, meaningful consolidation and our sincerity in this matter, and the final constitution. At present these concepts are too vague to be seen as political solutions and the change is too slow to promote credibility. It is only once these concepts have been implemented and demonstrated to be workable instruments in practice—to satisfy the aspirations of everyone— that we shall make of possible allies, real allies. I am referring in this regard to the mass of Black people in Southern Africa. Only then will South Africa begin to fulfil its true role in Africa; only then will South Africa be able to penetrate to the heart of Africa, of which it is an integral part, and only then—and not earlier—will the international community again start associating openly with South Africa. For those reasons our path to the soul of Africa and to the international community lies through the hearts of our own Black people.

However, I read an article in Die Burger of 2 April 1980 under the heading “Radikale golwe spoel deur Suid-Afrika”, which was written by Dawie, the political columnist of Die Burger and which reads as follows—

In Die Burger of 18 March 1980 I read three statements on one page which linked up with this. The first one read—

The second reads: “ ‘Swartes sal Suid-Afrika nog regeer,’ waarsku Mopedi.” The third reads: “ ‘Mugabe laat hoop opvlam,’ sê Tutu.” In pursuance of this the leading article of this edition of Die Burger reads as follows—

It went on to ask—

I too want to ask: If Whites are constantly being encouraged to promote good relations, why do certain Black leaders arrogate the privilege of doing just the opposite in immoderate language? I think that Chief Minister Gatsha Buthelezi is one of them. He refers constantly to a so-called freedom struggle whereas he can obtain his freedom and independence tomorrow if he wants it. However, he wants South Africa. This is what his so-called freedom struggle entails. He is not satisfied just to govern his own Zulu nation. Is he afraid that they will not be able to fend for themselves in a free and independent kwaZulu and that they will reveal their inability to do this in an independent country?

I want to tell Chief Minister Buthelezi that he should rather do everything in his power to bring home to the Zulu nation that it is not the primary task of a man just to procreate, to sit around beer pots and to move around the hut after the sun while the women work on the land. The world of today demands that a man should work. Indolence can no longer hide behind tradition—and what type of tradition is this in any event? It is not a disgrace for a man to work but it is a disgrace for him to lie around at home while his wife works on the land.

Chief Minister Buthelezi should stop all his journeys on which he makes all his so-called “well-intentioned speeches of peace” and should instead investigate the condition of his people’s lands. It is not only a great pity that some of South Africa’s best agricultural land can no longer make a contribution to our economy but it is also an absolute disgrace that it is being destroyed in such a way. Let him go and investigate the condition of his people’s livestock after they have been nothing but herdsmen for centuries now. In most cases they are nothing but crumbs that are not worth the soil on which they walk.

How much land have they got?

How can Chief Minister Buthelezi want to govern South Africa if he cannot perceive these things or if he is totally powerless to do anything about them? Instead of that all he does is stand with open hands asking for more and making demands in regard to the so-called redistribution of South Africa’s wealth. He did so again last week. In the Sunday Times of 6 April 1980 I read that he had said the following—

Who said that? Boraine? [Interjections.]

It almost sounds like that, but strangely enough these are Chief Buthelezi’s words, this man who is a so-called man of peace.

You had better listen to his warning. He is speaking the truth.

Now, no one must tell me that I am disturbing relations between White and Black people because I am not speaking in the same blatant language as Chief Buthelezi. He speaks of uprising, revolution and bloodshed, and I speak of the upliftment of his people. He should do the same instead of continuing to organize Inkatha into nothing but a real Mafia organization in respect of which I can quote examples but do not have time to do so. [Interjections.] I sincerely hope that Chief Minister Buthelezi has the ability to distinguish between these things and then to decide for himself who is in actual fact seeking confrontation in this country. Is it I or is it he? It is my fervent prayer that the Lord God will give everyone who is in a position of leadership over whatever nation in this country a desire for order and peace instead of seeking confrontation, because if we stand man to man with a feeling of peace in our hearts, examine our problems and really negotiate in good faith, we will find solutions to the problems of South Africa which will make this country a fine, great and strong one. However, the opposite is also true. If we face one another with concealed confrontation, hate and suspicion in our hearts although we wear the mask of peace, I want to tell hon. members that there is a future for us in this country which we can only face with fear and foreboding. I am just afraid that under the present circumstances there are people who are wearing the mask of peace but who are nurturing the devil himself in their hearts.

Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.]

Maiden speech!

Mr. Speaker, I hear shouts of “maiden speech”. I was under the impression that one could only be a maiden once. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Parys, who has just sat down, has made a speech which, I confess, has surprised me. It surprised me for two reasons. The first is that the hon. member said that he believed in the direction in which the hon. the Prime Minister was taking the NP. In fact the hon. member went further. He said he hoped the hon. the Prime Minister would speed up the process of change. This surprised me. Obviously the hon. the Prime Minister is doing a lot better in that party than I thought he was doing. The second thing that surprised me was an attack on a man who does not sit in this Parliament and who is not allowed, in terms of the Government’s policy, to sit in this Parliament. Therefore he cannot defend himself in this Parliament against an attack. Furthermore, the man who was attacked is the leader of the largest ethnic group in South Africa—the Zulus.

