Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Prime Minister referred in his speech to a great variety of matters. One of the matters to which he referred right at the beginning of his speech was—as he put it—the gravity of the times and the need to act in a positive manner at this particular time. I should like to put the question whether our community is at this particular time and at this juncture sufficiently motivated. Is there sufficient motivation in the community, as well as an understanding of the gravity of the time in which we live?

Allow me to give some very simple examples. There are some sections of the community which, without doubt, are motivated and are, also without doubt, prepared to play a part in the solving of the existing problems. Let us, however, test the example. People talk about the threats of violence against South Africa, and also about the need that South Africa must be defended. Their view, however, appears to be that somebody should defend South Africa but that it should be somebody else, and not they themselves. There are others who believe that we should build houses, that we should give equality of education, that we should change the structure of South Africa, etc. At the same time, however, they are not prepared to tell the public and to make the public appreciate that in order to do all these things somebody has to pay for it while they themselves are not prepared to pay or to make sacrifices by way of taxation.

I wonder whether the real issue which we have to face in South Africa is not that the leadership of South Africa has to make it clear to the people of South Africa that if the problems of this country are going to be solved it is going to mean effort and sacrifice on the part of the whole population. I do not see the motivation and the dedication necessary to solve the problem existing in sufficient measure in the country as a whole today.

Let us take another example. We speak about private enterprise. We speak about the fact that people must be encouraged to establish businesses. We can see examples throughout the country, however, of private enterprise being abused again and again by individuals in order to exploit others in South Africa, despite the fact that such exploitation could have very serious consequences, not only for those who are being directly exploited economically, but also for race relations in South Africa. It is in view of all these things, I believe, that the task of the leadership in South Africa today is not to tell the people that everything is fine, that everything is going smoothly. The hope that things will go right must be shown, the public of South Africa must be told that there are going to be changes in South Africa, that things are going to be different in South Africa, that it is going to involve sacrifices, and that if those sacrifices are not made the task of salvaging and of trying to ensure security and safety for the people will become impossible.

Those people in South Africa who preach that everything in South Africa is going to remain the same, that as long as we have arms and as long as we are militarily strong everything will be fine and we will be able to continue to live in this fashion are, I believe, doing a disservice to this country, and political parties who try to advocate that are indeed helping to harm South Africa as much as some of the enemies of South Africa.

I believe that motivation is an important factor, and I should like to try to put that across to people not only in this House but elsewhere as well.

There is another matter which I feel obliged to raise, even though I would have preferred not to speak about it. The hon. the Prime Minister has, I think, correctly pointed out that one must be careful that extremist fringe organizations do not receive attention or publicity beyond their significance, and that over-reaction could often cause one to play into the hands of those fringe organizations. I also think that it is very important that no particular community in South Africa should become a political football. Regrettably, however, the Jewish community has become a subject for debate during the discussion of this particular Vote, particularly due to the publicity given in the Press to the statements of a certain Mr. Terre ’blanche of the AWB. [Interjections.] It is appropriate, perhaps, that that statement was made at this particular time, because I think all hon. members are aware of the fact that it is Easter and Passover. As a Jew, on Passover I am commanded to recite the following words—

We are warned that this is not a unique phenomenon in any particular age or at any particular time. So it is perhaps appropriate that the subject should have been raised at this particular time. For any group of persons to be told that “The Jew must decide between two things in this country, political rights or economic freedom”—and to have this recorded—is as nonsensical as it is impertinent and racialistic. As a Jew I welcome the hon. the Prime Minister’s rejection of this statement and other objectionable statements by this particular individual, as I am sure objectionable statements by others will similarly be rejected by the hon. the Prime Minister. I want to record my appreciation for the hon. the Prime Minister’s words, an appreciation which I am sure will be echoed by the community to which I belong. Let me say as an aside, however, that I am prepared to forget the interjection that was made yesterday because it was done in the heat of the moment. I do not believe that the hon. the Prime Minister intended any malice, and I see by the way he is shaking his head that he did not intend any malice. I also want to say, however, that as a member of this House I actually expected nothing less from the hon. the Prime Minister. He and other hon. members know that if their faith, their community or their heritage were attacked, I would do the same as he did yesterday.

I am just an MP representing a constituency that consists of voters of different faiths, different language groups and different origins. I do not represent or speak for the Jewish community in this House. I am speaking, in this matter, for myself, though I do believe that the rest of my community will agree with what I have said and am about to say. I do not believe that Jews need to take second place to anybody in the contribution they have made to South Africa. We do not claim to be better or to have done more than anybody else, but we are no worse and have not done any less for South Africa, whether it be in the cultural or economic field, in the defence of the country, in the building up of its past or in the planning of its future. The Jewish community, as such, has not taken any party political stance. It has never said that we must support any particular political party. It has been left to Jewish citizens, like any others, to play their part and to make their own choices. There is a statement from the Jewish Board of Deputies, the body authorized to speak for the community, that bears this out. Naturally, however, the views of an individual in regard to various issues are influenced by his history, his religion and ethical values, and a Jew is so influenced, as is a person of any other faith, whether he be a Christian or otherwise. In view of the Press comment and the alleged link between the CP and the AWB I should like to make a very brief comment.

The hon. the Leader of the CP and I differ on certain issues as individuals and as members of different political parties, and he and I will continue to differ very decidedly on those issues. I have spoken to him and other hon. members of his party. He knows that I respect his religion and I believe that he respects mine. I for one, therefore, welcome his repudiation of Mr. Terre’blanche as far as this issue is concerned, and I hope that in view of his unequivocal statement the issue of the CP and the Jews is at an end and will not be raised again by anyone. As far as I am concerned it should be over and done with in this House. I hope it will never be necessary for any other MP to speak on this subject in this House again, whether it be in connection with the Jewish community or any other religious community in South Africa. This is a time for unity, a time for us to get together and solve problems. It is not a time for division, the sowing of suspicion or the engendering of hatred. It is a time for getting together. Some people attack us because we are alleged to have dual loyalties. We have no dual loyalties. Every person has many loves and loyalties. One can love one’s father, but that does not mean that one does not love one’s son. The fact that one loves one’s wife does not mean that one loves one’s mother less. In reality we all have many loyalties, loyalty to a country, loyalty to a faith, loyalty to our families, etc. As far as the Jewish community is concerned, it plays its role in South Africa and shows its loyalty to South Africa in order to see that this country prospers.

Mr. Chairman, in reply to what the hon. member for Yeoville has just said, I wish to say to him that as far as I am concerned, I respect people who are loyal to what is theirs, to their own group, their own culture and their own beliefs. This does not only apply to me. The party to which I belong has, in fact written into its constitution that we should respect others and that we should not begrudge them what we claim for ourselves.

The hon. member for Yeoville also said that the nation should be motivated. I agree with him. The nation should be motivated, and from time to time we tell the nation that sacrifices have to be made. He also said that the public should be informed. This is true. What did the hon. the Prime Minister do yesterday but inform the nation.? I wish to congratulate the hon. the Prime Minister on his fine, clear exposition. I do not think that anyone could still have any doubt as to just where the hon. the Prime Minister is leading his nation.

The hon. the Prime Minister, after he had become Prime Minister, particularly surprised us, or me at any rate, in one specific respect. I have always known him as a politician with a broad outlook and broad insight, but his exceptional understanding of the economic circumstances of this country and the exceptional way in which he has tackled the economic problems of this country, surprised me. The hon. the Prime Minister has left his distinctive stamp on the South African political scene. In agreement with what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, I wish to say that he has indeed, like previous Prime Ministers, left his stamp on South Africa. We know that the hon. the Prime Minister gives high priority to the preparedness of the country. We know that he gives high priority to the continuation of the constitutional development of this country. However, we also see that he gives particularly high priority to the restructuring of the economy of the country.

It is interesting to note that even in foreign countries, there is an exceptional understanding of this. The following appears in a report in Die Burger of 17 March 1981 under the heading “Botha lei soos bedrysleier, sê Franse blad”—

This is indeed the case. This is the truth.

The hon. the Prime Minister has begun reforming the Public Service through a process of rationalization, a process which has been carried out in various stages, and by creating for himself the necessary machinery in his own administration to do what has to be done. He has committed himself to a clean and effective State administration and to a free, market-orientated capitalist system. From the very outset he has sought co-operation with the private sector to help bring about the economic reform which is so essential. It is a result of this that the Carlton Conference and the Good Hope Conference became a reality.

On these occasions, the private sector gave its strong support to the initiative of the hon. the Prime Minister. However, it is striking that the official Opposition in this House adopts a particularly negative approach to this initiative of the hon. the Prime Minister. I say this with special reference to statements made by the hon. member for Yeoville. In this regard, I quote from The Argus of 1 April—

The report goes on to say—

However, in the same report the following is also said—

In a report in Rapport, Dr. Franz Cronjé is quoted as follows—

Of course, it is true that economic policy is bound up with the ideological policy. This is not only true in this country; in every other country of the world the economic policy is adapted to the political philosophy of the Government.

Why is there a decentralization policy in England, why are the Scots building their “New Towns” in Scotland, why are the Spaniards building factories in the veld, and why are the West Germans building new towns and establishing new industrial communities in the Black Forest? It is bound up with the political philosophy of the countries concerned. I think that it is completely in order that the economic philosophy of a Government should be linked to its political philosophy—it cannot be otherwise.

Apart from this argument, the following report in Rapport of 24 January 1982 is true, viz.—

It is experts that are saying this, not the Government. The report goes on to say—

This is unhealthy development, and it is not merely for the sake of political ideology that we are following a policy of decentralization. Common sense tells one that it is impossible to allow all the development taking place in South Africa, to occur in only a few areas, with all the disadvantages this involves. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, following on from what the hon. member for Malmesbury said, I just want to say that with regard to the size of a city, the concentration of businesses, the number of people, the real economic growth and the economic viability, there are, in fact, vast differences. In our complex situation, which involves an acute shortage of manpower, of trained manpower, it is often wrong to make divisions and to have fewer people in certain concentrated areas. A certain amount of manpower is also needed for the smaller business enterprises which have to follow the larger businesses. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to go into that this morning. I hope I shall have an opportunity of doing so at a later stage.

The matter which struck me in particular, is that no one in this House has realized that 5 500 mineworkers were trapped underground for an entire night. Hon. members in this House who represent the constituencies of these people, have said nothing about this. Can hon. members imagine what one’s thoughts went back to? Just think of Coalbrooke in 1960. Four hundred people were trapped on that occasion, and they all lost their lives. Can hon. members imagine what went through the minds of the members of those families when those shafts caved in?

Yes. That is an old story.

I do not know why people complain when I speak about mineworkers.

We are genuinely interested in the mineworkers. We are not seeking their votes like you.

Just listen to that! I may not even speak about a mine-worker, then I am seeking his vote. I am genuinely concerned about the fate of the people who were trapped. It is not unreasonable of me to talk about mineworkers in this House. Has it suddenly become wrong to speak about the White worker?

We do know what the position is. You do not have to worry about that. We know what is going on there.

As long as the rules of this House allow it, I shall speak about the workers of South Africa during the discussion of any Vote.

You are a political hawker.

I accept that, as there are many wares one can hawk these days.

Tell us what your policy is.

I wish to ask the hon. member for Pretoria Central whether he bought AWB T-shirts on the 18th in Pretoria. This was two days before the congress. I ask him: what did he do with them?

No, I did not.

Then which friends gave you the shirt which you had in this House the other day?

It was an AWB friend of yours.

I have had my say.

I wish to congratulate the hon. the Prime Minister on the planning which is being carried out …

Just do not interpret that incorrectly.

Yes, of course I still say that the hon. the Prime Minister is wrong. One can only take one’s hat off to the way in which the department is doing the planning. It is being done under the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister. I have had the opportunity of having talks with these people, and I can only speak very highly of them. The only thing I object to a little is the fact that one does not have the opportunity of having access to certain people before the final plan is accepted. I am very fond of the hon. the Prime Minister. [Interjections.] I wish to say to him that he must please not become a victim of the Carlton Conference. I shall tell him why I say this. One need only look at the statements by spokesmen concerning the Good Hope Conference, to realize something very odd. 60% of what they say, is political; only 40% is economic.

Rather weep for yourself; not for me. [Interjections.]

I wish to make certain observations this morning. I wish to refer to the statements of Mr. Oppenheimer, a great economist. No one knows better than we who are here that Mr. Oppenheimer is really the father of power-sharing. Mr. Oppenheimer, Mr. Roschoff and Mr. Ackerman all agree and say that there should be power-sharing, influx control and grey areas. Hon. members can go and read what they have said. These aspects all form part of the pattern of the business world. We should not understimate the businessman in South Africa. The businessman has said over a period of 20, 30 or 40 years that the Government is completely wrong and that the Government’s planning is ideologically based. However, the Government has said that this is nonsense and that it stands by certain principles and that it would eventually find a solution, which would also be of an economic nature. And now? Now we are falling into the trap by having political talks with businessmen on economic matters. The result is that businessmen are now elevating political matters above economic matters, and they are now leading the country. The hon. the Prime Minister—I hope I am wrong—has become a victim of the Carlton Conference. Surely there is no getting away from this. Anyone who follows events in this field and who reads the statements of business leaders, would realize that what the businessmen are proposing, involves absolute forms of power-sharing in all respects. Businessmen speak of the removal of all forms of discrimination, influx control and removals, and these opinions of businessmen have now become the textbook of the informed, as well as the uninformed, for a political dispensation in South Africa.

I now wish to raise another aspect. What did a previous Prime Minister have to say about power-sharing, or a change in policy? I wish to quote what this man, someone who made brilliant statements, said in this regard—

This is my reply to power-sharing. This is my reply to power-sharing in the direction that the ruling party is heading today.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Langlaagte and I represent neighbouring constituencies and over the years we have become fairly firm political friends, but nowadays one is told that one should be careful because one is known by the company one keeps. Consequently he and I will have to terminate our friendship.

Of that you may be sure.

The hon. member speaks of the miners; he should speak more of the underminers in the politics of South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon. member has developed an obsession about power sharing and he, too, is taking shelter behind ex-Prime Minister Vorster. I shall deal with that in the course of my speech.

I want to raise, in brief, a matter with the hon. member for Waterkloof. I regret that he is not present at the moment. I asked him this morning to be present, but he had to take his family to the airport. It is a serious matter and consequently I said I would raise it with the hon. the leader of the CP.

It is, as far as I am concerned, such a serious matter that one does not say things of this nature unless one has cleared them in the inner circles of one’s party. The hon. member for Waterkloof addressed a meeting at Vivo in the Northern Transvaal, where he was asked how he reconciled his statements on the give-away policy of the NP, on the one hand, with the strengthening of the military situation in terms of legislation still before Parliament, on the other hand. My information, which I regard as being absolutely reliable, is that the hon. member for Waterkloof said the following: (a) The total onslaught on South Africa was being exaggerated and (b) the real reason for the extension of manpower in terms of the proposed Defence Amendment Bill was to strengthen the Prime Minister militarily in the event of the electorate rejecting the proposals of the President’s Council. The hon. member then added the following: (c) This, however, would not meet with the approval of the military leaders and the commando leaders in South Africa.

I now asked the hon. the leader of the CP whether this is correct.

I do not react to hearsay.

He will raise this little point at a later stage.

I want to ask the hon. member whether, if I myself had made this statement, he would have approved or disapproved of it?

André, make your own speech.

The hon. member says I should make my own speech. Consequently, if I were to insinuate today that the hon. the Prime Minister was heading in the direction of a coup d’etat in South Africa, the hon. member would say that I should simply continue with my speech. He is not prepared to approve or to disapprove of it. [Interjections.] In any event, we now have this on record. This is typical of the pious frock-coat politics of the hon. member for Waterberg, because on platforms outside this House they indulge in reprehensible and immoral politics in South Africa—they sow suspicion and indulge in derision politics to a worse extent than the PFP do.

The hon. member for Waterberg may convey to the hon. member for Waterkloof what I am going to say now. They accuse us of running away from the standpoint of the NP. Now I should like to issue a challenge to the hon. member for Waterkloof: I shall resign my seat if he resigns his so as to enable us to test the voters outside as to what is happening in this country. I ask the hon. member to consider this. My challenge stands.

By indulging in this type of politics the CP throws suspicion not only on South Africa, but also on the Government of South Africa, to the nth degree. And that after we listened to the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday afternoon. In view of the balanced standpoints adopted by him in politics, it is a pity that we now have to conduct a debate on a mere matter of words used in politics.

You are a long way from promotion!

I am going to deal with the hon. member for Hillbrow now, because it seems to me as though he feels that he has been left out in the cold to some extent. Hon. members know what happened in Johannesburg. It seems as though the official Opposition has suddenly been given an emotional injection and is experiencing a revival in respect of the concept of “power-sharing”. They rejoice, so to speak, in the arguments advanced by the CP. However, theirs is a hollow laughter because they, after all, are the people who stand for power-sharing. But when they had the opportunity to share power with the Whites in the City Council of Johannesburg they declined to do so. They are prepared to share power with the Blacks of South Africa, but they are not prepared to do so with the Whites.

You haven’t heard Widman’s speech yet!

Then, however, the official Opposition did the immoral thing by resigning as members of the executive committee whilst at the same time accepting the deputy mayorship of Johannesburg. [Interjections.] In other words, they shirk the responsibilities whilst accepting the nice, cushy jobs. [Interjections.]

I think you are insulting the deputy mayor.

Yes, I am insulting the deputy mayor of Johannesburg.

You are a person who specializes in insults. [Interjections.]

I am insulting the deputy mayor of Johannesburg, and as a member of Parliament for a constituency in Johannesburg I shall not attend a single function at which that deputy mayor will act in that capacity, as it is immoral.

Where does South Africa stand today under the hon. the Prime Minister in the political and constitutional field? It stands on two pillars. [Interjections.]

You are “’n stuk vuilgoed” (a swine)!

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it.

The hon. member for Yeoville is enough to make any Jew in South Africa anti-Semitic. [Interjections.]

Where does the Government of South Africa stand today? In the first place it stands for the right of people to self-determination as regards their own affairs.

Mr. Chairman…

Order! Is the hon. member rising to take a point of order?

No. Mr. Chairman, I am not rising to take a point of order. [Interjections.] I just want to say that I have just withdrawn the words I uttered, i.e. that the hon. member for Turffontein is “’n stuk vuilgoed”, but I now want to withdraw that withdrawal, because he has just proved that it is in fact true. If you want me to withdraw from the Chamber for describing him in those terms because of that reprehensible statement which he made, Sir, I shall … [Interjections.]

The hon. member must withdraw the statement unconditionally, the statement that the hon. member for Turffontein is “’n vuilgoed”.

Mr. Chairman, you asked me to withdraw those words. I did so, but shortly afterwards the hon. member for Turffontein made a reprehensible statement, and as a result of that I am asking your permission to allow what I have withdrawn to stand. I am prepared to withdraw from the Chamber rather than to withdraw my statement.

The hon. member cannot undo the fact that he has withdrawn the words, and must withdraw unconditionally the statement that the hon. member for Turffontein is “’n vuilgoed”.

