Mr. Speaker, I referred last night to the objectives of the official Opposition, which, in its desire to come into power, regards a split in the NP as the only solution. That is clear to us all. It is quite obvious. However, I want to ask the hon. official Opposition—especially in the light of South Africa’s relations with the rest of the world—to clarify some of their policies for us. I contend that there are people in the Opposition today who, after their 23 years of frustration, no longer care whether the HNP wins an election. There are people in the ranks of the Opposition who would welcome an HNP victory. [Interjections.]

I even saw hon. members of the Opposition derive satisfaction from the uprisings in Soweto. There are certain Opposition members who, when they learn about problems among the Coloured people, will not try to calm the people, but will try to exploit the discord for political gain. [Interjections.] I say these things because they disturb me. In South Africa we must proceed from the point of view … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I should want a ruling from you on whether the hon. the Minister is allowed to suggest that hon. members of the official Opposition could not care whether there are uprisings in Soweto or not and that they would do nothing to calm the people there. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, in order not to waste time, I shall put it differently and say that there are some hon. members of the Opposition … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, in order to save time I shall withdraw that. However, I still believe … [Interjections.]

Order! I shall consider the point of order. Meanwhile the hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, it is always difficult for a person when the wind is taken out of his sails. [Interjections.]

Order!

From the reaction of some hon. members on the other side in connection with the problem in Coloured education, one can see what is going on, after all. When we are making proposals concerning consolidation, in order to achieve our objectives, we know, after all, what contact some hon. members on the other side have with some Black leaders. We know, after all, what they tell those Black leaders to say and how they dictate certain decisions to them. However, we shall leave it at that.

You are insulting the Black people.

The point I want to make clear is that they do not have a snowball’s hope of coming into power if they cannot split the NP. I said yesterday that if they could only attend the NP caucus meetings for one moment, they would see what we do there. We do not engage in petty point-scoring, something which they enjoy, but in discussions of the problems concerning the survival of all the nations in South Africa, White, Black and Brown. We discuss their happiness.

So we have heard.

In doing so, we take into consideration the problems which exist. Now I want to address the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Yesterday the hon. member for East London North explained his political credo here and said that he supported the policy of the PFP. He also said that he was in favour of power sharing, in favour of a system of “one man, one vote” …

I did not say that.

Well, that is what it amounts to. [Interjections.] That is the whole idea that is contained in it. [Interjections.] You see, Mr. Speaker, we really cannot make out at all what the PFP’s policy actually is. However, their followers follow them. I live in Sea Point. The other day I said to PFP supporters who live with me in the same block of flats: “You must remember that if the PFP came into power, Black and White would live together in this block of flats.” Then they said: “But it cannot be.” So they do not understand the implications of such a policy. Whether there is a federal system or not, with a policy of power-sharing, there must be only one leader, one Prime Minister. I accept that that will be a Black man, for that is power-sharing, after all.

Mandela!

I have no quarrel with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. However, he must tell me—be it Mandela; be it Mr. Buthelezi—whether he has ever wondered whether a Tswana would be willing to serve under a Zulu. Does he think that a Tswana or a Venda or a Sotho would be prepared today to serve under a Zulu? Does the hon. leader understand what a complex problem there is at the moment? Show me one country in Africa—except Malawi— which is happy today and in which this policy of the PFP is being implemented. In America, where this policy is in fact implemented, I drove through Washington with one of their foremost agricultural officials last November, and on houses everywhere I saw signs saying “For sale”. So I asked him: “Why ‘for sale’?” His reply was: “The Blacks decided to move into this suburb and now the Whites are selling out.”

That is a country with a free system. However, this is the way we are made—a goat among goats and a sheep among sheep. We cannot get away from that. We have only to take note of the situation in the world today. We can take note of the situation in Africa. One thing must be accepted: I have no other homeland. I also said yesterday that I did not have a passport which allowed me to do certain things merely because my skin was White. I am even prepared to live in Mamelodi. However, then I want to live with my people in Mamelodi, as a member of my traditional ethnic group, according to my nature. If I am going to plant trees in Mamelodi, if I am going to work hard, to beautify the place and not to spoil it, to use my initiative and to tar its roads, then I ask please to be allowed to live in Mamelodi as a White man. Is that a sin? Am I not allowed to ask that groups who want to be together should live together? Why should they deliberately be told to mix, in terms of the policy of the official Opposition? It just does not work that way in practice. [Interjections.]

While we are dealing with this matter, there are certain things which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must spell out to me. He must say clearly what things will be consistently applied in terms of his policy.

Now I am just looking at what has happened in the rest of Africa and in the rest of the world. I have referred to the hon. member for Parys. There is something which I wonder whether hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who I think ought to be responsible, has ever in his existence as a leader said to a man such as Mr. Buthelezi, or to the next man who may agitate for franchise. The Chief Whip of the Opposition has said that one should not use Mr. Buthelezi’s name here because he does not sit in this House. Those were his words yesterday. The hon. member wants Chief Buthelezi to sit in this House, in terms of the hon. member’s policy of power-sharing. In other words, we would be a small percentage of Whites, with a large number of Blacks. I ask hon. members what has happened in Africa. Do the hon. members want the events in the rest of Africa to be repeated here? I ask this because they want to release Mandela. What happened in Mozambique? When the White man left the country, it went to rack and ruin. There is no food. What happened in Angola and the rest of Africa? What happened in Rhodesia when unrest broke out there? Today Rhodesia is a country which has to import meat, while we used to buy meat from Rhodesia. Rhodesia is asking us for maize, and they had good rains in that country during the past season. Its production has been ruined. I say that one should look at all the things that have happened, and also at what has happened in South Africa over the past 32 years, under this Government.

Two or three years ago, I was invited by the Shah of Iran to be his guest for 10 days. When I asked him in his palace why he was going to the trouble of receiving me so hospitably in his country, he said: “I want you to help me with the agriculture of my country.” I have never met a Black man in South Africa who is as poor as the people I saw in Iran, who have been living there in their traditional way for centuries. There are farmers in Iran who are 50 years old, but who have never had shoes on their feet. It is an impoverished country. And in respect of South Africa I ask what we have here today with a White Government whose policy has always been: Uplift the Black man, give him education, Christianize him, give him free medical services, but to not oppress him; develop him. But development takes place over centuries. It is not a thing which happens overnight.

In terms of their policy, the Opposition wants to draw a line through these factors and say: Surrender. Power-sharing is the policy of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. However, he must carry it through consistently and he must tell us what is going to happen to this Parliament in his federation. I have made the greatest enemy of a White farmer because I had him prosecuted under an Act for having ruined the soil; shall I still be able then to say that the farmer does not have the right to ruin the potential of the farm? He must respect and love his soil. In this way, South Africa has become a giant in the agricultural field, the seventh most important agricultural producer in the world. We have achieved these things.

Now I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to spell out frankly the consequences of his policy. It is very easy just to speak of political advantages. There are African countries that have obtained political rights, that have obtained franchise, but where a voter has to vote with the aid of a picture because he has not even received the basic training to enable him to read. And if one asked him about his position today, he would say that he no longer had the vote. He would say that he no longer had it under the communist or Mandela system. He would say that he was starving today, that there were no foreign investments any more and that he no longer had any initiative. These countries did not do the first things for the development of a nation by uplifting the people culturally. In spite of that, they are all loud in their demands for political rights. I say: Take away my political right as well, if I have the guarantee that I can live in a country with a free economy where people’s initiative is not suppressed, where there is not a communist system and where I can produce in the agricultural, industrial and any other field. Then I say I no longer want my franchise. Just give me the right to do the basic kind of thing.

However, the Minister of Finance asked me to discuss the subsidies on food. I wish I could have devoted all my time to the other matter. I shall come presently to what the hon. member for Yeoville says from time to time. The hon. member for Mooi River will be very inclined to get worked up and to say: Subsidize the means of production. When I tell the hon. member for Yeoville something in a debate, he says “You are misleading the people.” I want to tell the hon. member that there are farmers in South Africa—the hon. member says we have cheap Black labour— who do not have a single Black or Coloured man in their service. They have mechanized, and I bitterly regret it, because it has led to unemployment in the country today. However, the price of their product forced them fully to mechanize their operations. They have planted their wheat themselves, harvested it mechanically, applied weed-killer by aircraft and delivered it in bulk to the grain silos themselves. I ask the hon. members whether I can compare the farmer with the American or Australian producer. The farmers themselves, without any labour, have produced the wheat which supplies our bread today at a price which compares favourably with the cheapest in the world. With what? With an imported tractor, with imported diesel, with imported implements and with imported spare parts. He has made use of imported products to produce the cheapest bread in the world, and this applies to other agricultural products as well. Why do hon. members say that I should not compare the figures for America with those for South Africa? I want to tell hon. members, whether they like it or not, that according to the figures of the American Minister of Agriculture, a loaf of bread weighing 900 grams cost $1,94 in Berne today.

What is the average income in the United States?

Forget about the average income. I am looking at the price at which the South African farmer produces the wheat with imported means of production. It is interesting to examine the figures. In Brussels, a loaf of 900 grams cost $1,25; in Copenhagen, $1,95; in Washington, the land of plenty, 97c; and here it says: “In Pretoria, the cheapest in the world, 34c.” This was the price before it was recently increased. Is it right, therefore, not to compare the prices of foodstuffs? A kilogram of sirloin steak costs $18,43 in Berne; $10,43 in Bonn; $7,47 in Washington and $4,76 in Pretoria.

In New Zealand and Australia?

There we have similar figures. I shall give the hon. member the figures and he can examine them. The figures are not being concealed. They are officially published figures. Now people say: “Why not subsidize?” There are people who find it very easy to shout: “Subsidize!” Then they must say, however, how the hon. the Minister of Finance is to subsidize these foodstuffs. What did we spend our money on in this country last year? Tell me how he is to subsidize. We spent R1 833 million on meat last year. Whites and Blacks, everyone in this country, spent R1 504 million on bread and other grain products last year. Tell me what subsidy must be paid on these commodities. Do not just say: “Subsidize!” Then I come to milk, milk products and eggs. R703 million was spent on these, and R546 million on sugar, jams and fruit. I sympathize with the poor, but one must have some respect for a loaf of bread! What did we spend on tobacco? R603 million was spent on tobacco in this country, but the largest amount of all, in a country where White and Black go hungry today—as some people wish to suggest—was spent on alcohol: an amount of R1 970 million.

Why do you not tax it higher?

The consumption of Coco-Cola and sugar-water is higher than the consumption of milk in Soweto, but Coco-Cola costs 52c a litre, and milk only 41c a litre. Can hon. members believe that a litre of milk is cheaper than a litre of petrol in our country? Those hon. members cannot sell their policy. I am sorry that the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition are not here. Their numbers will remain small if they do not have an acceptable policy. They remind me so much of the man who went to Arabia.

†He went to Arabia, of all places, to sell milking machines. Whilst selling his milking machines, he came to a farmer with only one cow and sold him a milking machine and took the cow for a deposit! [Interjections.] I think the same chap went to Rome and sold the Pope a double bed. [Interjections.]

*One has to have such a person, someone who has a head for business. I hear the Opposition demanding so easily that we should subsidize the means of production in agriculture. In this budget debate so far, only the hon. member for Durban North has made a positive contribution from that side. Not a single other hon. member has spoken about the budget itself. No one has hitherto been able to criticize the hon. the Minister’s budget, except those who shouted every time: “Why has the bread price gone up? Subsidize food!” In the amendment moved by those hon. members, too, agriculture was mentioned, but not a single hon. member has spoken about agriculture, and this debate is drawing to a close. The hon. member for Mooi River and others say: “Subsidize the means of production!” It is easy to say that. Last year we spent R317 million on fertilizer. This year it will be round about R400 million. To what tune are we supposed to subsidize? We spent R320 on machinery, implements and tractors. On maintenance and repairs we spent an amount of R224 million; on diesel, R340 million; on fodder, an amount of R420 million and on packing material, R81 million. We spent R90 million on seed. We spent a total amount of R2 260 million on agriculture, excluding labour and transport. It is said: “Subsidize the inputs in agriculture.” To what tune? How big should the subsidy be that we should give if one takes into consideration the amount of R2 260 million, without labour and transport? It is very easy to say that the price should be kept low and the means of production should be subsidized. I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Finance that if he were to offer me R15 million for a subsidy on fertilizer, I would say: “Stick it.” What is R15 million on R400 million? It is peanuts. It is a drop in the ocean. One has to be realistic. It is easy to insist on the means of production being subsidized, but then hon. members must spell out the details and say how much they are prepared to take away from the taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister to tell us what percentage of the farmers are marginal farmers?

It varies from district to district. We decide on our prices on an average. We take an average maize crop of, say, 2,8 tons per ha. Some farmers, however, will be getting 4 tons per ha and others only 1,5 tons. One must work on averages.

*We have been able to keep the prices down and still give the farmers reasonable prices for their products because of one thing only. From time to time, the Opposition likes to join some critics in disparaging our control board system, but I want to say that if it had not been for our co-operatives and control board system in this country, we would have been paying a fortune for food today. Because we exercise control and because we have continuity and orderly marketing, one is able to say proudly today, in spite of various problems such as inflation, etc., that his country produces the cheapest food in the world. I want to say that the hon. the Minister for Finance had no other choice than to increase the bread price. There is still a subsidy of 11 cents on a brown loaf and 4 cents on a white loaf. A subsidy of 1 cent a loaf means R15 million today. Then hon. members say we should subsidize food. Let me say quite frankly that we are going to increase the mi<u>lk</u> price in May. When that happens, they must not call for the milk price to be subsidized. A subsidy of 1 cent on a litre of milk costs us R10 million. A litre of milk costs 41 cents. To subsidize it with 1 cent means 50% of bugger-all. It is no use. [Interjections.] Sir, I have spilt water on these figures. Now they really are “Nat”! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Does the hon. the Minister not go a little far with his use of the vernacular when he uses a word like “bugger-all”? [Interjections.]

I shall say “bugger nothing” then. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Will you rule that the hon. the Minister withdraw that remark?

The hon. the Minister has withdrawn it.

I am very sorry, Sir. The hon. member is not in a good mood today. I am not fighting. I am prepared to withdraw that remark. I am not a “bitterbek”. It is not in my nature.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister entitled to refer to another member—he was obviously referring to me—as a “bitterbek”? [Interjections.]

Order! I did not understand the hon. the Minister to refer to any other hon. member.

I want to conclude by saying that when I speak on behalf of the farmer of South Africa, I speak on behalf of the Black farmers as well. If I get a good price for a White farmer, it is my intention also to get a good price for the Black man as a farmer.

*It does the farmer of South Africa credit to be able to say that in spite of unfavourable weather conditions, he has ensured that not a single housewife in this country has to stand in a queue; there is enough food for all. We can even export to other countries in Africa. Several requests have been received from African countries for assistance with wheat and maize. Then we tell them that we are prepared to help them. That is the attitude that prevails. I see those leaders, I farm on the border of a homeland and I talk to them. When the hon. members of the Opposition talk to them, they should tell them that before making such a fuss about political rights, should they not begin by obeying the first commandment and first cultivating their land? They say the land is too small. When one visits Lebowa, where one could draw a thin line to show where the White man farms, on this side of the same river from which he is allowed to pump, the EDC tells those Black people that it will give them a loan to put up a pump, but they just have to develop this territory. That is why I say it is the duty of an Opposition, because there are many of these Opposition members who, like me, have no other homeland. It is high time we took up a positive attitude towards these things. We should take a global view, because that is the right thing to do. Do not continue agitating for Black franchise in this debate and in this Parliament while you do not even understand this basic thing which a man first has to do in the right way.