So what? [Interjections.]

Lastly, and most important, he is one of the leaders of the Black people who is prepared to negotiate peacefully.

That is what he says.

He is prepared to negotiate peacefully. An attack of this nature on a man who is in fact prepared to negotiate, a man who is prepared to negotiate peacefully, a man who does not look to force, who does not look to terrorism, does not, I believe, do dialogue in South Africa any good whatsoever. [Interjections.]

I am the second person so far this session to deliver a political speech from a new bench. The first to do so was the hon. member for Pretoria Central after he rejoined the NP. In his speech he proclaimed: “Dit is lekker om Nasionaal te wees.” He said it many times, but what he did not do was to spell out the policy he stood for. If he was too “verlig” in his ideas he would offend the leader of the NP in his province. If he was too “verkramp” in his ideas he would offend the hon. the Prime Minister. Therefore he said: “Dit is lekker om Nasionaal te wees.” He said that on many occasions, but we did not really gather why.

Do you like being a Prog? [Interjections.]

I want to spell out to hon. members this evening … [Interjections.]

What do you have to say for yourself?

I am going to say for myself what my political beliefs are. [Interjections.] I should like to begin by sketching a little bit of the background. [Interjections.] I want to start by telling this House something that Lord Milner said before the Anglo-Boer War, in 1899. [Interjections.] This statement by Lord Milner was: “There is only one way out of the troubles in South Africa …

Resign!

“There is only one way out of the troubles in South Africa: Reform or war, and of the two war is more likely.” Those were the words of Lord Milner in those days and I believe that they are equally true today. I believe the hon. the Prime Minister will agree with me that we need to reform in South Africa or we will continue to face a conflict which will escalate week after week, month after month and year after year.

What do you say about Mandela?

I want to make it clear to hon. members that wherever I sit I will continue to fight for reform in this country, because the only way in which we can overcome our problems is by settling them internally, not by listening to the rest of the world, not by having them tell us what to do. We should settle our problems for ourselves in this country so that every South African can be a South Africa, so that every South African can have a part in government, so that every South African will be prepared to fight and to die for this country. That is the first thing we have to do. [Interjections.] Having said that we need to reform, the next thing that has to be established is the extent to which we need to reform. Once again I would like to state that I believe that there are four major principles that anybody wishing to bring about reform should have.

Are these your new principles?

If the hon. member for Durban North will listen, I believe he might find them familiar. [Interjections.] The first one is that there should be a sharing of power. The second one is that there should be no discrimination of a statutory or administrative nature. The third one is that there should be no domination of any one group by another. [Interjections.] The fourth one is that there should be full citizenship for all South Africans whatever their colour. [Interjections.]

Order!

Let me now talk about the first principle, the most important one. [Interjections.]

Order! If hon. members do not behave themselves now, I shall be obliged to prohibit all interjections.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, but these people next to us are whining all the time.

Order! That applies to the hon. member for Sandton too.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A little later in my address the NRP will get a chance to have a good go at me. At this stage, however, I should like to deal with the Nationalists. The sharing of power is what this whole thing is all about. Quite frankly, the NP wishes to share power of a kind but they want to do it in an inequitable way, a way that is a sure recipe for further conflict and strife. It is a recipe that creates more problems than it solves difficulties, because what the NP wants to do is to push the Blacks into their own little comers, to push them away into a small area and tell them that is their area, they can have it and can exercise all their power within that small area of South Africa. They want, in fact, to separate all the homelands and turn them into independent homelands.

That is not quite true.

It is not quite true? Do you not want to do that? Do you wish to share power within South Africa?

Order! The hon. member must not address hon. members of the House directly. He should direct his comments through the Chair.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I shall address you with pleasure. As I have said, the Nationalists want to push people into their own comers and let them have no say in the main streams of South African politics. So they have divided the country into 80% for Whites and approximately 14% for Blacks.

How original you are?

Then the Nationalist Government tells us that this is an equitable solution to South Africa’s problems. What, however, could be a surer recipe for conflict? We have the 1936 Act, whose provisions were extended in 1972, again in 1975, and now this year we have Mafeking becoming part of Bophuthatswana. The Van der Walt Commission is also investigating the possibility of further meaningful consolidation on the instructions of the hon. the Prime Minister. I can prophesy, however, that however much the Van der Walt Commission gives to the Black homelands, it is never going to be enough. This year the hon. the Minister of Finance has allocated R89 million for consolidation, in other words R89 million to buy up White-owned land to give to Black States. This, of course, is a big improvement on last year, but it is still a drop in the ocean. In the face of the amount of land that still has to be bought, this barely keeps pace with the rate of inflation, and I believe that this budget would have been far better had this type of expenditure not been necessary. I would rather have seen that money spent on subsidizing the price of bread than on splitting South Africa into lots of small little pieces. [Interjections.] I would rather have seen it spent on keeping South Africa one country than on buying up land to give away. [Interjections.] Let me add that I believe that those who want independence should be allowed to have it, but they must be offered a viable alternative. Otherwise we will have conflict in contrast to a sharing of power.