Sir, if I cannot do that, I shall have to repeat my statement and say that the hon. member for Turffontein is “’n vuilgoed”.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Chairman, I refuse to withdraw it.

In that case the hon. member must please withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

[Whereupon the hon. member withdrew.]

The NP is built on two very clear foundations … [Interjections.]

The NP is anti-Semitic; that has been proved. They hate the Jews!

You are the biggest “Boerehater” in this House!

Some of my best friends in South Africa are Jews, and I shall not allow myself to be intimidated by that hon. member on what my standpoint in respect of the Jewish community in South Africa is to be. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Does the hon. member for Bryanston have the right to tell the hon. member for Turffontein that he is lying? [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. member for Bryanston say that the hon. member for Turffontein was lying?

Yes, I did, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member must withdraw it immediately.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member for Waterkloof has just put in an appearance in this House. I regret that he is too late to have heard what I had to say to him. He will just have to talk to his own hon. leader about his alleged statements.

What you said about me is a load of nonsense, in any event. [Interjections.]

It is nonsense? If it is nonsense, I am very grateful to hear it. In that case I do hope, however, that the Press will adopt the standpoint that what I have said here today is nonsense. In that case I also hope that the CP will stop its gossiping and the reprehensible stories it is telling from platforms in South Africa.

[Inaudible.]

What I find astonishing, however, about the hon. the leader of the CP is, as someone put it to me the other day, that they are retreating into the future. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Turffontein has had his opportunity of justifying his new loyalty to the NP, and I do not intend to become involved in the level of debate in which he has indulged. The hon. member for Turffontein said he was prepared to resign his seat and to fight a by-election. In view of a certain meeting that took place in Parow last night, at which 1 000 people were present, according to reports, I would have thought that he would think twice before challenging opponents to by-elections. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Prime Minister need not take any notice of it. If he wants to do that, however, it is his own business. He must remember, however, that the hon. member for Turffontein spoke of a referendum. If we are going to talk of referenda in which everybody would be given the opportunity of expressing his view, I should refer to what was said yesterday by the hon. the Minister of Law and Order. He made an interjection which, I accept, was probably made in a jocular way. I do accept it was jocular.

He said: “Ons Boere praat met mekaar; nou moet die Engelse uitbly.” [Interjections.]

Oh, Vause, why are you being so touchy again.

Mr. Chairman, that was probably said as a joke. I should like, however, to look at that joke seriously for a moment, and to remind … [Interjections.] No, I want to remind the hon. the Prime Minister …

Please do not be petty now. Talk about more important matters!

I want to remind the hon. the Prime Minister, and both parties involved in this “broedertwis”, that they should not forget that there are more than 1,5 million South Africans who are English-speaking. The vast majority of those English-speaking people are loyal South Africans, loyal patriots. The large majority of them are moderate, conservative South Africans. They are moderate and they are conservative. They are not South Africans who are prepared to see this country destroyed. They are not South Africans who will accept one man, one vote or majority rule. Many of those South Africans are in this party, in the NRP, which I happen to lead. I therefore remind the hon. the Prime Minister that before he becomes too deeply involved in the “broedertwis” he must not forget that the NRP drew just on 30% of the votes cast in the seats it fought during the general election of 1981; an average of 3 500 votes in all the seats it fought.

About which party are you talking now?

I am talking about my party. My party drew just on 30% of the votes cast in the seats it fought. [Interjections.]

Now who is disputing that? [Interjections.]

On average, Mr. Chairman, …

Are you disputing that now?

No, I am not. [Interjections.] What I want to warn the hon. the Prime Minister about is the fact that he must not ignore the feelings of another section of South Africans who reject extremism and majority rule but who are equally opposed to the NP …

That is “draadsittery”.

… and support a different point of view which the hon. the Prime Minister must take into account. I am speaking about those South Africans who are opposed to majority rule but who are not prepared to support or join the NP on the basis of the policies it has adopted over the years.

There is no constituency in South Africa in which this party does not have a minimum of from 800 to 1 000 supporters, and I am referring to every one of the 165 constituencies in this country. The results show that even in seats where we have virtually no support, we have still drawn a minimum of 800, 900 or 1 000 votes

Like Newcastle.

Yes, like Newcastle, where our number of votes was 984. Not far off! If there were an election in Newcastle now, however, the story would be very different indeed. [Interjections.]

You would not get more votes.

It would be a very different story.

Particularly if Minister Horwood stood as the candidate.

That would make it certain.

Yes, that would make it a real certainty.

The hon. member for Newcastle will know that many of our supporters voted for the NP candidate to keep the HNP, the extremists, out of that seat. The fact remains—and this is the point I want to make—that for the first time in decades the English-speaking South Africans find themselves in a position in which their views and attitudes can influence the course of politics, and they will do so. They cannot be ignored. Their views must certainly not be ignored, at this time, in the emotionalism of the “broedertwis” between the NP and the CP. I am raising this point in order to bring politics into a wider arena, within the ambit of a broader political philosophy than the mere fight that is going on between those two parties, and particularly to remind the party that carries the responsibility, because it is the Government, that it must not allow its vicious internal fight to dominate or decide its attitude to broad South Africanism, the broad feeling of South Africanism that exists across language lines amongst the various language groups in South Africa who want to serve South Africa. We must get away from this idea that this is an “Afrikaner broedertwis” that must dominate everything else.

In the minute or so I have left to speak, I also want to remind the Government, by way of an appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister, that there is a large body of South Africans, mainly elderly and from the lower income group, who carry a tremendous burden. I am not going to debate this, because it is been debated in the discussion of the budget, but I do want to make an appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister. I wonder if I could have his attention for just a moment? I want to ask him to establish a priority in his Cabinet. Whatever economic difficulties there may be in South Africa, I appeal to him to see to it that the Cabinet, and particularly the Minister of Finance, makes assistance available to that group of South Africans—Whites, Blacks, flat-dwellers, renters of homes, pensioners and people with low incomes—who are struggling desperately to exist. We must not get so involved in the “groot politiek” that we forget about this group of people. The increases in pensions the hon. the Minister has granted are very praiseworthy, but they are not saving the position of the person whose rent has doubled in six months and who finds himself unable to succeed in the battle to live. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point need not worry about this party’s loyalty towards English-speaking people. I represent a constituency in which there were four candidates in the recent election, a constituency in which the ratio of Afrikaans-speaking people to English-speaking people is about equal. The secretary of the HNP was English-speaking. I won that election and the only candidate who lost his deposit was the candidate of the NRP.

Since I am entering the debate at this late stage, I want to say as a backbencher that I found it especially interesting to listen to the leaders of the Opposition parties and to their points of view. They are, after all, the alternative Prime Ministers. It was their duty to inform this Committee and the public at large what they offer in place of the hon. Prime Minister’s initiatives. We as members of the House only have limited time and must elaborate on those views, broaden them and also defend them so that South Africa will know what the policy and aims of our parties are.

One would have expected the reports which have been tabled to be discussed and analysed in detail by the Opposition parties. However, this was not done. Indeed, they were avoided like the plague. Why is this so? It is because the reports spell out in very clear language how the hon. the Prime Minister is implementing NP policy and how in his term of office, he has restored orderly Government and is maintaining and securing it for the future. These reports show that the Public Service has been rationalized to comply with the requirements and needs of the future development which is going to take place in the country, development which we spelt out clearly and laid before the voters in the past election and to which they agreed by giving the hon. the Prime Minister the mandate to implement his twelve-point plan and to continue working on the NP’s tried and tested policy.

How did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition approach the discussion of this Vote? He and his people once again ignored the will of the White electorate. They concentrated on presenting a false image of 20 million so-called voteless Black people to us and saying: “Moderates must now unite and work out a new dispensation.” I wonder whom the hon. Leader of the Opposition regards as moderates in the benches behind and next to him. Does he think that we can discuss the future of the country with people such as the hon. members for Sandton, Pine-lands, Sea Point and Houghton? Does he think that we on this side are prepared, as his people are, to betray and ignore the recognized Black leaders with whom the Government already holds discussions by talking to moderates whom they recognize, like Mandela and Tutu? The hon. the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday and the schedule of the White Paper which was tabled here, is proof that moderate White and Black leaders have already met and discussed the future of the country. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition would do well to act like a man of courage. He should do what the hon. the Prime Minister did and adopt a standpoint on his own policy in his caucus and at his congresses and give those people in his ranks who then do not agree with the hon. member for Yeoville and himself, an opportunity to depart to the Skilpad Hall. If after that he still has a party left, we on this side of the House will consider whether we shall talk to him and the hon. member for Yeoville.

What remains to be said by us in the backbenches to the hon. the Leader of the CP? We hear that he relies on the HNP and note that he is in contact with the AWB. The only message which we as the new generation of members of Parliament want to give him, is that he should consider what he has sown and what he has reaped. He should consider where he will have to go and reap from now on to regain what he has sown for the past 30 years.

In reply to the hon. the leader of the NRP I want to say that like the NRP, I choose to exercise a local option and therefore do not wish to comment further on the Opposition. When I was elected to this House four years ago, I was one of the first members of the House of Assembly to take my place on this side of the House under the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister. Since then 51 new members have joined this side of the House under his leadership. Three of them got lost in Waterberg. All the members on this side of the House are here at the injunction of the White voters who accepted the hon. the Prime Minister’s twelve-point plan, who support our party’s policy and who support the statements which the hon. the Prime Minister made out there on the Senate steps when he assumed power and which he repeated last year in Brakpan at the time of the election.

For that reason I want to debate on the basis of these statements which he repeated in the House for the record—and I quote (Hansard, 19 April 1979, col. 4455)—

1. 1. The maintenance and development of orderly government;
2. 2. At all times to uphold honest public administration and effective government;
3. 3. To apply a positive policy to improve the relations between our different population communities, taking into account the inalienable right to self-determination of all peoples. I believe that we have enough common ground in this country to work together to make it one of the most wonderful countries in the world;
4. 4. The application of a positive policy to build friendly relations with neighbouring States on the basis of non-interference in each other’s affairs;
5. 5. Economic development through dedication in our work and economic patriotism;
6. 6. The determined maintenance of law and order through an effective police force and well-balanced defence force to guard the integrity of our borders;
7. 7. Co-ordination and a mutual co-operation between State departments, the Government and the private sector as far as possible; and
8. 8. We believe in a system of private initiative and we will protect it as far as is humanly possible.

The hon. the Prime Minister put forward these national ideals at a time when this party was still extremely embarrassed as a result of the events in the former Department of Information, a department which was managed by a member of the Conservative Party who, just like the present leader, was not interested in the details of policy. In that year of crisis the National Party members who arrived here before these 51 new members gathered praying, in the caucus room to elect a new leader. Today some of them are sitting on that side of the House. They are sitting there because they did not want to submit to a majority vote in the caucus. I therefore want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that he has gained three times as many new members as their number. We number more than the total Opposition. Together with the rest of my colleagues we still endorse those statements of the hon. the Prime Minister. If his first two statements are compared with the reports of the Director-General of this department, it is evident that the rationalized Civil Service, the Cabinet, the Cabinet committees, the Cabinet Working Committees and all those who are now working under this department’s leader, have succeeded in establishing an effective, honest and orderly government and securing it for the future. When one looks at the following statement, one recalls the establishment of various independent Black States, the Indian Council, the President’s Council, the Wiehahn Report, the Riekert Report and many other reports, as well as the White Paper on the developments to which I have already referred. The hon. the Prime Minister is purposefully showing the way towards establishing the country he spoke about on the steps of the Senate.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to begin by conveying the thanks and appreciation of this side of the House to Dr. Rautenbach, the chairman of the Commission for State Administration, who has just resigned from that post. We want to thank him for the good service he has rendered in that position in recent years and to say that we are confident that he will have the health and wisdom to go on serving the country with great success in the new position which he will henceforth occupy.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Yeoville has had to leave the House, because I do not wish to comply fully with his request that there should be no further discussion of that particular matter to which he referred. I want to ask his hon. leader, who is present in the House, to convey this to him. I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville today that my personal standpoint and that of my party in respect of the Jewish population of this country is that we have the reatest respect and appreciation for them and that we shall never insult or disparage them in any way. I want to confirm that I once said this in the Transvaal Provincial Council as well. The member of the Provincial Council who is associated with the hon. member for Yeoville will testify to this. I told him in that council, as well as in public, in what high esteem I held that particular population group. They are the people who have perhaps suffered more than any others in this world, as a result of dispersion and oppression, but in spite of that they have preserved their identity with every means at their disposal. We, and I in particular, have the greatest appreciation for them. I should be glad if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would convey this to him in his absence.

I also want to say here today that I do not care a rap about any insulting or offensive remark which may be made about me by anyone in this House or about any accusation they may make against me. I do not care two hoots about that. Any story which is spread, no matter by whom, tends to get embroidered on, for a particular purpose. Langenhoven once said—and Langenhoven is often quoted in this House—that there is only one thing which is more fatal than to be gossiped about, and that is not to be gossipped about. I have been listening to the lessons in morality that have been given in this House lately. The conclusion to which I have come, with my knowledge of morality and of Christian ethics, is that the lessons in morality that have been given here are nothing but exercises in the legalistic morality with a pharisaical interpretation which says: “Swallow the camel and strain out the gnat. Let me remove the mote from your eye while you are so blinded by the beam in your own eye that you cannot see it.” [Interjections.] Hon. members must not try to provoke me. [Interjections.] I have been referred to by name in this debate in this House. Why then am I now being asked why I am reacting? Repeated references have been made in this House to the programme of action which the NP presented to the voters during last year’s election. I want to ask the hon. member Mr. Van Staden with great respect—he knows I have great respect for him—never again to associate me with the HNP. Do not say they are my mentors.

Do you not like them? [Interjections.]

Please give me a chance. During the past election, no hon. member of this House—and the hon. member for Innesdal must listen carefully, because he is a witness to this—waged such a fierce struggle against the HNP in his constituency as I did.

I helped you.

The hon. member did not help me at all. [Interjections.] In what way did the hon. member help me? What meetings did the hon. member address for me and what canvassing did he do for me? No one had to fight like I did, and in spite of the fierceness of the HNP’s campaign, I succeeded in increasing the majority in the Koedoespoort constituency from 1 737 to 3 287. I challenge any member of this House to prove that his majority increased to a similar extent in a fight with the HNP. I Have nothing in common with the HNP, and I do not identify myself with them. Consequently I do not wish to be associated with them in any way.

How big is your majority going to be at the next election?

The hon. member for Hercules—who is so talkative at the moment—should rather examine the level to which his own majority dropped during that election. My majority was not increased by the fact that a PFP member drew some of the votes in Koedoespoort, as is now being insinuated. In spite of the fact that the PFP attracted a few votes in Koedoespoort, I still succeeded in increasing my majority substantially.

The hon. the Deputy Minister of Community Development accused us on this side of the House of having confused the voters. Later on in the same speech he blamed us for having left the party at this stage and for not having remained so as to help remove the confusion which existed among the voters. If confusion existed which we had to help remove, why are we being accused of having created the confusion?

You were part of the confusion.

I have in my hand the programme of action of the NP to which I referred earlier. This programme of action was signed by my hon. leader, among others, and he has been blamed for this. [Interjections.] I challenge any one to indicate a single word which implies joint decision-making in the programme of action which we submitted to the voters and on the basis of which we asked for a mandate. It is nowhere to be found. [Interjections.] It does not say a single word about joint decision-making. Therefore hon. members cannot tell me that I advocated something among my voters which I now refuse to endorse. I never advocated joint decision-making among them, because it is not contained in this official document of the party. Because it is not contained in this document, I cannot be accused today of having come to this House under the banner of the NP and on the basis of a policy to which I no longer subscribe. I came to this House on this policy. It is recorded here, and I challenge any hon. member to prove the contrary to me. [Time expired ]

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we have almost come to the end of the political part of this debate, and it is a tragedy that we have still not heard what the CP’s policy actually amounts to. I suppose we shall have to wait for subsequent occasions, where there will be even more woolly talk about these questions.

Before I say any more about their policy, however, I want to say something to the hon. member for Koedoespoort about the, I could almost say, immoral relationship between the CP and the AWB. What the hon. member said about the Jews, and his pious statement about their rejection of the AWB, are not acceptable to us, for the simple reason that unless they get up on their hind legs and tell Eugene Terre’blanche that he must withdraw every word he said about the Jews and that he must apologize, and unless the CP refuses to accept any person who wishes to retain his AWB membership, as a member of that party we shall not believe them. If Eugene Terre’blanche refuses to do so, then they must expressly state, for all to hear, that if anyone wishes to join them while still retaining his membership of the AWB, he will not be welcome. If they are not prepared to do so, we shall not believe any of their pious protestations.

These hon. members of the CP have spelt out a programme of principles to us. They have not only given their policy a moral basis—in the broad sense of the word—but they have also said that they accept the Bible as the norm and guideline for all expressions of our national life. They are adopting a public stance, therefore, which invites us all to judge them not only by general standards, but specifically by the standards of the Bible. In the Bible we find a specific commandment about bearing false evidence, and I think the distortion of facts qualifies a false evidence. Those hon. members must remember that almost 20% of them are former ministers of religion. Every word which is said by their party and by them in particular has an influence, not only on White politics in South Africa, but also on church affairs in South Africa as well as on the relations between the various population groups in South Africa. This influence of theirs is now being exercised at a time when the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government will soon have to enter into negotiations to discuss the proposals of the President’s Council with the leaders of colour as well and to decide together how South Africa should be governed. At the present time, therefore, when the foundations are trust and mutual respect, these people deliver themselves of certain remarks and they challenge us all to test their remarks against the norms of the Word of God.

I want to state unequivocally that I was deeply shocked to hear the direct evidence of a person who had come all the way from Johannesburg to clear up a matter with me. It was an English-speaking person, and he had been visited by one of these hon. members, those hon. members sitting in the CP benches. This man told me the following: “I could not help at the end of that interview having the impression that these people are motivated by an all-consuming hatred of P. W. Botha as a person.” This person said, in the second place, that they gave the following reason for leaving the NP. He said that this member of the CP had told him: “You know, that day in the caucus, P. W. Botha demanded of us that we endorse a motion of unconditional faith in him.” These were the words he used, and this was why this man came down, because he was a devout person and could not accept such a version. Therefore he came to ask me what the truth was—whether it was “a motion of unconditional faith in P. W. Botha” rather than of “confidence”.

We have no faith in the Prime Minister.

This man also said that the hon. CP member concerned had gone on to say: “And you know, Sir, we are a very religious people, we Afrikaners. We do not express unconditional faith in any human being. We only express faith in God, and P. W. Botha is not our god. Then, when Andries Treurnicht refused to endorse this motion, P. W. Botha called him a jellyfish and ordered him out of the caucus.” [Interjections.] I am prepared to confirm today that this is the English version of what those hon. members are telling the people. [Interjections.] Surely it is not true that the hon. members were kicked out. I shall not mention any names, but they know that there are three members of that party who, at the time of the Craven Week affair, called in members on this side of the House—there are hon. members here who are prepared to testify to this—and told them: We are getting out; are you coming with us? Is it not true that the hon. member for Lichtenburg has told someone within the last few days that they were caught with their pants down? Therefore they were not yet ready to take the step of breaking away. I say it is an absolute distortion of the facts every time they say that they were kicked out, and when they say that we should judge them by the norms of the Bible, they must stop telling that lie.

