Mr. Speaker, during this Part Appropriation debate today I wish to speak about the rise and the power of the Third World and the place winch it is taking on the international economic level. South Africa is in the midst of the Third World. We are living together with the Third World. We are surrounded by the Third World. We are creating the Third World around us. With the coming of political independence to the Transkei during this year, we ourselves shall have made a further contribution to the Third World, a Third World in terms of production capacity, production volume and financial power. Inflation concerns the Third World. Our whole attempt at détente concerns the Third World. The events in Angola and Mozambique, the rise to power of no matter what state, are closely interwoven with the Third World.

†The Chinese representative at the 29th session of the General Assembly of the United Nations said—

Mr. Speaker, there are at least 43 very poor countries in the Third World. Many of these countries are one-product countries. Almost all of these countries suffer from a shortfall in their export earnings from commodities which constitute and account for 40% of the world’s export trade in raw materials. Most of the countries of the Third World are undernourished. But what is important to us, is that the disparity between the Western world and the Third World has become so obvious that influential, conservative and realistic politicians, economists and governments are questioning the moral and the political acceptance of a world economic order in the long run, as long as the disparity between the industrialized nations and the Third World’s countries remains as they say, so “horrific”.

Mr. Speaker, we must not labour for one moment under the misunderstanding that the Third World commands no power. Although the Third World represents an unparallelled variety, a spectrum of racial, financial, ideological variations, as well as a variety of economic systems, they constitute and maintain a formidable force and power on the international, political and economic scene. The Third World has a contingent of over 100 members at the United Nations. This is larger than the East-West combination. The Third World has the power to create chaos. No problem can be solved without the cooperation of the Third World. To solve all the international currency problems the Third World’s co-operation is absolutely necessary. To exploit mineral resources in the sea—which will be imperative in future—needs the co-operation of the Third World. To combat international terrorism and to control international drug smuggling the co-operation of the Third World is absolutely necessary. The Third World has already organized an oil cartel. They have shown their power there. At the sixth special session of the United Nations General Assembly they indicated and demanded that they wanted to establish cartels for iron ore, timber, coffee, phosphates, components of fertilizers, tin, copper, etc. These are all raw materials. According to the National Minerals Policy Commission in the United States, the United States will in the year 2000 be compelled to import 80% or more of all her raw materials.

The Third World has ordered the West to drop its association with South Africa and Israel. At the Bandung conference in 1955, where all the Third World countries gathered, there was a shared experience of colonialism. This generated the uhuru process. After it became apparent that political independence—uhuru—with its dominating emotional infrastructure, proved to be an impotent generator of stable and viable economic structures, it was replaced by another credo. This credo was “Harmony”. On this basis they issued and raised demands against the developed and industrialized countries of the Western world. At the sixth special session of the United Nations’ General Assembly held in Lima, Peru, they raised certain demands of which we must take notice. They demanded index linking of developing countries’ export prices to the prices they paid for imports. They demanded preferential treatment of developing countries in international trade and other sectors. They demanded the acknowledgment of the sovereignty of each and every State in respect of its natural resources and over-all economic activity up to and including the expropriation of foreign investments along national lines and without regard to international law. They demanded the orientation of the international monetary system to the interests of developing nations, including the funding of development schemes by the International Monetary Fund. They also demanded the technological transfer on preferential terms, and with Government guarantees that the developing countries would be the beneficiaries. They demanded independence for South West Africa and Rhodesia. At the session of the General Assembly last year their demands included the democratization of world politics through the strengthening of the influence of international organizations such as terrorist movements. They even want to reduce the privileges of major companies. They want to abolish the veto right at the Security Council.

Their new Magna Carta, a declaration of principles and an action programme, is nothing else than a demand for the establishment of a new world economic order. Now we sit in the position where the world has ceased to be divided into dependent and independent nations. It has become a world of interdependent nations. We cannot escape this fact. Apart from raw materials which the Third World demands, there is the manpower reserves of the Third World which has gained in importance in the industrialized countries, and it is very important to remember that this is the strongest instrument and power of the Third World.

We are now faced with these problems. We are faced with the power of the Third World and with their demands.

*We are also faced with the inexorable and inescapable fact that some of our largest trading partners in the world lend a ready ear to the demands of the Third World. In October we are going to create a geo-politically independent state here. In view of the Third World and its actions and the political relationship structure which they are building up between themselves and the Whites and between themselves and the Western world, it remains to be seen whether we will succeed in keeping the Transkei out of the clutches of the Third World. This question is much more important than just the political independence of the Transkei. Political independence of the Transkei is one step. Just as becoming a Republic was one step on our way to freedom, and just as great occurrences in our history have only been single steps on the way to complete emancipation of the White man, so will the political freedom which the Transkei will obtain during the course of this year be only one step. After this political freedom, the great struggle for freedom of our Whites will begin, that is whether we will succeed in obtaining true freedom. True freedom is this, and it is contained in the order and instruction in God’s Word: “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread and thou shalt dwell in the land I hath given thee and thou shalt keep it and till it.’’ Will we as Whites be able to obtain this complete freedom, not just the political independence gained by making the Transkei independent and free, but will we be able to earn our freedom? By working for this ourselves and by maintaining this we shall be equipped to carry out the instructions stated in God’s Word.