On the present basis, no matter how much land is offered, with some justification the Black nations will want more. Let me quote the example of Chief Lennox Sebe of the Ciskei. He has openly stated that he wants the whole area from the Fish River to the Kei River and from the Stormberg mountains to the sea. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance if he has any idea how much money it would cost the Government to give Chief Lennox Sebe that amount of land, and bearing that in mind, as an interim solution, and an interim solution only because they have not been offered a viable alternative, I believe that the condominium idea suggested in the Quail Commission’s report is, in fact, a real alternative which the Government would do well to consider. The Government must remember that a number of their own party supporters sat on that commission and signed that report, and it is something the Government certainly should give a great deal of consideration to. So I shall support the only party in this House that I believe clearly stands for a real alternative.

Why did you not fight an election for them?

It is the only party in this House whose political dispensation means that there will not have to be a consolidation, a buying out of land to give away, a party which will share power in one undivided federation of South Africa, a party which will genuinely give all South Africans a share in the bounty of this land and make consolidation an evil of the past.

Who will be Prime Minister?

It is a party that will provide a solution in which there will be no domination of one group by another, and no discrimination, and which provides a State in which every South African will be a full citizen with all that that implies. [Interjections.]

Now I want to turn to the hon. leader of the unofficial Opposition, because he saw fit the day after I resigned from his party to issue a certain statement at a public meeting. I have a copy of his statement here. It has the NRP badge at the top of it. I want to read from this statement.

The man on roller skates!

He says about me—

That hon. member has said that something I had said was blatantly untrue and I believe this is the moment to try to rectify that situation. I realize that the hon. member for Durban Point has left himself an out, because he has qualified his statement by saying “what I am told he said”. I have in front of me the statement I issued on that occasion …

Which you did not have the courtesy to send to me.

I thought the hon. member could read about it in the newspaper. What I said was—

I want to ask the hon. member for Durban Point whether this was a prospective new policy prepared by the constitution commission which he announced.

When?

At the time of the Beaufort West by-election.

It was a recommendation.

Fine.

Order! Is the hon. member addressing the hon. member for Durban Point or is he addressing the Chair? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, through you I am asking the hon. member for Durban Point a number of questions. I understood that his was the allowed practice in this House. Let me ask him again whether he consulted his caucus or his federal council before announcing this speculative, prospective—call it what you will—new policy. [Interjections.]

Well, did you or did you not?

The answer obviously is that he did not.

You cannot just laugh. [Interjections.]

He knows the answer. [Interjections.]

I do know the answer. It was: No, he did not.

Mr. Speaker, I have been asked a question. May I have the privilege of replying? [Interjections.]

In your own time.

Issue another statement.

Order!

What I went on to say was that Vause Raw proposed in this new policy of his that a simple majority could decide … [Interjections.]

Order!

Who is “Vause Raw”?

That is a good question.

… a simple majority could decide on non-integration but 75% of those voting would have to vote in favour of it before an area could be opened …

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

No. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member is not prepared to reply to a question.

I am afraid I am very short of time.

[Inaudible.]

Order! If hon. members do not restrain themselves now I shall be obliged to prohibit all further interjections. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I now want to ask the hon. member for Durban Point—and I know the answer to this …

Then why ask?

Because I want him to state in public and put on record whether the suggested new policy he mentioned at Beaufort West in fact became the policy of the NRP.

I reported it to the federal council as I said I would, and you were present, and … [Interjections.] You were party to it.

We have it on record that this prospective new policy was not approved; it did not become part of the policy of the NRP. [Interjections.] That raises a very serious point.

Order! No further interjections will be permitted during this speech.

Let me say what that serious point is. A number of people in the Beaufort West and Swellendam by-elections voted for the NRP, and obviously they took into consideration the policy which the hon. the leader of the NRP had announced to them during the by-election campaign. However, the question one must ask is whether they were misled by the hon. member for Durban North into voting for a policy which did not, in fact, exist. Has the hon. member for Durban North gone back to Beaufort West and Swellendam and told those people that he is sorry about what he told them about the policy which he said he would support? I want to know whether he has been back and told those people that or whether the whole exercise in Beaufort West and Swellendam was not an exercise that smacked of political trickery?

Finally, I want to say that I am proud and honoured to be sitting behind the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition, a man whom I will follow and who has my trust and admiration.