In the second place, there is the question of the word “power-sharing”. The hon. member for Koedoespoort spoke about co-responsibility. Surely “power-sharing” is anonymous with “a joint say”. How many times did Mr. Vorster not use the concept of a joint say? The Afrikaans dictionary defines the word “medeseggenskap” as “die reg om saam te praat, te reel, te beslis.” Please note, “te beslis”! I want to issue a serious challenge to the hon. members opposite. Unless they succeed in giving the Coloureds and the Indians absolute self-determination in every sphere of life, including finance, defence and transport, they cannot escape the realities of co-responsibility, which includes elements of power-sharing in respect of matters of common interest. I challenge them to prove the contrary to us in this House. They simply cannot escape co-responsibility containing elements of power-sharing.

What a ridiculous performance we had the day before yesterday! The hon. member for Waterberg said that for him, the word “power-sharing” had only one meaning, and that was the meaning given to it by the PFP. “Power-sharing is power-sharing”, but the hon. the Prime Minister did not talk about power-sharing; he said our present proposals “contained elements of power-sharing”. But this is the way we know the hon. member for Waterberg: He sets up a target, shoots it full of holes—and the crowd cheers; but in the end they go home without having gained anything.

What is the truth? When we were talking about co-responsibility in this House the day before yesterday, he was prepared to say, “Oh yes.” I have his Hansard here. “Different meanings can be given to the word “coresponsibility”, but when it comes to “power-sharing” or “elements of power-sharing”, he will have none of that—then there is only one meaning. Why? Because what the hon. the Prime Minister said was true: These people are looking for a principle on which to base their disloyalty to the NP. They must now justify themselves in the eyes of the public.

I want to make an appeal to them. Since they have donned this cloak of respectability—which I do not begrudge them—and since they have embodied a fine clause in their programme of principles, they must stop trying to mislead our people by distorting the facts with regard to their breakaway and with regard to power-sharing.

There is a final matter I want to raise. The hon. member for Waterberg has spoken out very piously against racism, but what happened the other day? Full of bravado, he got on a platform and said that he would talk to the AWB if the hon. member for Pretoria Central could talk to Inkatha. Does he not know what the facts are? The hon. member for Pretoria Central was never involved in any of the discussions which the NP had with Inkatha. However, who was involved?

Tom Langley.

On the final occasion, the hon. member for Waterkloof was the chairman. The hon. member for Waterberg came to parade there, just as the hon. member for Jeppe took him on a tour of Johannesburg, “to show the people that he was not as verkramp as he was believed to be”—as the hon. member for Jeppe told me himself.

The hon. member for Waterkloof is a sleepwalker; he was not really there.

I want to say this about the hon. member for Klip River, who is sitting in front of me: Anyone who can fall asleep while he is holding forth in his party rally voice must be sleepy indeed. [Interjections.] At the talks with Inkatha that day the Zulus were sitting there, dignified people, the cream of the Zulu nation. And our chairman, the hon. member for Waterkloof, was fast asleep! [Interjections.] The hon. member for Klip River was speaking, but in spite of his booming voice, the hon. member for Waterkloof slept right through his address. And when the hon. member had finished, the hon. member for Waterkloof was still sleeping peacefully, to our embarrassment. These are the facts.

I was there too. It is not true. [Interjections.]

It is the gospel truth. [Interjections.] Why did the hon. member for Waterberg make that remark about Inkatha? Because he wants to exploit racism and the prejudices of our people in a subtle way, without being publicly decried as a racist. That is the way we know him. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Florida will forgive me if I do not react to the points that he has made in regard to the CP, because I should like briefly to come back to the hon. member for Turffontein. [Interjections.] We have become used to that hon. member’s poisonous and bitter sentiments, but as a backbencher in this House I never thought it would be possible to hear an hon. member of this House deliberately and with pride state: “I am insulting the deputy mayor of Johannesburg”. I would not have believed that one would hear this sort of low sentiment in this House. To me it does not matter from which party or which race a deputy mayor or any public official is. To hear this sort of insulting, cheap and petty talk is something with which we obviously dissociate ourselves completely. Therefore I do not intend to deal any further with any of the sentiments expressed by the hon. member.

Another sorry expression or statement was the one made by the hon. member for Durban Point, the fact that he now dragged in the question of English and Afrikaans into this debate. I find it a pity that the hon. member for Durban Point should now in his politically bankrupt situation try to fall back on the English-speaking voter. [Interjections.] The English-speaking voters do not need the NRP to hold up their flag. They are mature and politically active in every party represented in this House and even in the HNP. The English-speaking voters therefore do not need the NRP and they do not want the NRP to hold up the English-speaking flag for them. To bring that into this debate does not constitute contribution at all.

You missed the point of his discussion.

I want to return very briefly to the question of the urban Black. The hon. member Mr. Van der Walt made an interesting speech yesterday on the problems that the urban Black man has to contend with. He made the statement inter alia that there was in fact no major difference between the policy of the NP and that of the CP with regard to the urban Black. I just want to ascertain whether this is the case, for if one takes a look at the CP’s programme of principles, one comes across the following principle—

I should like to hear whether that is also the policy of the NP. Will the local authorities of urban Blacks in White areas still be linked to the national states? If that is the case, I should also like to know how it is going to be effected in practice. To which national state will a place like Soweto, for example, be linked? Because in the nature of the matter various ethnic groups and backgrounds are represented in that city. How, therefore, can one implement this in practice if one accepts and supports what is expounded in the CP’s programme of principles? If one were to implement that point of view, the question would arise as to how the urban Black would be regarded in the future establishment of a confederation. According to the policy of the CP the urban Black will have to exercise his political rights in his homeland since the urban Black is linked to his homeland by way of regional control. Is it the policy of the NP that urban Blacks will have their own representation in an umbrella body? Or will they of necessity have political representation in their homelands only? This is an aspect which I should like to understand in order to ascertain whether there is indeed any difference between the CP and the NP. If it is indeed the case that in a future confederation the urban Black will be represented by his homeland leaders, I foresee many problems. However, if the policy of the NP amounts to the urban Black having his own representation, in some form in the confederation, that is something which could really give rise to an interesting debate.

If one takes a further look at the position of the urban Black, the question arises on what basis of principle the present policy of the NP could be justified, i.e. the policy that their political rights will have to be exercised in their homelands. How can that be justified in principle? One appreciates that there are urban Blacks who have strong ties with their homelands, ties of culture, blood, ethnicity, etc. The hon. member, Mr. Van der Walt discussed this aspect thoroughly yesterday. This is something which one has to accept. At the same time, however, one must also accept the reality that there are thousands, even millions of urban Blacks who no longer have any ties at all with their homelands. One has to accept this as a fact. Therefore, on what basis of principle does one now force them to exercise their political rights in their homelands?

Allow me to illustrate this by means of a White example. The hon. member for Umbilo, for example, was born in England. He is now a South African enfranchised in South Africa. On a basis of principle one could not under any circumstances expect an urban Black who finds himself in the same position to exercise his franchise in his homeland while the hon. member for Umbilo, for example, has the right to vote in South Africa.

The same applies in respect of one of our former Prime Minister’s, the former leader of the NP, Dr. Verwoerd. He was born abroad, but he was accepted here in South Africa and recognized as a national leader. Obviously he also exercised his vote here. So on a basis of principle I cannot understand how we can expect a Black man—if he finds himself in the same situation in which Dr. Verwoerd, for example found himself—to exercise his right to vote in his homeland.

The hon. member for De Kuilen said earlier in this debate that people should not always question the NP’s policy towards the urban Black. My argument, however, is that as long as these problems of principle with regard to the urban Blacks are not cleared up, the public in general and the Blacks in particular will question the White Government’s policy, will not understand it and will see in it motives other than that of a just dispensation for the urban Black man.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Central quite rightly put his finger on one of the greatest political problems South Africa has ever faced. That I am readily willing to concede, but the solution does not lie in a unitary community, because that simply amounts to yielding to numbers and not seeking a unique solution. We also know that the countries that yielded to numbers in unitary communities have brought Africa to where it is today, with many countries in desperate straits. Surely this is true. I agree with him completely and do not deny that he is correct when he puts his finger on this practical problem we have been faced with, because we need these people in our industries. They have become part of our economy and there is no doubt that we cannot ignore them. That is why the Government is going out of its way, in consultation with the responsible leaders in those urban areas, to establish local authorities which, as we have already envisaged, will have a higher status than municipal status. In other words, we want to enable them to a great extent to develop a form of self-government in those urban areas and to give them greater responsibility. In that respect therefore they are, already far better off than the Coloured population for example.

In the second place, however, we said that we were prepared, in consultation with them and the leaders of the national and independent States, to deliberate upon methods of creating a form of representation for them which will link them to their national States, because we are giving peoples their freedom. The standpoint of this side of the House has always been that we are giving peoples and not countries their freedom. If we can therefore accept that principle, I feel there is an opportunity for a proper debate between that hon. member and this side of the House. It is not that we have a final solution, but we maintain that a final solution cannot be found in a unitary community and if the hon. member were to think this over carefully I think he would agree with me.

I come now to the hon. member for Bryanston. I should like to talk to him for a while. I promised him I would take notice of him. [Interjections.] I do not want to read him a moral lecture now. I want to discuss the matter he raised with him. In his attack on me he became very excited and asked what contribution the Prime Minister had ever made to the welfare of the Coloureds. I do not hold it against the hon. member for not knowing this, because he was not here. Of course he is still relatively speaking a newcomer here, and in my opinion he became a frontbencher too soon. [Interjections.] I have nothing with which to reproach myself as regards the contribution I made to the welfare of the Coloured population. I have nothing with which to reproach myself. I do not like to talk about my own contribution, but I built up the Department of Coloured Affairs and the Department of Community Development from the ground. Together those two departments have made tremendous progress in respect of the Coloured population of South Africa.

You also helped in taking them off the common roll.

Just a minute!Sir, if she were my wife I would drink poison! [Interjections.] Is it not strange that that hon. member simply cannot control herself. Can the hon. member not just once give other people a chance to talk to each other.

Why are you so touchy about it when I interject?

See how she carries on, Sir. All she needs is a broomstick. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. member for Bryanston that I have no cause for self-reproach concerning my contribution. I made this contribution at a time when the late Dr. Verwoerd realized that something had to be done to help improve the lot of the Coloured people. They were a neglected community in South Africa.

For 34 years.

Yes, even longer than that. From the time of the British occupation they were simply exploited. There is a famous speech, which the hon. member for Bryanston would be well advised to read, namely the speech the late Senator F. S. Malan made in the Senate. I suggest that the hon. member read that speech, because it was a moving plea that something be done for the Coloured population. One commission after another was appointed under previous Governments, but nothing was accomplished until Dr. Verwoerd became Prime Minister. He initiated a positive programme for the Coloureds. This programme was entrusted to me, and how well or how badly I fared is neither here nor there; I am not here to blow my own trumpet. However, I was involved in that programme. I should just like to point out a few matters now.

We took over Coloured education, which was under the divided control of the various provinces. At that stage education was still mainly in the hands of Mission Churches, and that was an unsatisfactory position for the Coloureds in the sphere of education. It is true. Coloured children were accommodated in distressingly small and old school buildings. The Coloureds were impoverished and their education was in a serious predicament. We took over. I piloted legislation through Parliament by means of which we introduced one system of control and we initiated a programme for the training of Coloured teachers. We also began to introduce technical education for Coloureds and to provide them with agricultural training. Some of the finest institutions in the country today were established as a result of those steps. Essentially it was probably most important that a contribution be made for them in that sphere.

In the second place we established the Coloured Development Corporation, which has now been merged into the Small Business Development Corporation. That Coloured Development Corporation made a greater contribution towards getting Coloured businessmen in South Africa on their feet than we may realize. Hon. members should read the relevant annual report and look at the chain reaction which resulted from it. It created self-respecting industrial leaders and business leaders for the Coloured population which, with a few exceptions, they had not had before.

In the third place we established and developed the University College of the Western Cape. We had to listen to abusive language in this regard from the benches opposite. Such institutions were referred to as “bush colleges”.

We did not coin that phrase.

“Bush colleges!” was hurled at us from the benches opposite.

No. The Coloureds themselves used that designation.

Eventually that institution became an asset to higher education and as a result of my personal efforts a Coloured rector subsequently became head of that university.

Now the hon. member for Bryanston comes to me and asks me in his ignorance: What contribution have you made so far?

I know about all those things.

No, Sir, he does not know about them. Why does he ask such nonsensical questions then?

That was not my question.

I also want to tell the hon. member that under this Government, particularly since the Department of Community Development was established, the Coloured have been accommodated on a large-scale in respectable towns. They were removed from their hovels in the bush, where they were eking out a miserable existence.

District Six has been mentioned. To every one who values the truth, District Six will eternally bear witness to how the Coloureds were saved from the exploiters in Cape Town who abused them and filled their own pockets from the slum areas of District Six. Many of those exploiters served on the Cape Town City Council.

And now the Coloureds are sitting in Bonteheuwel.

It is time these things were said.

Ask the Coloureds.

Ask the Coloureds! I receive letters from Coloureds who are living in decent circumstances today who say to me: “Thank God you saved us from the slums where we could not go out after dark.” [Interjections.]

I personally spent many hours establishing the CRC and it should have worked. It could have worked if liberals in this country had not helped to destroy it.

Do you really believe that?

Yes. Sir, the hon. member for Groote Schuur was a very acceptable person when he was younger. At one stage he opposed me in George, and one liked him. He is now Chief Whip of the PFP, but he has not the vaguest or most elementary idea of what the task of the Chief Whip is.

Am I not allowed to interject?

You must not be so unpleasant. I want to tell the hon. member that if the CRC had been correctly utilized, it would have achieved far more in allowing Coloureds to come into their own in the political sphere. However, under the guidance of liberals in this country it was utilized in such a way that it created an inability on the part of the Whites to consider the political rights of the Coloureds, because that body was used to place the Coloureds at loggerheads with a sector of the White population which has as much right as the Coloureds to live in this country.

This morning I want to tell the hon. member for Bryanston that I singled him out on purpose because I want him to think these things over. He is an intelligent member; it is just that he sometimes makes too much noise. He is an intelligent member and can make a contribution if he sits down and thinks these things over carefully. If he does so he will not again level such allegations at people who have helped to bring the Coloureds to where they are today, with thousands of them on a respectable basis in this country. They occupy positions in both the private sector and in the Public Service which no Coloured was able to do under the old dispensation, and this was made possible by a National Party Government which does positive work.

May I please ask you just one question?

Yes, the hon. member may ask a question.

Sir, I want to put the following question to the hon. the Prime Minister: I accept that certain commendable socio-economic improvements have been brought about by the Government over the years. We all accept this. But why could it not have been done without the injustice being done to the Coloureds of removing them from the common voters’ roll and the tremendous humiliation which resulted from the implementation of the Group Areas Act? Why could this not have been done on that basis?

I have replied to this question frequently here and it is an interesting subject to debate at a later stage. But I have replied to this question frequently here. The Group Areas Act is based on a fine precept. In the first place it means that people are guaranteed proprietary rights. In the second place it means people are guaranteed a community life and development in a country where this is difficult as a result of all our population problems. In the third place it means that you make it possible for people to have their own systems of administration. The Group Areas Act—I could mention many other Acts, but I am only referring to a few—has many good aspects, but do hon. members know what led to the unpleasantness in connection with the Group Areas Act? It was the agitations in South Africa to place obstacles in the way of every positive step which the Government envisaged and tried out, in an effort to sabotage these plans, to oppose them and to cast suspicion on them. Therefore negative measures had constantly to be taken to prevent the Government’s work from being destroyed. This is my reply. That is why we are prepared to have the Group Areas Act scrutinized and we have in fact referred it to a committee of experts and have asked them to examine it and, because the planning part of the delimitation of group areas has to a great extend been completed they must examine it in such a way that the principle of a separate community life for each group and all the good things contained in that Act are retained. We asked them to examine the rough edges that cause problems and when they have done so we shall be prepared, on merit, to plane off those rough edges. The same applies to the political struggle. The hon. member is unaware of this—I think he was still too young—but here in the Cape the editor of one of the biggest daily newspapers in this country wrote a book about the Coloured vote. He said: “The Coloured vote was surreptitiously up for sale during election time”. Now I want to tell the hon. member what I know at first hand, and there are hon. members here who can corroborate what I am going to say. The Coloured vote was misused to such an extent in constituencies such as Caledon, Bredasdorp and Paarl that on the evening before an election gift parcels of flour and mutton were delivered to their homes to buy their vote for a certain party. Shameful advantage was taken of these undeveloped people. There was a system of revision courts for voters’ lists at which one could lodge an objection to illegal registrations every three months, and three months later, believe it or not, one had to lodge yet another objection to those same illegal registrations. This cost the political parties lodging the objections hundreds of rands. Unfair advantage was taken of a situation, and this led to the bedevilling of relations between Whites and Coloureds in South Africa. We had to try to put a stop to this.

In this Parliament I promised, to my own detriment vis-a-vis some of my earlier friends, to devote my life to ensuring better relations with the Coloureds. As a matter of fact I have been doing this for the past 30 years now. Can we not break away from this ugly tendency which exists to append a huge question mark to everything that comes from the ranks of the Nationalists, everything that comes from the ranks of the Afrikaner? The hon. member for Bryanston can do a great deal, as can his leader, to allay this. They are members, just as I am, of the Afrikaner nation. In the circles in which they move they can call wild elements to order. I hope the pressures will not become too much for them. I think I have now spent enough time on the hon. member for Bryanston and he must not expect me to do so again in a hurry.

I should now like to exchange a few words with the hon. member for Durban Point on a specific matter. He referred, inter alia, to the total number of votes polled during the past election. It is always an interesting pastime to work out how many votes one received or how many votes one is going to receive. The fact remains, however, that the NP is in power. The fact also remains that in spite of the NRP controlling the provincial council in Natal, the NP polled the most votes of all the parties in the province.

The NP polled 10 000 more votes.

Yes, 10 000 more. The NP is therefore the majority party in Natal. [Interjections.] Those are the facts.

[Inaudible.]

Oh, this little squatter is still with us. [Interjections.] Surely the hon. member for Durban Point knows the facts. Does the hon. member want to deny them?

The hon. member also raised a further point regarding a matter about which I should like to make a considered statement because it is important. He referred to the question of citizenship and the question of the confederation. I think it is important that I place the Government’s standpoint on these aspects on record.