Détente, which is taking place at the moment between Russia and America and which is taking place here in our own fatherland with its internal population groups which are flowing over our borders, is not a new policy. We do not have our backs to the wall and we are not practising détente in order to save ourselves. Détente and negotiations, seeking good relationships, exploiting every occasion to cultivate, develop, maintain and extend good relationships, is as old as the Afrikaner’s political philosophy. In the past we practised détente with the Barolongs. Marroko, the Barolong chief, established détente with the Voortrekkers at Thaba ’Nchu when cattle were taken from the farmers by the Matabele at Vegkop in 1836. The paramount chief of the Barolong sent oxen to bring the homeless people back to Thaba ’Nchu. The Barolong fought the Matabele side by side with us. Marroko remained a friend of the Boers until his death in 1888. We also practised détente with the Zulus and were on very good terms with Mapanda as a result of the negotiations with Mapanda which Hans “Dons” De Lange initiated in September 1839, the latter accompanied Pretorius on his second expedition against Dingaan at the Makopo Hills in Natal and helped to deal him the final blow. We also practised détente with the Matabele. Piet Potgieter—I am just mentioning the names—Andries Pretorius, F. G. Joubert, Marthinus Wessels Pretorius, J. W. Viljoen, negotiated with Umzilikaze. What did Piet Relief want from Dingaan? Did he go to make war? Or did he go to negotiate? What did Louw Wepener want from Moshesh?—

When Paul Kruger sent Piet Grobler to Lobengula north of our borders, Piet Grobler actually became the first White ambassador sent by Paul Kruger. He was murdered by Kgama, die paramount chief of the Bamangwato tribe, out of jealousy because he had not also been elected to receive a White envoy by Paul Kruger. I could go on in this vein.

I say that détente with the Third World, which we are now engaged in, is not a new policy. It forms and has always formed an integral part, of the Afrikaner Nationalist’s political philosophy and of his political views and political actions. Let them say that détente is a sign of weakness; that détente is a sign of changes to come. What changes? Now we suddenly have to get rid of discrimination. Which discrimination must we get rid of? Stand up and tell us.

But you say so yourselves.

Discrimination is something which never existed in our history. We have never had discrimination in the form which the enemy wants to force down our throats. What they call discrimination were measures taken by us over the years, coffer dams which we built while we were building the great barrage. [Interjections.] The discrimination which we practised consisted chiefly of measures in aid of another goal, and we reached that goal and we are reaching it today, and we see and we enjoy the fruits of that goal which we strove for. That was to apply measures which were considered to be discriminatory by our enemies in the interests of the maintenance of peace and order in South Africa. Sir, without boasting, I can say here today that South Africa has developed one of the happiest and one of the most stable political and economic systems in the whole world through the application of those measures. Basically this is due to those measures which we applied. Whatever Government may emerge in Angola, it will mean only one thing, namely a further addition to the Third World on our borders. We must expect an emotional infrastructure to be built up against us, just as it was built up against the Western world at Bandung and just as it was built up in the United Nations. We must expect this and it will play a decisive role. They will make demands and they will find an audience among our most important trading partners. Whatever Government may emerge in Angola, it is clear to me that the present actions of Russia in Angola are aimed at integrating the existing north-south axis, a conflict which exists between the Third World and the developed countries, and to turn this into a global east-west-north-south conflict situation. We shall have to take calm and judicious action to steer clear of the Third World’s emotional demands, its radical demands, its one-sided demands, but at the same time to keep from the emotional sphere of influence of the Third World these Black states which are being created by us and whose independence and survival will be dependent on our prosperity, our strength, our ability and our will power for many years to come. Sir, I said that we were living in the midst of the Third World. I said that our ability to survive did not depend only on political independence or political emancipation. We shall also have to be economically strong. We shall have to remain productive. We shall have to be judicious and economical. These are all lessons which we have learned. We will have to meet the greatest challenge which separate development sets us, that is, the motivation which will be required of us, the will power, the will to survive which we will have to show on the other side of the geo-political line between us and the Black man. I appreciate the programme of action against inflation devised by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs.

I suppose you are the only one to do so.

I agree with it wholeheartedly. But there is one thing that we must not forget, and the hon. the Minister must keep this in mind. All the people in South Africa who are under 40 years of age—and they are by far the majority—have never dealt with a conflict situation in South Africa. They have not experienced a single day of poverty. They have a one-track line of thought, and this is prosperity and advancement. They have never experienced a depression. They do not know the results and the sorrow of impoverishment and the tragedy of poverty. I want to ask the Minister, and I am very serious in asking this: Is he convinced that this action programme, this manifesto which has been signed, is a full-scale attempt considering the full-scale war which we must wage? Have the young people in our schools been actively involved in this process, these people who know nothing about suffering and who know nothing about financial sacrifice, who have never had anything to do with conflict situations on the economic or military front? Is the Minister convinced that this attempt of his is sufficient? Because if a full-scale action programme is not launched amongst our youth, then I fear that this scheme will not achieve all that it is meant to. I therefore want to request earnestly that we carry through this action programme against inflation. And it is not only inflation that we are fighting. In an action programme like this there are several other components which, when inflation has been conquered will make a beneficial appearance and will crystallize and carry us forward as a single White state, surrounded by states which at the moment are in the midst of the sphere of influence of the Third World. Sir, we do not live forever. Everyone who is sitting here will disappear from the scene at some time or other, and our places will be taken by those who are young today. We can face any economic confrontation because we come from a time in which we were taught how to face difficulties. I am worried—and I do not merely say this here in popular political language. I am really worried about the fact that the motivation for our struggle against inflation and for the evaluation of the military crisis on our borders is not yet right. Just look at the public and see how many things are still a cause of concern. There are many things which lead one to the conclusion that much more can be done with regard to motivation.