I am better off without a little rat like that. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon. member for Durban Point to refer to another hon. member as “a little rat”? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I said I am better off without a little rat like that, but if it is unparliamentary, I will withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I have never yet in my career as a parliamentarian come across a worse case of rabies than I have just listened to from the previous speaker in this debate.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them. [Interjections.] May I then say that I have never yet misjudged the hon. member for East London North. I have always considered him to be a very conceited individual—conceited to such an extent that he has always compared himself …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “conceited”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. I shall instead begin my speech by turning to the hon. the Minister of Finance. [Interjections.] While we are discussing the budget, I want to state for the sake of the record that economically speaking, King William’s Town is the most flourishing town in the Cape. Therefore things are not only going badly in the Border area; here and there things sometimes go very well. The Daily Dispatch must please make this fact known. It could help to create confidence among possible investors. It is true that the rest of the Border area is struggling to get into its stride. It is maintained that this is largely ascribable to the high and non-competitive electricity tariffs levied there. Believe it or not, Escom has come along and again increased the electricity tariff for the Border area by 7,5%—one of the highest increases in the whole country. If Escom could not do otherwise and if Escom had the right to increase the tariffs—and we must accept that—then only one alternative remains and that is that the Government should step in and do something to reduce electricity tariffs to such an extent that the Border area can compete with the rest of the country, with the Rand in particular. This region has not been able to compete in the past, and now it will be even less able to compete under present circumstances. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance and the other hon. the Minister to give urgent attention to this problem and find a solution very soon in order to afford relief to the Border area. I want to say to the hon. the Minister and the Government once again that if we fail to achieve viability in the Border area, the Government’s whole policy will fail and eventually the whole country will suffer as a result.

As a member of the sixth Parliament I have experienced an exceptionally interesting and historic period in this House. In less than three years I have helped to elect two State Presidents and to choose a Prime Minister. And God be praised that I was here to help choose him, because I think he is the best Prime Minister South Africa has ever had. During this period the House of Assembly, for the first time in its history, extended a welcome to a Black Head of State from an independent Black State. That Black State was made free and independent by the House of Assembly of which I am part. It was done by the NP of which I am a member.

Is this a farewell speech?

Stick around, chum! Moreover, as a member of the NP in this House, I have had the privilege of taking part in this unique budget as introduced by the hon. the Minister of Finance. I believe that this is the first time in the lives of all of us that such an exceptionally generous budget has been introduced; the first time and possibly the last time in our lives, because I simply cannot believe that it will be possible for any Minister or State ever to achieve such a pinnacle again, a pinnacle other States can only dream about, but never achieve. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Finance. He has achieved a historic pinnacle unequalled in the history of the world of today.

The hon. members of the official Opposition, who are the instigators of our critics and enemies, would do well to ask themselves how it is possible that the NP and a country like South Africa, which, according to them, is drifting aimlessly in a sea of oppression and denial of human rights, should be able to achieve such a pinnacle, in direct contrast to other countries of the West and of Africa. It may be difficult or even impossible for them to be politically honest, but if they can achieve that pinnacle of honesty and can rise above their past, then they will find that the answer is quite simple and obvious.

This budget is the product of years of NP policy planning, vision and adjustment. If everything were as rotten and bad as the Opposition maintains, such a fine budget would never have been possible. If South Africa had adopted the Prog policy, we should have had revolution and chaos with a broken economy instead of this fine budget we have today, because whether they want to know it or not, they cannot dispute the fact that the stable Government of South Africa, our Defence Force, police, security services and the goodwill of fellow South Africans and the purposeful, honest and humane leadership of our hon. Prime Minister are what has made this budget possible. They know it, and that is why they are concentrating on trying to break down these foundations of stability in South Africa.

In every Parliamentary session the official Opposition launches an attack on our security services. They did so again during this session, with the hon. member for Houghton in the vanguard, but with the one exception that this year they also attacked the Defence Force and tried to drag it in and undermine it. Everything that stands for the security of the State and stability must be undermined. In his speech during the no-confidence debate the hon. the Minister of Police referred to some of the subversive organizations. Referring to the ANC, he said on 7 February 1980 (Hansard, col. 301)—

†The question arises how far the PFP has been infiltrated by the ANC. Which hon. members of the PFP speak and act for the ANC?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those two statements.

It is a question, Mr. Speaker.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those two questions and any insinuations contained therein.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the questions and any insinuations contained therein.

†Most of the Nusas leaders are in cahoots with the ANC and other treasonable organizations, and those same Nusas leaders are in the vanguard of the PFP attempt on South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member is again making the same insinuation by referring to Nusas and saying that they are involved with the PFP.

Order! The hon. member may proceed for the time being.

I quote further from the hon. the Minister’s speech—

The hon. member for Yeoville surely does not expect me to withdraw that.

†I ask again not only how far the PFP has been infiltrated, but also who of them have been infiltrated. I quote further from the hon. the Minister’s speech—

*I have with me a Nusas pamphlet entitled “Nusas Theme 1980: Exposing Total Strategy”. It is a filthy, disgraceful affair which encourages the youth …

I think it is a banned document.