We say that we are abolishing job reservation. Of course! One cannot expect 4½ million Whites to do the thinking and planning for a total population of 28 million. We have said that we are going to give the Black man an education, and today there are thousands of Black matriculants. At Jan Smuts Airport, someone told me that they could not fill certain posts. I replied: Fill the post with a Black man if there are no Whites to do the work. No White person was threatened. And what is the attitude of the Whites? In my constituency a man got up and said: “I am willing to lay bricks along with a Black man, on one condition. If I get R150 a week, he must get it too. But if you can get him for R50 a week, and I have to get R150 a week to maintain my standard of living, that is not fair and the building contractor is going to take the Black man. However, give him R150 and give me R150, and I can assure you of one thing. I shall lay more bricks than he and I shall be at work on Monday.” That is the attitude of my people who say: “I understand the dilemma; the number of Whites is too small to activate this country to achieve a 5% growth rate.” There is no disagreement about these matters. I want to give the assurance, we can go into these things one by one, but hon. members on the other side must stop the story of power-sharing, making all kinds of promises to the Black man while he has not yet developed sufficiently to understand the implications of the vote, as we have had it in Africa.

Order! I undertook to consider the point of order raised by the hon. member for Pinelands. My view is that if the hon. the Minister implied that some hon. members of the Opposition approved of the uprisings in Soweto, where murder, arson and killings took place, he should please withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister’s speech is difficult to understand. At times, when he was talking in terms of human problems he showed signs of “verligtheid”, but when he got onto the political issue, he retreated right back to “verkramptheid” of the 1960s. When he dealt with the economic issue, he decided that he could get by either by comparing food prices in Soweto with food prices in New York or by telling jokes. The fact is that as far as this budget is concerned the direct effect is that there will be relief for the affluent of society and there will be no relief for the people for whom he expresses concern. There is no point telling us what the price of bread and steak is in New York. What we are concerned about is how the ordinary people of South Africa are going to get by and how they are going to make ends meet against the background of the crushing cost of living. And the hon. the Minister knows this. He should know that there are old people, there are poor people and there are millions of people who are battling. In this budget there is no direct relief for those people. I would have expected him to take note and say: “Yes, there is a rise in the price of bread, but there has been a rise in the price of bricks, of electricity, of rail fares, rentals, food prices and milk.” He knows that this is a crushing burden on millions and millions of people in South Africa. He raised a number of political issues. I do not want to dwell on them at length, but I want to say that he is adopting a Rip van Winkle approach. He is still talking as he used to talk in the 1960s of separate ethnic groups living in isolation in South Africa. Does he not know what is happening under his own policy? Does he not know what is happening under the impact of urbanization in South Africa? We are becoming a more shared society and there are fewer and fewer areas where Whites can say on an ethnic basis that they want to live in isolation. He argues about the concept of “magsdeling”.

Let us forget the semantics of the word. I want to ask him, in his new South Africa of the future, whether it is under the Government’s present plan or some future plan, in a shared South Africa with a single economy and a single territory where many people and many ethnic groups will be involved, who is going to decide on finances? Who is going to decide on subsidies for the farmers? Is it going to be the Whites, the Blacks, the Coloureds, or are they going to share the decisions? When it comes to security and the defence of South Africa, I ask how they are going to defend South Africa. Is it going to be the Whites, the Blacks and the Coloureds, each separately, or are we going to make some joint decision and take joint responsibility? He can go through the areas of government in South Africa and he will find that there are fewer and fewer areas in which we can decide separately. If we want to survive and prosper, we ought to sit down and negotiate with the leaders of other representative groups and find a means of taking joint responsibility for our common future in South Africa.

I want to proceed to another aspect, one which has a direct bearing on the budget. I want to refer in particular to what I must describe as the “powder-keg situation” that is developing amongst the Coloured people on the Cape Flats. The situation is manifesting itself at this stage in protests, stay-aways and demands by Coloured school-children. I see the shades of Soweto prior to 16 June 1976 in the situation which prevails on the Cape Flats today. When one looks at what is happening there, it seems as if the Government has learnt nothing from the lives that were lost and the damage that was done in South Africa four years ago.

We have evidence right here before us of the same ineffectiveness, of the same insensitivity of the administration that we had before. We have evidence of the same lack of appreciation of the extent of the frustration which underlies the protests. We have evidence of a Government which is unwilling and unable to realize that its discriminating policies are the root cause of the conflict situation that is starting to develop. With all the power at my command I want to warn this Government in very solemn terms of the serious short- and long-term consequences of its policy and administration and about what is happening on the Cape Flats in particular and amongst the Coloured people in general. The situation there has been simmering for some weeks. The trigger issues, and particularly the shabby state of many of the schools, have been drawn to the attention of the Administration of Coloured Affairs for some weeks, and yet precious little has been done about it. Now, when the protest has been allowed to escalate and when the boycotts are taking place, now when the situation as far as the children are concerned in many instances is getting out of hand, the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations—he is not present in the House, but whose Deputy Minister is here—says: “We reassure the public that the matter is receiving attention.” This is what also happened way back in 1976. He will recall how we warned the Government and how we drew attention to the deteriorating situation in the Soweto schools. Three weeks ago an article appeared in the Press under the heading: “Alarm at the state of Coloured schools.” The very issues about which protests are being raised today, were identified, both in the Press and by the school-children. We even had the Commissioner of Coloured Relations saying that he agreed that the schools had to be repaired, “but there was a limit to the amount of money which could be spent. Most of the repairs would have to be done by the Department of Public Works, which is working to a huge backlog”. That hon. Minister, Dr. Treurnicht, must tell us what the Department of Public Works has been doing. Why has it allowed these schools to remain in this condition over the past four years? It is a gross dereliction of duty in a very sensitive area. I know he is trying to move heaven and earth now, but it is too late. He has had ample warning. Right now the carpenters are there, but why did he allow the situation to escalate before taking any real action? The president of the Cape Teachers’ Professional Association said that they had raised these matters time and time again. “But all we were given were promises, and the authorities have only themselves to blame if things turn out badly.”

During the course of last week we have had headline after headline in the newspapers. On 15 April a headline in The Cape Times read: “Thousands join schools boycott.” A headline in Die Burger of 16 April read: “Boikot van skole in Kaap brei uit” and on 15 April the following headline appeared in The Argus: “Leaders warn on unrest.” On 17 April The Cape Times had a report under the headline: “School boycott to continue— thousands of Peninsula schoolchildren stayed away from classes again yesterday.” We want to know from the Government during this debate, because we believe that it is a sensitive, delicate and a dangerous situation, what exactly has been done and is being done to defuse a potentially explosive situation.

Let us look beyond just education and the state of the schools. While the young people have identified a number of problem areas in relation to their schools, we believe that, as in the case of Soweto, the young people who are protesting reflect a frustration and a simmering anger which goes much wider and deeper into the Coloured community. One only has to read the report of the Cillié Commission as far as it relates to the Western Cape area to understand the mood of the people on the Cape Flats. It has to do with the gross unfairness of the Group Areas Act. It has to do with the humiliation of apartheid and the sting of discrimination. It has to do with the exclusion of the Coloured people from effective political power at local, provincial and national Government level. It has to do with the Government’s shameful attempts to try to manipulate the politics of the voteless Coloured community. It also has to do with the insensitivity and ineptitude of the Government as represented by the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs.

This point was emphasized in the resignation of the prestigeous Coloured Education Council. This council of key Coloured educationists resigned the other day. On their resignation the hon. the Minister said that “he rejected reports indicating that the council was kicking against the CPC”. He said those reports were incorrect, only to be repudiated humiliatingly and bluntly by the chairman of the Coloured Education Council, who said—

I want to say in particular to the hon. the Minister of Finance that it is apparent that the frustration and anger on the Cape Flats has for some time been acquiring a new dimension. This new dimension has to do with discrimination, not merely in the social and political fields. It specifically has to do with economic discrimination. It has to do with economic discrimination that is contained in legislation of the Government. It has to do with economic discrimination that is implicit in the budget and in the budgets that have gone before. It has to do with unequal economic opportunities and unequal services. It has to do with economic consequences to parent and child who have to face a lifetime of discrimination. It has to do with financial hardship and with poverty.

That is the nature of the new protest that is rising up among the Black and Brown people in the urban areas of South Africa. Does the Government not realize this? If one looks at the protests over the past six months on the Cape Flats one sees they are aimed at rentals, inadequate services, unequal facilities and inferior education. Government policy is steadily, but surely—and I say this in all seriousness—adding to the danger of a potential conflict of race and an even greater danger: a potential conflict of class. If that conflict takes place, what will be at issue will not be apartheid or votes, but our country’s free enterprise economic system.

As we meet today against the background of what is happening only 10 km from here, on the Cape Flats, an event of tremendous significance in the history of the subcontinent is about to take place to the north of us. In just nine hours and five minutes from now the new State of Zimbabwe will be born and accepted into the family of nations. Constitutional and legal power, power which for the past 15 years has been an issue of conflict and dispute both inside and outside Rhodesia, will pass into the hands of a Government headed by Prime Minister Robert Mugabe. Considering the events and the conflicts of the past 15 years, the achievement of independence at midnight tonight will undoubtedly be a traumatic and emotion-laden experience for Zimbabweans, whether they be Black or White. I believe it will have a profound effect also on the whole of Southern Africa. It will certainly change the strategic map of our subcontinent. With the bush war over, with sanctions lifted and with transport links reopened, it could have a significant effect on the economy of this region. More than this: The independence of Zimbabwe under Prime Minister Robert Mugabe will have a profound impact also on South Africa.

Why do you not go and settle there?

Our Government will no doubt have to review its military and defence strategy, aspects of its foreign policy and its dream of a constellation of States stretching right across Southern Africa.

What is perhaps even more important, is that the developments in Zimbabwe will make a profound impact on the thinking and the attitudes of our people, whether they be Black or White. I believe they will bring into sharper focus the areas of potential conflict in our society. Let us look at the situation.

When are you going to ’phone Mugabe?

The stark contrasts that will emerge between South Africa and Zimbabwe in the fields of apartheid, discrimination, education and political participation, will undoubtedly politicize the Black citizens of our country even further and even faster. Whites, I believe, will realize how ridiculous and self-defeating it is to try to cling to practices and policies based on race prejudice and how important it is to consider the real politics of survival. I have no doubt that the events in Zimbabwe will bring closer the day when Blacks and Whites in our country will make that critical decision to either talk it out or fight it out.

However, it is not only going to be the social patterns and the political structures in our country that are going to come under closer scrutiny from an increasingly politicized Black community. Now that we have neighbours to the immediate north who are not committed to the free-enterprise system and who will in fact move the economy in a different direction, our South African economic system, which we claim is based on free enterprise, will become the object of closer and more critical scrutiny from the economically underprivileged and the politically powerless darker-skinned citizens of our country. Unless the Government acts boldly now, our economic system, which could be a uniting and conciliating factor in our society, could well become an element of conflict and division. If we do not want our free-enterprise system to become part of conflict in South Africa, I believe two essential things are necessary. The first is that the free-enterprise system must be free of the image the eyes of Black and Brown South Africans that it has perhaps been designed to maintain White privilege, that it is the economic handmaiden of a White political power structure or that it is the economic facet of an overall system of apartheid, discrimination and exploitation.

If our economic system has any of these characteristics in the eyes of Black and Brown South Africans, it will be rejected and will become an element of conflict in our society. If we really want to protect the free-enterprise system, we will have to get rid of discriminatory and restrictive laws operating within the economy. Secondly, we will have to get rid of laws like the pass laws, the Groups Areas Act and the separate education Acts which operate on the fringe of our economy, but which nevertheless restrict, inhibit and discriminate against people fully participating in our economic system. Thirdly, discrimination in the allocation of public funds for education, training and services which must equip people to participate in our economic system, must end. In this the major responsibility rests on the Government, because it controls the economic laws and the Statutes of South Africa.

The Government allocates the funds. The Government says it stands for free enterprise, and having said that it must accept the responsibility that every time it discriminates against a man of colour in South Africa, it not only undermines the security of South Africa, but also sucks the whole free-enterprise system into the area of conflict in our society.

Secondly, the free-enterprise system must be relevant to the needs of our South African society, and by this I mean our total South African society. At the present time our society needs economic growth, not growth for the sake of growth, not growth to make the rich richer, but growth to provide jobs, to generate wealth, to raise living standards, to get rid of poverty and to close the potentially explosive wage and wealth and asset gap in South Africa. This means that on the one hand the entrepreneur, the man with the technical knowledge and management skills, must be given freedom to initiate development. But it also means that the underprivileged man, the man who has been the victim of discrimination throughout his life, must be enabled and assisted so that he can take part in and benefit from the economic growth that is taking place in our country.

This will require the removal of all of these laws. It will not only require the public sector, but also the private sector, to see to it that affirmative action is taken so that Black and Brown South Africans can receive education and the training, receive promotion and have the access to capital.

We in this House would be deluding ourselves if we did not take note of the extent to which young Black and Brown South Africans have already equated our economic system with discrimination and White privilege. We must take note of the extent to which they have already rejected our economic system because they consider it to be part of the system of apartheid. This is a reality, and if, in the Southern Africa of tomorrow, we want to prevent our free-enterprise system from becoming a part of the conflict, or perhaps the main object of the conflict, if we truly want it to contribute in a positive way to the process of conciliation and agreement, we must face up to these things. We must eliminate the damaging effects of discrimination before the damaging effect of discrimination, and not the advantages of free enterprise, make an indelible impression on the minds of our Black and Brown fellow-citizens.

The hon. the Minister of Finance opened his budget speech by saying “a national budget is not merely an exercise in accounting; it is also a major instrument of economic policy”. In this the hon. the Minister is correct. But that instrument of economic policy can only be used within the framework of Government legislation. That instrument, the budget, must be read against the overall context of Government policy.

If we look at this budget in its wider context, we see that, apart from limited increases to social pensioners and other social beneficiaries, very little direct benefit will accrue to the millions of our citizens who are struggling to make ends meet while living under the crushing burden of a steeply rising cost of living. This budget will give direct tax relief to income taxpayers, to the more affluent members of our society. This budget will undoubtedly generate consumer demand. Provided the private sector can overcome the bottlenecks caused by the failure of Government policy in the field of education and training, it could stimulate economic growth.

This budget, this thing which the hon. the Minister has called a “major instrument of economic policy”, when read together with the discriminatory legislation and the Government’s policy of apartheid, of separate development, when read as an instrument together with the context within which it must operate, will fail, we believe, to strengthen our free-enterprise economic system or to ensure the long-term security and the prosperity for all our people in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sea Point dealt with a good number of problems and questions in his speech. Whilst I was sitting and listening to him, I asked myself: If he has the solutions to all these problems and questions, why did his party dismiss him as leader? Indeed, he was the alternative Prime Minister. If they were to have come into power, he would have become Prime Minister. Now he is no longer the alternative Prime Minister. [Interjections.] I want to advise the hon. member not to include such a broad spectrum of subjects in his speeches; it has a very confusing effect.

He dealt amongst other things with the Coloured schools on the Cape Flats. This is a delicate subject and unfortunately there was a great deal of emotion in the hon. member’s speech. I want to tell him—he and his party are already aware of this—that the hon. the Minister of Community Development and of Coloured Affairs is engaged in discussions on this whole matter at the moment Full attention is being given to this question. I believe—and I have been assured of this— that the hon. the Minister is still going to deal with this matter in the course of the debate. Let us leave it at that now and give the hon. the Minister and his department the opportunity to give full attention to the matter. Let us not put people’s backs up even further in regard to this matter through our behaviour, words and emotion.