In addition to all the problems which we have, the Minister of Finance and the Government are confronted by an Opposition—and do not think that I am now trying to steal a political march on them—which is not playing the role it ought to within the political dispensation of today. [Interjections.] Just as a responsibility rests on the present Government with regard to its handling of the confrontation on several fronts, a heavy responsibility also rests on the Opposition, in respect of Angola, as well as of the other problems we face—and they know this; they know it as well as we do—to take an intelligent and a strong stand in relation to the Government of today.

I said yesterday that the hands of some of our young members sitting here were itching to fight. Today they are fighting against the Progressive Party. Three-quarters of the speeches which are made here are attacks directed against the Progressive Party. The UP is completely disregarded. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Carltonville did well to warn us against the dangers of the influence of the Third World and the importance it would have for us to keep newly emerging independent States in South Africa from falling too much under that influence. He also did well to warn and to remind us that detente was an old historical policy. However, I cannot agree with his conclusion that if détente in the past succeeded without the removal of discrimination, it will do so today. I think he is reading history wrongly. I do not think that he realizes that times have changed. The influences that are rampant today were, shall I say, somnolent at that time.

I do not think he appreciates what resentment has been built up by the placing on the Statute Book of statutory discrimination in South Africa. [Interjections.]

When the hon. member for Carletonville started speaking, he said one of the subjects he was going to deal with was the Angolan situation. I want to follow him in that regard, and in doing so I wish to direct attention, not to what has happened, but to present and future problems, save in one important respect. I think it is very necessary to get into correct historical perspective exactly what has happened in Angola, without minimizing present and future dangers. I think we must also look at what the size of the operation was, at the possibility of escalation and what would be involved if there was escalation. When we do that, we come to the conclusion that there were comparatively small forces involved up to the present time. Our own activity was more in the nature of an armed raid. It was not involvement in a war. There was very limited armour involved. There was a small number of really sophisticated weapons. There was little or no air involvement.

Even so, operations of that kind can be ghastly for the civilian population. I think we have to appreciate that what we have been involved in is a relatively limited affair and that it is going to remain such unless there is a vast build-up of weaponry and men—something that will take many months, possibly even years, and of which, I believe, we will have ample warning.

I say this particularly because I deplore from the bottom of my heart some of the alarmist talk that one hears about the place today. People do not seem to realize how strong we really are. I see no cause for this alarmism. I see no cause for the sort of defeatism that one hears in certain places. As far as I am concerned, and as far as my party is concerned, we are in good heart and we have full confidence in the ability of South Africa to meet these circumstances. We should not deny the fact that there are problems—tough and dangerous problems. I think it is right that we should isolate the more important of those, and see what we intend doing to meet them and what steps we can take to minimize them.

The first problem facing us is the protection of the works at Ruacana and Calueque, the construction works there. We have been well able to do that. To do it effectively, however, means that we have to have forces on Angolan soil. That is an immediate propaganda weapon for our enemies. I know we have said we are there at the request of the people of Owambo and that the works are of value to both the people of Owambo and of Angola. We have invited the United Nations to take over the job from us and to look after the works themselves, and to take over the responsibility. We have said we shall withdraw as soon as there was a stable Government in Angola with which we can negotiate in respect of the protection of our interests.

Who is going to decide when such a Government is stable? What is going to happen if they will not negotiate? What is going to happen if they remain hostile to us? We may reach a position in which the value of those works is going to be measured in terms of the human lives that have been lost in their protection. Who is going to take the decision? The Army, as the hon. the Minister of Defence seems to indicate? Or the politicians? I think people want to know.

The MPLA has already been accepted as a member of the OAU, although Great Britain and the United States have made it clear that they were not prepared to recognize this. Well-armed forces are getting closer to our borders. I would imagine that, before any attack would take place—if one was to come—there would be a lull; there would be a build up. I believe it is our duty to take advantage of any such pause to make contact, through intermediaries, with what may soon become a de facto government in Angola. I know that the position is extremely ticklish and I know that there are difficulties. I supported a resolution in Parliament, moved by the hon. the Prime Minister, to take all reasonable steps to protect our frontiers. I stand by that resolution and the Prime Minister knows it. By the same token, Sir, all reasonable measures, I feel, include the possibility of examining and exploring every possible avenue for negotiation before serious fighting can begin. That is one problem.