… not to get involved in the defence of the country and at the same time to encourage the youth, as far as our present system is concerned, to …

They should arrest him when he walks out of here.

The hon. member will find it very funny.

You are committing a criminal offence.

The hon. member must defend the pamphlet, because it applies to him, too. At the same time this pamphlet encourages the youth to attempt to overthrow the existing system and dispensation in our country.

What are you doing with a banned document?

I shall come to that hon. member in a moment. The hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Pinelands approve of this kind of Marxist, revolutionary propaganda put out by Nusas.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker …

That hon. member is rising for nothing. He covertly approves of it.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that sentence.

Which one, Mr. Speaker?

Throw him out of the House.

The hon. member must not attempt to trifle with the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, it is just that I am not sure …

The hon. member must withdraw what he said about the hon. members for Houghton and Pinelands.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I do not think the hon. member said by implication that the hon. members approved of communism.

The hon. member definitely did say so. The hon. member must proceed.

Mr. Speaker, not one word of disapproval or condemnation is heard from the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Pinelands. Like mother hens they take this kind of Nusas chick under their wing and protect them. In The Argus …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member what his view is of the relationship between the official Opposition and the ANC in South Africa? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I reply? [Interjections.] Sir, I had better withdraw it before I even answer. [Interjections.]

Hon. members must not attempt to make a joke of the Chair’s rulings.

In one of the March editions of The Argus I read that “the students from Durban were angered at the banning of their first publication for 1980: ‘Nusas Theme 1980: Exposing Total Strategy,’ and that speaking from Cape Town, Mr. Andrew Boraine …

Hear, hear!

It somehow rings a bell.

That is right. That is more than you can do.

I quote further—

You are in possession of it.

I wonder how long it will be before the hon. members for Pinelands and Houghton will come to the defence of these their chicks. I cannot help but ask myself a further question.

You will only get a very silly answer.

How far does the total strategy of some Prog members stretch for the overthrow of law and order in this country?

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Durban Point, the Leader of the NRP—unfortunately he is not here at the moment— on the defection of the hon. member for East London North, and I do so for certain reasons. I want to quote an extract from a letter in the Daily Dispatch, a newspaper which the hon. member for East London North loves so dearly and in which he loves to see his photograph and every word he utters published.

Which you praised in the provincial council …

His friend is Donald Woods.

Nor have I ever tried to run away from this country and its problems yet…

There is still time.

I want to quote from this letter written by Mr. J. C. V. Hunt of the Daily Dispatch on 25 March 1980—

Secondly, I would like to quote from another article in the Daily Dispatch of 1 April 1980, where in reply to a question …

Order! I did not quite follow the hon. member. Is he referring to the hon. member for East London North?

Mr. Speaker, with all respect, I only quoted verbatim a letter which appeared in the Daily Dispatch and which refers to the hon. member for East London North …

As being a Judas?

The letter says so. I do not say so.

Yes, but the hon. member must withdraw that nevertheless. The hon. member cannot quote things here which are unparliamentary.

Mr. Speaker…

No hon. member can quote things here which are unparliamentary and try to hide behind that. The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, with great respect, the letter quoted by the hon. member refers to the hon. member for East London North when he was still a member of another place, the provincial council. He does not refer to him as a member of this House. He refers to him as a member of the provincial council when he quotes that the hon. member was at the time supposedly a Judas in the ranks. He is not saying by implication that he is a Judas now. [Interjections.]

Order! My ruling is that it can neither be said here that a member is a liar now or that he was a liar before, nor can other people be quoted as saying so. If the hon. member quotes it here he is saying by implication that he is associating himself with it. For that reason the hon. member must withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is a member, then, not allowed to quote?

Of course an hon. member may quote.

But that is all the hon. member did.

But an hon. member may not introduce unparliamentary language into the House by means of a quotation and thereby cast a reflection on another hon. member. The hon. member for King William’s Town must withdraw it.

I have already withdrawn it, Sir.

Then the hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I now want to quote what the hon. member for East London North himself said. In reply to a question by an old UP member, Mr. Bell of East London, he stated in the Daily Dispatch of 1 April 1980 why he suddenly decided that the NRP was not good enough for him and why he joined the PFP. I quote him verbatim—

I now wish to quote from another letter in the Daily Dispatch of 8 April 1980 in which the hon. member for East London North apparently, according to the letter, in reply to a … [Interjections.] The hon. member reacted to a letter written to him by one of his party colleagues who was in a fairly senior position in the party, and on 21 February 1980—bear in mind that the statement which the hon. member for East London North made in regard to his decision to leave the NRP was taken as far back as December 1979—he said in a letter to a member of the management of his party—

Mr. Speaker, … [Interjections.] … You ruled that I may not even quote from the newspapers to the effect that the hon. member for East London North is a Judas. I now withdraw that before I can say it. I do not say it at all. [Interjections.] Now, however, I want to quote what the hon. member for East London North himself had to say in the Daily Dispatch. It was in the 12 November 1979 edition. This is what the hon. member for East London North said—

†That is what the hon. member for East London North said very sarcastically—

That is what the hon. member for East London North said. I want to go further, however. As far as I am concerned it is not only forced integration; it is also forced discrimination against the White man. The hon. member for East London North went even further and …

Why do you say that?