The hon. member went on to discuss the state of the Coloured community in South Africa. The reasons for some of these conditions cannot all be laid at the door of the Government and of the Whites in South Africa. I believe the time has now come for us as well as the Coloured leaders to address Coloured communities to call upon them to make a greater contribution towards making their communities too, more attractive, livable and bearable.

I believe this is the very reason why the dissolved CRC did not succeed. That council had the best opportunity of dealing with all the bottlenecks, problems and questions amongst the Coloured community. They had the best opportunity of coming to the Government and saying: Let us work out a programme of upliftment together for the upliftment of our people. However, this was not done. On a previous occasion I said that one can look up one motion after the other which was dealt with in that council. One will see that they were always attacks on the Whites and on the Government. I want to point out once again that this is not to say that we did not make any mistakes. I admit that mistakes definitely were made. However, we could have rectified such mistakes together and we could have worked out a better future together. I also want to say that everything cannot be done by and expected from the Whites alone. There must be co-operation.

Today I actually want to deal with a word which is being bandied about at the moment. I am referring to the word “change”. Let me say at once that no one can have an indifferent or unfeeling attitude towards change. Changed circumstances and situations make change or modification essential. We find this in the social as well as in the economic sphere. When it comes to change, the political sphere is not excluded. However, when it comes to change, there is a basic principle which we must not forget. This is that no change can be made without precipitately. Only after carefully considering the pros and cons, only after carefully considering the consequences of such a change, can changes be made.

I find it very striking that C. M. van den Heever described this situation as early as in 1945. I quote his words from Handhaaf of March 1980—

I said that the political sphere cannot be excluded from change. All countries and all governments in this world are subject to change. Since this is the case, South Africa cannot be an exception, and there may not and cannot be people in South Africa who say: We must not, may not and cannot change.

However, on the other hand South Africa is not the only country in the world where changes must be made either. In Africa there are dictatorships, one-party governments, even tyrants and democracy is being seriously violated every day. However, we do not hear these States being harangued, that the liberal camp urges them to bring about change in their political dispensation. The question is why an exception is being made of South Africa. Why is South Africa always appearing on the agenda of the UN and being singled out as the country which must bring about change?

However, let me say that we are prepared to make the changes in the interest of South Africa and its people if this can contribute to peace, order, stability, development and the protection of minorities, but I am not prepared to accept change that jeopardizes the future of my nation, nor am I prepared to accept change which endangers the future of another nation in this country. Since this is the case, I condemn political stubbornness and obstinacy but I also condemn political rashness, excessive political eagerness and political liberalism, because these two views, those in South Africa who are politically stubborn on the one hand and those who are politically rash on the other—are the gravediggers of stability and order in the country.

As C. M. van der Heever admonished, it will be our very ability to distinguish between rigidity, which is caused by a lack of boldness, and degeneration, which is caused by too great a spirit of adventure, which is going to have an influence in determining the future. In other words, we have two poles: On the one hand, rigidity and narrow-mindedness and on the other the spirit of adventure, the rashness and the liberal point of view. And it is between these two poles that we must find the solution in South Africa, where the NP, the SAP and to a lesser extent the NRP stand, but where we do not find the PFP, the HNP or the NCP.

Now if I look at these two poles, I want to make the following statements with regard to changes in South Africa this afternoon: In the first place there are people in South Africa who will have to adapt themselves—and this is a big change—to the sovereignty of Parliament, the constitutional power and right of this institution. There are people in South Africa …

Huh!

The hon. member for Pinelands says “Huh.” I think he is putting on the cap.

There are people who will have to adapt themselves to the result of the ballot-box in South Africa. [Interjections.] Let me state clearly this afternoon that the NP is not prepared to make changes in South Africa according to a national convention. Let us forget this idea. Hon. members serving on the Schlebusch Commission, know that nobody who testified was at all enthusiastic about a national convention. The NP is prepared to make changes by means of the instruments …

You are joking, man.

No, I am not joking. That is the absolute truth.

Are you serving on the commission?

I am serving on the commission.

You are always asleep.

No, I am not sleeping. I want to tell hon. members—I am so pleased that they are listening so carefully—that the NP is prepared to make changes by means of the instruments that Parliament establishes. Constitutional change will be brought about, once again in the interest of order, peace and stability.

Yesterday, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to the Schlebusch Commission. He said that this is where we must talk. However, the members of the Labour Party do not want to come and talk, but nobody of the PFP has ever condemned this in public and said that those leaders are not acting as they should be. We can bring about change in South Africa in this way, but there are people in South Africa who will have to adapt to an ethnic community life for every population group. The NP is not prepared—let me put it clearly—to make modifications and bring about changes in South Africa which will lead to social mixing or integration. I am not open to that type of change, nor are my voters open to it, and I shall never advocate that type of change under any circumstances. [Interjections.] However, there are also people in South Africa who will have to adapt to the idea that compartmental separation is not the policy of the NP. This means that one cannot build walls between nations which forbid them to make contact with one another. The NP does not believe in that type of disposition or policy. This has never been its policy nor will it ever be.

Where do you draw the line?

The biggest change in South Africa must take place in the sphere of the prejudices which exist in this country. Let me say that conservatism cannot and may not be condemned, but similarly, conservatism must not be abused. The liberal condemns conservatism. However, conservatism is essentially a love of those things which are one’s own, but the liberal condemns conservatism, the love of those things which are one’s own, the national heritage or national assets. Unfortunately, there are also people in South Africa who use their conservatism as a pretext for their political frustrations and their political failures. Nowhere is this more evident than in the actions of the Herstigte Nasionale Party and Dr. Connie Mulder’s party. The Afrikaner is involved here. I think that there are very few English-speaking people who belong to the Herstigte Nasionale Party or the National Conservative Party. Consequently, since this is the case, I want to address a word to my own people, to the Afrikaner, this afternoon. Afrikanerdom and so-called “verkramptheid” or narrow-mindedness are not synonymous, and if there are people who believe that Afrikanerdom and narrow-mindedness and “verkramptheid” are synonymous and must go hand-in-hand in South Africa, my nation has no future in this country. However, Afrikanerdom is not enhanced by fear, rigidity and exaggerated conservatism. One is not a better or greater Afrikaner because one is more conservative. However, Afrikanerdom and realistic conservatism are synonymous, and this is what we expect of the Afrikaner. Afrikanerdom and Christian behaviour must correspond in this country. Afrikanerdom and leadership are also synonymous. That is why the Afrikaner may not shy away from the problems of South Africa, because if this happens, it is a sign of poor leadership. Leadership demands strength. Therefore, if we have prejudice from this camp, in Afrikaner ranks, towards the policy of the NP and the initiatives of the hon. the Prime Minister, it is strongly censured by the NP and its supporters.

We shall also have to bring about change in another sphere. Prejudice on the part of some non-White leaders towards the Whites cannot be justified or approved of. I think there are non-White leaders in the country who are engaged in an extremely irresponsible and stubborn way in setting the country alight by continually ignoring what is being done and what has been done in the interests of their people and who are continually bringing the Whites in this country into disrepute for political gain and political advantage and to arouse a spirit amongst their people which bodes ill for the future of the country. That spirit and those prejudices must be changed in South Africa.

I want to refer to the statements made at the recent congress of the Labour Party and I want to denounce them in the strongest terms. For instance, at that congress over the Easter weekend—and these are the words which the hon. member for Green Point used in the House—it was said that people of political integrity would not serve on the S.A. Coloured Council. It was clearly said that the creation of this council is an interim measure. It was clearly said that we wanted to cool down the political climate. It was clearly said: “Let us negotiate; let us talk.” Now I want to say: “Let us give this council a chance. Let us ask the best people in the Coloured community to serve on this council.” I want to denounce the decision which the Labour Party took in Durban very strongly, viz. to send a telegram to England in order to stop the Lions tour from taking place. I am pleased that the hon. member for Sandton has expressed his opposition to this. With a disposition and prejudice like this we cannot build on the future of this country and changes are not possible in this country.

We can ask where our solution lies. I want to say our solution lies in point two of the twelve-point plan of the hon. the Prime Minister, viz. “acceptance of vertical differentiation with the built-in principle of self-determination on as many levels as possible”. This means that we can exist side by side as different communities and population groups in this country with out own cultures, that there will be a vertical differentiation, but there will not be a horizontal “baasskap” of the one over the other, that one is not on top and the other beneath. In order to manage this, we shall have to co-operate, all of us, in the economic upliftment, we shall have to co-operate in order to make the way of life and the living areas more attractive to people, to make them more interesting for people, so that they can not only enjoy them, but in doing so, can make a contribution towards South Africa.

Then there is the principle of the right to self-determination. If we accept this in South Africa—and the hon. member for Walmer said that Whites must move closer to one another in politics—I want to say that we cannot but move closer to one another as a result of this point of the hon. the Prime Minister’s twelve-point plan, because vertical differentiation does not hold any danger for anyone, it is not a threat to anyone. The principle of self-determination is not a threat to anyone. If it is accepted, it is not necessary for us to fear one another. Then we have the basis, then we have the platform, from which we can look at the other things and work them out. Then we can make the changes which must be made, from this foundation. If we accept this principle, if we as political parties in this House accept it and if we work from this principle, we in this Parliament can assure other nations in South Africa, and in microcosm, every person, a political, cultural and a social future. The NP believes that through this principle it can provide for the economic and social needs of every population group.

But not without apartheid.

Oh no. Forget about the word “apartheid”. My good friend here must forget about apartheid. This is not apartheid. It is vertical differentiation, next to one another. The hon. member for Hillbrow belongs to a different population group. I am an Afrikaner, but we are both citizens of this country. In the same way the different population groups can exist alongside one another in this country. I believe that healthy intercourse between nations in this country can be brought about by accepting this principle.

In conclusion I want to say that change is essential in South Africa just as in other countries; we cannot escape it; it will have to be brought about. However, we cannot bring about these changes to the right in a spirit of political fear, political rigidity and narrowmindedness. I cannot go along with that. Nor can we bring it about by moving to the left, by sickly political humanism and by political liberalism.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Oudtshoorn said certain things with which I cannot go along, but basically he pleaded here today for change in an orderly manner. It is encouraging to hear a speech like this coming from the Government benches. I think to some extent he was sounding warnings, ones which were not directed at us on this side of the House, but possibly at his own colleagues or at other people who are engaging in rightist politics. This I find encouraging.

†Being the first speaker to speak on behalf of the NRP after the hon. member for East London North spoke last night, I am forced to respond to some of his so-called reasons for his defection and his unfounded attack on the leader of the NRP. While I shall deal with his reasons for his acceptance of his newly-found principles and policies, I must make one thing very clear and that is that the hon. member’s defection and the breaking of his solemn promise and undertaking to his constituents that he would resign his seat, has nothing whatsoever to do with principles, politically or otherwise. I have seen a number of political defectors during my political career, but I have never come across one which is so totally devoid of any real political reasons. What actually happened is that the hon. member for East London North made up his mind that for the moment the PFP looked like winners and was hell-bent on joining them, with total disregard for whatever their policies or principles are.

What absolute nonsense.

He decided to jump on the bandwagon as part of what the PFP leader in Natal, Mr. Graham McIntosh, refers to as “survival tactics”. Although I have to deal with a Press statement Mr. McIntosh made concerning the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, it really also demonstrates the survival tactics of the hon. member for East London North. When it comes to political policies and principles, we know the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South appears to have some difficulty in understanding them. It is recorded that he said that he stood for the NRP without knowing what their policies and principles were, and of course he has subsequently made statements that he was either going to join the Nationalists or the Progressives. Then he said that he would be representing the farmers, and perhaps he may even announce that he is now going to represent Inkatha. I do not know whether this will be so, but during the recess he addressed meetings, not in his own constituency, but in another, where he asked people to indicate who would support him if he should stand as an Independent, as a member of the PFP or as a member of the NP. At one of these meetings, the one at Mooi River, only two members got up to say that they would support him if he should stand as a member of the PFP. This, of course, prompted the Natal leader of the PFP to make a statement, and I wish to read it to hon. members. It was published in the Rand Daily Mail under the heading “Survival tactics under fire”. It says—

The actions of the hon. member for East London North and the reasons he advanced last night for his defection did the cause of principled political views no good at all. Let us just consider his charge against the hon. Leader of the NRP with regard to the percentage of voters who, in terms of the execution of the principle of local option, should be in favour of allowing an area to be thrown open to other races.

In the course of last year, the constitutional committee of the NRP recommended that this should not depend just on a majority vote, but that there should be a 66% vote in favour. The hon. leader of the NRP, when he addressed a meeting in Beaufort West, made it known that such a recommendation had been received and at first said that it required a 75% vote in favour, but later publicly corrected it to 66%. This happened way back in May. These are all facts that have been known since May of last year to the hon. member for East London North. He also knows that at the federal council meeting of the party that was held in December, it was stated that it could not consider this recommendation, and it was then unanimously decided that this matter should be referred back to the constitutional committee. The hon. member voted in favour of it. He must have started to get itchy feet over Christmas and then decided on survival tactics. He now wants to query the matter and says that there has been a unilateral change of policy by the hon. leader of the NRP. However, when it was immediately explained to him that he had been present at the federal council and that it had been referred to the constitutional committee, he of course accepted there was no change. Last night, lo and behold, the hon. member advanced the same incident as a reason for leaving the party. However, his objection now is not that the policy was changed. He said last night—and this is the reason he advanced—that the policy was not changed and accused the leader of the NRP that he did not return to Beaufort West to tell the people there that the policy had not changed. How childish and unprincipled can the hon. member be? The policy that a majority vote is required in the execution of local option, is still valid, as was the case a year ago. The recommendation has not yet been considered, which is exactly what the situation was. Therefore, what was said at the meeting at that time, still is unchanged. The only person who has misled the public is not, as he said, the hon. leader of the NRP, but the hon. member himself, because he was elected to represent a party in this House that believes that the different communities should have the right to decide what the character of their own residential areas should be. Now, however, he supports a party which believes in total dictation from the top, which denies local communities the right to decide for themselves. He now has to explain his actions. When Mr. De Jong left, he addressed a meeting in Rondebosch where he said that the hottest place in hell was reserved for a defector in a time of crisis. I wonder whether he will go back and explain to those people that that is not the case, or must we now accept that the Pearly Gate will just swing open for a defector? The hon. member owes the hon. leader of the NRP an apology. He is the person who should explain his actions and who should resign his seat.

The hon. member for East London North last night mentioned four factors which he regards as being the major reasons for his joining the PFP, but he explained none of them, although he accused the hon. member for Pretoria Central of not explaining the reasons why he is back in the NP. But he himself did not explain any of his reasons either. These four general principals are also accepted by the NRP, and the hon. member knows it. What is, of course, important is how these principles are to be implemented. Let us consider the principle concerning the sharing of power. The hon. member gave no indication of how power will be shared in his new party. He knows that the NRP unashamedly believes that power must be shared in South Africa, but in such a way that there is effective protection for the rights of minority groups. The hon. member was elected to represent that view in this House. He has exchanged this for the policy of a party which stands for the sharing of power as such, with no effective protection for the rights of minorities, and the hon. member knows it.

That is not true.

The hon. member should have listened more carefully to the speech of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who made a speech here yesterday for which he should be commended. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout correctly said that the population of South Africa consists of a number of minority groups. This is a reality that no one can run away from. The hon. member for East London North knows that his new survival party advocates a policy of power-sharing in which it relies on a minority veto of 10% to 15% in order to protect the rights of minority groups.

Among many others.

He knows, too, that this is no protection at all for the many minority groups the hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke about.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Orange Grove is making too many interjections.