The second problem is that we are defending the boundary of South West Africa, at the request of the inhabitants. We are defending the boundary of a territory in which a large part of the civilized world holds that we have no right to be at all. They hold that we are there illegally. This is an old story and we have learned to live with it, but it is a propaganda weapon in the hands of our enemies. It means that we are not likely to get much assistance from anybody in the job we are doing there, no matter how just our cause; and I believe that our cause is just. I have always maintained that the mandate still exists, although the Government has taken another view. Be that as it may, we have a right to be there and we have a right to defend that boundary. We must, however, face the fact that we have a problem and that is a propaganda weapon that is going to be used against us.

We have a third problem, Sir, and that is that the Swapo terrorists will in all probability in future be operating from a friendly base in Angola, far more friendly than in the past. They will have easier access to weapons, weapons of a more sophisticated nature. They may well even receive active support. They will have to be contained by greater forces, probably at far greater expense than in the past. When one is faced with that sort of situation you cannot help asking yourself whether there are no steps that can be taken to separate the external, the terrorist, wing of Swapo from the internal wing of Swapo in South West Africa. Is there no possibility of the same sort of situation arising as has been achieved in Rhodesia with the division between Nkomo and Ndabaningi Sithole?

You cannot equate the two whatsoever.

I accept that we cannot equate the two, but I still think that one of our problems is that we have not yet identified the leaders of Swapo inside South West Africa. One of our problems is that we are not sure what their influence is. If I am to believe some of the things I have read in Dr. Tëtemeyer’s thesis, then their influence is far greater than I was led to believe and than we have been led to believe in this House. Sir, that influence …

If you believe that, then you believe wrongly.

The hon. the Prime Minister says that if I believe that, then I believe wrongly. I wish I could believe that the hon. the Prime Minister is correct when he says that, because I want to tell him that I have been most impressed by what I have read in that thesis and I have been most impressed by what I have heard as to the influence of that organization.

What did your own people tell you?

My own people tend to agree in many cases with Dr. Tӧtemeyer, but they are divided themselves as to the influence. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that if he could achieve the objective of having even a section of Swapo around the conference table, I believe he would be doing a great deal of good in solving this particular problem. The constitutional conference may be the channel and it may not, but I do not feel that enough attention is being given to this issue at the present time.

There is a fourth problem and that is the refugee problem. I raised it in an earlier debate and what a problem it has now become. What a problem it looks like becoming in the days that lie ahead. It may become our greatest problem. It may become a far greater problem than defending our borders, once tens of thousands of people get on the move with terror behind them. Mr. Speaker, that is a problem that some of us saw at the end of World War II. Some of us have experience of it and nothing stops those people.

We realized that long before you did.

What a happy interjection! If the hon. gentleman realized it long before I did, what have they done? That is what I am asking today. I am asking, Sir, what they have done about it. You see, Sir, we are faced with this situation. It may be our biggest problem, but it is also our strongest propaganda weapon with the outside world because it underlines, as nothing else could, the hypocrisy and the cynicism of the Russian and Cuban intervention. It proves conclusively that the MPLA is being imposed upon Angola by force of arms in a way that the outside world cannot deny and cannot fail to see. It is our strongest weapon and how it shows up the United Nations Organization! Look at the excuses they are using to avoid giving assistance and taking control of a situation of that kind. But, Sir, is the outside world being told of this enough? Is it being driven home?

We have told each and everyone on many, many occasions just what the magnitude of the problem is.

The hon. the Prime Minister says he has told them on many occasions. I can only say that I do not believe he has told them enough. I do not believe that it has been enough in the Press of the world and I do not believe our information services are doing enough to get this message over. I want to know, Sir, what we are doing to put pressure on the United Nations. Surely, in the absence of a stable Government in Angola, the United Nations cannot be allowed to hide behind legal technicalities in failing to come forward to give assistance.

We have brought it to their attention; we have forcibly brought it to the attention of …

Why do you not make a speech?

I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will get up and make a speech and tell us more about it, because in an earlier debate in this House I promised him the support of the official Opposition for anything that was done within reason to provide asylum for these people and I reminded him of experiences after the Second World War. I do not see awfully much being done. I said these were tough problems, but what are we going to do about solving them? I believe the first thing we have to do is to take the offensive in the propaganda battle that is going on in the world at the present time. Remember that in this particular situation we are faced with the propaganda machine of the communist world, which is a very formidable weapon indeed. We have a great deal of ammunition, but the question is: Are we using it and using it adequately? We have the ammunition that the Russian intervention is absolutely blatant for all the world to see and that the Cuban intervention is even worse. We have the danger to the Cape sea route to exploit and we can refer to the revelations in regard to the aims of communism on the continent of Africa. They stick out like a sore thumb after what has been happening over the past few weeks. If ever there was a time for a diplomatic offensive in Africa, it is now. This is the time when our diplomats should be visiting every friendly country in Africa, every country to which we have an entrée, in order to drive home these points. The Government has said that our prestige has been increased as a result of our activities in Angola.

That should make the task easier. Let us see what has happened. A diplomatic offensive in Africa is important, but even more important is a diplomatic offensive amongst the countries of the Western world. Many Western countries, judging by what their statesmen say and what one reads in their newspapers, realize the dangers of what is happening. They are sympathetic. I believe many of them would like to help and I ask myself why they do not do so. What is the difficulty? I believe they hold back chiefly for one reason: The institutionalization and the constitutionalization of discrimination on the grounds of colour alone here in South Africa. I believe that that is the fundamental thing they shy away from every time. Even though their own interests are involved, they are afraid to become involved in assistance to South Africa because of the universal dislike of what I call the institutionalization of discrimination on the grounds of colour.