The Black self-governing national States within the Republic of South Africa can obtain independence by means of legislation passed by this Parliament. Such laws were known as Status Acts in the past. As a result of the obtaining of such independence the erstwhile national States become sovereign States. One of the essential characteristics of a State is that it has its own citizens and nationals, and although citizens and nationals are usually the same people, legal experts draw a distinction between these two concepts. For example Prof. W. A. Olivier defines the difference as follows in his unpublished LLD thesis, entitled Aspekte van Burgerskap en Nasionaliteitsreëlings in State met besondere verwysing na die Republiek van Suid-Afrika which was written in 1977 at the Rand Afrikaans University—

When the Black national States become independent the citizens of those States who up to that stage were also citizens of the Republic of South Africa and South African nationals, become citizens of the newly independent and sovereign States created in terms of the Status Acts, by virtue of the provisions of Section 6, which is common to all the Status Acts. Their South African nationality is replaced by the nationality of the new States which have come into existence. When we therefore refer to citizenship and nationality, these are nothing but legal relationships with a specific content between a specific group of individuals in a specific State.

†I am explaining the matter in some detail because the hon. leader of the NRP yesterday raised the question of common citizenship of the envisaged confederation of South African States. The first fundamental fact that he has to understand is that a confederation, unlike a federation, is not a State, and therefore, as a necessary consequence, it cannot have citizens or nationals. A confederation is a formal association or society of independent States which derives its existence from a multilateral treaty, which also serves as the charter of the confederation. A confederation is normally formed for a well-defined purpose, such as a mutual desire to co-operate in certain specified fields, e.g. foreign affairs, defence, trade and finance.

A confederation has no central Government which exercises authority over the Governments of the constituent States, that is, the States belonging to the confederation. It consequently follows that a confederation is not, as I have said, itself a State but a formal association of sovereign independent States which do not forfeit their independence and sovereignty by virtue of their membership of the confederation. However, a confederation has to have a confederal structure in the nature of an assembly or a council in which common policy is discussed. This assembly has however no power to usurp the functions of government of any of the participant States and the co-operation of those Governments is required before the recommendations of the confederal assembly can be carried out. The functions of such an assembly are of necessity limited in scope and have to be extensively defined in the multilateral treaty which establishes the confederation. Representation in that assembly is on the basis of semi-diplomatic representation such as that in public international organizations. Representatives are appointed by the central Governments of the various States and are not elected by the various electorates. Various secretariats have to be established to carry out the recommendations of the confederal assembly or those of committees or specialized agencies established by such an assembly. It is also not uncommon to establish an arbitral or judicial body to interpret the multilateral treaty and to decide questions of law. The multilateral treaty entrenches the right of the participant States to leave the confederation and entrenches the sovereignty and independence of participant States. Since it is not a State, a confederation does not have legal personality and consequently does not have a head of State as would a federation. Since a confederation represents a strong bond of friendship between the participating States and a mutual desire to co-operate in important fields, recommendations are formulated on the basis of unanimity. However, having said this, I wish to point out that there would be no reason barring a confederation from discussing and seeking solutions regarding matters which affect the citizenship and nationality of citizens and nationals of participating States. For instance, because of the fact that the international community consistently refuses to recognize the legal fact of the independence of the States that were formerly part of the Republic of South Africa, certain problems as regards the passports that are issued by those States are being experienced. I would think that it would be appropriate for a confederation which involves those States to devise a method to solve this problem. It would also be possible for a confederation to consider reciprocal rights for the nationals of participant States in one another. This is already being done on a bilateral basis and I can see no reason why it should not be done on a multilateral basis. In character, some such rights may in substance resemble citizenship rights such as preferential job opportunities and residential rights.

*Such rights are already being regulated on a bilateral basis by several agreements between States and by the Status Acts. I am referring, for example, to the agreements providing for entry arrangements and a section 6 which is common to all the Status Acts and which provides that except for citizenship, citizens of independent Black national States who are resident in the Republic shall not forfeit any existing rights, privileges or benefits as a result of such independence.

May I ask a question?

No, the hon. member must forgive me, but I really have very little time left. I have just made a very full statement which is a well-considered statement, and since I have other engagements tonight and tomorrow, I must try to have the discussion on my Vote concluded as soon as possible. The hon. member can put his question a little later; then we can take it further.

†The hon. member for Pinelands raised a question about the future position of the Vice State President. By way of interjection I told him that it was a matter that could properly and more fruitfully be discussed after the receipt of the first, second or third report of the President’s Council. We are not married to the post of Vice State President. As a matter of fact, I do not think the Vice State President himself is married to the post. We instituted the post with a certain purpose in mind, but I think the time will come when we can fruitfully discuss its continuation.

He also referred to the question of self-determination. I see self-determination as the right of a people to decide its own destiny as far as humanly possible. I said yesterday that in present day circumstances in the world it was a relative term. Even in the case of a superpower like the USA self-determination is a relative term. We have seen with the latest troubles that the USA cannot have it their own way without cognizance of what is happening to their neighbours and allies. Therefore it is a relative term.

I have on various occasions quoted something the late Mr. Dag Hammerskjöld said in connection with international relations and which has a bearing on this matter. He said—

We all know that he was a bachelor, and therefore I should like to add “and all responsible women”. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question. He stated that in his view self-deterimination has to do with the right of the nation to determine its own destiny and that it is a relative term. I accept that. Could I then ask him whether, in the light of the developments taking place with the Coloured and Asian peoples who are in a single South Africa, one could in the future regard White, Coloured and Indian as a nation that can determine its own destiny?

In a relative term, yes. Even today it is not possible for White South Africa to decide its own future without taking cognizance of the fact that there are 2,5 million Coloureds living next to us. That is exactly what we are trying to do.

The hon. member for Durban North again raised the question of the Development Bank. I have already replied to it when I answered a question earlier this session. I want to repeat, however, that there is quite a large amount of interest taken by various bodies in what is happening. I should like to say that I think a reply is necessary at this juncture.

The Development Bank is for the following reasons taking more time to take shape than was originally expected: Firstly, an altogether new international non-political field is being entered, and rather than set about things over-hastily, preparatory steps have to be completed properly. Secondly, the process of discussion and mutual consultation cannot be disposed of over a short period. All leaders and interested persons must be given sufficient opportunity to satisfy themselves as to the importance of such an institution before finally committing themselves to membership. Thirdly, consultation with the private sector and with overseas organizations that will be indispensable as regards execution and financing, must be completed first.

However, the Government attaches great importance to the formation of the bank, and the hon. member knows that the sum of R17 million has already been voted for this purpose. The process of consultation and ne gotiation is continuing, and a special committee, on which the private and the public sector are represented, has been appointed to take the matter further and to submit firm proposals on the outstanding issues as soon as possible after 28 February 1982, taking into account aspects of organization, the structure of control, management and financing, etc. The committee, as announced by me, consist of: As chairman, Dr. S. S. Brand, and as members, Drs. Wim de Villiers, L. McCrystal, B. G. Fourie, F. Cronjé, J. de Loor, and Messrs. A. van der Bergh, J. Maré and D. Bartlett—a representative committee.

Since giving my reply, I have been informed by the chairman that the committee is energetically pursuing its task and intends to submit a general outline for the establishment of the bank to the South African Government within the next four months to serve as a basis for further consultation with the other parties. I cannot therefore take this matter further today.

*The hon. member for Rissik informed me that he could not be here today. However, in his speech he came back to the question of power-sharing, a question which, I believe, has been debated repeatedly. However, there is only one request I want to address to that hon. member, for of all the hon. members of the CP, he has been the most consistent. I want to say that to his credit. I think he disliked me from the start, and I do not blame him. In the second place, he showed that he did not like me, and I do not blame him for that either. In the third place, he said that he would under no circumstances identify himself with me, and for this, too, I do not blame him. It is his right, after all. It is also his right to make a fool of himself if he chooses to do so. Because he is so consistent, however, I want to ask him to do one thing, and that is to see to it that his party does not misrepresent my statement. When they use that statement in an attempt to justify their cause, or lack of one, they should just stick to what I said in my statement. I believe I am entitled to demand that. I therefore want to ask the hon. member to see to it that all kinds of untrue stories are not told behind my back, because one hears very unpleasant reports from quarters where those hon. members have been active. I want to warn them, however, that we shall catch them red-handed and expose them.

The hon. member for Helderkruin rightly referred to the uncertainty which the man in the street feels as a result of the times in which we live, and I agree with him as far as that is concerned. The uncertain times in which we live, and the fact that the country has to move forward and that there has to be development, are creating uncertainty among people. This is only human, after all, and the Government is fully aware of the fact that people are feeling uncertain. Who among us is not uncertain about some or other aspect of the future? After all, we are living in an uncertain world. Therefore the hon. member for Helderkruin is quite right. For this reason, in this uncertain world, we must seek the greatest possible degree of stability, we must seek means of maintaining stability, because there is some security in stability, in so far as one can achieve it.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I hope I shall not have to take up much more of the Committee’s time. Just before business was suspended, I was replying to the hon. member for Helderkruin with regard to his statement that there was uncertainty. I believe the uncertainty can in the first place be attributed to world circumstances which are causing people to feel nervous. In the second place, I believe people are feeling uncertain because they notice that civilized standards and civilized values are beginning to disappear elsewhere, and they do not want them to disappear in this country as well. They are quite right. In the third place, there is the fact that the Arikaner people itself—which has no other home; which is an African people—does not wish to lose its identity. I think it wishes to receive that assurance from its leaders as well.

However, there are also minority groups in South Africa whose whole destiny depends on the stability which the Afrikaner people is able to create for itself in Southern Africa. Those minority groups are, in the first place, the English-language minority group in South Africa, a group whose thinking is becoming increasingly enmeshed with that of the Afrikaner. Then there are the Italian, the Portuguese and the Greek minority groups in South Africa, each with its own cultural values. The Portuguese minority group is one of the biggest White minority groups. They would also like to preserve their own customs and their own cultural heritage, while at the same time being absorbed into one big South African nation. However, there is a difference between a nation and a people.

We want to deal with the Coloured people in the same context. The Coloureds form part of the South African nation. However, they are minority groups. They are not a people either. They are minority groups. I have said that in this House before. They are Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking minority groups whose security is absolutely dependent on the preservation of civilized values and civilized standards. However, this does not mean that these groups wish to be organized in opposition to Black peoples, because there are Black minority peoples as well which would disappear if the forces of communism and chaos prevailed in Southern Africa.

I think that these are the main reasons why there is a feeling of uncertainty among people. However, there is yet another reason for uncertainty. This is the uncertainty which is created by politicians when they talk to people. I want to tell hon. members about the latest example of this which has come to my attention, in order to show them the kind of nonsense one has to contend with in these serious times.

I have here a verbatim report of a CP meeting held at Marble Hall on 31 March 1982. One of the members of Parliament of the CP who spoke at that meeting said, to an audience, please note, in which I was not present—

He went on to say—

Would you believe it!

I take this opportunity of saying in this House today that what was alleged there was a blatant lie, and that the one who made the allegation was guilty of telling a blatant untruth, of telling a lie.

And with a purpose!

He had a purpose in telling that lie.

Is that verbatim report not inaccurate?

South Africa can no longer afford this kind of thing today. Two Western nations threaten to make war on each other, the forces of hell are gathered on the borders of Southern Africa and South African boys are dying for South West Africa. There is not a man in this House who has sacrificed more for South West Africa than I. Over a period of 12 years I have worn myself out to help preserve the security of South West Africa. And then a little pipsqueak like this comes along and spreads this rubbish behind my back. He is not worthy of being called a member of Parliament. [Interjections.] I think it is time South Africa got rid of this kind of politician. It is time we got rid of underhand tactics of this kind in our public life. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Helderkruin made a second appeal to me. He emphasized the need for promoting and developing the Constitutional Planning Branch of the Prime Minister’s Office. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we are all deeply aware of the need for this. That branch is becoming increasingly important in its function of co-ordinating and of providing expertise. The hon. member also knows that people of this kind are not just to be had for the asking. He will certainly appreciate this, but he also knows that we are making use of people from outside and that we shall do this to an increasing extent as the need arises.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned the question of land ownership. However, his approach is that of a unitary society, a standpoint which is diametrically opposed to the views of this side of the House. I do not blame him for adopting this approach, but as I have said, his approach is that of a unitary society.

A common society.

Yes, a common society. That is his approach. Therefore he does not take account of the background, of history or of existing customs. In my opinion, he does not take account of the rights of minorities either. What would happen if we did what he has asked us to do in connection with land ownership? While recognizing the principle that the right of private ownership should be promoted as far as possible, we say that it cannot be dealt with in isolation from minority rights and the protection of minorities. If the hon. leader refuses to understand or accept this, we cannot argue with each other, for in my opinion, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is making one big mistake. Allow me to remind him of the fact that private ownership is not a universal practice in the Black national States and in the independent States. As a scholar he knows this. He also knows how difficult it is to get those States to accept the concept of ownership. However, he advocates that it should be introduced unilaterally in this country, with all the social consequences that will flow from it. It is something which could cause confusion and chaos in South Africa, while to a large extent the reason for our stability is to be found in the very fact that we have succeeded over the years in improving people’s proprietary rights in this country without affecting the rights of minorities. It is very easy to clamour for the doors to be thrown open in the name of humanism or of human rights; implementing it in practice is a different matter altogether. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must forgive me, but I cannot agree with him as far as that is concerned. With regard to the Black urban areas we have gone a very long way with the 99-year leasehold. We are giving attention to the way in which Black authorities are able to own buildings and properties in order to exercise their powers so as to administer those areas. But we must handle this matter with circumspection if we are not to cause chaos in South Africa.

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

No, the hon. member must forgive me, but I really do not have time to talk to him now. In any event, I am talking to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also asked me some questions about mixed marriages and the Immorality Act. I gave a detailed explanation of my standpoint on these matters in this House last year, but I want to repeat it. I do not believe that a mixed marriage is sinful in itself. In this I am supported by the views of theologians, including some from my own church. In fact, the Synod of my own church has virtually said this in so many words. Therefore I do not consider those laws to be necessary for that purpose. Secondly, I do not consider those laws to be necessary to protect White Afrikanerdom, because this has been gaining in strength over 300 years. The purpose for which the laws are required, though, and for which they were introduced, is to combat social evils. In a country such as South Africa, abuses arise from immoral acts between different races and from mixed marriages.

Now the English-language churches have had talks with me in a very courteous and responsible manner, and a few of my colleagues have been present at those talks. I asked those English-language denominations to indicate the support they enjoyed, and it then appeared that they represented 24% of the White population, as well as a minority of the non-White population. However, I listened to them and told them that I would be glad to convey their standpoint to the other churches in South Africa and that I would inquire from those other churches what their standpoint was. Secondly, I said that I would appreciate it if the churches in South Africa could meet and could attempt to draw up guidelines for me which would satisfy them. I am not hiding behind the churches, but in terms of the statement which I made here yesterday, I take cognizance of what the churches say.

Now it is true that some of the churches representing 56% of the White population hold entirely different views on this subject from those of the English-language churches. What is more, there are two major church organizations among the Black people, together representing more than eight million members, which hold different views from those contained in the representations I have received. What does this prove? It proves that there are deep-seated differences in this country about this matter. The only sensible thing to do was to ask the churches to try to reach agreement on this matter and then to advise the Government, whereupon we would be prepared, as I have already said, to examine laws on merit in the light of this advice, because laws are not sacred cows. I think this is the responsible way of dealing with this matter. Meanwhile, the laws are being administered in the most humane manner possible. There are cases that give rise to problems and there are humanitarian considerations that must be borne in mind. In the light of this we shall seek solutions in the future. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must please join me in attempting to handle this matter in a responsible manner.

Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me a question about discrimination. I have had to say repeatedly, and my predecessor also said so, that this Government is committed to the gradual elimination of all hurtful discrimination. However, not all differentiation is negative discrimination. After all, there are minority groups whose interests must be taken into consideration. The Cabinet drew up a document on the basis of which it gave attention over a period of days, in one department after another, to measures dating from the distant past, even from the British colonial period. The hon. member is not even aware of many of the things we have abolished. In talking about discrimination, we must realize that there was discrimination in this country at the time when it was governed by the British. A great deal of the bitterness dates from that period.

Those measures have been quietly abolished because we believed that it was not even necessary to make a fuss about them. Other procedures have been introduced. Regulations have been gradually changed. At the moment, all Government departments have to report to the Cabinet every six months on discriminatory measures which can be either replaced or abolished. So it is a process we are engaged in. This is not to say, however, that we shall remove all differentiating measures.

I hope that with these remarks I have satisfied the hon. member.

The hon. member for Constantia made the statement here that “Rhodesian Front policy was not PFP policy”. He even tried to show that it was actually a policy which corresponded to ours. The hon. member should be careful and should not discuss matters he knows nothing about. I was privileged to have more than one conversation with the former Rhodesian Prime Minister, who is not only a personal acquaintance of mine, but whom I hold in high esteem. More than once I personally asked him: What would the final outcome of your policy be? He told me: “Civilized government irrespective of race or colour in a unitary State.”

In a thousand years.

It is Prog policy.

But not in his lifetime. “Not in a thousand years.”

I now want to read what was written to one of my colleagues by a very prominent person now living in South Africa—I can give the hon. member his name privately, because I would not like to bandy his name about in public; he is a respected person who now lives here in Cape Town. Referring to the speeches of one of my colleagues, he said—

[Interjections.] However, that hon. member knows better than this man.

The hon. member for Yeoville, who is not in the House at the moment …

For a very good reason.

… began on a high note this morning. We know the hon. member; he has a way of starting off on such high notes. However, he made the mistake of allowing someone to get on his nerves. It may be that he was in a hurry to get to Johannesburg. I do not know. However, we know that the hon. member is under pressure. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will appreciate this, because he knows that the hon. member is under pressure. [Interjections.] I do not blame the hon. member for being under pressure. He is only trying to get his standpoint accepted in his own party.

I agree with the soberminded part of his speech this morning, i.e. with his reference to the threat against our country and his remark that we must motivate the people. However, what happens when I want to motivate the people? What happens when I tell our people that there is a total onslaught on our country, and that it is not only of a military nature? What happens when I tell them that there is a psychological and an economic onslaught, as well as an onslaught in the field of sport? There is a total onslaught on us in the sense that there is not a single facet of life in South Africa which is not being threatened in some way. But when I say this, and when I say what we should not only motivate ourselves, but should also prepare to resist the onslaught, hon. members of the PFP get on their platforms and pooh-pooh this. Even the new little party is saying that we are exaggerating matters. How can one motivate people if they are not taught to understand the enemy? After all, half one’s success lies in understanding one’s enemy.

That is why we are so successful against our political opponents! [Interjections.] When the Government speaks of the diversity of our population and of respecting this, we want to motivate them to respect one another. But when we do that, the Opposition interferes in order to confuse the whole issue again. How are we to motivate the people? How does one motivate the White man if he keeps telling one that this Opposition is playing a game which will lead to a repetition in this country of the events we have witnessed in Africa? This is the problem which the hon. member for Yeoville must solve in his own ranks.

We have gone out of our way to win the support of the private sector. They have not been expected to agree with everything we say, but we have suggested that we should co-operate with regard to those things on which we do agree. They are the big employers, with interests in this country, a stake in the stability of the country, and it is in their interests that the economy of the country should be developed. Are we receiving the help from the Opposition which we should receive in order to make regional development, decentralization and deconcentration a reality? After all, the hon. members of the Opposition represent big employers. Is there the same motivation on the part of those big employers as there is on ours? We must stop trying to court people’s favour all the time; we must try to face up to the realities of South Africa. I thank the hon. member for Malmesbury for having explained this matter so effectively.