The hon. member also knows that there is no protection in that system of sharing of power for, for instance, the Indian community, who comprise 3% of the total population of South Africa, nor for the Ciskeians, who comprise 6% of the total population of South Africa, nor for the Southern Sotho, who comprise 2% of the population. So one can continue. He knows that the only population group who constitute more than 15% of the population are the Zulus and this could perhaps apply also to the Whites if they should all stand together. He also knows that his new party stands for a bill of rights, which, although an instrument for the protection of the rights of individuals, militates against the protection of group rights. Why does the hon. member not come clean and state the fact that he now supports a system of power-sharing by which minority groups will have no effective protection? Does he believe it is right? [Interjections.] The hon. member must get up and say that he believes that is right. It is quite legitimate for somebody to believe that there should be no protection for the rights of minorities.

It does afford …

It does not. [Interjections.] I challenge the hon. member to explain to us how else he is effectively going to protect the rights of minorities.

He would love to do that.

The other three principles mentioned by the hon. member can only become a reality provided one advocates a system in South Africa of power-sharing with effective protection for the rights of minority groups. Only then will there be no discrimination, which was the other factor mentioned by the hon. member. Only then will there indeed be no domination of one group over another.

Which I also mentioned.

The hon. member mentioned it, yet he does not want to protect the rights of minorities effectively. It is only by sharing power coupled with an effective method of protection for the rights of minorities that one can achieve a system of no discrimination and one in which where there will be no domination of one group over another. If the hon. member does not want to recognize groups, how will he be able to protect them from being dominated by another group? Through our policy one will have a system where there will be full citizenship.

I wish to extend an invitation to all those who believe in power-sharing combined with effective protection for the rights of minority groups, to join the NRP and not the PFP, the so-called survival party. The NRP is the only party which is totally committed to the sharing of power and whose policy … [Interjections.] Our policy protects the rights of minorities through a system which provides a political base for each minority group in a federal system and in a confederal structure. That is what it does. Secondly, where it has to share power, it shares power on that political base by means of a negotiated agreement. My invitation specifically goes out to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. From what he said yesterday, it is clear that he also believes in this philosophy. My invitation also goes out to other hon. members on both sides of the House. There are also hon. members in the Government benches who believe in exactly the same principle.

Tell us who they are.

They know that the Government’s official policy of, for instance, granting slightly more political rights and municipal rights to the urban Blacks, is totally inadequate. They also know that the proposed constellation of States in which the urban Blacks are going to be given “waamemende status” only, and in which they will therefore just be sitting as observers instead of participating, is totally inadequate.

That is in reality an irresponsible type of policy. The problem is not as simple as that. I also extend this invitation to them to come and fight for a party which offers a formula for the survival, not of one individual or politician, such as the hon. member for East London North, but of all of us, all the minority groups in South Africa. In the words of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout I am therefore pleading for all the population groups in South Africa because all the population groups in South Africa happen to be minority groups, a fact which must be realized.

I do not want to waste any more time in addressing myself to the hon. member for East London North, because he has done something which is totally devoid of any principle, of any real political belief. He did it just for personal political survival.

You are talking nonsense.

The task of evaluating the budget in its true perspective is not an easy one. It is generally conceded that it contains a number of very good and desirable features, ranging from improved conditions of service for civil servants to the increase in the income limit under the means test for social pensioners and a number of taxation proposals. It is not my intention to belittle these improvements, some of which are real and others which still leave a great deal of room for further improvement. What is important, is the fact that in any case the implementation of these reforms has for years been preceded by strong agitation. Most of these reforms have come on the board years ago as a result of arguments put forward by the Opposition. What prevented their implementation, was the perennial excuse of the Government that, while it agreed with us, it could not implement them on account of—and quite rightly so—the economic and financial situation in the country. Constantly the buck was being passed on, not from one to another, but into the distant future, to the day when South Africa would reach the end of the rainbow and find the proverbial pot of gold. When one compares the present situation with the economic conditions in South Africa in past years, one sees that South Africa has, not only as a result of the gold price, but also as a result of the increased production of minerals, figuratively speaking found a pot of gold, although literally speaking it might prove to be only a very small pot of gold. Bearing in mind, however, that it is doubtful whether South Africa will soon, if ever, experience such a dramatic rise in the gold price again, it cannot stop people, when they evaluate the improvements announced by the hon. the Minister, to ask the question whether this is the best he could have done, considering the favourable circumstances reigning at present. When that question is asked the answer—at least in certain respects—has to be in the negative. Let us take the question of the means test in respect of social pensioners. When it is evaluated in isolation, one sees that the last increase amounted to R82 per month. In future it will be R116 per month. If one looks at it superficially it appears to be adequate, even dramatic. The moment, however, that one considers the fact that, ever since 1972, it was pegged at R82 it is clear that it is barely adequate. Then one also has to take into consideration that between 1970 and 1979 the consumer price index rose to well over 200. That means that, just to maintain the status quo the increase should have been in the region of at least R164. Then there is another aspect we should bear in mind. After full marks was given to the hon. the Minister for the bonus he announced for social pensioners, it is still quite unforgivable, completely unacceptable, that, in spite of the gold bonanza he received, the hon. the Minister has seen fit to continue with his terrible practice of allowing civil pensioners to wait until 1 October before receiving the increase. That is a cruel way of doing things.

Do you want them to get it twice a year?

An immediate execution of the project would have cost him R55 million.

I want to know whether you want them to get it twice a year.

At least the same time as the others.

Not necessarily twice a year.

They received it last October. [Interjections.]

My submission is that this is a practice which should cease.

*Now I should like to refer just briefly to the tragic occurrence we experienced a short time ago in the field of education in South Africa. During the past six years, and during the administration of six successive Ministers, a tragedy, the results of which we shall only be able to determine in the distant future, has been taking place in the field of education. The hon. the Minister of National Education should not be under the impression that I am merely out to attack him. I know that in recent times that hon. Ministers come in for some severe criticism from all quarters. The whole Government, however, should be in the dock. If there is one of the former Ministers who deserves to be in the dock, it is, of course, the present hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. Over the years it has become clear that all Government members were determined to deny at all costs that a crisis was brewing in education. Because of the Government’s shortsightedness warnings from the Opposition were rejected as unfounded throughout. It was even branded a kind of treason. Now, however, it is clear that even the most ill-informed hon. member on the opposite side realizes that a crisis does exist. Now I am told that in the Transvaal—to mention only one example— there is not a single English-medium secondary school which is not experiencing a serious staff problem.

For the sake of convenience, details about the new salary scales will, of course, be released at the end of this week only.

†Be it as it may, however, informed people speculate that it could well be that in some categories the real improvement will only be in the region of 7%. I am therefore in no position to debate the details. That we shall do later. An initial analysis, however, of what is already known through the budget speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance, indicates that the unhappy situation in the education field is bound to continue. It is clear that the hon. the Minister of Finance has gone out of his way to paint as rosy a picture as possible. In the process misleading conclusions have become inevitable. I am convinced that it was possible for the hon. the Minister to announce the improvements without the inclusion of variables such as statutory incidentals, like, for instance, the size of a family. Part of the complaints of teachers is that their salary situation compares unfavourably with those of other professions. These other professions have also benefited from the tax reform. It was a stupid and a wrong way of doing things, especially knowing that the real situation would soon become known. Unnecessary unhappiness had been caused in this way. When the public hears about someone in a top education post they do not think in terms of five directors of education. They merely think in terms of inspectors and principals of big schools. These are the people who are sick and tired of answering questions relating to the way in which they intend to spend the extra R450 a month which they are said to be about to receive. Meanwhile they know that the salary improvement will not even be a fraction of that amount. They are tired of explaining that they do no longer have two children to care for and that they therefore do not fall within the fortunate category to which the hon. the Minister referred in his budget speech.

If only we could get the Government to realize that in spite of the annual increases, South Africa is not spending enough of its GNP on education and that South Africa is courting disaster through the Government’s continued neglect of education. In 1931 South Africa spent 4,26% of its GNP on national education. Most of the time since then a smaller percentage has been spent I am talking about education for all the population groups. Countries such as the USA and Canada and countries in Africa, such as Zambia, spend sometimes up to double that percentage spent on education. If the situation is bad in White education, then naturally it is worse, more critical, when one considers the overall situation in South Africa. I know that we are making progress and have been doing so now for a long time, but what is important for us is how we are going to care for the needs of today. We must remember that the people who are educated today are those who in 10 to 15 years are going to have to be active in the economy of South Africa. That is why we are going to have to invest more in education. Under these circumstances I believe that unless the Government is prepared to award the correct priority to education in the national life of South Africa, South Africa will be deliberately courting disaster.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Central will forgive me if I do not join in the dog fight that he was participating in here today. This is a matter between him and the hon. member who has resigned from the NRP.

I believe that the subject that I want to deal with today, is going to have the support of the entire House. I do not think that I am going to be controversial and I think that I will have the support of everyone in the House. However, before I come to that, I want to congratulate our hon. the Minister of Finance. It is my privilege, and I think it is a good thing to thank him for a well thought out budget, a budget which provides for everyone, but particularly for the less well-off, the less well-to-do. Once again, thank you very much. At the end of my speech I shall address a specific appeal to the hon. the Minister.

The subject that I am talking about today, concerns the handicapped people in South Africa, and I am referring to both the physically and the mentally handicapped, Whites, Coloureds and Blacks. This subject is very near to my heart because I have had many years of experience of it because I am one of the people who will have to live with it for the rest of their life. Together with those colleagues in the House who are in the same position as myself, I should like to thank the Government on behalf of all handicapped people for what it is doing for them, for those who are very often forgotten by the public. These are people who cannot perform their life’s work, as we are doing here. Yes, I often think that many of these people are like a small bird confined to a nest and waiting for help in the sense that the father or mother has to introduce that drop of water or grain of wheat into his beak. In addition I want to say thank you very, very much for the State for what is being done for these people. I believe that our general public in South Africa, those who have the privilege of listening to and sharing in the privileges brought about by this budget, can do more for these people.

Handicapped people can be divided into different categories. The first category that I want to begin with, is the category into which the deaf people fall. I am referring to the child, no matter which race he belongs to, who is born deaf. Can one imagine the God-given privilege of being able to sit in this House and to listen to each hon. member? Do we know what a deaf person has been deprived of? He cannot hear what other people are saying. He cannot share in the joy of other people. He sees them laughing and clapping hands, but he does not know what it is all about.

Let us take a child like this from birth until the day that he can attend school. It costs R14 000 to treat him in such a way that he will be able to understand at least part of what is going to be offered to him during his school career. R14 000 must be spent on that child during the first six years of his life. To get him to progress from that stage until he has passed Matric and is in a position to take his place in society and to do his share, costs the State or the institution in which he has been placed, R60 000. How many of those children do we not have today in this fine, well-endowed country of South Africa.

What am I as an outsider doing to help? What is the Press doing in order to propagate this matter? What are the large financial institutions doing to help? Thank the Lord for those people and organizations who are in fact doing something, and for the love that a large portion of our people show in alleviating the problem for the child and his parents. It is not the child alone who suffers, but the parent who has to live with it too. I have already been living with this for 21 years, and I shall have to continue to do so for the rest of my life.

Now I come to the mentally retarded child. Oh, how tragic it is to see this. There was such a good programme on radio and television in which these people were referred to as “angel faces”. Oh, how one’s heart bleeds when one sees these handicapped people! Sir, you and other hon. members may perhaps think that I am simply making an emotional speech, but I am serious about it. I am discussing this matter because I believe that our country and those who are privileged, can do more.

Then I should like to dwell briefly on the paraplegic. This is a person whose back has been broken, and as a result he has lost the use of his feet or legs. I have a great deal to do with this type of thing. I want to felicitate the Chamber of Mines as well as the various mines for what they are doing for both White and non-White paraplegics. Their paraplegics are the White and Black people who have sustained such injuries in the mine. I too was injured in this way. On 9 September 1943 I almost became a paraplegic myself. However, through the mercy of God and thanks to a medical miracle, I am able to stand here today. I am grateful to the mines for what they are doing for their people. They see to the interests of their people. Facilities have been created for such people so that they are able to continue to earn their daily bread. It does not matter whether they are White or Black. There are facilities for these people to participate in sport. The necessary arrangements are made in this regard. I say thank you to the mining bodies in particular for what they are doing for those people.

Now I come to the quadriplegic. He is a person who has broken his neck and lost the use of all his limbs. There is the quadriplegic too. Hon. members are probably acquainted with the history of Chantal Fouche. I mention her name. As a young Springbok she went to practise on the trampoline. Ten minutes later she was a quadriplegic. Springbok colours did not help her. Which of us still think of her today? Has anyone written a letter to her yet at the place that she established recently in Linden? She showed initiative and erected a place in Linden, with the support of the church and of certain private bodies, so that handicapped people can live there. My own daughter lives there too. This person tackled this enormous task with very good results. She turns it into a family home for the people who live there, but the people who live there have no transport. They do have food and a roof over their heads. They have all sorts of facilities but they do not have transport. That is why I am making a request in this House. Those people are sitting there, as I said, like birds. They also want to go shopping, or to go to a cinema but they have no transport. A private person can give one or two of them a lift, but we cannot manage seven or eight. If one visits them there, one sees them sitting there with their friendly faces hoping that someone will come to take them where they want to go. Can private bodies not do something for them?

There is also something that I want to ask the hon. the Minister. These people receive an attendant’s allowance and they are dependent on it. I believe that the hon. the Minister is also going to subsidize this matter. The hon. the Minister must please not take the attendant’s allowance away, because they need it more than anyone else. All they have is their intelligence and their eyes. They need more help than any other person. They are dependent on the Minister and on members of the general public. Consequently I think I have the right to ask motor companies for assistance in this regard, to make the time that those people still have happy for them. At this point, I think of the Hope Institution in Johannesburg, that institution which takes children from when they are small, those children who are crippled by the deadly disease polio. I cannot but say thank you very much to the Hope Institution for what it has done for the unfortunate children of South Africa. I am referring to the Hope Home. I must also say thank you to the State for the fine Elizabeth Conradie Institution in Kimberley. This is a wonderful institution which the State has established for those unfortunate children. They do not want us to pity them. They can do many things for themselves. They have the fighting instinct to fight for their survival. Those who have not yet visited the Elizabeth Conradie Institution in Kimberley, may do well to do so. It is one of the most wonderful institutions there are. All this is what the State is doing and many other bodies are doing too. As far as the quadriplegic is concerned, I want to refer to the Chesire Homes. There are several of these in the country. There is a fine one here in Milnerton. I do not know whether hon. members have visited it yet. I also want to say thank you to that organization for what they have done. They are in the process of establishing similar institutions in Pretoria and Johannesburg. We can say thank you to them. We are grateful that there are people in this country who are caring for those people.

Sir, you will ask me why I am saying all this here today. I am saying it because tomorrow it can happen to anyone of us sitting here too. On many occasions in my life visiting these people I have already told myself that death is more merciful in many respects, but they are there. Just as the country has problems that it must solve, it has this problem too.

We celebrated a Green Heritage Year in this beautiful country. We were able to enter into the spirit of things and we are grateful that we were able to share in that Green Heritage Year. We had a Water Year, a year which made us in South Africa realize that next to land, water is one’s birthright. Water is valuable. It was a great success. We had a Health Year. It was a wonderful year. We had the Year of the Child. The hon. the Minister of Manpower Utilization has announced the Manpower Year 2000. The purpose of this is to propagate the fact that employment opportunities must be created for all our population groups. Is it too much to ask that in this fine country we should also have the Year of the Handicapped Person, who does not have the privilege that you and I have, Mr. Speaker. Will hon. members help to propagate a decision that the year 1980, the year 1981 or even the year 1990 is made a year to help these people? This is the idea that I want to raise here. That is why I said at the start that I believe that I will have the support of all the Opposition Parties as well as of the Government. I also believe that I have the support of the Press in propagating this matter today.