If only the Government could show some real progress towards doing what its ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. “Pik” Botha, said in respect of the removal of discrimination, I believe the whole attitude of the world could be changed in a comparatively short time. What happens, however? It is a question of two steps forward and one back. Hotels are declared open hotels, and then the most extraordinary restrictions are applied at the same time. We make ourselves the laughing stock of the world, and then tell them we are making progress. I believe the whole picture could be changed, and in a comparatively short time, not only in the West but also on the continent of Africa. Those are two things we could do.

There is a third thing that is vitally important, and that is that we must speed up the constitutional development in South West Africa. This matter is urgent. I drew the hon. the Prime Minister’s attention to it 18 months to two years ago. I spoke of the desirability of having somebody of ambassadorial status to try to get this conference off the ground. I spoke of the desirability of a member of the Cabinet, or more than one, being involved in the discussions. I am happy to say that our ambassador to the United Nations did visit South West Africa and did talk to a number of people. I am happy to say that a member of the Cabinet has left the Cabinet and is now representing his party in South West Africa. I have told the hon. the Prime Minister before that even our friends are losing patience with us. I have given the hon. gentleman excerpts from what was said at the Security Council, not by our enemies, but by France and the United States of America. People have been prepared to use their veto to protect our position. What has happened now, however? They are losing patience. The Security Council is once again laying down deadlines. I wonder whether the hon. the Prime Minister understands that the situation in South Africa is without any doubt the standing excuse for aggression by communist powers against South Africa. The whole world knows the situation. This is the danger of what has been allowed to develop in that area.

Do you think that a federal policy will change all that?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister is developing second sight. I believe he sees that the recommendation from that conference will be a federal constitution. I believe he knows that his own people in South West Africa do not exclude the possibility of a federal solution. I believe it is going to be a federal solution and I am very glad that the hon. the Prime Minister is getting used to the idea. Why does he not say he will support a federal solution? Then the whole world will know we are making progress. [Interjections.]

I know your speeches by heart. I know that that will be your next point. [Interjections.]

Oddly enough it is not. My next point is a very simple one: Is it not possible for this Government to speed up things from somewhat less than the pace of a tortoise so that the world can see that some progress is being made and that there is the possibility of a peaceful solution in South West Africa?

There is a fifth thing we shall have to do. It is obvious that we shall have to strengthen our defences, our weaponry and our forces. This is going to require, as I have said so often, economic and industrial development at a far greater pace in South Africa. This has been the theme of this debate. The hon. member for Constantia has emphasized it and I do not think I need to say more, except to emphasize the vital importance of increasing productivity in South Africa and of getting some crash training programme under way for those people who do not have the necessary skills at the present time.

I believe there is yet another matter I should raise. I believe we have to maintain and build up even further the morale of our own people—all our own people, White, Brown and Black. That is going to mean better information and a greater willingness on the part of the Government to take the public into its confidence on matters of this kind. It is also going to mean something else: It is going to mean fostering a common loyalty to South Africa amongst all our people and a strengthening of the will to resist, no matter how tough the going. I agree with the hon. member for Carletonville that we have had good times in South Africa. There are many middle-aged people who do not know about hard times. We must strengthen the will to resist, no matter how hard the times or how tough the going. The latest figures available indicate that in South Africa today we have a population of 25 million people, and these 25 million people have the best living standards in Africa. What an influence we could be if we were united completely in one common loyalty towards South Africa, with a most determined will to resist. What a formidable influence we could be in Southern Africa. What a formidable anti-communist influence we could be on the continent of Africa. However, we are not going to become that influence if we continue to risk the loyalty of many of our own people by discriminating against them on the grounds of colour and by so conducting our affairs that many of them find communism as attractive as the sort of situation in which they live in South Africa.

I think we also need to re-state our objectives. When I asked myself what our objectives are, I had very little difficulty in setting them out and describing them. I think our main objective is peace in southern Africa, but not peace at any price; peace in southern Africa, yes, but peace without foreign intervention or foreign interference. I believe we want to see the development of the economic strength of our region as a result of mutual help and co-operation between the countries of southern Africa. I believe we must accept our interdependence and the necessity of defensive alliances between us to resist foreign interference or intervention, no matter where it comes from. I think we have to make it clear that here in southern Africa we are African States with African problems which we are going to solve in an African way.