This brings me to the end of what I wanted to say. I thank hon. members for their contributions and I hope that we have learnt something from one another in the course of the debate.

Mr. Chairman, this is the second time during the discussion of the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister that an opportunity has been afforded to discuss planning matters. I should like to convey my gratitude for this and express the hope that this opportunity will be extended. If there is one State function to which the hon. the Prime Minister has undoubtedly given new meaning and importance, it is the planning function of the State. In the first place, a proper structure has been created within which planning can be carried out in a co-ordinated and structured manner. In the second place, this structure offers room for planning over the whole terrain of political activity. Whereas in the past the planning function was confined almost entirely to physical and economic planning, it now covers the whole spectrum of political activity, namely physical, economic, scientific, social as well as political planning. Every State has challenges in these fields and in order to deal with them, there has to be proper planning in every field. If any field is neglected, this must necessarily affect the long-term efficiency of the State.

What is also of importance is that overall and macroplanning, for which this department is responsible, will be carried out independently of, but in co-ordination with, executive departments. Executive departments tend to give immediate problems higher priority and not to regard long-term problems as being equally important. It is important, therefore, that this function should be exercised independently.

To me, however, the greatest break through the hon. the Prime Minister has achieved in the sphere of planning is the dramatic and resourceful way in which the ordinary citizen has been involved, the way in which he has been called in to make a contribution to the planning of the future of this country. For me the salient point of the Carlton and the Good Hope Conferences is not merely that the private sector was called in to co-operate with the Government, but in particular that the business and community leaders were called upon to make a contribution to the planning of the country. They were invited to express criticism and were invited to put questions. The hon. the Prime Minister declared that he was prepared to subject himself to criticism by civil leaders who represent hundreds of thousands of people in this country. Those people were present and could express criticism, and this opportunity was used to the full. There was even the possibility of confrontation, and this was mentioned. The hon. the Prime Minister went even further and offered those who did not gain an opportunity to speak, the opportunity to submit written representations. He also said that this would be published, and it was. Once again, this was an opportunity to express criticism, and it was used. I want to suggest that this was an unique occasion, and not only in the history of South Africa. We know of no such occasion in the world where a head of state gave his people the opportunity to criticize and to make contributions on such a broad basis. These occasions are the strongest proof of the openness and receptiveness of the hon. the Prime Minister to new and better solutions, of his willingness to co-operate with businessmen and community leaders and of his trust in the Government’s cause, because he was prepared to expose the Government to criticism. This frankness and this preparedness have already borne fruit. I think the SBDC is a monument to the initiatives of the hon. the Prime Minister, and I venture to predict that the new regional development effort will before long be a further monument to his successes in this regard.

There are numerous other examples of the involvement of the citizenry in the planning effort of the State as well. For example, the private sector is well represented on the advisory councils of the hon. the Prime Minister. Guide plans for development regions are advertised all the time and criticism and proposals called for. Similarly, comment was called for on the regional development proposals which were also announced at the Good Hope Conference. I also wish to suggest that the new regional development strategy was designed to ensure the largest possible degree of community involvement and participation. The regional development advisory committees will very probably be appointed from existing organizations. They will receive representations from the public, but also from regional development associations, concerning the development of regions. Such proposals will be considered and submitted to the umbrella National Regional Development Advisory Board. Those proposals will then compete with other proposals on a priority basis. A channel for the people of a region is therefore being created here to make known their requirements and solutions for those requirements.

This system also has a broader significance, because it is not confined solely to economic and industrial development, but includes development in every other sphere in the region in question, as long as it is to the advantage of the region. This is an ambitious plan to get the citizens of a region involved in and responsible for the development of their region and to have them participate in a national strategy of regional development.

†If one takes account of the fact that the planning branches in their present rationalized form have only been in full operation for a short period, then the range and depth of the activities of those branches cannot but strike one as most impressive. If one takes the economic branch as an example, one notices that it has first of all been responsible for the new regional development programme which must have taken months of top level negotiations with leaders of independent States and of the homelands. It also undertook the revision of the economic development programme, and that one on its own is a major task. It also created a data bank to assist itself in further research. It is making an in-depth study of the problem of inflation among the other research projects it is undertaking. These activities are by all standards in the circumstances most impressive.

I do not intend listing the activities of the other branches of planning, but the same can be said of them and of their activities. They are most impressive. They are all actively engaged in relevant and essential research and planning that can have a major effect and implications.

When the hon. the Prime Minister took office, he undertook to bring about effective government. When one has regard to the structures already created and to what has already been achieved, one cannot but submit that he could not have done more in the field of planning to achieve effective government.

Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to continue with the remarks made by the hon. member Mr. Schutte because I intend dealing with a broader aspect of planning. He described what planning is all about and what the department had done.

I feel it incumbent upon me to refer to certain things which have happened in the House this morning with regard to the remarks made by the hon. member for Yeoville. He said in his speech (Hansard, 16 April)—

Not two speeches later the hon. member for Turffontein happened to make a very snide remark, and I should like to quote from this morning’s Hansard what actually happened. He made remarks about the deputy mayor of Johannesburg. He talked about the “lekker”, the “cushy” jobs, whereupon the hon. member for Yeoville said (Hansard, 16 April)—

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it.

Order! What is the point the hon. member is trying to make?

Mr. Chairman, I am referring to what the hon. member for Turffontein has said in this House in respect of the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member for Turffontein said further—

Mr. Chairman, as a proud South African and also as a proud Jew I want to tell the hon. member for Turffontein that his remark about the hon. member for Yeoville was contemptible, mean, low and vile, and blatantly and obstreperously anti-Semitic. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must please withdraw those words.

Why?

Which words, Mr. Chairman?

The words “mean and vile”.

The word “mean” is not unparliamentary, Mr. Chairman.

Order! I ask the hon. member to withdraw the words “mean and vile”.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the words but the hon. member’s behaviour remains contemptible and blatantly and obstreperously anti-Semitic. There are insufficient words in any language to express my contempt for his remarks, and I trust that the hon. the Prime Minister as leader of the NP will take the necessary steps to curb the despicable behaviour of the hon. member for Turffontein. [Interjections.]

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

I ask the hon. the Prime Minister to repudiate the hon. member for Turffontein.

Order! The hon. member must please withdraw the word.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman.

Let us now deal with the matter in hand. The report of the Office of the Prime Minister states—

In a country with great but limited resources, and with increasing demands for participation in such resources and expectations, it has to satisfy to a degree a high conflict potential. It is very necessary therefore that there should be a proper allocation of resources under its control and planning for the greatest benefit of the community as a whole. The line needs to be drawn between what are proper planning functions for a free community and a planned socialist oriented State. We must be very careful indeed that our planning should not go beyond the resources at our disposal. Despite protestations of commitments to the free enterprise market system, over-planning sometimes occurs in Southern Africa, with the consequence that resources are not utilized to the maximum extent.

South Africa or Southern Africa?

Southern Africa, and in South Africa in particular.

The section of the report dealing with economic planning refers to the need to determine priorities for Government action and this is I believe a matter that should be debated. The hon. the Prime Minister said at the Good Hope conference that political reform must be co-ordinated with progress and development in the sphere of spiritual and of social as well as material welfare. These are very important points because they presuppose three other aspects that have to be taken into consideration, and that is the question of human rights, constitutional progress and economic development. I should also like to deal with the problems which relate particularly to the metropolitan areas. We must be very careful to ensure that having deconcentration and decentralization, we do not put an end to the progress of the metropolitan areas. I am referring now to the report issued by the Department of Planning in 1975, called “Die Nasionale Fisiese Ontwikkelingsplan” I quote—

The whole situation is that our major markets in South Africa are to be found in the metropolitan areas, and if deconcentration and decentralization should be taken too far, one might find that one is actually killing the goose that lays the golden egg. This point must be stressed because while free enterprise must not be seen to be curbed—and this is particularly because free enterprise, of its own accord, has gone to the metropolitan areas—those who exercise their rights under the free enterprise system should also, on the other hand, not be allowed to exceed the rights which they themselves have.

I want to refer to a particular problem that appears to be coming to the fore lately. That is the formation of large oligarchies. The hon. the Prime Minister referred to large companies which are able to employ vast numbers of people. It is a fact that in the USA it is the small business that gives, in proportion to the large companies, the biggest number of jobs. I am afraid that one must be very careful to ensure that oligarchies do not develop which inhibit the development of small businesses. After all, what is happening is that large companies are tending to swallow up a number of smaller companies, with the result that oportunities for small business of participating in the market are being curbed.

That brings me to the final point I want to make. That is the point mentioned by the hon. the Prime Minister at the Good Hope Conference—

This is a very serious matter indeed, and the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs must refer to it. What actually is he going to do and how is he going to kill the goose that lays the golden egg? If he does not allow the metropolitan areas to continue to develop, he will have nothing left to tax for his deconcentrated and decentralized areas. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, today I should like to make a contribution with regard to scientific planning, and I wish to do so on the basis of the 1981 Report of the Office of the Prime Minister. As far as scientific planning is concerned, let me begin by referring to page 27 of the report. Under the heading “Future Planning”, two problem areas are identified, which will be given constant attention by the Scientific Planning Branch of the Office of the Prime Minister. As it is stated here, one of those problem areas lies in the fact that the national expenditure on research and development in South Africa is too low. It is approximately 0,65% of the gross national product. As a medium-term aim it is envisaged that this expenditure should be increased to approximately 1%.

A second problem is formulated as follows—

I have spoken about these two problems before in this House. I wish to associate myself with their importance, and then I shall have something to say regarding future scientific planning in South Africa.

It is widely known that man’s understanding of the universe, and the technology which has resulted from this, has grown at an incredible rate during the past century. New and challenging fundamental issues, which require the development of new concepts, are continually arising.

Research and development, which I should like to deal with, are the processes through which science is extended and made useful. It is true that governments and private institutions spend astronomical sums on research and development annually. History has shown that a country can only utilize the advantages of science and technology to the full if the country itself contributes to the development of science. In this respect there is a very important difference between say, football, and science. Someone who has never played football, because of a physical handicap, for instance, could sit on the grandstand and really be a very knowledgeable spectator. He could, for instance, know the statistics of the game and its rules, etc. very well. He might have a better knowledge than the best player on the field. However, in science, it is different. If one does not make an active contribution, one’s country cannot make full use of the advantages of science.

If it is true that we need science for our survival, and that research and development are the processes through which science is maintained, the processes which enable us to use science, and if it is also true that astronomical amounts are spent on research and development annually, it naturally follows that research and development should be planned. Fortunately, research and development is an area which lends itself to planning. I regard it as one of the achievements of the present hon. the Prime Minister that he has placed the Office of Planning under his wing and he has also established the Scientific Planning Branch.

I associate myself wholeheartedly with the goal mentioned, i.e. to increase expenditure on research and development. According to this annual report, R310 million was spent on research and planning in our country, in the 1979-’80 financial year, of which R277 million has been spent on the physical sciences, and R33 million on the human sciences. The expenditure on the human sciences is therefore approximately 10% of the total. Of course, it is true that physical science research is generally much more expensive because of the apparatus which is needed for experimental research. However, there is a matter which has never been clear to me, and I wish to ask the Office of the Prime Minister to go into this. If one has a given amount available for research and development in a specific country, what portion of that should be allocated to human sciences research and what portion to physical science research? At present, the ratio is approximately 10%:90%.

In this regard, I wish to refer briefly to the HSRC Report on Education, a report which we received last year. It is said that that report cost R1 million to bring out. R1 million is a very small fraction of R310 million. One could therefore gain tremendous advantage from spending a very small amount of money in the field of human sciences.

By increasing the expenditure in the field of human sciences by 50%, one would increase the total expenditure by only about 5%. I therefore want to ask if, in the future, this expenditure ratio could be given more careful consideration.

How does one measure South Africa’s achievement in the field of research and development? It is extremely difficult to devise a method of determining the research involvement of any country, university or individual. For instance, it is true—I shall expand on this in a moment—that research has shown that expenditure does not necessarily result in certain research results. Therefore, there is not necessarily a correlation between the amount of money spent and the results. Secondly, there is not necessarily a correlation between the manpower one allocates to research and development, and the results. In fact there is only one recognized and reliable measure, and that is the number of research publications which result from research and development. There is a paradox in the sciences, in the sense that a scientist may only make research his own to the extent that he makes research widely known. There is therefore a strong incentive for people to have their research results published.

Using as his criterion the number of scientific publications which appear, a Prof. E. C. Reinhart of the Department of Physics of the University of South Africa recently analysed South Africa’s research involvement in his professorial inaugural speech. I wish to refer briefly to some of his findings, which are of great general importance to our country. Firstly, he analysed the publications of 28 industrialized countries in the world. He expressed the number of publications per million people who live in a country. He found that in 1980, 130 scientific articles appeared in international scientific magazines for the total world population. For South Africa, too, if one includes all race groups, the figure was approximately 130. Therefore, in the scientific field, South Africa performed just as well as the average for the rest of the world in 1980. Israel achieved by far, the best results averaging twelve times higher than the world average, and therefore twelve times higher than the average figure for South Africa as well.

It is widely known that in terms of the criterion I mentioned, no country in the world can compete with Israel in the field of science. By the way, it is of considerable interest that when one looks at the research facilities world-wide, one should try and get away from the tendency only to focus on what there is in the USA. The USA is a very wealthy country, but they do not necessarily make the best use of the money they make available for research and development. I think we should rather look at a smaller country, a threatened country, such as Israel which can be compared with our country more easily.

If one only takes the White population in South Africa into account, the figure is approximately 650 articles per million of the population. Then it is still approximately 2,3 times lower than the figure for Israel. But at the moment, the involvement of White South Africans in research and development compares well with that of the industrialized countries such as Canada, France, the United Kingdom and The Netherlands, and measured in terms of this criterion, it is better than in West Germany and Japan. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the hon. member for Pretoria East will not take exception to my not following his line of thought. I want to turn to the more mundane things of life and specifically to my constituency, which is after all my primary responsibility. I should like to refer to the recent Good Hope Conference, the booklet The Good Hope Plan for Southern Africa and also the White Paper that has been tabled. I want to deal particularly with Natal and the question mark hanging over Southern Natal, Region E. On page 7 of the White Paper, with reference to this and other regions, one reads as follows—

I wish to quote further from page 11 of the White Paper. In paragraph 3.1 under the heading “Incentives for industrial development outside the metropolitan areas—general principles” one reads—

The need to establish these points with as little cost to the State as possible is extremely important. One would assume that preference would be given to those areas where the existing infrastructure could support the establishment of an industrial development area. Cost-wise, if an area has the necessary infrastructure, this in itself is a very large saving because to develop an infrastructure from scratch is enormously expensive. This in turn increases the cost per capita of creating employment opportunities. Presumably, where savings can be effected in this regard, serious consideration must be given to these areas.

I submit, without fear of contradiction, that the obvious place for the industrial development point for southern Natal is the Port Shepstone-Marburg area. Nowhere south of Durban or anywhere in southern Natal is there an infrastructure that could support the development of an industrial point. I wish to motivate my reasons for saying that. One might ask: What is infrastructure, and what is required for preference to be given to this area? I would suggest that what is required is the availability of land, services and labour and also the capability of the local authority to cope with the additional development.

I firstly wish to deal with services, viz. water, power and sewerage. I shall first deal with water. I wish to advise this House that there is more than an adequate supply of water at the present moment. The water board draws its supply from the Umzimkulu River which is the third largest in Natal. It reticulates the area from Hibberdene to Port Edward where there are approximately 80 000 people of all races living, as well as the existing industries and is coping very well. Over and above that, however, during the holiday season when there is an influx of approximately 50 000 to 70 000 people, the water board copes admirably with that situation. This influx of visitors brings about an increase of population of approximately 60% to 70%. Notwithstanding this—I quote from page 30 of a publication, The Water Resources of Natal South Coast, which is published by the Town and Regional Planning Commission of Natal, 1971—

I therefore submit that the most important commodity in any industrial area is water. So we are very blessed in this area with this very precious commodity.

I now come to the question of power. Escom has already situated a very large installation in the area and this installation is right in the hub of the industrial area as it exists. It can be expanded without any problem at all.

I now come to the availability of effluent disposal and sewerage. Anyone who has been involved with a local authority realizes the tremendous cost that is involved in order to augment a proper water-borne reticulated sewerage scheme. In this instance there is an existing scheme and its capacity can be doubled without any problem at all.

I now wish to look at land that is available for development. Industrial land has been developed over the last year. Some 98 sites have been sold, covering 46 ha, with an additional 82 sites covering 36 ha being made available at present. Furthermore, large tracts of land are available for further industrial development in the same area. When one looks at the residential sites, one sees that of the 20 000 proclaimed sites on the coast, only 9 000 have been developed. Therefore with regard to land there is no problem at all.

I now wish to deal with labour. The last census figures show us that there are 19 000 Whites, 9 500 Indians, approximately 2 000 Coloureds and approximately 350 000 Blacks, including the KwaZulu areas of Izingolweni and Umzumbe. In fact, this is a very low figure. We believe the figure to be more in the region of 400 000 to 450 000. However, even taking the figure for the Black population on the conservative side, it is extremely high for the area. And, of course, the unemployment is just as high.

Lastly, I come to the capability of the local authority concerned, which is Port Shepstone. May I quote from the townplanner’s report, which was implemented in 1977, where it states as follows—

The other major export activity in the town, in a sense is the bringing of income into the area. This is basically tourist-oriented, from outside. Port Shepstone as such is not a holiday resort of any consequence, but it does cater for the needs of those in the region who supply goods and services to holiday-makers. This activity has its impact on Port Shepstone in the form of demand for wholesale and retail activities. The importance of Port Shepstone as a major commercial centre was clearly shown in a recent survey by the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission. Port Shepstone is a major educational centre; it has a modern hospital; it accommodates the police headquarters—a new building is being built to house the headquarters, occupation to take place next year—it is the seat of the magistracy; it is the rail head and it has the main post office. It can be quite openly said that Port Shepstone is regarded as the capital of southern Natal. There is no doubt about that. I submit that the Department of Planning, having taken into consideration all the basic aspects which I have put forward in the time available to me, will find no other area more suitable than this point for a decentralization point in southern Natal.

In closing, I should like to refer to the Natal South Coast regional plan, drawn up by the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission. I quote—

I accordingly ask the hon. the Prime Minister to take all these factors into consideration, especially in view of the saving on infrastructure inputs—this is a very important aspect—and to declare this point as an industrial decentralization point. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Coast made it his task to bring the district that he hails from to the attention of this House and the Minister in question, to indicate what potential for development it has and to request that it be exploited. In that regard it corresponds to some extent with the thoughts which I myself want to express.

It seems to me as if there is very little opposition left on the Opposition side at this stage, and if the hon. the Minister considers it to be in order, we can give him a little opposition from his own side of the House.