I do not hold this against people. One sees the hearse stopping. Someone is buried. One shares in it. One sympathasizes with the man at the grave and then one turns away. However, one does not ask oneself: When will it stop at my door? There are many young men sitting here today. It may stop at their door too. However, I know that there are people in the House who will support me in this. Therefore, if I have perhaps departed from the tradition of this House by raising this matter, my defence is that I did so with this fine budget in mind, a budget which can, however, be made even better if we try to do what I am asking.

That is why I ask the hon. the Minister once again, before he perhaps does away with or reduces the attendant’s allowance of quadriplegics—I do not know whether perhaps he already intends to do so—that he must bear in mind that where another handicapped person simply needs one aid, the quadriplegic may need two, or even three. When I sometimes see a quadriplegic being pushed through the streets of Johannesburg in his old wheelchair by a Black servant, I realize once again how much they need that Black help. However, this is help they have to pay for.

In conclusion, I want to point out that an ordinary wheelchair costs as much between R500 and R600 today. A wheelchair for quadriplegics which is driven by a battery, already costs R3 000. It is in view of this that I am asking whether it is not possible for the sales tax and customs duty on these aids to be dispensed with for quadriplegics. It is true that these wheelchairs have to be imported from abroad. They are not manufactured in South Africa. Every bit of help from the State in this regard will therefore be appreciated.

I say thank you very much once again to the hon. the Minister for everything he is doing for the less privileged. I also say thank you very much to him for what he is still going to do in the future. Last but not least I also thank him for the patience which he has displayed in listening to this speech of mine.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the hon. member for Stilfontein feels very strongly about the matter he raised. I want to congratulate him on his serious approach, and then leave it at that. As regards the hon. member for Durban Central, I can only say: How pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! That is all I wish to say on that score.

There is not a great deal I want to say about the political situation. I should like to come back to the budget, and say something about the position of the farmers in particular and how it affects the agricultural sector. I just want to make a few remarks in this regard. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn put forward a few ideas relating to the policy of the NP which I do not want to repeat. I just want to say, as one who has not been in politics for very long, that as far as the National Party is concerned, we were elected in 1977 with a certain mandate and in terms of a certain policy. That policy is embodied in the 12-point plan of the hon. the Prime Minister, but there are a few things in that policy that, to me, stand out like beacons. The first is that we steadfastly believe in the right of nations to self-determination, and therefore also the right of the White man to self-determination. As many have said before me, I also believe that this is not a matter for discussion, nor is it negotiable. The second is that we believe that the same rights we demand for ourselves should also be granted to other nations and that to the extent that we are able to do so, we shall put ourselves at the disposal of others who desire to become autonomous, independent and self-governing in their own territory and that those same nations can stand with us in the constellation of nations against the common enemies that may threaten us from outside. Moreover, we believe that we have placed our foot on the path of the removal of hurtful discrimination, but the removal of discrimination without overlooking the otherness or the difference between nations. I think that is essential. We further believe in the democratic Western system as a counter to the Communist onslaught. We shall defend that principle with everything we have and we have accepted this as our first priority.

Finally, as far as a few political ideas are concerned, I want to say that the NP believes unshakeably in law and order. To us it is indisputable that one can only enjoy peace and prosperity in a country where law and order is maintained in every respect, and that is why authority will have to make itself felt, because we cannot permit the adoption of any kind of revolutionary methods with a view to achieving certain things.

I find the budget we have been discussing over the past week very interesting and I want to associate myself with those who have wholeheartedly congratulated our hon. Minister of Finance on a very well-considered and balanced budget. In 1978, when I first listened to a budget speech by the present hon. Minister of Finance, there were only the initial signs of the prevailing upward trend in our economy. However, even then there were very clear signs of long-term planning and confidence. Today we cannot but congratulate the hon. the Minister of Finance, with his slogan of disciplined growth from strength.

This did not remain a mere slogan, but is today a reality of which we may be proud. We want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on this. One who has planned and has proved, over a period of years, that what he is striving for is indeed within his reach, is a person who has achieved an aim.

The message of the budget is a message of confidence in our country, its resources and its people. The key to greater prosperity for each of the inhabitants of South Africa is to be found in purposeful, sustained, scientific planning to exploit the resources of South Africa in the most positive way without over-exploiting them. I should like to stress the words “each of its inhabitants”. It is my absolute conviction that well-looked after people who earn their bread in peace in the midst of economic prosperity, form a far stronger bulwalk against a communist onslaught or any form of unrest in South Africa and that is why we must never underestimate it.

On behalf of the farming community, if I may place myself in that position, I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for a few things which cannot be allowed to pass unnoticed. Firstly, I think that the maintenance of sales tax on a broad basis is a very good institution and one for which we are indeed grateful. The restructuring of the tax structure and the drop in the overall tax rate, as well as the marginal rate of tax, will reduce the obligations and problems of taxpayers in every sector, and therefore of farmers as well.

It is with sincere appreciation that one takes cognizance of the relief afforded with regard to estate duty, but in view of the prevailing escalation in land prices, estate duty is causing tremendous difficulties with regard to hereditary succession in agriculture. It is very important, particularly with a view to the heavy financial demands on any beginner farmer who has not received an inheritance, that relief be afforded with regard to this matter. In my opinion this is essential.

The reduction of transfer duty is of course a very welcome change that has been effected by the hon. the Minister of Finance and we are very grateful for that, too.

Then I should like to refer to the increase of R4 000 to R5 000 in the amount which may be deducted for income tax purposes in regard to the construction of employees’ houses. If we bear in mind that the homes of 37% of the Black and Coloured population groups in South Africa today are outside the homelands on the farms, one can realize how important is this concession by the hon. the Minister.

Another matter I should like to discuss relates to the amount of R87 million for the consolidation of Black States. I maintain that to us in agriculture this is an extremely welcome concession. I do not believe that anyone who is not in such a situation can imagine what it is like for a farmer when he knows that his land is going to be bought out but he does not know exactly when. We find here a very high degree of uncertainty and frustration. However, we are aware of the problem and we realize that too much cannot be given in one year, because provision must be made for every aspect. Nevertheless we want to convey our sincere appreciation to the hon. the Minister.

Other hon. members have already expressed their appreciation of the R10 million that has been transferred from last year’s savings for small business undertakings. I believe that the platteland will receive its share of this money and that this will contribute towards checking the depopulation of the platteland.

I also wish to express my thanks for the fact that the hon. the Minister of Finance, in co-operation with the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, has appointed the Jacobs Committee to investigate the financial problems, in particular, of the farmers. Appreciation must be expressed for the speed and thoroughness with which the report and recommendations in this regard were published. One of the most important recommendations in the report was that the increase in production costs should be taken into account in determining prices. In so far as it is possible, I think that this is a very good recommendation.

Time does not permit me to consider all the recommendations, but I should nevertheless like to mention two matters in this regard, apart from the financial facilities for which we must express our thanks. The first is that the Jacobs Committee is being converted into a standing committee which can investigate agricultural problems on a permanent basis as they crop up, and then make recommendations concerning them. In the second place, hon. members will recall that the Jacobs Committee recommended that the farmers be enabled to form a tax-free capital reserve, as it is called. I just want to set the matter straight. It is not a tax-free reserve. As recommended, it is free from tax in the year in which the farmer invests that money in, say, the Land Bank, but it is stated very clearly that in the year when this farmer withdraws this money for some purpose, for example, due to a natural disaster, the amount will indeed be taxable. It cannot therefore be termed a tax-free reserve. In the times of drought we are living in, it is imperative that this concession be introduced as soon as possible. I know that the hon. the Minister referred it to the tax committee, but I want to express the hope that something be done about this matter without delay.

Time does not permit me to dwell on these matters at length, but there is another very important matter that I should like to discuss here this afternoon. It concerns the Land Bank. I want to say at once that we have the greatest appreciation for what the Land Bank has meant in the past and still means to the farming community of South Africa. Just recently the Land Bank was described in this House as the biggest helping hand, and I think that we can endorse this statement.

What about the United Building Society?

Yes, it has been compared to the United.

The annual report of the Land Bank makes very interesting reading matter. For example, it states, inter alia, that as far as consolidation of debt is concerned, there has been an increase from R9,7 million to R28,8 million of the past five years. This shows what has been done in this regard by the Land Bank. While I am expressing my appreciation of the Land Bank, and particularly for the work done by the Board of the Land Bank, there are a few matters which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister.

The first matter concerns the valuation of land when a loan is applied for. I say this with respect, but I am really convinced that the Land Bank Board is perhaps a little over-conservative in this regard. I know that they have to see to it that money is not lost unnecessarily, but in view of the increase in the price of agricultural products over the past decade or more and the net income on the farms, I think that we could well effect an upwards adjustment.

Secondly, I should like to express an opinion about the securities required by the Land Bank before it grants a loan. It is a well-known fact that it is the policy of the Land Bank Board only to grant a maximum loan equal to 80% of the agricultural value of the farm. Bearing in mind that the market value of the land is far higher than the agricultural value recognized by the Land Bank Board, it goes without saying that if that property which has to serve as security were to be sold, it could definitely make up for the loan entered into.

I now want to make the point that if a man wants to borrow money and one ties up all his immovable property in Land Bank mortgages, one makes it very difficult for him to obtain operating capital in the open market from money lenders against the security of those properties. This is therefore a very important problem because when one considers the enormous inputs required in agriculture today one sees that the farmer is barely able to continue in operation.

Then, too, I should like to give consideration to a very important matter. I am absolutely convinced that the entrepreneur or farmer is the most important factor when a loan is granted. I do not think we can deny the fact that there are farmers and farmers, and entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs. There are people who have proved themselves. One can give him almost nothing and he will nevertheless make a success of it. For that reason I regard it as absolutely essential that when one receives an application for a loan, a survey be carried out of the applicant’s abilities, history, achievements and even his wife, if necessary, because that jockey is the most important element in the achievement of success. I think it is absolutely and 100% essential that a farmer who wants to make a success of his undertaking must be able to work with people, have boundless confidence in himself, have boundless faith and must be able to combine these things with the necessary technical and financial knowledge and judgment. For that reason I regard it as of vital importance that these matters be taken into consideration.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister of Finance that we in the farming community are grateful to know that we have a Minister of Finance who understands the problems of the farmers of South Africa. We are also grateful to know that he not only has an understanding of our problems, but that he also keeps himself informed as to the position of the farmers in South Africa and keeps in touch with those matters at all times. To us this is of the utmost importance because cost increases and financial changes are being effected so rapidly that unless one keeps in touch at all times one will never be able to keep pace with them. We want to thank him sincerely for this and congratulate him on this budget.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just taken his seat, will forgive me if I do not follow him in his arguments. In his speech he dealt in the main with agriculture and I am quite sure the hon. the Minister will be replying to him a little later on.

I do want to make one brief reference to the speech of the hon. member for Stilfontein. I am very sorry that he is not in the House. I believe that we listened to a very earnest and passionate plea by someone who obviously has personal and close family knowledge of the plight of the handicapped. I know that his words impressed all of us. Just for that one moment during the time he was speaking it seemed to me that this House realized its common humanity despite the very wide differences between our political viewpoints. Therefore we should be very grateful to him for doing just that thing.

With regard to the speech of the hon. member for Durban Central I only want to say one thing in a short sentence and that is that the PFP is very proud and pleased to have the hon. member for East London North in our ranks. [Interjections.] We believe he is an honourable man and that he will act honourably as he has done in the past. [Interjections.] I do not want to waste any more time in this regard.

I should like to address myself to the hon. the Minister on a major problem which faces South Africa, a problem which has a direct bearing on his budget. Despite the increase in the price of gold and an increase in foreign investment confidence in the South African economy, South Africa faces the paradox of high unemployment on the one hand, and an acute skilled shortage on the other. The blame for the latter problem must lie in part with the private sector, but it must also be crisply stated, in my view, that the Government’s planning in terms of manpower, until very recently, can only be described as “a comedy of errors”. The obvious answer to this acute problem of skilled shortages is to regard training with a new sense of urgency and to give it a new priority, different in scope and in commitment from what has ever been known before in our history. Further, I am convinced that the new opportunities for collective bargaining should facilitate the opening of skilled jobs to those who hitherto have been denied this opportunity, namely— in the main—Black workers.

Today, however, I want to concentrate on the other side of the paradox, namely unemployment. In the Part Appropriation debate, the hon. the Minister of Finance stated that the extent of unemployment had, in his opinion, been badly exaggerated. I refer to what he said here in the House on 28 February this year. In support of his assertion he quoted a Mr. Kantor, who is a well-known senior lecturer in the School of Economics and the University of Cape Town, and whose major thesis it was (Hansard, 1980, col. 1619)—

Both the hon. the Minister and Mr. Kantor concede that there is unemployment but the hon. the Minister quoted what he terms “a reasoned statement” indicating that there is no Black unemployment problem in South Africa. Of course, I want to concede immediately that it is extremely difficult to arrive at a totally reliable figure concerning the number of unemployed in South Africa. I do not have to go into all those factors. Those hon. members who are familiar with this area of study will know that different people use different yardsticks. We have never had any problem with White, Coloured and Indian statistics, and until recently the Government has never paid a great deal of attention to the statistics of Black unemployment. Therefore, a number of academics have made a particular study of this and their figures concerning the unemployment ranged between anything from 2 million to 500 000. Recently, the Department of Statistics, in the Statistical News release, which appeared on 31 January 1978, gave a figure of 634 000, a figure which, I believe, came as a shock to all of us. Many people indeed acknowledged that to me. A further figure, even higher, has been given by the Economic Development Programme, namely 903 000 unemployed, with the forecast that this number will rise.

As I understand, the Government itself is going to base its own work on work done by the Economic Development Programme, and I can only hope that the hon. the Minister will take that figure with some seriousness.

What about Mandela?

To argue about the precise number of unemployed is to miss the point, and to suggest that there is no Black unemployment problem in South Africa is to do so with a vengeance. Let me quote some of the findings of a recent Markinor sociopolitical barometer—

Of all urban Blacks living in households, who are willing to work, 23% cannot find jobs. I put it to the hon. the Minister that this is a serious Black employment problem. Markinor does a regular socio-political barometer every year, and these are the most recent figures I have. I find them to be very reliable until now. Nearly half of those who are unemployed, i.e. 47%, were aged between 16 and 24 years. These people are victims not of what could be termed cyclical unemployment, but of what is regarded as structural unemployment. That is to say, these people are willing to work, are seeking work, but cannot find work and every day thousands of new work-seekers come into the labour market. According to someone who, I think, ought to know what he is talking about, 8 million new jobs will have to be found in South Africa during the next 20 years. I want to repeat that: 8 million new jobs will have to be found in South Africa during the next 20 years. This, according to my reckoning, will entail creating 1 500 new jobs every day. I submit, with respect, that the provisions of this budget simply do not match this demand.

If the unemployment problem is severe in the urban Black areas, then it can only be described as calamitous in the rural areas. In this context the call for unblinkered rural development is a call which is long overdue.

When we consider that by and large the unemployed are young and are to be found in the disenfranchised sections of our population, the problem takes on very serious political implications. One has only to study the Cillié Commission’s report to realize that one of the aggravating factors in the Soweto uprising was the lack of work for new job-seekers. This leads me to the conclusion that we must apply our minds to at least three areas. In the first place, I believe that we must identify the causes of structural unemployment; in the second place, we must counter these causes as far as possible; and in the third place, we must take positive action to create employment.