Lastly, I want to say that we South Africans are of Africa. We have as much right here as anybody else. I think the world must know and be told that we intend staying here, that we have the will to resist and that we shall do everything in our power to improve and maintain our position. I wonder if this is the Government to achieve those objectives. I am sorry to say that I do not believe it is.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke for half an hour and asked us to do certain things. More or less all the things he asked this Government to do, are the very things this Government is already doing. There is however one exception. The hon. member says our friends have always told him the cannot support us actively, because our policy of separate development makes it impossible for them. However, does he see his way clear to sell his policy to those friends? I have also been a member of a parliamentary delegation to overseas countries. There have been many parliamentary delegations that have visited overseas countries. When going overseas, we all try to sell South Africa to those overseas countries. The members of that hon. leader’s party tried to sell their party’s policy to those countries on the same occasions, but they have never had any success. The policy advocated by that hon. leader simply has no buyer. Nobody in this country or overseas wants it. There simply is no buyer for that policy. However I agree with the hon. leader that, in view of the dangers threatening us on our borders, it is absolutely essential for us to present a united front. This is what my hon. leader asked for. He asked that we should have unity in this country. We are grateful for the measure of support we receive from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party, although I cannot say the same of the hon. member for Sea Point and his party sitting in front of me. When one wants to bring about this unity one should act in all spheres in such a way that one has a content and motivated nation behind one. However, what was the reaction of the financial speakers of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whom we have heard in this debate up till now? By making mountains out of mole-hills they are creating a psychosis of dissatisfaction in the minds of the public. The party of the hon. member for Sea Point, of course, is also doing this, but to a far greater extent. Once one has created a psychosis of dissatisfaction in the minds of the nation, one can never bring about that unity again.

For that reason I want to deal with the financial aspect of the debate we are conducting now. I want to try and indicate that the hon. speakers opposite are merely trying to throw up smoke screens. I particularly want to deal with the hon. member for Johannesburg North, who was most certainly not very polite towards the hon. the Minister of Finance. To say the least, he was derogatory, presumptuous, and I would almost say insulting, towards the hon. the Minister of Finance. I would like to deal with that aspect. However, before coming to that, I would like to express my appreciation to him, because he sympathized with me for no longer being chairman of the Committee on Public Accounts. I want to thank him for that, but this is, of course, not the whole story. The hon. member uttered a few words here which, to me, reflected the whole philosophy behind his line of thought. He said—

Last year that hon. member sat considerably closer to the front on the benches opposite, because he was his party’s chief spokesman on finance. However, the hon. member for Yeoville has, in the meantime, been promoted from the back bench and moved to the front bench. Does the hon. member, with these words—

want to suggest that the hon. member for Yeoville does not have “the same intelligence” as he? [Interjections.] Regarding the new chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, I want to point out it was I who took the initiative. I handed in my resignation as chairman, because I was of the opinion that it was high time that the promising young men sitting on my side of this House, should be given a chance. If the hon. members had listened to the speeches which came from this side of the House yesterday as I was listening to them with great pride, they would understand what I am trying to say. We have so much talent on this side of the House. The speeches of the hon. member for Ermelo, who is sitting diagonally behind me, the hon. member for Sunnyside and the hon. members in the back benches were brilliant. [Interjections.] I feel myself completely free to retire in order to give them a chance.

Boet was good!

I said the hon. member for Johannesburg North had, in a certain sense, insulted the hon. the Minister of Finance, a Minister who, to my mind, is making a brilliant success of his task. I do not want to reply to all the argument advanced by the hon. member for Johannesburg North, because the hon. the Minister will give him the dressing down he deserves. However, the hon. member also directed a challenge to all the members on this side. The hon. the Minister of Finance had said in a speech quoted by the hon. member, that devaluation would not cause the standard of living of our people to drop. The hon. member for Johannesburg North then challenged us on this side to prove that that statement was true, because he suggests that devaluation will immediately cause the standard of living of all our people to drop. I want to accept the challenge immediately, because it is the most nonsensical statement I have ever heard. I cannot understand that an hon. member, who was his party’s chief spokesman on finance, can say such nonsensical things. I would like to mention an example. An apple farmer exports 50 000 boxes of apples. Last year he received R5 per box for those apples in Britain, but this year, simply as a result of devaluation, he will receive R6 a box.

But we import more than we export.

Perhaps I should rather say that he received R5 and R6 a box in the respective years. [Interjections.] I see the hon. member is shaking his head. He does not know what is going on. The apple farmer is now receiving 20% more than before in the form of foreign exchange. As far as the higher costs are concerned, inflation in overseas countries compensates for that, because the price increases there as well. The prices received for the first consignment of export fruit this year are already higher than those of last year. Therefore, the apple farmer receives R50 000 more for his 50 000 boxes of apples this year.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member why, if devaluation is such a good thing, we do not devalue every six months?

That question is a rather naïve one, but I would nevertheless like to tell the hon. member in one sentence why not: Devaluation is like good brandy; good stuff one should use sparingly.

I now come to the reason why devaluation does not cause our standard of living to drop. The apple farmer whom I referred to, now receives R50 000 more than he would have received had we not devalued. What does he do with the R50 000? Of course, he is not going to hand everything over to the Receiver of Revenue, nor is he going to spend everything on gambling in Maseru. He will distribute the bulk of it among his employees by paying them more. By paying them more, everyone is going to derive some advantage from it, and not disadvantage as the hon. member tried to prove to me on the basis of the statement made by the hon. the Minister.

Did devaluation make South Africa sell one more apple than it did before?

The fact is, and history has always proved it, that any devaluation in the short term entails very great advantages for any nation. I repeat: “In the short term”. For that reason it suits all of us to make full use of the breathing space devaluation affords us, so that we will be able to benefit from devaluation in the long term.