I am not speaking to the hon. member for Pinelands. I am speaking now to the hon. member for East London North. The hon. member for East London North said further—

No, wait. Let me start right at the beginning, otherwise we may confuse the hon. member for East London North. [Interjections.] This is what he said—

This is the man who challenged the hon. member to a public debate, which, of course, the hon. member for East London North declined—

Of course, I can only ask: “Where has the hon. member for East London North gone? Has he gone to Helen-gone ‘of is hy in sy Harry-in?’ ” [Interjections.]

*I should like to know that. He might as well stand up and tell us. [Interjections.]

†Having congratulated the hon. leader of the NRP on the defection of the hon. member for East London North it is perhaps also my Christian duty to sympathize with the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition for his being burdened with the presence of the hon. member for East London North, who now sits in his party. [Interjections.] I want to make it very clearnto the hon. member for East London North and to everyone else who cares to listen that no Prog will ever be elected to represent an East London or Border area constituency in this House. [Interjections.] Never! [Interjections.] People in the Border area are fair-minded. They are willing to share and to co-operate with other race groups. Sell their birthright under Prog policy, however, is something they will never do. Never! [Interjections.]

*Everyone who belongs to a political party or represents a political party must have reasons for supporting that specific party. It must be a question of principle, of patriotism, the expectation that a certain party will mean more for the country and its people in the future than another, etc. If that is not the case, we must take it that membership of a political party is based purely on opportunism and political greed. The hon. member for East London North was elected to this House as a member of the NRP. He resigned from that party but in conflict with the wishes of his voters he did not resign as a member of this House, but instead joined the PFP and represents that party in this House. Because only a Prog candidate and an NRP candidate were nominated for the election of a member for East London North—it was therefore a duel between the two parties—even the Nationalists of East London North voted for the NRP to keep the PFP out at any price.

Oh, is that what happened there?

That was even before we knew that Donald Woods and the Daily Dispatch had written them into the ground in East London. What do the people of East London North now have in exchange for their confidence and trouble? Not a Prog who stood for the PFP openly and on principle, but a Prog who crept in, disguised by the back door. The voters’ faith in the hon. member for East London North is misplaced. His membership of the NRP was clearly not based on conviction and faith in what the NRP could achieve for the country and his people, but rather on what that party could mean for him. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, about a month ago the hon. member for East London North made a sneering reference in this hon. House to the words of the hon. member for Pretoria Central, “It is nice to be a Nationalist.” I pointed out to him on that occasion that as soon as the courtship between the NRP and the Progs was over, he would come to realize that it is dreadful to be a Prog. Listening to his speech, one came to the conclusion that he is at present afflicted with convulsions of doubtful pleasure in the sense that he as a back-bencher in the PFP is able to attack the NP. In the past he professed to be a finance speaker. This evening, however, when he had an opportunity to discuss the budget, he only made silly political remarks here. However, the hon. member for King William’s Town has dealt with him, so I shall leave him at that.

There remain two aspects in the South African economy which give cause for concern. The hon. the Minister of Finance referred to these in his budget speech. The two aspects are inflation and unemployment. The latter is levelling off and improving, and I shall try to show later on that our present economic climate may bring about a further improvement. However, inflation remains a serious problem, and therefore I am greatful for the fact that the hon. the Minister continued to apply financial discipline in speaking of the period ahead and said that there must be disciplined growth from a position of basic strength. This financial discipline will surely become even more important in the future.

We are dealing now with an upswing in the economy. There has been an increase in the present capacity utilization. In May 1979, 85,4% of the available capacity was utilized. In August 1979, it was 86,1%. A few sectors already have 100% utilization, while others are making good progress. What is important is that manufacturing production increased by 6% between 1978 and 1979. I want to request tonight that we should help to buy goods manufactured in South Africa. We must extend a helping hand to our factories in this period of upswing. Good quality is available. There is still unutilized production capacity in some manufacturing sectors and we as consumers can do much to rectify this. Naturally, an increase in manufacturing production is only possible if there is constant private consumer expenditure.

The service sector has shown the greatest growth, i.e. 4,6%, which is really encouraging. Non-durable goods have shown a growth of 2,8%, semi-durable goods 0,1% and durable goods 0,5%. The total real consumer expenditure increased by 2,5% during the first nine months of 1979.