It has been suggested that there are three features of South Africa’s economic structure which are particularly relevant in coming to grips with structural unemployment. They are, firstly, the seemingly inexhaustible supply of Black labour. Here the whole question of land comes to the fore. Land available for Blacks in the rural areas simply cannot support the ever-increasing population. Accordingly, the vast majority of so-called “citizens” of these areas are forced to migrate to the towns and cities in search of employment which as often as not is unavailable even when they get there. In this connection, it would seem to me that those who have been doing work in the field of Family Planning are to be congratulated. I believe it is only one small way in which we can combat the ever-increasing problems we are facing.

The second feature is the highly unequal distribution of income. The World Bank survey of 1974 showed that 40% of the population in South Africa earned a mere 6,2% of the national income and it has been suggested that the position has been worsened since then. While it has been suggested that the highly unequal income distribution in fact creates growth and therefore jobs, it is no longer assumed that this is the case in less-developed countries. The major reason for this is the difference in spending patterns between the rich and the poor. While the poor tend to spend a very high proportion of their income on basic-necessity items which are locally produced, the rich spend a great amount on goods of a high import content, either products directly imported, or products made by machines which have been imported. The gravamen of this argument is that, with a greater distribution of income, more money would be spent on locally produced items, thus stimulating growth and creating jobs. A further factor which has contributed to South Africa’s unemployment problem has been the capital-intensive nature of South Africa’s productive system. Both the extent and the value of mechanization increased dramatically in the 1970s, and indications are that this trend is to increase for one or all of several reasons. In the first place the machine is not subject to the working of the pass laws and cannot be incarcerated, leading to expense for both the employer and the employee, and to a loss of productivity. Secondly the application of the pass laws forces employees to return to their so-called Black States once a year, and there is no guarantee that the same workers will return to their employers after this enforced furlough. Consequently the training of Black manpower is a risky investment. Thirdly, in many cases new processes may use less labour and more capital to make each final product, but in the final analysis still be cheaper. Fourthly, the operation of the Environment Planning Act makes the erection of factories in the so-called White areas, factories which are capital-intensive, preferable to those which are labour-intensive.

Before I make some specific suggestions about job creation, I want to put it bluntly to the hon. the Minister that the time has come for us to give serious consideration to the granting of tax incentives to those who are prepared to embark on labour-intensive operations rather than capital-intensive ones. Obviously a formula would have to be worked out, but I believe that this would be one of the best ways in which to encourage a movement away from mechanization towards labour-intensive operations.

Now I come to some specific suggestions about job creation. In the first place I believe that job creation would be assisted by the removal of certain legislative provisions. Chief amongst these are the pass law provisions, read in conjunction with the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act and the Environment Planning Act. I further believe that the labour preference areas, e.g. in the Western Cape for Coloureds, but presumably also in the homeland border areas, should be abolished. In short, any law which places restrictions on the ability of a man to receive or provide employment should be lifted, and should be lifted now!

Secondly, growth needs to be encouraged, virtually at all costs. There are those who believe that even with a 5% growth rate we would not be able to cope with the existing employment problem, let alone as it grows. Thirdly, we must resuscitate—because I believe it is dying—the “Buy South African” campaign. This would have three major effects, i.e. that of lowering our dependence on foreign products, saving on foreign exchange and creating jobs for people in South Africa.

Prof. Jill Nattrass suggested four useful criteria to facilitate job creation. She maintains that we should thi<u>nk</u> people rather than machines, that we should think small rather than big, that we should think South African and traditional rather than foreign and modern and, because of the large number of people who are unemployed, this enormous reservoir of Black labour, we should think Black first in order to put the situation right, of course not at the expense of any other worker, but for obvious reasons. It is clear to me that if we are going to do some of these things, and many more, there are two other aspects that must be stressed. Firstly, there is the fact that education is of the utmost importance. It is no good sending people out to take jobs that have been created if they are jobs with which the people cannot cope because they do not have adequate education to do so. On the other hand, the emphasis on training must be highlighted far more than we have done. That is why I say that this budget, whilst it has many good aspects about it, fails in one of the most vital areas, i.e. the fact that there is not enough money for training and not enough money for education, because those two have to get first priority.

Mr. Speaker, I have seldom heard a more moderate speech made by the hon. member for Pinelands than that which he made today. [Interjections.] One can agree with him on many things today. However, there are certain things with which we cannot agree.

If I had the time at my disposal, I would try to reply to him in full on the basis of the tables appearing on page 27 of the Statistical/ Economic Review for 1980-’81, where one finds a very careful analysis of the labour conditions in South Africa. What struck me was that the hon. member quoted figures and not percentages.

One can interpret figures in various ways. As I have said, he referred to figures. This may be on the basis of surveys that were carried out but, according to the official statistics on labour conditions, there was an unemployment figure of 9,3% among Blacks. However, the hon. member did not refer to the position among Whites, Coloureds and Asians. This is very important too. There the unemployment figure is 1,4%, which is, of course, much lower. If I have the time, I shall come back to this table. Then we can spend some time discussing the matter.

I really hoped that the hon. member would discuss Mandela. I should have liked to hear his standpoint on this matter.

I stand by my leader. [Interjections.]

Yes, but there is serious division in the ranks of the PFP on this whole issue. They differ greatly with one another in this matter. I do not want to dwell any further on this matter. If I have the opportunity, I shall analyse the question of manpower utilization more carefully. But I do think that many illegal Blacks are entering this country too. I know they are seeking employment but legally they ought not to be here and now they are placing a responsibility on our shoulders.

I want to avail myself of this opportunity of raising certain matters here. A different tone has been adopted in this debate which I really want to welcome most sincerely. Hon. members on both sides of this House are starting to think positively about matters and are bringing up subjects for discussion here that are of importance to us. For instance, the hon. member for Rissik made a very good speech after having studied his subject carefully. His speech gave one much food for thought. I can also refer to the speech of the hon. member for Virginia and those this afternoon of the hon. members for Oudtshoorn and Stilfontein. There are many other hon. members to whom I can refer in this regard. We must also adopt a slightly new approach to our debating, on the part of the Opposition too. It should be meaningful and responsible.

I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Finance most sincerely on this budget. For five years I had the opportunity of associating with him as the Leader in the Other Place. They were fruitful years. He was an inspired person who always argued on the basis of facts. Even then he meant a great deal to us. Besides being leader of the National Party in Natal and handling an important portfolio, he is a realist and not an idealist. We should also bear in mind that circumstances in this world change from day to day and that he constantly has to revise his thinking. The hon. member for Yeoville said in his speech (Hansard, 14 April)—

He went on to say—

That was his opinion. Now I should like to quote from a publication which is not an NP publication. The Financial Mail of 4 April stated—

And it concludes with this significant paragraph—

This is the position with this budget today. The hon. the Minister—and I want to congratulate him sincerely—has determined a policy for the distant future on the part of the Government. For the past year—the hon. member for Parktown congratulated him on this too—he has curbed Government spending and it is specifically that stricter discipline which is bearing fruit today. That is why we should not make the mistake—this I want to tell the hon. member for Pinelands too—to lay everything possible at the door of the Government. It is the specific intention of this budget to show that the private sector too has a decisive part to play in stimulating economic growth. And it is specifically to curb unemployment too that the encouragement of growth and of investment now rests with the private sector as well. This is a matter to which the entrepreneur should also give attention. The Black man in the homeland and in the urban areas must be given opportunities as well.

What has struck me recently is that everything is laid at the door of the White man as if he has to look after everything every time. After all, there are very wealthy Black and Brown people. Wealthy Whites saw to it that I could attend school when I grew up and did not have money. Has the time not arrived for the wealthy Black person, Asian and Brown person to begin to look after his own people as well?

The hon. the Minister of Finance also set a fine example by not simply giving away all the benefits to be gained from the gold price. Specifically with a view to long-term planning he made use of a conservatively estimated gold price when he held out prospects for us.

I should like today to discuss the growth rate and the inflation rate about which a great deal is being said. I am but a layman in this sphere; there are many people who are cleverer and can say more about this matter. However, I want to point out that in view of our growth rate of 3,7% in the Republic of South Africa, we can spend some time comparing it with the growth rates in other countries of the world. While this young country of ours, in spite of economic boycotts, a shortage of numbers and the fact that we have to make provision in many spheres, maintained a growth rate of 3,7%, EEC countries could only maintain a growth rate of 3,1%. So we are 0,6% ahead of them. In 1980 they anticipate a growth rate of 2%. What is the position in France today? In France the growth rate in 1979 was 3,5% and they expect a growth rate of 1,5% in 1980—which is lower than South Africa’s— and France is, after all, a very good country. The United Kingdom does not expect any growth rate in 1980. What is the position in Canada? In 1979 the growth rate there was less than 3% and the expectation is that a growth rate of less than 1% will be maintained in 1980. How does this compare to our 3,7%?

In this regard it is also as well to examine another matter. Let us look at the countries that maintain close ties with one another in the economic sphere. They are known as the OECD countries. They make up the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the following six countries are, inter alia, members of this organization: Canada, Australia, the USA, France, Germany and Austria. This powerful alliance of OECD countries maintained a growth rate of only 3% in 1979 and is expecting a growth rate of only 0,3% in 1980. Hon. members can now see that South Africa with its growth rate of 3,7%, bearing in mind the problems we are faced with, is still in a very good position.

If on the other hand we examine the inflation rate, we find that our annual inflation rate for the past five years was 12,2%. The inflation rate of the USA was 8,2%; that of France, 10,2%; Australia, 11,3%; and Italy, 15,4%. The inflation rate of the United Kingdom was 16,1%. This is an indication to hon. members that South Africa was not at all out of step with all these countries. Our inflation rate may even drop, but this will only happen if we are able to maintain a higher productivity. This is why we should also see our cost-of-living index today against the broad spectrum of our daily life.

It is often said that our salary level is too low. This is true. However, the level of salaries has now improved with all the concessions and increases announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance. However, it should be borne in mind that the cost of living in other countries is extremely high. Even if they receive double our salaries they also have problems in respect of their expenditure. In this respect we can examine the position of the cost of living if 100 is used as a basis in respect of South Africa. In that case we find that in the case of Australia it is 128; France, 177; Canada, 187; and the USA, 188. It is 201 in the case of Germany—double our cost-of-living index.

I can say therefore that the rands have rolled in this budget. There have been rands for everyone, far-reaching tax concessions and salary increases of several millions of rands. This is the most favourable budget I have ever heard of. It has gone hand in hand with sweeping tax reforms as well. The hon. the Minister of Finance put his hand deep into his pocket to give everyone something. Hon. members need only consider the question of the relief amounting to R600 million in income tax. The average reduction is approximately 30%. One can also consider the abolition of the loan levy in respect of individuals and companies, something which will cost the Government R651 million. More than R48 million has been appropriated for the improvement in the salaries and other conditions of service of all public servants. The increases in social and civil pensions in some cases amount to as much as 20%. There has been a reduction in estate duty, a revision of transfer duty and the total abolition of the surcharge on imports as well. The tax-free amount of the income of married women has been increased from R900 to R1 200 and this will cost the State as much as R31 million per annum.

The hon. member for Houghton in particular discussed the taxation of the income of married women. The fact is surely that a higher percentage of married women are economically active. 51,2% of married women fall in the income group from R5 000 to R15 000 per annum. 34,7% of married women who are economically active are in the income group from R15 000 to R20 000. So their services are needed and they deserve that money. Even in the income group above R20 000 the percentage of married women who are economically active is exceptionally high. It is true that a married couple in the lower income group are generally better off as far as taxation is concerned than two single persons who together have an income which is equal to that of a married couple.

The family as a unit is still important here, not the cohabitation of men and women, something which must be condemned very strongly. In future we are going to adopt a very strong standpoint in this regard. We as members of Parliament must do so in order to keep the morality of our nation high. This living together and cohabitation of men and women who are unmarried is an evil which we must eradicate totally because it is things such as these that are gnawing at our national life like a cancer. I am mentioning this because I feel very strongly about this matter and shall continue to do so.

The taxation unit which has been adopted in South Africa since 1914 is that of the married couple. This was introduced in a very clear way. It is based on the principle of the ability to pay and the joint income is calculated as a unit. This is all I want to say about taxation itself, except to add that we are very grateful for a budget such as this.

It is very clear to me that the PFP as it exists at present, as well as the NRP, are experiencing a great crisis. They will have to tell us very clearly what direction they are going to follow in future. Does the PFP propose majority government? If so, what is to become of the existing White minority government in that case? It is not the PFP who received a mandate from the voters to tell us in what way this country should be governed. It is the NP that received that mandate. The PFP still sees South Africa too much as an extension of the British imperial system. That is why it accepted the Western idea that colonialism should be liquidated everywhere. We do not see liquidation as our future in South Africa because the NP made itself unpopular over the years with its slogan of “South Africa first” and with the policy that South Africa should become a republic. Now hon. members opposite are saying that we should abdicate. They argue that all the Black peoples should now come together with a smaller White representation at a convention in order to establish a new State by means of paper guarantees. We are not prepared to go along with that. On the other hand the NRP—they are good friends of mine—is a total and irretrievable wreck. It will now have to sink finally or it is going to be towed away. The NP has destroyed it systematically since 1948. The NRP will have to rehabilitate itself and reconsider the direction in which it is going to move in future. They will have to give their urgent attention to this matter.

Finally, I want to say that the PFP is falling apart at the seams. It is a waste product of the old UP and is not viable.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Rosettenville on a calm and moderate speech, similar to that of the hon. member for Pinelands. I must, however, add that a moderate speech by the hon. member for Rosettenville is the rule, whereas it only happens by way of exception as far as the hon. member for Pinelands is concerned. I agree with the standpoints put forward here today by the hon. member for Rosettenville.

I am glad that the debate is once again being conducted on the budget. When the debate started, one person was in the limelight, namely the hon. the Minister of Finance. By the middle of the debate there were two people in the limelight, and unfortunately the hon. the Minister was not one of them. The two gentlemen who stole the limelight then, were Messrs. Mandela and Malcomess. I do not know what they have in common, but I know that Mr. Mandela has not yet changed his politics, while Mr. Malcomess has changed his politics. [Interjections.]

I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Walmer said about the sound characteristics of the budget. He said that this was the best budget since 1948. I agree with that, but let me hasten to urge the hon. the Minister not to try to maintain this record by seeing to it that the budget for 1980 remains the best. We hope that the budgets to be introduced in the future, will be even better. I want to associate myself with those individuals who expressed their gratitude here.

In the first place I want to discuss pensions. I know that quite a lot has been said about pensions, and snide remarks have on occasion been made. It was alleged that the pensions were inadequate. However, for the pensioner any increase is welcome. The old saying that half a loaf is better than no bread, applies here. On behalf of the recipients of this increase, I want to express my gratitude. I wish to add, however, that we must remember, when future budgets are drawn up, that the tendency in South Africa is to close the gap between the wages of the various race groups. I have said before that the time will come when the gap between the pensions of the various race groups will also be narrowed. I want to suggest now that we should ask ourselves in future whether the increase which is granted every year, should not perhaps be the same, so that the gap does not become wider and wider, but at least remains constant, and that we eventually eliminate that gap completely. In other words, the same annual increase should apply to all race groups.

The means test has elicited quite a few discussions so far this session. In this regard I, too, wish to express my appreciation for the fact that attention has been given to the means test and that the maximum amount has been increased. On the basis of the figures alone it may be a small difference, but I think that a considerable number of people will benefit from the increased means test. I am sure that it is also greatly appreciated by those people who will be receiving pensions as from October 1980. In this regard I also wish to suggest that we should perhaps review the means test more often with a view to increasing it so that it can adjust to the increased cost of living and to the changes in the purchasing power of the rand.