The hon. member said that since industrialists have to pay more for their machinery now, the production costs of domestic products will also rise. In the long term this is indeed the case, but how long will it take before its full effect is felt? The hon. member, after all, spoke of the immediate advantages and disadvantages of devaluation. What portion of the expenses of the White, Brown and Black labourers of my friend, the apple farmer, is spent on imported consumer goods? Definitely only a very small percentage. On the long run they are, on the whole, better off. For that reason I fully agree with the hon. the Minister of Finance that devaluation in the short term does not entail any disadvantage for our people, but only advantages.

And in the long term?

I have already said that through devaluation, we have a breathing space in the long term, a chance to get our affairs in order. If we apply self-discipline and not demand higher salaries and wages, we will also enjoy the advantages of devaluation in the long term. However, to be able to enjoy the long-term advantages, we will have to act in a much more disciplined manner.

I want to refer to one aspect in respect of which we will have to act in a much more disciplined manner, i.e. the question of buying on credit. It is a fact that our consumer spending increased from R5 621 million to R12 962 million over the past seven years, i.e. it was just more than double. During the same period our hire purchases and other advances with credit institutions increased from R636 million to R1 948 million, i.e. just more than a threefold increase. The advantages of credit are the same as that of devaluation, as I said in reply to a question by the hon. member for Hillbrow. Credit is just as good a thing as good brandy, but one has to use it sparingly, too. For that reason we shall reap the advantages of devaluation if we use it in a disciplined manner.

Nobody wants to deny that the inflation rate is high. The rate of inflation is, unfortunately, much too high. Even the latest figure the hon. the Minister of Finance mentioned here, i.e. 10,6%, is still too high and we would like to reduce it even further. For that the concerted disciplined action of the whole nation is needed, and this is what we are doing now. Through the action programme against inflation launched by the Government under the able leadership of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, we are drawing all the sectors of the community into the fight against inflation. The problem we are dealing with here, is that while the leaders in the business world are co-operating to make this action programme against inflation a success, we are still dealing with an Opposition who is constantly only blaming the Government for this high rate of inflation. The result is that they are creating a psychosis of dissatisfaction and within the framework of such a psychosis of dissatisfaction one cannot expect cooperation from all the sectors of the population to contain this major evil of inflation. Hon. members of the Opposition, and especially the hon. members of this party right in front of me, are very sensitive when one mentions loyalty and patriotism. If one wants to deal with the dangers which the hon. members in front of me so often point out to us and which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition again pointed out to us this afternoon, one has to have the support of a united nation, and then one dare not spread dissatisfaction. If one is for ever telling the people that only the Government is responsible for this high rate of inflation, one receives no co-operation, and we need the co-operation of every member of the population. For that reason I once again want to appeal to hon. members on the opposite side of the House, in the light of the difficulties we are experiencing, not to make a little political capital out of this matter and to encourage everybody to co-operate in combating the evil of inflation.

The hon. member for Constantia mentioned three “don’ts” and one “do” which the Government should either do or not do. As part of his “do” he said that the Government should reduce the rapid escalation of the income tax scale. In other words, the higher income groups should not be taxed so heavily. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Constantia. [Interjections.] Yes, I agree with it. Our very problem is that as soon as the hon. the Minister of Finance comes along with a measure of this nature, that member, together with other members on the opposite side of the House, is going to say: “Now you are budgeting for the wealthy man.” This is our problem. If we did not have an Opposition such as this—I almost said an irresponsible Opposition—the hon. the Minister of Finance would have been able to comply with the request of the hon. member for Constantia. But, as I say, this hon. member will be the first person to exploit this matter and say we are budgeting for the wealthy man. Sir, I want to appeal again to hon. members opposite. Let us stop stealing a political march on one another and let us create a psychosis of unity and co-operation and of standing together so that we can present a united front in dealing with the problems we are facing, on the one hand, financial and economic problems and, on the other hand, the threat on our borders. If we do that I am convinced that we shall solve our economical and financial problems, as well as the situation on our borders. In such a case I see only a very bright future for this country of ours.

Mr. Speaker, may I start off by saying to the hon. member for Paarl that I also want to record my appreciation for his services as chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts and for the manner in which he conducted himself while he held that office. I want to say to him also that unfortunately in South Africa we are not all apple farmers and therefore we do not all benefit from being exporters and in that way getting a higher price for our exported products. If we had the situation that this country had a balance in favour of exports as against imports and thus in fact a favourable balance, there might have been some merit in his argument. But to suggest that devaluation is like brandy, which you have to have every so often in order to stimulate you, runs counter to every economist’s argument that one can find, because devaluation is in fact an act of bankruptcy where you say your currency is not strong enough against other currencies. Every economist, not only in South Africa but in the world, will say that you do not devalue unless you have to and you are forced by economic circumstances to do so. To suggest that you have to have periodic devaluations is something which I find horrifying, and I only hope that the hon. the Minister will not find that he also gets hooked on brandy so that he has to take it every so often in order to cope with the situation.