Private consumer expenditure remains one of the most important means of stimulating the present upswing in our economy. If this increase in private consumer expenditure can be encouraged and public expenditure can readily be kept in check, a healthy fixed private investment will be built up in the future. Since 1976, the real gross domestic fixed investment has decreased by successive annual rates of 2,5%, 7,4% and 4,7%. However, this tendency was checked in 1979, when the drop in the annual rate was only 0,6%. Therefore this decline is now rapidly levelling off. Fixed investment is necessary for healthy growth with the built-in element of financial discipline which accompanies responsible private expenditure.

Significant expenditure is possible if the consumer has both the ability and the willingness to spend. I want to repeat: Significant expenditure is only possible if the consumer has both the ability and the willingness to spend. In 1979, there was an increasing willingness to spend. This year, with this fine budget of salary adjustments and income tax concessions, the ability to spend is also being created. Therefore private expenditure is going to be stimulated.

What are the immediate results? In the first place, expenditure creates investment. Therefore more people can be employed. In this way, unemployment will be combated. This generates additional income, which will in turn lead to greater demand. To complete this cycle and to implement it successfully, there is one important aspect which must of course be added, and that is proper training and a larger measure of skill.

Hear, hear!

More attention will have to be given to this in the future. Education and training for the various population groups will have to receive high priority.

A second aspect that will have to receive attention is the increase in the consumer price index. Salaries and wages will have to rise at a faster rate than the consumer price index. To put it differently, the consumer price index will have to be kept at a lower level than the increase in salaries and wages, because an increase in real income creates greater consumer confidence. No growth can take place if there is consumer resistance. These conditions are bound to lead to fixed investment by the private sector.

The sore eye in our present financial set-up remains, as I said at the beginning, the high rate of inflation. This can have an adverse effect on a healthy growth rate. That is why we should like to thank the hon. the Minister for having been able to announce tax relief and to continue keeping a check on Government expenditure. This creates a healthy climate for greater investment, which leads to higher earnings and profits becoming available for investment. Funds for investment are becoming readily available. In the same way, building societies are in the fortunate position of obtaining so much funds that it has been possible to lower interest rates on mortgage bonds.

This brings me to the third aspect in our economic activities which will have to receive urgent attention, namely housing problems. Mr. Speaker, allow me just to refer here to the position in Pretoria in respect of housing for Whites. The demand for housing in Pretoria has now assumed such dimensions that it is heading for chaotic conditions.

Not in Pretoria East.

The increasing demand has caused such an increase in prices that the ordinary salaried worker finds it difficult to obtain a house—even in Pretoria East. Therefore I am grateful for the fact that most building societies now find themselves able to raise the R28 000 ceiling for a 10% cash deposit. Houses are simply no longer available in Pretoria at this price. The result was that it was no longer possible to obtain a house at a 10% cash deposit plus the 10% guarantee deposit. I trust that all building societies will soon be able to apply to the Registrar of Building Societies for a higher ceiling in this connection.

Finally, I wish to refer to the salary adjustments and more specifically to the salary adjustments of the teachers. In the first place, on behalf of the teachers and more specifically the Transvaal teachers, I wish to convey our sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Minister of National Education and the whole Government for their accommodating attitude in respect of salaries for teachers. I do not want to discuss the extent of the concessions. I believe that this is an internal matter and will be handled by the education departments concerned and by the organized profession. However, I want to refer to what the hon. the Minister said in his budget speech, when he expressed himself as follows about the position of the teachers (Hansard, 26 March, col. 3534)—

This confirms the good faith of the Government towards the teachers. For this reason, it is a pity that there was a stage where some teachers doubted this, but let us not go into that.

What worries me, however, and now I am speaking in the first place as a parent, is that the unfortunate incident took place when between 2 000 and 3 000 teachers had reportedly met in Johannesburg under the auspices of the Transvaal Teachers’ Association. In particular, there are two unfortunate aspects about this that cannot be defended. The fact that such a meeting was held a few days before the budget was introduced has to be questioned.

Have teachers no rights?

The question occurs to me whether it was only the discussion of salary problems that was at issue. I want to ask the hon. member for Durban Point whether it was purely concerned with the discussion of salary problems of the teachers and whether there were any deeper motives.

If we accept that the persons involved in that meeting knew the Government administration, knew that announcements would be made in the budget and that inputs into the budget are planned months in advance, we believe it would have been logical to wait for the announcement they knew would come at the time of the budget. Then there would not have been talk of refusing to do any additional work at such a meeting. There would not have been talk of refusing to do paperwork. There would not have been talk of a week-long strike if their expectations were not met.

I want to state categorically that it is regrettable that there was a measure of militant intent here which is simply not reconcilable with education. It is regrettable that a part of organized education should have created such a climate. The parent likes to know that his child is placed in the hands of the educator without doubting for one moment where they want to go with our children. May it never happen again that 3 000 teachers should demonstrate, as an example to our children, that this is a method of financial bargaining or of obtaining better conditions of service. Such behaviour complicates our bargaining power as representatives to help them. Similar action in the future may mean that it will become more and more difficult for us to accompany them along this road. For this reason I am grateful for the fact that the TO has dissociated itself from this protest meeting.