An aspect of physical planning which should constantly be kept in mind by all developed countries in the world, but also by developing countries like South Africa, is that industrialization and the development of the economy tend to be accompanied by the phenomenon that the population and economic activity become concentrated in a few metropolitan areas. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout talked about a golden goose which could be lost if we did not give attention to these areas. I am not concerned about the metropolitan areas in South Africa. I am more concerned about some people who find themselves in those areas. I think that often they require more attention than the areas themselves.

For almost the past 40 years the Government has been facing the problems which stem from the over-concentration of population and economic activities. During the ’seventies the whole planning effort entered a phase of structuring. A National Physical Development Plan was drawn up, and this plan is being reviewed at present. It is now time for us to consider whether the steps taken in terms of this plan are still fully effective and that they are implemented in the right way. In this regard I want to say here and now that the creation of decentralization points in conjunction with deconcentration points can lead to the withdrawal of already scarce development capital and entrepreneurial initiative from the surrounding rural areas. It is this aspect which I want to discuss briefly with the hon. the Minister who deals with this subdivision of the Vote.

If we are not careful and as a result of the possible inadequate Government participation in a process to prevent this, we are eventually going to find ourselves in the situation where these decentralization points develop at the expense of these rural areas. What would the Government be able to do in this regard? The Government could do nothing more or less than, in the first place, to work out a maintenance strategy in respect of the areas adjoining these decentralization points. This will merely mean the maintenance of a basic socio-economic infrastructure for these rural areas, as well as their service points, ie. the small towns in these rural areas. Let me tell you, by way of a single example, what I mean by that.

The hon. the Minister will know that in terms of the subsidy formula by which the second level of government acquires its funds, for argument’s sake, about 1,8 times as much is spent on the education of pupils in the rural areas as is spent on the education of pupils in the urban areas.

I know that. I did it myself.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister tells me that he did it himself. I want to tell him that we are now asking for more. The hon. the Minister will also know that in terms of that formula it is difficult for provinces with extensive rural areas and in which no metropolitan areas are situated, to draw up budgets whereby roads can be maintained in those areas and to balance those budgets, because the number of motor vehicles licensed bear too heavy a burden in terms of such a formula.

Finally, a very important aspect is the maintenance of local authorities and the maintenance of the financial function they have to perform. I know that the Browne Committee has issued a report about this, but I nevertheless want to ask the hon. the Minister to give attention to this specific matter.

We spoke about a strategy to preserve what exists in relation to the surrounding rural areas. However, I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that there are also areas where a development potential does in fact exist, and that we should not grant these decentralization points decentralization privileges if we do not at the same time develop the areas which adjoin them and have development potential. If we were to do that, it would mean once again that we would be withdrawing the development capital, entrepreneurial initiative and even manpower, which are so scarce, not from the large metropolitan areas, but in the first instance from the rural areas.

I therefore want to put it to the hon. the Minister for his consideration that we shall accept that in the overall National Physical Development Plan, the creation of decentralization points is necessary. In the second place, we should guard against an unnecessarily large amount of development capital, and especially entrepreneurial initiative, being withdrawn from the adjoining rural areas. If we were to allow this to happen, we should be frustrating one of the basic aims of the National Physical Development Plan, which is to seek to counteract the excessive concentration of population and economic activities in a few metropolitan areas, and we should not be providing the necessary counterbalance.

It is striking that the central part of the Republic is really still lying fallow as regards development. If, then, I think of Bloemfontein, Kimberley and De Aar as the designated decentralization points, and note that the rural area adjoining all three of these points is the Orange River development area, and I consider the minimal extent to which the area has been developed, then I request that we give a great deal of attention to this rural area and that we now begin to exploit the development potential which definitely exists there.

Mr. Chairman, in the space of 10 minutes, one scarcely has the opportunity of replying to a previous speaker, and therefore I apologize to the hon. member for Fauresmith for not doing so. I say to the officials that I know that they are doing excellent work in their part of the planning. They have sound programmes, computers, etc. We cannot find fault either with the inputs or with what comes out on the other side.

Therefore I should prefer to give more attention to the philosophy behind, or the premise of, planning. After all, planning is an activity concerned with the future. The object is to achieve a final result which is different from and, hopefully, better than the present. This is the meaning of progress.

Firstly, sound planning should have an attainable goal. Secondly, it should take reality into account and thirdly it should be done in co-operation with, rather than for communities, as is mentioned in the report. Finally, I wish to add that in South Africa, where we have a legacy of discord, but where we have to face a common future, planning should not contribute to the inequality of opportunities and therefore to polarization. I maintain that Government planning fails in every sphere to a lesser or greater degree.

The point of departure for planning, is the given situation as we encounter it at the moment, the realities of today. In a systematic approach to planning, planning is a dynamic activity in which progress on the road to an ultimate aim should be measured against the everchanging present. However desirable the ultimate condition could be for certain members of society, the interim measures could demand so much sacrifice and hardship of the present generation or some of its members, that the ultimate condition would never be achieved. A desired ultimate aim which does not keep pace with the dynamic, changing circumstances, is therefore not planning; it is merely a pipedream, and before long the dreamer will be awakened by the sober pawns that have to dance in his pipe-dreams.

Fortunately, we have already witnessed an effort to try and prevent a checkmate situation in the ranks of the Coloured pawns. But what about the Black pawns in the game? If one considers, for instance, the realities of Natal, one could determine whether the Government is engaged in planning or pipe-dreams.

Physical, economic and political planning are aimed at dividing the people and the territory. Some hon. members, as well as some people outside, are under the impression that KwaZulu is a day’s drive away from the towns and cities of Natal. They think of KwaZulu as a region on the other side of the Tugela; as a green, forested, hilly region, with a kraal of huts here and there, in which happy families who tend the soil and keep animals live; in other words, a rural paradise to which all Zulus long to return. I also take it that some hon. members on that side of the House, as well as the Government, envisage in their planning a few industrial areas as a final objective, with one or two towns and possibly a little casino as well.

However, it is not only for the present that this is an illusion. It is a pipe-dream for the future, too, for what do the facts in Natal indicate? Only 585 000 Whites, 78 000 Coloureds and 640 000 Indians, but also 1,2 million Black people, live in so-called White Natal. Apart from this, there are 3,2 million Zulus in KwaZulu and as I have already stated, KwaZulu is not just on the other side of the Tugela; it consists of 44 pieces of land distributed throughout Natal. Furthermore, there are 150 so-called Black spots and not all the king’s horses and all the king’s men, but for a king’s ransom—so I am told—we could patch up KwaZulu in 10 pieces like a Humpty Dumpty. It is indeed a true chequerboard policy, Sir! Consolidation is therefore just as much a pipedream as a CP homeland for the Coloureds.

KwaZulu is not a rural paradise, and never will be again. In Msinga, for instance, there is already on average less than 1,6 hectares per person, and anyone who knows the area, will know that large areas are completely inaccessible because of the topography. As far back as 1954, the Tomlinson Commission found that 18 hectares per person were needed to maintain even the most meagre subsistence economy. Even at that time it was ascertained that 81% of the families were superfluous. Yet this Government, in its consolidation effort, sees fit to dump even more people in that area.

I am sorry that I do not have the time now to quote some of the comments of the chiefs whom I met there last week. These are tragic accounts of formerly proud people. Several thousand people were dumped in that area 10 years ago. They, and the people who were already living there too, were told that their stay there was only of a temporary nature, and therefore they should share facilities with one another in the meantime. They may not keep animals, they have no land to cultivate and they cannot build permanent houses. Nor are there any job opportunities in the immediate vicinity.

The faction fights in that area are not a barbaric practice, but in fact a fight for survival among people who have been placed in a compression chamber by the Government.

That is nonsense! You do not know what you are talking about!

Meanwhile, the Government has forgotten to open the door. [Interjections.] Hon. members would do well to visit Msinga with me. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, who is inclined to make promises, knows what I am talking about. I warn the Government that they are trifling with the lives of people, as under circumstances of that nature, the alternative of swapping dagga for weapons sounds like a very sound and logical alternative.

Meanwhile, the pipe-dream plans are being proceeded with. The approximately 50 smaller areas such as Trusfeed near Wartburg, Hopewell near Thornville, etc. have to be cleared up. The Black spots have to be removed from the map. Thousands of people, many of them landowners, are waiting. There is no money available for clearing up, and meanwhile development and maintenance are frozen, and the people are waiting in a state of depression. They take in squatters in an effort to scrape the last bit of money together before the day when, as they say, the GG trucks come to take them away.

At the agricultural congresses, the White farmers speak of rural villages with schools, health services, housing, etc. where the Black labour force, which is indispensable to the farmers, could be housed. I therefore ask that we stop wasting money in an effort to try and remove these Black spots from the map, and that that money rather be spent on the development of townships which could be to the advantage of the rural community.

Furthermore, I wish to know whether planning is being done with people or for them. In Natal, most of the plans have been rejected by the vast majority of the people. Is the distribution of opportunities also being planned? The hon. the Prime Minister said that he did not want to divide wealth; he wanted to distribute it. Or is it the plan to promote inequalities which cause polarization?

As long as planning is separate, as in the National Physical Development Plan as well as in the decision-making structures, the unequal distribution of wealth in South Africa will continue. Even if the budget of KwaZulu increases by 20% a year, and that of Natal by a mere 5% a year, it would not make the least difference to the inequalities in the infrastructure, as well as in the opportunities for the foreseeable future, as 20% of almost nothing is still very little.

That is why you are so little.

Only when there is a single budget, will the true priorities of the entire community be placed in perspective, as what seems to be essential on a separate budget for Natal or White South Africa—for instance, an ideological road around part of the Transkei, or another few tunnels through a mountain, or even another piece of freeway for holiday-makers or weekend travellers—would merely be a luxury, very low down on the priority list of a joint budget. As long as one part of the population has to wait to make delegated decisions about the crumbs, after the White section has eaten its self-determination cake, the Government’s plans will remain pipe-dreams.

My party and I are not afraid of power sharing, because power-sharing is the power to make decisions on what influences one’s fate. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, because the hon. member for Grey-town evaluated this development plan from a purely mechanical and humanitarian point of view, he does not understand it of course. Therefore, I do not blame him for talking so much nonsense.

Development, in the broadest sense of the word, will in future take place in accordance with a strategy for regional development in Southern Africa. The Good Hope measures, which are dealt with in greater detail in the White Paper, seeks to promote the decentralization and deconcentration of industries, but they constitute just one aspect of a multidimensional development strategy. This is the most imaginative development plan yet embarked upon the history of our subcontinent. In my opinion it is in fact the only strategy which will be able to ensure peace, security and prosperity for all the inhabitants of this region.

The announced regional development strategy is not only essential for strategic considerations and the optimal exploitation of the development potential of the whole of Southern Africa. It ought to prevent the overconcentration of economic activities from having a stifling effect on future developments. Consequently this is not—as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout put it—a case of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs; but of bringing about the full development of Southern Africa’s potential.

In this way constitutional development, in accordance with which separate freedoms for the various population groups must be effected within the framework of their common destiny will be given further momentum. If this development plan should succeed, the carpet will finally be pulled from under the feet of those who advocate a unitary State. In terms of this plan, independent States and those becoming independent ought to acquire greater economic independence within an interdependent economic setup. This would further increase the unacceptability of a unitary society in which the rights of minority groups would be jeopardized. That is exactly why the hon. member for Greytown has so many problems with this. Development cannot be effected without change; not change for the sake of change, but change in order to improve.

It would have been easy to predict that there would be stick-in-the-muds that would not accept the Good Hope proposals. It is simply a fact of life that there will always be a percentage of people who are unable to tolerate change if it means improvement. For people like that the status quo is always more acceptable because change means effort, trouble and new challenges.

Allow me, however, to confine myself more specifically to the announced industrial development proposals. One of the most reliable criteria for evaluating the potential success of the incentives, is the opinion which established industrialists have of them. During recent visits to industrialists in the Free State one encountered the same enthusiastic and positive spirit as that which prevailed among South Africa’s foremost industrialists and businessmen during the Carlton and Good Hope conferences. If the same attitude prevails in the rest of South Africa one could expect with a reasonable measure of certainty that a better geographical distribution of industrial growth and economic activities will be effected in South Africa in the given climate of political stability that has been made possible by the NP Government over the past 34 years.

A very important prerequisite for the success of the industrial development proposals is that the necessary guarantees will have to be given to the industrialists already at those identified development points to the effect that they will not be placed in an unfair bargaining position vis-à-vis the new industrialists. The existing entrepreneurs did, after all, lay the foundation upon which new industrial growth will take place.

Although there are a few aspects about which there could still be some uncertainty, industrialists already at those development points should take note of the fact that after applying to the Decentralization Board to be classified as manufacturers, they will qualify for the whole series of incentives which will compensate for the long-term cost disadvantages.

Consequently, established industrialists qualify for railage rebates on outgoing traffic, rebates on harbour tariffs in East London, road transport concessions, Eastern Transvaal tariffs for electricity, subsidized housing loans for key staff and training allowances. Industrialists also qualify for the whole series of measures in respect of the extension of existing industries in order to compensate for the short-term cost disadvantages. Those who avail themselves of existing concessions have the option of switching, for the rest of the concession term, to the proposed incentive package. So there is no reason for established industrialists to fear unfair competition. They must only accept the challenge of competition within the forces of the free market mechanism.

Finally, one must accept that the significant establishment of industries will, in the final analysis, depend on whether the leaders of all interested sectors in the local communities make it their business to make it as easy as possible for new industrialists to establish themselves in a particular place. Not only will it be necessary to display the right attitude towards industrial development; the professional marketing of the economic growth potential of that particular development point, is also of decisive importance.

Although it is true that the Free State is of the opinion that it is entitled to bigger incentives, because large population shifts have occurred since the date on which data was gathered for use as criteria in determining the relative order of incentives, we are grateful for the opportunity afforded and the challenge issued to us to assist in developing our region. We are very much in earnest in wishing to ensure the proper growth of this central heartland of South Africa, so that all the inhabitants will be able to experience greater prosperity and happiness.

Mr. Chairman, I do not really want to react to that hon. member’s speech now. In fact he too is concerned about the metropolitan areas, but if he has indeed read the White Paper on these proposals, he will realize that the proposals are not necessarily aimed at prejudicing the metropolitan areas, but rather at swinging people away from those areas in a positive manner. I must say that this is an interesting attempt to rationalize the fact that the proposals in the White Paper reflect the realities of South Africa’s economic development and not the pipe-dreams of the old apartheid under Dr. Verwoerd.

†First of all, I want to ask the hon. the Minister on behalf of one of my colleagues what he is going to do about the representations that have been directed to him in regard to the development of the Swartvlei peninsula in the Outeniqua divisional council area. I do not think I have to tell the House what an important part of South Africa that area is, how important it is as a holiday resort and how fragile the ecology of the Swartvlei peninsula is.

I know all about it, because I come from there.

I see. Well, we await his reply with interest, because there are thousands of people who go and squat in that area every year during their holidays and I am sure the hon. the Minister is very pleased to have them there.

I do not mind that type of squatting. [Interjections.]

I believe that in the Government’s strategy and thinking on planning and development we have seen a most refreshing change over the last few years. In fact, one feels that at last we are dealing with the realities of South Africa as it is, in terms of economy and development, rather than with what people may like it to be. Unfortunately, when we deal with economics and politics, in many cases politicians have very limited parameters within which they can make decisions. In many cases circumstances force this on us.

I want to join the hon. member for Grey-town in pleading that the same attitude towards reality be applied to the planning in respect of Natal and KwaZulu. Natal and KwaZulu are economically so intertwined that the planning in respect of them must be done at the same time, for otherwise they face a bleak future. I am not now speaking as a PFP politican, but as a Natalian deeply aware of the great socio-economic potential which Natal has as well as of the disastrous effects which could result if the Government’s consolidation proposals were forced on Natal or if they tried to pressurize KwaZulu into independence against its will. This view is not simply my own, but it is supported by scientific research and informed opinion in Natal. Even the hon. member Mr. Van Der Walt admits that consolidation at today’s prices will cost at least R6 billion. He also admits that not one cent of that R6 billion will result in any real economic development. The Natal Agricultural Union in March this year wrote—

The Union went on to say—

The Lombard Commission of 1980 made an important contribution. In fact, the members of the Lombard Commission were academics, economists and planners from outside Natal. Indeed, they probably vote for the NP. In their report they urge that consideration be given to various alternatives as regards consolidation. Prof. Du Pisanie of the University of Pretoria’s Bureau for Economic Policy and Analysis said, inter alia—

They do not suggest that KwaZulu should be liquidated as an entity, but simply that further consolidation is unnecessary if the existing degree of consolidation is supplemented by other methods to ensure the self-determination of population groups. Those gentlemen were basically all Afrikaners from outside Natal. They did not come with any vested interests, and their conclusion, as a result of a careful study, was that consolidation as proposed in traditional NP policy would be disastrous for the economic development of Natal.

Interestingly enough, the Natal leader of the NP accepted the economic and social recommendations of the Buthelezi Commission report as having considerable merit. That report also supports this view. It is always very difficult in this debate to know whether one is appealing to the hon. the Prime Minister or to his shadow, but in any event I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister who is responsible for the Planning Branch of the Office of the Prime Minister or the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs. I want to appeal to that hon. Minister to plan Natal/KwaZulu as a region in terms of industrial development, and also to make a statement about what his plans are with regard to consolidation.

The hon. member for Greytown has pointed out the tremendous pressure that there is on the rural areas in KwaZulu, on what are called Black spots in Natal and on the Trust lands. Because of the threats of consolidation, most of these areas are under further pressure because no money is being invested in development. Furthermore—and this is the point on which I want to identify myself with the hon. member for Greytown—the emphasis in the hon. the Prime Minister’s Planning Branch is on First-World rather than on Third World economic development. The hon. the Prime Minister himself referred to this aspect or to what is commonly known as the dual economy. Nothing has illustrated the neglected planning and investment in Natal’s Black rural areas better than the swift spread of cholera throughout that province in a matter of a few weeks. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister responsible for planning to plan to spend money in these rural areas of Natal/KwaZulu. Money spent on boreholes, water supplies and basic roads would make a dramatic difference to their facilities.

Finally, I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister on the question of Black spots in Natal. Earlier this afternoon, the hon. the Prime Minister engaged in debate with my leader on the question of freehold tenure for Blacks. Freehold tenure for Blacks exists widely in Natal because Blacks bought land before 1913. There are areas in Pietermaritzburg, Edendale and in Clermont in Pinetown where there are townships under Black freehold title ownership registered in the Deeds Office. There is a strong demand for this kind of land. Black people like freehold. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider seriously whether it is sensible to move settled, orderly communities. Admittedly, many of them are overcrowded and in desperate need of development and planning, but would it not be much better, instead of moving them from, for example, the north of Ladysmith to the south at great expense, to rather develop those existing areas? They are owned by Blacks under title deeds and, by having them declared townships and having them properly developed, I believe much more could be done. One would also get the tremendous co-operation of the KwaZulu Government who are opposed to removals but who would support development. When one talks of Black rural villages, each of these Black spots is actually an important component of Natal’s economy and has been for 100 years. For that reason I believe that the hon. the Minister could retain the principle of freehold ownership, a principle which is understood and appreciated by Blacks. One only needs to look at the prices of freehold land in Edendale adjoining Pietermaritzburg to see that there is a strong market and demand for freehold land. I particularly want to appeal to the hon. the Minister and his Planning Branch to look at Natal; to study the Lombard Commission’s report and to study the Buthelezi Commission’s report. The same people who contributed to those commissions are the people who advise his department as well as the hon. the Minister. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to thank all hon. members who have taken part in this discussion on planning very sincerely. I should also like to thank hon. members for the complimentary remarks about the activities of officials in specific planning sections. I believe that they themselves take cognizance of the remarks in this regard with appreciation. Hon. members will appreciate that in the limited time at my disposal it is not possible to reply in detail to all the aspects which they referred to. So it will perhaps be best to make certain general statements which may serve as replies in respect of the specific aspects which hon. members referred to.