†We all agree that with any budget there must be a certain degree of give and take. We have heard that many times during this debate. It is inevitable that there must be give and take at all times. However, I am afraid that in one instance the hon. the Minister has stretched his arm a bit too long in taking, and that is in the case of taxpayers with life insurance. Knowing what a burden people without adequate means to provide for themselves can be on the State—this is something which we have already discussed at length at different stages during this session—we must rather encourage life insurance and not discourage it.

It would appear that the present tax abatement system is going to be replaced. A flat rebate of R75 per annum is now being proposed. Today it is nothing out of the ordinary for the average middle-income man to spend a considerable amount of money per month on insurance premiums. Tax abatements up to now have certainly been a tremendous incentive to people to take out life insurance as a savings measure. If this is replaced by the payment of the proposed R75 per annum, it could mean a loss to the person who spends roughly R70 or R80 per month on insurance premiums of anything up to roughly R150. I do not have the exact figure. We can expect that this change from the abatement system to the flat-rate rebate will have an effect on the younger taxpayers. What I really cannot understand as far as this is concerned is why the same rebate must be applicable to both single and married people. In the case of a single person he merely takes insurance to provide extra money for his retirement, but in the case of a married person with children the breadwinner provides security for his family in the event of anything happening to him. Therefore there must be an encouragement. There must be a difference between the single and the married taxpayer. I trust, however, that the hon. the Minister will look into this matter and that he may perhaps decide to leave the situation as it is at the moment.

Now I should like to get nearer home. The theme of this budget is “disciplined growth from strength” and this is definitely a very wise theme. I believe the hon. the Minister has tried very hard to achieve just that. Allow me to suggest another slogan that could be pursued in the interests of South Africa. That is “Proper planning for strength”. This is where the metropolitan area of Port Elizabeth comes into the picture. The growth of the motor industry is vital to the metropolitan area of Port Elizabeth, especially in the provision of job opportunities, and this is where the hon. member for Pinelands gave us his opinion today of what the situation is and what the situation will be in future. I believe this is a serious matter, a matter which deserves our attention. What the motor industry needs is a shot in the arm in the form of production encouragement and export incentives.

The motor industry is showing signs of an upward trend. South Africa is even exporting motor vehicles to a limited extent. This is not enough, however, and we need large-scale exports. In this respect two things are required. The first is increased production, and the second is reduced prices. The one is complementary to the other. Increased production will bring about reduced prices, and reduced prices will ensure increased production. Reduced prices will undoubtedly stimulate the local market. The motor vehicle is very much part of our daily life, but prices have, however, soared beyond the reach of many prospective buyers. This has happened on account of two reasons. One reason is the restrictive hire-purchase period of 30 months, which obviously places the monthly repayments beyond the reach of the average person. The second reason is the 20% deposit a prospective hire-purchase buyer needs.

With the current costs of new vehicles that 20% deposit is also, in many, many cases, beyond the reach of people in the average and middle-income groups. There was a time when increased deposits and shorter hire-purchase terms were a necessary deterrent to curb spending. We all acknowledged at the time that it was a necessary measure. I think, however, that the time has arrived that we must have another look at the situation and allow the financial institutions to satisfy themselves about the creditworthiness of their customers, and allow them to accept smaller deposits and entitle them to extend the repayment period to five years. This will undoubtedly boost the local market.

We all agree that local industry, especially the motor vehicle components industry, needs a certain degree of protection. The local content policy, therefore, serves a useful purpose. On the other hand it is common knowledge that certain components can be imported more cheaply than they can be produced locally. One of the motor manufacturers in Port Elizabeth pointed out recently that the local content measure is responsible for higher prices. I therefore want to suggest that attention be given to export incentives by means of agreements with countries wishing to import South African manufactured motor components in exchange for parts manufactured in their country, for instance South African manufactured motor engines, for which there is a demand in Great Britain. There are other parts which we can in turn import from Great Britain. Surely, the local content of the South African product will balance out the non-local content of the imported parts. I know that certain countries have similar agreements with South American companies. Therefore those countries prefer to import from the South American countries in preference to importing from us. My appeal today is that we investigate the possibilities to give our motor industry that sorely needed shot in the arm in order to create additional job opportunities not only in the motor factories, but also in the motor component factories.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister of Finance today. I want to agitate in mitigation for the hon. member for Pretoria Central. This hon. member has a dubious political past.

Port Elizabeth!

Pardon me. I mean the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. [Interjections.] I do not believe this hon. member will take it amiss of me when I say that he has had a dubious political past, but my appeal is that when the means test is applied to him his past should not be held against him! Otherwise I think the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central made a useful speech here and I have no further argument with him.

The budget presented to us by the hon. the Minister of Finance attests to a powerful economy, one which gives hope for the future. It is the result of the interaction between a powerful economy on the one hand and sound political expectation on the other. The foundation stones of this are lasting, stable politics in conjunction with optimistic expectations for the future, orderly national administration in which know-how is afforded the opportunity of utilizing the rich resources of South Africa, as well as a series of other factors which make South Africa an investment power par excellence. I believe the South African Government should receive credit for this. On the debit side there is the challenge of inflation and unemployment. I am convinced that if we as the people of South Africa work at it tenaciously and enthusiastically, we shall be able to outgrow the dilemma of inflation and unemployment. For that reason the hon. the Minister of Finance decided in his wisdom to stimulate our economy in this way. The question is, how is the Opposition reacting, specifically the official Opposition, in the face of such a strong economy? Seeing that I unintentionally succeeded in creating a carnival atmosphere in this debate at the outset of my speech, I should like to build on that in the atmosphere of the recent Springbok trials and the announcement of a Springbok team last night. [Interjections.]

We experienced four highlights from the official Opposition, and these were the speeches made by the hon. members for Yeoville, Parktown, Bezuidenhout and the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition. The hon. member for Yeoville was instructed to lead his team onto the field for this budget game. As captain he had to exercise the choice of playing either with or against the wind in the first half of the game. The hon. member chose to play with the wind and intimated that we had here a demonstration of a powerful economy. After half-time, after the Easter recess, the hon. member for Yeoville could no longer choose whether he wanted to play with or against the wind but was compelled to play against the wind in the face of a brilliant budget. [Interjections.] His reaction was that the price of bread should not be increased. In the midst of his onslaught, however, he realized that he had chosen incorrectly but that he could no longer swop his team or the wind. [Interjections.] So the hon. member then decided to turn to Rapport and in that way changed his financial onslaught into a political one.

The speech made by the hon. member for Parktown indicated clearly that he had hung up his boots and had already retired. As one who has been involved in many political loose scrums, I shall remember the hon. member as the person who was caught with his hands in the scrum at the outset of his recent period here in Parliament. As our English-speaking friends so correctly say: “He was found with his hands in the cookie jar.” The hon. member is the person who explained in his opening speech why, after having analysed the entire South African economy, he had come to the conclusion that it would possibly not be safe for people to invest here during the years 1976 or 1977. I read through the hon. member’s Hansard speeches of that debate and I do not begrudge him a well-deserved political rest.

The hon. the Leader of the official Opposition is not present at the moment, but I think I can explain his conduct in his speech best by referring to the years when there was an exceptional feud between two Springbok scrumhalves who had to compete for the position of scrumhalf in a Springbok team. At the time of this test series one of them was a clergyman, and after the Sunday service which was attended with great interest by all the rugby followers, someone said he had made a very good sermon. However, the reaction to that was: I still think Piet Uys is better. I would almost say that Colin was better because we knew exactly where we stood with the hon. member for Sea Point when he was leader of that party. The present Leader of the official Opposition struck an attitude and said that there was a certain measure of division among them. He said that a difference of opinion did exist in regard to the way in which they should handle the Mandela campaign but that there were no fundamental differences among them. I hope to come to that argument of his again.

The fourth person I want to involve in this loose scrum is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He is like a person who says at the bottom of the loose scrum that the ball will never come out and wants to ask the referee to step in and blow the whistle. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that there was no political party here that had grasped the whole truth. That is like a person pleading for mercy in the middle of a loose scrum. He is like a person who is asking for a chance because he knows the ball is not going to come out on his side. Consequently he is trying to apply that tactic. I am going to try to be a fair referee and apply the advantage rule. I want to give the hon. members of the official Opposition another chance. When we place them on the scale we see that they are members of a party which says it stands for a federation. In that federation, it says, it is going to protect minority interests by means of a declaration of human rights and a constitutional tribunal. However, when one involves them in this loose scrum, these men retreat, they make a great fuss and say that this is really a proposal to a national convention. They say their policy is that of a party that wants to negotiate and bargain. The structure and the place where they are going to negotiate is the national convention. The parties are significant groups, men who have indicated that they are laying down their arms and that they stand for a peaceful process of negotiation. Theoretically or academically it is possible, if one places any reasonable construction on this …

Just like Lancaster House.

… for those hon. members to make provision for the attendance of Jaap Marais and Nelson Mandela at that convention. The hon. member for Pinelands called out that it was like Lancaster House. I want to tell him right away that in the present political climate in South Africa he cannot even get all the Black factions together, not to mention the political factions of South Africa from the left wing of Mandela to Jaap Marais.

Have you ever tried?

Where does Harry play?

The PFP—and I want to emphasize this—does not have a monopoly in respect of the politics of negotiation in South Africa. The NP under the leadership of Mr. P. W. Botha has shown a willingness as well as a desire to have discussions with leaders and to establish forums to which arguments may be directed and where they may be answered. This applies on a national as well as a domestic level, irrespective of the colour of the person. The NP is creating a climate in which a peaceful discussion can be conducted, in which arguments can be advanced and weighed in an atmosphere in which one does not have to adhere to a standpoint at all costs. During in-depth negotiations, in-depth discussions of this nature, one seeks a suitable standpoint which is in the best interests of all the parties involved. I believe that I can add many examples to this in order to illustrate the point effectively. Thus the NP’s approach is a correct one. That is to conduct discussions with institutional leaders, to give them increasing authority and in this way to apportion power as well as to seek constantly and to strive to eliminate levels of friction.

Two major debates in particular are taking place on the evolution of South Africa which we dare not avoid in spite of the fact that they may entail a measure of irritation for us. In our participation in and judgment of these debates we must adopt a balanced attitude. A balanced attitude does not mean middle-of-the-road politics; it means the steadfast pairing of the ideal and of reality, of emotion and reason, of the head and the heart. In the international community debates on South Africa take place which we can and want to ignore for conveniences sake. However, to do so would be irresponsible and when we do so we are committing an injustice to South Africa and its people. I should even like to term various levels of these debates talking-at-cross-purposes debates. However, there are other debates that are taking place, so-called own-interest debates, debates in which States have their own interests, in which business leaders have their own interests. We have undertaken a variety of projects which are to our advantage, for example, the De Kock, Wiehahn and Riekert Commissions. We have done so primarily because we regard them as being in our own interests. However, these also serve the interests of our friends abroad and we must not sulk or be shamefaced because they praise them. These are dynamic changes which could drastically change our international image. This is something we should apply to our own advantage. International investments are welcome and essential to assist us, to establish infrastructures in order to curb unemployment, to assist in the training of technical staff, as well as to assist in the socio-economic programmes of the employees involved.

In Black ranks a debate is taking place as well. At times it is also irritating and a debate we should ignore too. It is only realistic to accept the fact that some Black leaders want to give their people the opportunity of having full political expression as well as to certain circumstances in which they will be able to make socio-economic opportunities available to their people. The dispute in this debate centres on the fact that one pole maintains that the existing order should be destroyed in order to realize these goals. On the other hand the argument is advanced that this same existing order and the existing institution should be utilized in order to usher in a new era. Consequently it is important that we should interpret these debates properly and correctly, because Africa has indicated that at times we underestimate these debates idiomatically and do not interpret them correctly. In seeking to find a balanced standpoint it is important to bear in mind that Africa likes a strong man, that Africa likes a nationalist too. We must take this into account, along with the fact that Africa’s strong nationalists, White or Black, will not butter one another up but that they are politically mature enough to have discussions with one another and will be tolerant enough to iron out differences in the interests of both Black and White. If we act in such a balanced way, I think we will place the hon. the Minister of Finance in a position to deliver his budget speech next year in a climate in which there can once again be expectations of a strong economy.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Krugersdorp must please excuse me for not following up on what he has said, but my time is limited and my train of thought lies is in a completely different direction. To start with, I should like to heartily congratulate the hon. the Minister of Finance, as well as his very able team consisting of Dr. De Loor, Dr. De Kock and Dr. Van der Walt, on what I consider to be a remarkable budget. Obviously there are a few minor areas in the budget on which I would have preferred to have seen greater stress, but that may be due to my own personal prejudice in favour of the farming community. Looking at the financial budget as a whole, however, I am very thankful indeed, and I wish to inform the hon. the Minister of Finance that it will be a pleasure to vote with the Government for this particular financial measure.

I also wish to congratulate the hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet for creating an economic climate during the past year that has so greatly stimulated business confidence in general and that has, in fact, laid the foundation for this exceptionally good budget.

I believe the major events of the past year, such as the implementation of the De Kock report, the relaxation of import control, the acceptance of the Wiehahn and Riekert report recommendations, the streamlining of the Public Service, the appointment of the Schlebusch Commission and the Carlton Business Leaders’ Conference have all positively contributed to this very healthy financial climate here today. I also wish to let the hon. the Prime Minister know that his statements regarding the urgent need, in South Africa, to wipe out hurtful discrimination are heartily acclaimed by the entire non-White population of South Africa, as well as the hundreds of thousands of White South Africans who had previously opposed the NP.

The fact that I, as an independent member of Parliament, am fully prepared to openly praise the Government for the positive financial steps it has taken, as well as the encouraging pronouncements certain hon. Ministers made on the dismantling of discrimination, does not and should not signify that my joining the NP is imminent or inevitable. This is just not so, and I shall give hon. members my reasons why I would find it very difficult, at this stage, to join the NP. The two main reasons are still exactly the same as I outlined last year. The first one is the fact that there is still legal and blatant racial discrimination which is practised daily in South Africa, and the second is the NP’s policy of fragmentation of South Africa.

I will, however, immediately concede that the Government has announced that it intends to improve both these positions, for which I am grateful, but if I were a Nat today, I would find it difficult to justify, rationalize and compare the hon. the Minister of Cooperation and Development’s words, that state that he “believes in every man’s rights to equal chances and opportunity”, with the fact that South Africa has, to date, due to discrimination, not trained a single Black, Coloured or Indian veterinary doctor, and that even now, in the year 1980, when the first couple of young Coloured veterinary students are attending veterinary schools, they can still not share certain facilities with their fellow-students in Pretoria.

Also, how do the words “I will not rest until racial discrimination has disappeared from our statute books and every-day life in South Africa” compare with the incident, a few days ago, of the Indian religious leader who was refused entrance to the restaurant at the SABC studio? The fact that grown-ups in South Africa can still insult people of colour, by arguing that children of different racial groups should not be allowed to play a game together, while the very issue of actual survival of the civilized State is at stake, is beyond my comprehension. Indefensible examples such as the ones I have just listed are still unfortunately occurring every day all over South Africa.

My second concern is the policy of fragmenting South Africa into a number of impractical and non-viable mini-independent States which, in my opinion, will in the future have a very negative, if not disastrous, effect on the economy as well as the stability of Southern Africa. I have clearly stated and illustrated my concern about this direction during the previous two parliamentary sessions, and I do not intend repeating the same arguments. What I do intend doing, however, is offering to this Government a clear-cut alternative plan which I pray it will be able to consider and accept. It is a plan for survival, and I do not mean the survival of one group at the expense of another, but the survival of a civilized and Christian society.