I want to thank the hon. the Minister and the Government once again for the concession in the field of education, and may all be well with our teaching profession in South Africa in respect of the education of our White youth.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Gezina on having put the standpoint of the teacher, and I thank him for the positive pressure be brought to bear to the effect that the teachers should not behave irresponsibly. Some of them did take the right decision.

We have now been discussing the budget for several days. The hon. member for Yeoville is an expert in the field of finance. I do not regard him as a person who does not know the financial situation of South Africa, but he devoted a very small part of his speech to the financial implications of the budget. However, there is something which I find striking: In the time I have been in Parliament, the Opposition has realized that there is only one way in which they can make any political progress, and that is by referring to the dissension in the NP.

Then I actually witnessed a tragedy here this evening as far as the hon. member for East London North and the hon. member for Durban Point are concerned. The hon. member for East London North has left that party. From time to time one finds these undercurrents, but in which party? It is easy for the hon. member for Yeoville to say every time: What does Andries say?

But Andries does not reply.

It is very easy to arouse expectations on the part of the Press and the people to the effect that there is something unholy taking place within the NP. Therefore I should like to tell those hon. members—I am quite honest in saying this—that there are differences of emphasis within our party. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development says exactly the same thing as I do, but he says it in a different way, perhaps with more enthusiasm, and he emphasizes a certain point. Those hon. members would find it informative if they could attend one of our weekly caucus meetings.

May we come next time?

There has not been any discussion of dissension at our caucus meetings during this session. Hon. members may take my word for that. I wish they could see what harmony there is at our caucus meetings when we are discussing matters of importance. We do not engage in petty point-scoring and other negative activities.

It is a fact of life in our politics that the climate in the north is different from that in the south. A person like myself, who farms in the north, on the border of a homeland, and other farmers in the Transvaal who farm on the borders of Botswana, Rhodesia or Mozambique, experience different problems from those of the farmer in the south. It goes without saying that there will be a difference between the way some things are regarded in the northern provinces and in the south.

They all have post offices! [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon. member that there is only one method of approaching things in South Africa. I concede that there are times when we have to go through a crisis, but what other political party in the world could have suffered a debacle like the Information debacle, as the NP has done, and still remain a strong party, a unified one? We are solving those problems. It was a shock to our voters and it resulted in a few setbacks for us in some by-elections. However, in what direction has growth taken place? Has there been growth in the direction of the PFP? Certainly not.

Who won Edenvale?

Edenvale is not a traditional NP seat. But as against Edenvale, the hon. member for Germiston was elected unopposed for the NP. Why did they not put up a candidate in Rustenburg? Why did they not say that they could benefit from this strife and dissension between the Treurnicht people and the P. W. Botha people and put up candidates in those constituencies? After all, they could have exploited this so-called strife and dissension in those constituencies. Throughout the year, there has been a general feeling in the country that an attempt should be made to divide the NP.

It is divided.

Every time, however, there is a split in those parties. Time and again, there is a split among them. It was tragic to see people attacking each other so vehemently this evening that the Speaker was hard put to it to maintain order. This happens because there is discord among those people.

What did the hon. member for Bezuidenhout say today? What is his standpoint about Mandela? What is the standpoint of the hon. member for Yeoville about a man who is a listed communist?

The same as Japie’s. [Interjections.]

The same as Japie’s? The political set-up at the moment is such that one could have a fruitful discussion about that. If I had been a newspaper correspondent, I would also have had a lovely time writing about a split in the NP. “Andries is cornered,” could be the headline in my newspaper in order to boost the sales of my paper. However, I want to tell hon. members that this is mere wishful thinking. I want to tell hon. members that South Africa would be hurt if the NP were to split. Every one of us who is sitting on this side of the House realizes that. We may differ with one another, but what happened in the Opposition ranks will not happen in ours. People who speculate about that are wasting their time, because there is no question of it.

[Inaudible.]

I am not trying to throw up a smoke-screen. [Interjections.] I know he does not like that. The split when Albert Hertzog broke away was the only one that has occurred since the NP came into power 32 years ago. Why did he do that? Four MPs left with him. Dr. Hertzog was no longer in the Cabinet at the time. The situation was completely different from the present one. In the past 11 years since they left, have they shown any growth in the sense of being represented in this House? We cannot afford that in South Africa. I do not find it in my heart to live in enmity with any member of the Opposition and I cannot understand why they want to hurt South Africa. I shall come later to our policy in respect of Black people and White people. I am not an enemy of the Black man. I do not regard myself as a person who has a passport which entitles me to better treatment than a Black man just because my skin is white. But I do want to plead that the realities should not be lost sight of.

The hon. member for Parys pointed out this evening that a psychosis is developing in our country—it is due to some sort of inferiority complex—and that one no longer has the right today to tell Mr. Buthelezi that he should have regard to the first basic instruction he has been given, namely to cultivate the soil.