I want to emphasize one particular aspect which should be very clear to all of us, viz. that it is not possible to view any particular facet or activity of a particular field in isolation. It is not possible, in respect of the constitutional development of the country, to have discussions or launch campaigns which are not also connected with the economic and social aspects of peoples’ lives. It is important in this particular context to realize that the mere fact that the various planning sections fall under the control of one particular office results in the practical reality of co-ordination and interdependence being recognized. It is important for us to realize that it is essential for South Africa to plan against the background of the population explosion—I need not point out the implications of that to hon. members—and also against the background of dwindling natural resources in the world and in South Africa itself, i.e. depletable assets and, furthermore, against the background of the urbanization of the population which hon. members have already referred to and which corresponds to the kind of economic development which we are experiencing. As a result of the interdependence of National States, in our particular case within the traditional territory of South Africa, and even within a wider Southern African context, the necessity for integrated planning is emphasized. This applies more specifically to the national level. In the difficult times in which we are living we should in that way contribute to assisting and supplementing the difficult process of policy-shaping and decision-making which circumstances demand of us. Many Governments in the world have for years made special efforts—this applies to South Africa too—to formulate an all-embracing, a grand policy basis and to establish an overall framework within which strategies and regional plans could be devised and within which preconceived objectives ensure, by means of co-ordinated actions and development programmes, that we can accomplish this. It is a fact, of course, that the implementation is undertaken on a project level by a large number of operational agencies: Government departments, provincial administrations, local authorities, business firms as well as by decision-makers in the private sector. I submit that each one of these executive agencies has its own statutory assignment in terms of our national dispensation as well as its own, this I believe, purposeful policy within the terms of its own assignment. I think they perform their expert tasks effectively with their own departmental means. The question that we are discussing with one another in this planning set-up, however, is how these multi-faceted and multi-purpose projects that are undertaken by various agencies, may be co-ordinated so that we can ensure integrated and meaningful totality of a planning policy. You will recall, Sir, that in the rationalization of the Public Service the rationale or the premise on the part of the Office of the Prime Minister was in fact aimed at creating an overall, centralized and integrated planning instrument which would be able to undertake national planning as a co-ordinated structuring operation. On the one hand integrated policy formulation was made possible, as I said—the hon. member Mr. Schutte also referred to this—by amalgamating the economic, social, constitutional and scientific planning into five interdependent branches in which security planning is also involved from time to time. I agree with the hon. member Mr. Schutte that as a result, phenomenal results have already been achieved in a relatively short time on the various levels of planning. On the other hand co-ordinated development has been effected by interlinking these planning components very closely with the numerous interdepartmental consultation forums which we are creating such as statutory boards, commissions and committees. We must understand and appreciate that in the final analysis the co-ordination of all these activities is situated on the highest level, viz. that of the Cabinet and of the committees of Cabinet. I want to emphasize—because I do not want any wrong impressions to arise here, I do not want any wrong impressions outside the House and I do not want any wrong impressions in the departments—that the Office of the Prime Minister is no super department; it is not exercising overall control over the other operational departments. This office has no operational or executive responsibilities except for physical planning. I shall refer to that later.

This office does not interfere in the difficult and the responsible independent decision-making processes or executive linear functions of departments or public corporations or firms in the private sector. Each department and each institution remains responsible for its own planning as far as its own operational area is concerned as well as for the development of its own style of management and its own expertise in order to achieve the objectives assigned to it and defined in the budget as being the responsibility of that department. Obviously this Office is responsible for ensuring that the overall national policies are adequately recognized and incorporated in the department’s policy that such overall planning is adequately accounted for in that department. For this liaison mechanisms with all executive agencies are required but these cannot be successfully developed without proven assistance, support and recognition of each department. I submit that such liaison is possible without the possibility of misunderstanding and that it can even be perpetuated informally and on the basis of very special relationships of trust.

Without an attitude of good will and without support, all our efforts towards satisfactory planning have very little chance of success. For that reason I want to advocate that we should understand and realize and accept that there can be no question of one taking over the functions of another.

†I want to say quite categorically that it must be understood that in the Planning Section of the Office of the Prime Minister we are not dealing with the functions of other departments and other development agencies. The second observation that I should like to make is that the conclusion should not be arrived at that we have a rigid planning and that there is centralized control of the development of this country. I say this also in reaction to something to which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has referred.

*Let us now look at just a few aspects of what hon. members touched upon in this regard. The industrial incentives which were announced and which became effective on 1 April, the steps which preceded them and the decisions that were taken concerning the implementation of a regional development process not only ushered in a new era, a new period in regional development; they also—I submit—laid the foundations for a new dispensation in development co-operation between all the States within South Africa’s traditional sphere of influence. But they also introduced a new dispensation for co-operation between the public and the private sectors within the borders of our own country. Without repeating what hon. members have already said, I do not know of any example in the history of our country or in that of other countries where co-operation between the private and the public sectors has assumed the dimensions and the character which it now has in South Africa.

The Planning Advisory Council, the Economic Advisory Council and the Scientific Advisory Council of the Prime Minister were constituted primarily with the purpose of bringing together these sectors so that the country could benefit in future, not only from the co-operation of individuals, but also from particularly expert inputs.

If we are now to judge by the number of industrialists who have already asked for the White Paper and the information brochure on the new incentives, the interest of the private sector is overwhelming. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to make the following observation. This package of incentives is not the result of inputs by the planning departments alone; it is the result of inputs by other States and their Governments, but in particular also by experts in the private sector. This goes further than merely asking for the White Paper and the information brochure. Despite the fact that the investment curve has already entered a downward phase, the Decentralization Board has also received quite a number of enquiries from prospective investors who in the foreseeable future wish to establish businesses in decentralized areas. Enquiries have even been received from abroad. According to my information, the other independent States which were co-workers in this whole operation are getting the same reaction. So in this regard it seems to me that industrialists postponed their investment plans and waited for these incentives to come into effect.

There is something else I wish to emphasize. Although it is true that in terms of the announced policy the accent is on industrial development, we must not think that regional development is only capable of emphasizing industrial development. On the contrary, I want to submit that the development potential of large areas, also of the rural areas to which the hon. member for Fauresmith referred, does not lie in industrial development, but in the development of agriculture. To a large extent this applies to the national and independent States as well.

As soon as regional committees for economic development have been set up and as soon as the liaison mechanisms between regions, which operate across the borders of countries, begin to function, it will be possible to determine in a scientific way what the development potential of the particular regions are in fields other than the industrial field, inter alia, in the fields of agriculture, tourism and the service industries.

Agriculture must develop new products for new industries.

Of course! When one analyses the course of economic development of a country, one finds, that its industrial development began on the basis of its agricultural products. For that reason I believe that this is going to be a new accent. The Liaison procedure which gave rise to these measures once again did not end with the announcement of the measures, but is in actual fact merely a link in the future process because some agencies in the private sector are going to get representation on the economic development committees in a structured way. In this manner we will then be able to ensure a process of liaison of greater scope.

The promotion of economic and industrial development and the development of co-operation in a regional context, therefore, is an on-going process that extends much further afield than the mere announcement which has already been made. It presupposes continuous supervision of the progress that we make and adjustments in the development policy in accordance with the identified development potential. Therefore adjustments must be made as circumstances change and after we have achieved our short and medium-term development objectives.

Naturally an infrastructure has to be provided on a priority basis, and for that co-operation between the parties is required. In this regard the State has a special function, viz. the function of creating the right climate to which hon. members referred, and in particular cases the function of creating an infrastructure at identified points.

†Mention has been made of the metropolitan areas, and I should like to state categorically again that it is not the intention whatsoever that the metropolitan areas should not be developed. Let me say this immediately. After all, the successes that we might attain with decentralized development, will to a large extent depend on the capacity of these areas financially and otherwise.

It is the metropolitan areas that will provide the markets.

Of course. On the other hand it is also true that if one wishes to ensure geographically balanced economic development, one would have to analyse the relative position of areas against each other.

*There are two ways in which this can be done. Cognizance can be taken of the disadvantages of the introduction of economic development in decentralized areas. On the other hand, cognizance can be taken of the cost benefits of its establishment in metropolitan areas. But now it is surely true that in the metropolitan areas—and they differ from one another as regards their size—there are certain advantages with regard to markets, transport systems, etc., in respect of which the investors in those areas did not incur the costs, and the costs were borne by the general taxpayer. For that reason, I believe, we did not take that particular facet into account in the past. Consequently, with regard to future decentralized development, it is necessary for us not only to compensate for the disadvantages of these areas on the one hand, but to ensure that there will be a recovery of the costs—or of some costs, at any rate—which were incurred in the metropolitan areas and for which the general taxpayer is liable.

If we are not going to do it in this way we are not going to succeed in the attempt which we are now making either. I believe that we shall have to find ways in which the exploitation of the full agricultural potential of the country, as well as its full mining potential and services in all the developing areas, can be properly structured.

†The hon. member for South Coast has stated the case for Port Shepstone. Let me add immediately that I cannot react in detail to what he has said. It would, however, be the specific responsibility of the regional economic development committee of that area to identify the potential and the factors conducive to development in that area in order that we can plan accordingly. The same applies to what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North has said.

*I believe that the further development of the regional development process requires liaison between the various States, on local as well as Government level. I want to emphasize, however, that it will require the same of private, local and Government agencies in the respective States themselves. Furthermore it also requires co-operation with the private sector. I want to emphasize that we should not overlook the benefits of co-prosperity projects. The fact that they are not fully identified in the White Paper is due to the need for us to await proposals by the private sector which wants to co-operate in such projects across the borders of States. If and when they are required, therefore, we shall naturally have to pay attention to the matter.

The Regional Development Advisory Committees are in the process of being constituted. It has not yet been possible to complete that process because the respective provincial and national organizations which have to make recommendations, still have to consult with their regions. But we shall finalize them as soon as possible and make the announcement. In view of the important functions which these committees have to fulfil as well as the need to ensure that people with the required expertise serve on those committees, hon. members will understand that we cannot be too hasty in this regard, and that we cannot simply accept the first names that come to mind.

I should now like to turn to the hon. member for Pretoria East. He made a scientific speech on scientific planning. I agree with him that it is not possible to determine only in regard to the expenditure of funds whether research and development are proving successful and whether we are in fact obtaining the most efficient experimental results. I also agree with him that criteria could consist of publications containing comparable criteria, but without repeating his own speech I just want to say that research and development are more important to South Africa than to those other countries because successful attempts have been made, and are still being made, to isolate South Africa from the expertise of other countries in the world. It is not possible for one country alone—and least of all a small country like South Africa—to master all the expertise. For that reason it is absolutely essential that in respect of expertise, research and development specific priorities should be determined in the scientific field. Very often this will fluctuate between research and development in the field of natural sciences and similar activities in the field of human sciences. I do not want us to have exact criteria for measuring this. The people best suited to advise us on the relative priorities in respect of research and development is the Scientific Advisory Council, for they are the representatives of the various disciplines which have a bearing on scientific development.

Science and technology are going to play an increasingly important role in the development of this country and its people. In the fields of strategic importance such as food production, energy supply, arms technology, the refinement of minerals and numerous others, they will be of vital importance in future and they will play a vital role provided that they are supported by vigorous research and development efforts.

I do not want to bore hon. members with statistics. I do not have the time to do so in any event. However, it is important to note that in our country the Government is still making the biggest financial contribution to research and development. The hon. member mentioned that the total expenditure on research and development in this country was in the region of R309 million. It is true that more and more funds should be voted, but I believe it is also true that we should perhaps receive a larger contribution from the private sector, and this is happening.

In this regard I should like to make a final remark. South Africa’s expenditure is the highest of all countries in Africa. This fact may not be strange to hon. members, but South Africa’s research results will also to a large extent form the pool of expertise not only for countries in Africa, but for countries in Southern Africa too, because it is in this sphere that people are better able to co-operate with one another than they are, for example, in the political sphere. Without disclosing any secrets, I just want to refer to the hon. member’s reference to Israel. There is also co-operation between South Africa and Israel in the scientific and technological field, as there is with many other countries as well.

†I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout will concede that I have replied to the issues he raised, except the issue involving the hon. member for Turffontein, an issue which I do not think should be dealt with by the planning section of this department. Perhaps it should be dealt with somewhere else. I have also referred to the points raised by the hon. member for South Coast and I think I dealt with his points adequately.

*The hon. member for Fauresmith advocated that people be kept in the rural areas and cautioned against the identification of certain growth points at the expense of others. He also referred to the subsidy of the provinces. Everybody concedes that the small provinces are profiting from the subsidization formula for the financing of the provinces. By saying that I am not suggesting that it is sufficient. I shall convey his message to the hon. the Minister of Finance, however. The hon. member will understand, though, that I do not want to do his work as well, because I myself am standing in the money queue to be able to meet my own responsibilities. I just want to say that if we wish to ensure development in the rural areas, we shall have to concentrate on decentralized points. In the past our decentralization effort was to a large extent unsuccessful because we wanted to stimulate development at too many points, which was simply not possible. However, if we take a look at the totality of development possibilities and get away from the idea that the only development has to be industrial development, we could create a new vision for this country in that particular regard.

†The hon. member for Greytown referred to the Black spots. I do not want to enter into a debate with the hon. members on this issue today, except to say that the hon. members are aware—I am also referring to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North—that the Commission of Co-operation and Development is in fact expected to investigate the question of consolidation in respect of Natal. Naturally, the Commission will bear in mind the observations the hon. members have made. Let me say, however—and the hon. the Prime Minister referred to it this afternoon—that one should also encourage to a much larger extent freehold title within the National States and also within the independent States. After all, unless we succeed in making property free for individuals to own, one will not get other productive investments and assets in those areas. Therefore, instead of persistently arguing about freehold title within the boundaries of South Africa outside National States and independent States, I think it is only fair that one should stress the necessity for that within those States as well.

KwaZulu has a commission looking into that.

I also want to thank the hon. member Dr. Odendaal very much for his contribution. I want to conclude. We must be under no illusions that as far as the country’s future planning effort is concerned, we are also in a co-ordinated and planned manner and on the basis of co-operation between countries and Governments, between the private and public sectors, between various levels of Government and between various disciplines, engaged in building up the defensibility of the country. We may differ on the methods that we use to make the development of the country possible, but I want to say that if our development ideals and objectives and our plans to give effect to them, do not make allowance for the realities of this country, and if our perception of what is possible economically and constitutionally in this country is not related to these realities, none of the planning efforts will be of any use at all. I want to advocate that we should grasp the most important limitations on reform—planning does mean reform, does it not?—i.e. the emotional limitations in such a society as ours. It is no use our adhering to idealistic views as far as planning models are concerned, in whatever sphere of life, if they do not have a bearing on the realities and the essence of South African society.

There is a second observation I wish to make. I state categorically today, and I have said it before, that a State that has no means for change has no means to conserve. True conservatism is to be found in our ability to adjust. Otherwise we end up in tombs or museums.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank both sides of this House for the high level on which this debate was conducted at the Second Reading. When the House adjourned on Tuesday, I was analyzing a specific statement which had been made by the hon. member for Sasolburg. I should like to return briefly to that analysis, since I was unable to complete it. The hon. member had said that this Parliament, both sides of the House, had appreciation for the S.A. Defence Force as far as its operational ability and the excellent results which it had achieved under very difficult circumstances were concerned. He had also said that we had absolute confidence in its efficiency. In contrast to this confidence which hon. members have in the S.A. Defence Force, as the hon. member for Sasolburg indicated, and their support for the statutory amendment with a view to the manpower plan of the S.A. Defence Force—i.e. the new national service system which has now been tabled and which was preceded by thorough study and the comprehensive evidence which was heard and facts which were taken into consideration—we find that there are certain hon. members of this House who do not have confidence in these proposals of the S.A. Defence Force. The hon. member for Sasolburg had alleged that that was not logical. I want to agree with him wholeheartedly. I cannot understand how we can fail to have confidence in such an organization as the S.A. Defence Force, which deserves appreciation for the tasks it is performing and the results it is achieving. For me, too, this is incomprehensible.

Briefly the reasons why this amending Bill is essential are the following. Firstly we must consider the physical onslaught, the threat to the Republic of South Africa as we see it in these times. The S.A. Defence Force is geared to ensuring the security, the freedom and the stability of the Republic of South Africa. That is its responsibility, and the S.A. Defence Force was charged with this responsibility and duty by this House. To be able to do so the S.A. Defence Force, inter alia, needs manpower which knows how to discharge its task and why, has the will and the motivation to discharge this task and is equipped to do so. What this manpower plan, or the proposed national service system makes provision for, is to have the manpower available when it is required. This manpower plan is flexible and adaptable. Depending on the nature and intensity, and on the escalation or de-escalation of the threat, this manpower plan will be able to make provision for it. In other words, if no threat exists, there is no obligation either. If the threat should intensify, however, there is more manpower available to cope with the threat. If the threat were to diminish, the need for manpower and the obligation which is imposed on that manpower also diminishes. This flexibility of the manpower is a very important aspect.

There is also the aspect that this manpower plan is a long-term plan. It is not a short-term plan. It cannot be put into operation straight away. All those involved in this plan will be informed, after Parliament has agreed to the statutory amendments. We cannot inform them at this early juncture because a Select Committee is going to give attention to the statutory amendments, and that committee may possibly suggest changes. However, the point I want to make is that this is a long-term plan.

This manpower plan, in other words the new national service system, is not a mobilization. I know certain newspapers reported that it meant a mobilization, but that is not the case. It is no more of a mobilization than the present national service system is.

Certain factors, which were mooted by certain hon. members in this House, were taken into consideration in the statutory amendments and I should like to refer to these. The first aspect is that what we are concerned with here is the economy of South Africa. With the new national service plan, far more consideration is given to the economy than the present national service system does. In other words, the new manpower plan is an improvement on the existing one. It goes without saying that one should constantly strive for a sound and viable economy. We must remember that it will be of no avail if we have a strong security force which is able to defend the country against any physical onslaught, but do not have a growing economy as a result of that, or we perhaps have an economy which is stagnating. The new national service system makes better provision for the protection of the economy than the present system does.

A second factor which I find important is that the new national service system has greater regard for the individual circumstances of every person involved than the present system does. The new national service system should therefore necessitate fewer personal sacrifices, and I think that that is also an improvement.