For more than a year I have been searching for the compromise, the acceptable, practical solution, and during the past four months I have concentrated my entire effort and thought processes in this direction. I have spoken to literally hundreds of leaders, and people of all walks of life and from all racial groups, to try and establish points of concensus, and I have come to certain conclusions. Firstly, White opposition politics, as practised today, has become almost irrelevant in the debate of tomorrow. The relevant South African debate has shifted and is now being held outside this House between the leaders of the Blacks, Coloureds and Indians, together with officials and leaders of this Government. Secondly, after studying in detail the policy of all three the White political parties in South Africa, I have come to the conclusion that not one of them even comes remotely close to being acceptable to all four the racial groups in my province, the province of Natal.

A compromise, an acceptable and practical plan can, however, be devised, and I have termed it the Natal Alliance Plan. During the past two weeks I held six very well-attended meetings in the conservative Natal midlands, and I bluntly put the principles of this plan to the people at these meetings. Each meeting ran for over three hours, and I am pleased to let hon. members know that an overwhelming vote of confidence and support was obtained, at each and every one of these meetings, for this brand new direction. I now intend to try and persuade this Government to accept this idea as well, as I regard this Natal Alliance Plan as a plan for survival.

Before elaborating on the Natal Alliance, I should like to give hon. members some background information and data that will make it clear why an entirely new direction is urgently necessary, and why the province of Natal should be considered as unique. Firstly, the population statistics of Natal are as follows: 4,2 million Blacks, 660 000 Indians, 520 000 Whites and 86 000 Coloureds. It is therefore obvious that the Whites are numerically less than one out of every 10 people in Natal. Secondly, the Whites, Indians, and Coloureds are distinctly concentrated in two major cities, viz. Durban and Pietermaritzburg. Thirdly, it is physically impossible to consolidate kwaZulu into a single viable homeland, and if kwaZulu were consolidated into two or three blocks, it would no longer be practical or viable, and the Whites would still be outnumbered by non-Whites in the remaining so-called “White” area by a ratio of 4:1. Fourthly, the Zulu people have made it very clear that they will never, under any circumstances, accept independence and foreign status. They are South African citizens, and they intend to remain South African citizens. Therefore they will have to be accommodated accordingly. Fifthly, cognizance must be taken of the fact that the Paramount Zulu Chief, Chief Gatsha Buthelezi, is at present under considerable pressure from his younger men to take a far more militant line. I believe that the time to talk and negotiate is now. In a year or two it will be too late, and everybody will lose by that delay. Sixthly, at the present time, almost to a man, all the leaders of the racial groups in Natal, as well as the White leaders of the business and farming communities, reject the idea of fragmenting Natal. All these people earnestly desire a multi-ethnic, power-sharing plan for Natal. I may add that a number of Nationalists that I have spoken to also see the need for a rethink on the particular problems of Natal. So much for the background information. I shall now give the steps that I believe need to be taken.

The first step is to accept the fact that Natal is unique and to offer the people the right to proclaim Natal a confederal State within the framework of South Africa. If the hon. the Prime Minister’s concept of constellation is similar to that of confederation, then Natal could become not only the first, but the brightest star within that constellation. The second step is that I urge the leader of Natal, the hon. Senator Horwood, to call for an initial and preparatory meeting with the leaders of the Zulus, Indians and Coloureds of Natal to set up a broad framework for a detailed joint constitutional committee for the new confederate State of Natal. Chief Gatsha Buthelezi has already publicly acknowledged the need for such a conference. I may at this juncture add that if the NP cannot see its way clear to proceding with this idea at any stage, I will, completely voluntarily and together with the White business leaders of Natal and the leaders of the other race groups, hold this conference and present their report, findings and wishes to this House.

I also wish to make it clear that I, for one, accept the words of the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, words endorsed by the hon. the Prime Minister as a solemn promise to the people of South Africa. Those words, which I believe to be beautiful, are as follows—

I would like to see that that pledge is honoured.

I have, in recent months, had many discussions with a large number of Natalians, and hon. members might be interested, possibly inquisitive, to know what type of consensus might be reached by the four racial groups of Natal. I certainly do not wish to prescribe to the Natal constitutional committee that has still to be formed, but after listening to a number of positions taken by various individuals and groups, it would seem that a compromise formula and solution could possibly be found, similar to the following model or example for Natal which I now want to outline. I want to stress that it is an example, a speculative model, so one must not consider this as a consensus opinion at this stage—

1. (1) That a 100-seat Natal Parliament be established.
2. (2) That 35 seats each could be allocated to the Black and White groups and that 25 and 5 seats, respectively, be allocated to the Indian and Coloured groups. It is obvious that such a distribution of seats would, in effect, mean that the Whites and the Blacks would share power and that the Indian group would be the balancing power block. It should also be mentioned that both the White and the Black people would have preferred to have had a majority control over the Assembly, but that both these groups would prefer to share the power with each other rather than wage a disastrous war for that dominant position.
3. (3) That this Natal Parliament elect or nominate representatives in the same ratio as before, namely 7:7:5:1, to the central South African Constellate Parliament.
4. (4) That the Natal Parliament take over the legislative as well as administrative functions of most of the present Government departments affecting the lives of Natalians. Naturally, departments such as Foreign Affairs, the S.A. Defence Force, Customs and Excise, SAR and possibly others, should be retained at the national level.
5. (5) That the functions of the Legislative Assembly of kwaZulu and the Natal Provincial Council should be combined and incorporated within the Natal Parliament.
6. (6) That all Natalians retain South African citizenship.

The main disadvantage of the plan is that it is difficult to “sell” to White-party politicians because it does not entirely fit within their own locked-in constitutional models. It is also difficult to sell the idea of power-sharing to racialists such as those in the HNP and other right-wingers who would rather fight than share. Fortunately, in Natal they are in the absolute minority. Another disadvantage of this plan is that the ethnically orientated and separated voters’ roll does present certain practical dilemmas. However, in my opinion the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages, and these advantages are as follows—

1. (1) The Natal Alliance is generally acceptable to the majority of the people of Natal.
2. (2) The enormous cost-saving of this practical plan could benefit all the people.
3. (3) Costly consolidation would no longer be essential.
4. (4) Duplication of effort and facilities in Cape Town, Pretoria, Pietermaritzburg and Ulundi will be omitted, with the resultant cost-savings of having a single legislative and administrative system for Natal.
5. (5) A single Natal Police Force would be able to effectively control stock theft and border problems.
6. (6) No border control posts would be necessary.
7. (7) No resettlement of population groups would be necessary.
8. (8) There would be created a common loyalty that would ensure that the following words of the hon. the Prime Minister would be realized—and I quote—

1. (9) It would effectively put a stop to organized terrorism.
2. (10) It would create stability, and without doubt it would stimulate the economy and invite foreign investment.
3. (11) Laws and regulations would be drawn up by Natalians in Natal for Natalians.
4. (12) The Natal Alliance does not prescribe that other areas of South Africa should view their own laws or constitutional rights and proposals in the same light. If, for example, the Western Cape, which inherently is so obviously different from Natal, wishes to arrive at a completely different formula, I believe that that should be their right and prerogative.
5. (13) Lastly, the plan offers the hope of survival and peace. The ghastly alternative is a long, drawn-out and dreadful war in which tens of thousands of people will die. [Interjections.]

There seems to be a great deal of frivolity in the House—it would seem that people do not really care any more. They are interested in fighting and arguing amongst one another, but they do not care what is happening to our country today.

Mr. Speaker, with this I have spelt out the broad outline of the Natal Alliance. I sincerely hope that all the political parties in this House will take this idea very seriously indeed, because let me tell hon. members that the other three racial groups certainly do take it seriously. I am also positive that the White political party that actively supports this move in Natal, which will ensure a peaceful society, will obtain the overwhelming support of the people of Natal. What pleases me enormously is that the hon. member for Mooi River all of a sudden conceded in his speech three days ago that this idea has merit, although I motivated it to the NRP some four months ago, and they are now laughing about it and at the time they totally rejected it. What is more, he motivated it in exactly the same way. Could it be that he has heard of the support his voters in his own home town have given to this proposal I presented to them two weeks ago?

Mr. Speaker, merely for the record, and without the same bitterness and hatred I have received from some of my previous colleagues, I wish to set the position between myself and the NRP quite straight in a few short sentences. During my resignation speech I delivered to the NRP on 24 November 1979, I listed a number of constitutional differences I had with the new and backward direction that party had taken. However, I made it very clear that the main reason why I was leaving, was that their constitutional model was completely impractical, insincere and would never, never be acceptable to the Zulu people who account for 80% of the population of Natal. I pleaded with the NRP then that, if they proceeded with their ideas, it would be a disaster and it would mean the end of the party. I think this is coming true faster than even I believed.

I further pleaded that they consider the fact that Natal will inevitably become a multiethnic confederate State of South Africa. The idea was rejected, although I know that a large number of representatives favoured this idea. On 5 December, two weeks after my resignation from the party, I again submitted a proposal to the NRP and every Natal representative of the NRP, a proposal in which I outlined my Natal Alliance idea and in which I pleaded with them to move with that idea for the sake of the people of Natal. I never received a reply from anybody, with the exception of certain individuals whose names I have on my files, but who do not wish to be named.

Later, in January of this year, I presented the same ideas to Paramount Chief Buthelezi. Chief Buthelezi has taken the initiative and is running with the ball. This initiative the NRP could have had, but they completely failed to grasp the realities of the politics of Natal while they were busy playing with their Tinker-toy. I wish to quote to hon. members the view that Chief Buthelezi has of the NRP, a view completely shared by myself. I quote from The Daily News of 2 April—

I agree with Chief Buthelezi’s statement. He further said—

He is so right. He further, quite rightly, points a finger at not only the NRP but the NP as well, when he says—

What I would like to hear from the NRP today is whether they support me in this initiative, yes or no? They cannot have it both ways. [Interjections.] They have said no, but just a week ago the hon. member for Mooi River said just the opposite.

Where?

The hon. member said it in The Daily News. The hon. members should just check the newspapers. [Interjections.] Have the NRP now totally discarded their constitutional model? Because the view expressed by the hon. member for Mooi River on Monday is utterly inconsistent with his previous constitutional Tinkertoy model which excludes the Zulu nation from any seat of real power in the South African political scene.

That is not so.

You never understood it. That was your problem. [Interjections.]

Go back to school.

I would like to ask the hon. members of the NRP a question. Do they recall being asked what would happen if Buthelezi did not accept being thrown out into the cold?

He was not thrown out into the cold.

I mean being thrown into the outskirts of the orbit of the NRP confederation.

What are you doing now, with your plan? That is also a confederal system …

The hon. member for East London North can certainly affirm that the answer was that Buthelezi will have to stay out in the cold if he does not want to come in with the NRP plan. [Interjections.] Now, the NRP is running to Ulundi left, right and centre.

Nobody is out in the cold except the hon. member for East London North.

The NRP rejected Buthelezi before, but now that they have all of a sudden seen the groundswell in Natal, viz. that the people of Natal want to formulate a system of peace, the NRP are trying to get onto the bandwagon. [Interjections.] But it is too late; they have died. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Have you ever heard of the Natal indaba?

The hon. member for Durban … what is his name? What is that chap’s constituency?

“This chap”? This hon. chap is the hon. member for Durban Central. [Interjections.]

Thank you very much. [Interjections.] That is jolly nice. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Durban Central, who spent 15 minutes attacking me … [Interjections.]

That is not true. [Interjections.]

The hon. member carried on a vicious attack …

On who? On McIntosh, not you.

Who is making this speech? [Interjections.]

Quite frankly, I do not know. [Interjections.]

This seems to me to be the attitude and arrogance of a party which is dying. It is a group of little men caught in a comer. They attack individuals, personalities, and are consumed with hatred. I have never seen such hate. [Interjections.]

I take great exception to that. That is grossly unfair, and you know it.

The hon. member can take as much exception as he likes.

I just quoted what McIntosh said, nothing more and nothing less.

The NRP has got nothing other than hate to bind it together. They hate Progs, they hate Nats, they hate Afrikaners. [Interjections.] This is their whole function. It is unbelievable to see that a party that is kept together by hate is going to die so soon.

Do not lose your temper.

I do not lose my temper with people who are so consumed with hate that they cannot see further than their own noses. They do not understand that they are already dead. [Interjections.]

What are you worrying about if we are already dead?

I have a final thought, which does not concern the NRP, because I shall not deal with this little group of men again.

Why do you hate us so much?

My final thought and question to this hon. House is—and I intend to put it brutally and frankly, and pose it to all the hon. members of the House: How much longer can we expect to count on the loyalty of the White, Brown and Black citizens of South Africa to support the institutionalized State, while we, the White people, continue to ignore the aspirations and frustrations of the other racial groups?

My time is running out and I realize that the time for South Africa is running out too. That is why I get so upset. I cannot understand why these little people …

Order! The hon. member must address the hon. members properly.

I withdraw that and call them “hon. little people”.

Order! If the hon. member cannot address hon. members properly, he shall have to resume his seat.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that. These hon. members must consider South Africa and forget about the little, petty party politics which they carry on and fight day in and day out. They do not understand what is going on in this country. They do not understand that we are fighting for survival, that we have a war on our doorsteps. If we cannot get this country working together and support the hon. the Prime Minister in his effort to get all the people to fight this war together, then this little group will have done this country a great disservice.

Mr. Speaker, I listened, but not with great attention, to the speech made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South and I remember that he did say that he was not yet ready to join the NP. I want to suggest to him that unless he returns from cloud-cuckoo land and comes back to reality in South Africa, he may find that the day he wants to join the NP we shall have difficulty in accepting him, to put it at its softest. With that I think I shall have to leave him with his personal fight with hon. members opposite and come to the reason why I am taking part in this debate. It is because the hon. member for Sea Point asked me after 14h00 to be in the House at 14h45 because he wanted to speak about certain problems in Coloured education. Unfortunately by that time I had assumed that I would not be needed this afternoon and had made other arrangements, but I have had the report of his speech and I have also read his Hansard. I now want to deal with the aspects of his speech which concern the Department of Coloured Relations.

I always listen to the hon. member for Sea Point whenever I can. I feel he has the right to raise the questions he raises in this House, especially the questions he raised today. It is his right and I think his duty to discuss them here in Parliament. But I want to say at once that I am becoming more and more puzzled by the speeches of the hon. member, he has a habit of coming to this House and making a large number of ex parte statements, with no support, facts, statistics or argument whatsoever. Then he damns everybody in the surroundings and sits down without having proved a single fact about the thing that he has brought up. I am afraid this is the type of propaganda we get from irresponsible elements in South Africa. I do not want to call the hon. member for Sea Point irresponsible, but I should like to know who briefs him in these things.

It is Don McHenry style.

Who puts him up to take up this attitude in the House and to make these statements, and who fails to give him proof to support what he has to say?

You are just like an old gramophone record.

In the course of what I will have to say I shall reveal who the people are for whom he is in fact speaking, perhaps not knowingly, when he makes that type of speech and that type of assertion.

Before I come to the origin of the trouble which he has dealt with, let me deal with the charge which the hon. member made against the Government, namely that we do not know what is happening, that we are not redressing the grievances of our Coloured community and that we are indifferent to the lessons we have to learn, for example from the Soweto report. I just want to say very quickly what the attitude of the Government is in regard to the education of all the people of South Africa. We believe that the greatest gift we can give to the children of South Africa is education. Firstly, we believe that the solution of other problems, such as the poverty which the Coloured people still experience, depends upon the education of their children. It is not an immediate process; it is a process which takes a generation to complete. And we believe, that in this task the teachers are most important. We believe that it is true that teachers are the people who influence eternity, because they influence children. Thirdly, we believe, with philosopher, that in the classroom is found the tomorrow of the child, the nation and the people. That is our attitude towards education, and I want to assure the hon. member for Sea Point and the House that we are sincere and determined in our attempts to bring good education to all the peoples of South Africa.