All in all, even among certain hon. members of the PFP, there is a general understanding of the manpower problems of the S.A. Defence Force. The differences between the PFP and us lies in the approach to the problem of finding a solution which will cause the least disruption to the individual. I repeat: It must cause the individual the least possible disruption and do the least possible harm to the country’s economy.

The approach adopted in the Bill is the result of a thorough study which, as I have already indicated, lasted for almost two years. It was an inquiry in which various possibilities were studied and weighed up against one another. I accept that there will be differences of opinion concerning the details of the proposals, and that is precisely why I wish to refer this measure to a Select Committee. However, any person who dissociates himself from the principles contained in the proposals does not understand what this is all about and is indifferent to the onslaught on the Republic, or thinks little of the interests of our country.

The hon. member for Yeoville advanced various arguments in support of his amendment on the Order Paper. To this the hon. member for Pretoria West, and other hon. members on this side of the House as well, replied very effectively. The hon. member for Durban Point, too, made a sturdy contribution in this connection, for which I wish to thank him very much indeed. Apart from the question of immigrants, conscientious objectors or rather religious objectors, and the amendment of section 118 of the Defence Act, therefore, I do not wish to elaborate any further on the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. members of his party who spoke in support of his amendment.

I have already pointed out that inquiries in regard to the immigrants and religious objectors are in progress. These are both sensitive matters to which very thorough consideration has to be given because what is involved on the one hand is people within our country whose technical skills we need very badly, but who we feel should nevertheless also make a contribution towards safeguarding our country. In the other case we are concerned with the views some people have of military service. Consequently it is not possible to deal with these matters over-hastily. However, the Bill which is now before this House can no longer be delayed pending the result of those inquiries.

As for the proposed amendment of section 118, it is not being envisaged that an amendment to this section will have a material effect, if it has any, on the proposals embodied in the Bill. Any amendment to the section which may prove to be necessary could consequently stand over until a later stage, and I would say that it could even stand over until next year.

Another point which the hon. member for Yeoville raised was that a Select Committee should examine the manpower requirements of the S.A. Defence Force in the context of the manpower requirements of the economy and the working and family lives of individuals. I see this as my responsibility, and however well the hon. member meant it, I do not intend to confer this responsibility on a Select Committee of the House.

The hon. member for Durban Point asked the hon. member for Verwoerdburg who he had been trying to convince with his elucidation of the threat. I hasten to say that I was exceptionally impressed by the elucidation of the threat and how it was sketched. In this connection I am also thinking of the hon. member for Simonstown and other hon. members on this side who elaborated on it. The hon. member for Durban Point accepted that there was a threat, but then added that we were overplaying our hand in this connection. It seems to me he did not accept the briefings on the threat which he received here from the Defence Force.

The main criticism levelled at this Bill on the part of the hon. member for Durban Point was that the stated manpower requirements were disproportionately high vis-à-vis the threat and that the proposals had been poorly marketed. I think his bench-fellow made the same statement. I shall return later to the marketing of the proposals.

The hon. member Mr. Vermeulen and the hon. members for Sasolburg, Umfolozi, Swellendam, Kroonstad, Virginia, Simonstown, Vryheid, Johannesburg West and Beaufort West all motivated the need of the S.A. Defence Force for more manpower in an extremely competent way. Their contributions, as well as those of the hon. members of Pretoria West and Verwoerdburg, testified to a very good grasp of the problem and thorough preparation, and I wish to thank them very sincerely. They represent urban and rural constituencies and are therefore able to speak with authority on the situation in its widest context.

†I introduced this Bill fully realizing the resultant effect that it would have on the economy of this country and on every individual affected by it. To suggest, however, that the proposed measures are out of proportion to the threat and that the marketing of it was badly handled can only be ascribed to ignorance in respect of the actual situation and a passive attitude towards reporting in this regard. In my maiden speech in this House at the beginning of 1981, as well as during last year’s Defence budget debate, I elaborated on the escalation of the onslaught against South Africa. Several other members of the Government also directed attention to this threat in public speeches. Therefore, I consider it necessary to react to an accusation made by the hon. member for Durban Point who said that the way in which this threat was presented to the public was losing its impact and also that the public regarded the threat as exaggerated.

Let us consider some facts which recently came to my attention.

I did not say it was exaggerated; I said it was misdirected.

Very well, misdirected. A member of the so-called African Department of the USSR Academy of Science in Prague stated that one, Anatoly Gromyko submitted a document. Let us see who this gentleman is. At present he is the director of the African Institute of the Soviet Academy of Science. He succeeded Mr. Solodovnikov as director. Mr. Solodovnikov was until recently the executor of the USSR strategy towards and in Southern Africa and was stationed in Lusaka. Mr. Gromyko’s father is at present the Foreign Minister of the USSR, Andre Gromyko. This gentleman, Mr. Gromyko, submitted a document in which the South African ANC was declared the only legal representative of the people of South Africa. This document has been accepted as a basis for the planning and execution of the onslaught against South africa. It contains directions for the preliminary action to be taken by the Third World countries to get it accepted by the UN General Assembly. It is also stated that only one liberation front should be tackled at a time and that the Namibia problem should be the first priority. After the liberation of South West Africa the South African ANC should replace Swapo. The most important aspect of Gromyko’s document is the statement, and I quote—

Gromyko also propagated international and United Nations recognition of the ANC in order to strengthen its relations with Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Zambia; international acceptance of military action by South African ANC in South Africa; and a new dimension to international rejection of South Africa. As part of his strategy he even declared it initially desirable for the South African ANC to dissociate itself from the S.A. Communist Party.

How can there still be any doubt, Sir, in anyone’s mind about the identity of the power behind the threat against South Africa and any doubt as to the reality of this threat? How can there still be people who say that they cannot see how the South African system could be defended militarily?

*How can we be so absolutely naïve? What happened in Afghanistan, Angola, Mozambique, Rhodesia, Poland and Cuba, and is happening even in the present conflict in Central America? Surely they have no apartheid there. Allow me to put it to you in this way: Those who wish to lay the blame for the onslaught at the door of the Government are too deaf to hear, they will never hear. The fact of the matter is that our policy is being misused and misrepresented to further the aims of communism.

They did not have apartheid, but they had other problems.

However, I trust that hon. members of this House—and I am saying this specifically to the hon. member for Groote Schuur—will not be instrumental in furthering the activities of our enemies by making irresponsible statements.

This Government has committed itself to evolutionary change in an orderly way and in a climate of security and progress. The S.A. Defence Force is therefore obliged to remain efficient so as to ensure a stable economy in which adjustments can take place unhindered.

†The hon. members for Constantia and Durban Central should also take note of this and acquaint themselves with the evidence led in the American Senate committee on the aims and activities of the S.A. Communist Party through its agents, the South African ANC, the PAC and Swapo. [Interjections.]

*While I am referring to Swapo now I also wish to mention that we have just had another practical example of the military onslaught on this level. Hon. members will recall that very recently the command structures of the terrorist organizations of Swapo in Southern Angola were virtually destroyed by the S.A. Defence Force. They will therefore realize that the Defence Force is in all respects in control of the overall operational situation. In spite of this, however, we learned this afternoon of intensified activities of three terrorist groups on the so called red line in the operational area of South West Africa. Use is even being made of Sam 7 missiles. I want to ask the hon. member for Wynberg whether he still argues, even now, against operations across the national borders to wipe out the enemy in their places of concealment. [Interjections.] In his speech the hon. member for Wynberg crossed swords with the hon. member for Sasolburg in regard to operations across the frontiers, and I want to refer him to Hansard columns 4683 and 4684 of 24 September 1981, in which I spelt out clearly the policy of the S.A. Defence Force in this connection.

These terrorist groups in South West Africa to which I have referred are being pursued and, as in the past, they are also going to be destroyed if they do not flee to Angola in time. That is another demonstration why our people in such potential target areas—and I am referring now to potential target areas in the Republic of South Africa—should be prepared for this kind of onslaught. Along the borders of South Africa there are several such potential target areas; in fact I believe there are just as many, if not more than there are in South West Africa. The answer to this type of onslaught is a well-organized and manpower-intensive territorial defence organization. Without this—and it has been proved in other parts of the world—such a war cannot be won. This is the crux of the whole situation and this Bill makes provision for it.

It is also fitting on his occasion that I convey the condolences of the Government and also those of the S.A. Defence Force to the next-of-kin of the members of both the territorial force of South West Africa as well as those of the S.A. Defence Force who lost their lives in the latest follow-up operation.

In almost every public speech since my appointment to this portfolio I have held out the prospect of the creation of an amended national service system, as I also did last year in replies to questions from the official Opposition in this House. We shall not be able to look our children in the eye if we see the dangers approaching in the distance and sit here with our arms folded waiting for them to arrive. The Defence Force must make a proper assessment of the nature and magnitude of the onslaught, and plan for the worst possible situation. However, this does not mean immediate mobilization of all the White male citizens, as some newspaper reports would have it. No, Sir, all that is being done is to create the machinery so that we can be prepared, and to activate the manpower only to that extent which the military onslaught requires. Consequently I am referring again to a flexible manpower plan which can make provision for the escalation and the de-escalation of the threat. In this connection I wish to refer specifically to the national reserve as it is constituted at present and which consists of approximately 800 000 men. Although some of these people are living in the rural areas, i.e. in areas with a high potential for a military onslaught, no one in a position of authority has so far, even by implication, alleged that everyone under the age of 60 will summarily be called up. I should like to repeat this: No one in a position of authority has stated—not even by implication—that everyone under the age of 60 will be summarily called up for compulsory military duty. Surely it would be nonsensical and wasteful simply to call up these reservists and utilize them in places where no threat exists, or even to call them up simply to keep them busy. Surely it is a basic necessity that members of the Defence Force should be motivated. They must know what they have to do, they must want to do it and they must be able to do it, and we must know that they will do it. That is why we shall not simply call them up.

On the other hand, it would be just as nonsensical not to prepare those living in an area where their security is directly threatened to defend themselves, or not to grant them the statutory power to defend themselves against an enemy, or to withhold from them the means and the skills with which to protect themselves.

Unfortunately it is true that in such areas there are people who do not voluntarily wish to become members of the commando, or do not wish to participate actively in the security activities. I must add that no matter how attractive we make the conditions of service in regard to this voluntary national service, the Defence Force surely cannot call up national servicemen to utilize them in threatened areas if the local inhabitants themselves are indifferent to their security. For example there is an area near our northern border where only three of the altogether fifty inhabitants are members of the local commando. Obviously we cannot afford this kind of situation at the present juncture. I therefore wish to emphasize that the training of older people who are needed for area defence in such areas, will be functional. Consequently it will not be as comprehensive as the training of the reactive elements, which consist primarily of the younger men.

The concept of area defence stems from the lessons which we learned in South West Africa, Mocambique and Angola and also from the Rhodesian war, as well as from experiences elsewhere in the world. We would be foolish if we did not learn these lessons and, having learned them, did not apply them.

As far as the industrial commandos are concerned, there is also a serious need to utilize members of the present national reserve. Surely it goes without saying that the intimate knowledge of the workers at such industries of the layout and characteristics of such an industry make them pre-eminently suitable to protect such industries. Consequently the philosophy is basically sound. It is to help people to help themselves to protect their homes and evironment, and I do not think there is anyone who can object to that.

What I am trying to say, therefore, is that the call-up, training and utilization of this national reserve of 800 000 men will take place in order of priority, according to need, and will be based on specific factors. It will be preceded by thorough planning and will take place in phases. Firstly the particulars of members of the national reserves will have to be obtained. This includes the registration of certain people, an aspect which the hon. member for Yeoville emphasized in his argument in favour of his amendment. After this the Defence Force must compare and adjust its manpower need assessment in accordance with the available manpower. This manpower need will have to be deduced from the operational requirements.

After that the army commands will put the necessary training programme into operation, and members of the national reserves can then be drawn into and utilized in terms of such a programme. The present operational situation requires that only a fraction, a minimal percentage, of the national reserve will now have to undertake military obligations of a maximum of 12 days in the year. These people are at present required primarily in the rural areas. If the threat escalates in future, a larger quantity of manpower can be made available in this way. It is therefore clear that in certain rural areas larger percentages of members of the national reserves will be required to render assistance than may be the case in other areas, for example in cities, as a result of the operational requirements and also as a result of the differences in population density of the respective places.

It was also asked what effect the proposals would have on civil defence. The reply is that members with a Citizen Force obligation will not be allowed to become members of civil defence organizations. Members of the national reserve will be allowed to join civil defence organizations on a controlled basis and will, as long as they are members of those organizations, not be taken into consideration for commando service. The fear that the utilization of the national reserves will in any way lead to economic deterioration is of course completely unfounded. It will be ensured under all circumstances that the economy is not harmed. In fact, the proposed national service system ought to place fewer restrictions on the economy than the present system does. It has been demonstrated on innumerable occasions that a country’s determination to defend itself creates greater foreign investor confidence. In its turn this leads to expansion, accompanied by prosperity. The new system of area defence is in fact aimed at accommodating the one man business, and I am referring here in particular to the young farmer, in that a member may still continue to look after his own interests while he is discharging his military obligations. This applies to all members of the commandos, and is also to the benefit of workers and employers. Workers will be able to comply with their military obligations without having to leave their occupations for long periods or without having to leave their occupations at all. At this stage I do not wish to say anything further about the national reserves. I think that I have now indicated clearly enough that this matter was approached in a well-balanced way.

I fully endorse the standpoint that we should have a larger Permanent Force, with increased participation of the other population groups. It is the objective to treble the operational capacity of the other population groups in the full-time force during the next five years. However, it must be emphasized that the Permanent Force, like the rest of the Public Service, has to compete for manpower on the open market. It is very idealistic to strive for a larger Permanent Force, but we must also take practical experience into account.

Criticism has recently been expressed in regard to the utilization of highly skilled persons during their initial national service and their subsequent citizen force period of service. This is a problem, but the only fair principle which could be applied was to give priority to military requirements. It is the policy to utilize people in their respective fields of occupation, but wherever there is an oversupply of or no demand for such services, it is obvious that such people cannot be exempted. In such cases they are utilized in other militarily productive ways. I have already mentioned that an investigation into productivity is also in progress. This investigation was instituted in order to increase the efficiency and productivity of the manpower, and I think that this investigation could to good effect, be concentrated on this occupational orientation of the national servicemen, as well as the Citizen Force and the commandos.

A problem which we previously experienced was that, members rendering operational service in the Army had to do the most service. Consequently there were attempts on the part of national servicemen to be assigned instead to the Navy, the Air Force or the Medical Service. Under the new system, however, everyone will be treated alike and everyone, regardless of which arm of the Defence Force they are in, will do the same service.

As for the accusation that the marketing of the system was poor, a country-wide opinion poll was conducted among approximately 600 White respondents. This happened immediately after the tabling of this Bill and the investigation conducted was based on scientific principles. I want to give hon. members the findings so that we can see whether the system was poorly marketed, as certain gentlemen alleged they had observed. The finding of this scientifically based investigation was that a total of 89,3%, therefore almost 90% knew about the changes. Consequently the system was excellently marketed. Of the 68,6%, or almost 70%, who reacted positively to the new system, approximately 36% said that they considered it to be high time and in the national interests, while 32% saw it as their duty. Only 9,4% or almost 10%, considered the system to be unjustifiable.

The Progs!!

I deduce from this that the Bill was very well marketed.

The purpose of this marketing plan was to …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he would be prepared to tell us who undertook that market research for him?

It was done by a section of the Defence Force. After all, the hon. member has full confidence in the operational utilization of the Defence Force. I therefore have full confidence in the results of this type which they give me. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister further whether he would be prepared to give us a copy of the results of the market research?

No!

I shall consider it.

I wish to go a little further with this marketing plan. The purpose of the marketing plan throughout was to inform the public about the national service system and to make them aware of the threat staring the Republic of South Africa in the face. I want to indicate what was done. Since August last year I made seven speeches and in each I spoke about the national service system and the threat. Two years ago the former Deputy Minister announced in Parliament that the national service system would be investigated. In January the head of the Defence Force had an interview with the Financial Mail and in all his speeches since August he has referred to the threat as well as to the alteration of the national service system which would have to take place. I have already stated that organized commerce was consulted. All citizen force and commando commanding officers were briefed two days before the statutory amendments were tabled. The Press was briefed on the threat, the philosophy behind the national service system and the manpower plan three days prior to tabling.

In particular I wish to pay tribute to the military correspondents for their help in this connection. I am referring, for example, to the balanced presentation of this matter in the Cape Times and in the Saan newspapers, as well as to the absolute correctness and balanced reporting on the national service system which appeared in the Nasionale Pers and Perskor newspapers. Since last year the military correspondents have constantly been writing speculative reports in the newspapers, based on deductions concerning the national service system which they were able to make from their contacts with the Defence Force. At the beginning of last year already the Rand Daily Mail was speculating about the extended obligation. Consequently those reports began to appear in 1981 already. The media is given confidential briefings three to four times a year on the escalation of the threat and the security situation, and they inform the public accordingly. The editors of newspapers were informed of the motivation behind the legislation which is now before us. The Defence Force’s own publication, Paratus, was also utilized, firstly to spell out the threat, and subsequently to give attention to the question of creating a favourable climate. During the session last year the Opposition put questions to me on this aspect, and I replied to them. The defence study groups of all parties were informed of the problems we were experiencing, of the threat against us, in regard to expected operations and the solution that was proposed. We must remember that it would be presumptuous on the part of the S.A. Defence Force to have marketed all the details of the proposed statutory amendments, for then it would have offended Parliament, because Parliament may still amend the legislation. Consequently we were only able to market the legislation in general outline, so that people would be aware of it. To my mind it is really fantastic to think that 90% of the respondents knew about these amendments.

Subsequently brochures will be made available for scholars on all levels, information is going to be given to schools, there will be further consultations with commerce, an offer has been made for this aspect to be explained by means of the radio and television, and I can also mention that the Chief of the Defence Force will appear in News Survey on television on Sunday evening, precisely in order to discuss certain details of the national service system. With reference to hon. members having said that this was a poor marketing effort, I wish to allege that the marketing effort in respect of these statutory amendments was the best which has ever been made in regard to legislation before this House.

†Mr. Speaker, I want to quote from the Eisenhower Diaries, under the date 22 January 1952—

*Mr. Speaker, that, in a nutshell, is what is envisaged by the proposed national service system in respect of manpower planning and utilization.

I should like to conclude and refer once again to the representations made by the PFP for this Bill to be referred to a Select Committee before the Second Reading. Initially, before notice was given of the introduction of the Bill, I myself considered referring the legislation to a Select Committee prior to the Second Reading. The chairman of the NP study group on Defence, as well as the spokesmen on defence of the Opposition parties, can testify to this. However, the contents of the Bill were leaked to a local newspaper group before the actual Bill was introduced in this House and unbalanced particulars were published by those newspapers. I am certain that we here in this House have a good idea of where the leak occurred. The damage which this leak did to the S.A. Defence Force and the prestige of this country, compelled me to refer the Bill to a Select Committee only after the Second Reading. I am certain the official Opposition now knows on whom to lay the blame and why I cannot accede to their request.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker. I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.