It is of course important that when we talk about finance and economics we do not forget that this session of Parliament has so far been dominated by defence matters. Perhaps for that reason the hon. the Leader of the Opposition came with the speech he made only a little while ago and in which he repeated what I said last week, particularly about Swapo. What has been regarded in the past as a possibility, has overnight in South Africa become reality. Within a matter of a few months South Africa has found itself in an entirely new situation, faced with the threat of a new type of warfare on our borders, and the realization that more manpower and money must be devoted to defence on a continuing basis has caused many people to take stock and to ask where we are going and where it will all end. Sir, many now are looking back with some regret that the changes were not made earlier and that we have wasted many years so that we need to move very much faster now. Defence is a major issue in South Africa today. There is no doubt, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said, that one has to avoid bloodshed if one can. I believe that one must avoid bloodshed and must save lives, but one must do it from strength and one must make it clear that you will fight to defend your own if you have to. It is only on that basis that you can negotiate with strength. You must never allow yourself to negotiate out of weakness when the security of your country is at stake.

But what does defence mean, what does defence entail and what are the long-term objectives? I think we should make our attitudes clear. We believe that South Africa must solve its own problems and evolve its own destiny. We believe that we must defend ourselves and be strong to achieve not only security against external aggression but also internal peace, because, as I have said, only in a strong and peaceful society can the changes necessary for long-term survival be made.

Therefore defence does not mean weapons only. I believe that the hon. the Minister of Finance is also responsible for our defence. He is also a Minister of Defence. His action can contribute to and can even ensure peace in South Africa. He can help to shape a society in which all people will have something to lose and something to defend. His action can determine whether people will enjoy a higher living standard and have hope of better things to come, or whether we will have dissatisfaction, frustration and unrest. The shaping of our economy is an essential ingredient in ensuring peace in South Africa, and this is how I believe our priorities should be determined. Young South Africans are prepared to defend the Republic, but I believe they are also entitled to ask whether fighting alone will solve our problems. The real issue as we see it is that while we hold our borders, must we not make sure that we create a society which, by reason of its unity and achievement, will make the task of the aggressor impossible? Our country is not a country of Whites only. Our defence cannot be conducted indefinitely by Whites with only token Black participation. Our defence is only practicable if on our farms, in our villages, in our towns and in our cities there are contented people, people who united believe in the cause for which young men are asked to endanger their lives.

Sir, what does patriotism mean? Does it only mean doing the right thing by your country? Does it not also mean doing the right thing by all the people in that country, and does it not also mean acting in a way that not only you yourself, but all the people in it can prosper and survive? I believe that to fail to make the changes will merely mean that we will fight indefinitely, with no hope of lasting peaceful co-existence. The financial and economic planning and policy should therefore be directed to achieve a society which can prosper and so survive. The budget for this financial year which lies ahead of us should therefore not be a pessimistic, laager defence budget, but a courageous budget which will build foundations to achieve a just society comprising all the races in South Africa.

I believe that this session of Parliament needs to deal specifically with four major issues. It needs, firstly, to provide for the physical defence of our country and, secondly, it needs to remove statutory discriminations in the true sense of the word and not merely by paying lip service and making gestures. Here one must refer to the hon. member for Carletonville, who seems to live in a dream world because he believes there is no discrimination and never has been any. It is quite a remarkable thing in this day and age to hear that. It needs, thirdly, to lay the foundations for the removal of the political frustrations of the Black people and, fourthly, to lay the foundations for a just economic society. This needs in the budget that lies ahead of us, steps to ensure that there are no grounds for unrest on economic grounds, protecting the living standards of the lower-income groups and providing conditions in which equality of opportunity can be exercised. Sir, you know there is the story told of a Minister of Finance—I am not saying it is this one—who presented a very optimistic sounding speech when he moved the Second Reading of the Part Appropriation Bill although he had a glum look on his face. When he had finished his speech he was asked why, when he made such an optimistic speech, he had such a glum look on his face. His answer was that it was because the optimism was not justified. Perhaps that might be applied also to the present circumstances.

It could not have applied to me.

Your face was pretty glum. Well, if the shoe fits, put it on. If it does not, I will introduce you to an outfitter and you can buy a cheap South African shoe. Sir, the Minister in his speech conveyed the impression that everything was going well and here I want to deal with some of the things that a colleague on this side of the House, although not of the same party as mine, mentioned as being things which the Minister should not do. He conveys the impression that nothing he has done is incorrect. There is always the view that everything in the garden is rosy, or in any case, soon will be, and that every criticism is unpatriotic. I do not believe in pessimism, but one must not be taken in by excessive optimism expressed for political purposes. One must rather be realistic. My first request to the Minister is that when he frames his budget for the forthcoming year, he must not be taken in by his own propaganda. He must take a cold, hard, and realistic look at the economy and the mess some of his own and his Government’s decisions have got us into.

The second appeal I want to make is that he should not impose taxation in the budget that lies ahead of us which will have the effect of increasing living costs, for example, by increasing or imposing new sales duties and secondly by killing the incentive to work so as to earn more. On the contrary, we need to have the incentive to work. Thirdly, I hope the hon. the Minister will not apply monetary or fiscal measures which will do medium-term or long-term harm to the local manufacturing industry so that any recovery will, in fact, be delayed. I trust, too, that he will not apply such measures as will cause a drop in the living standards of those who are already living below or near subsistence levels, or that he will not impose such monetary or fiscal measures as will cause large-scale unemployment. Fourthly, I do not believe he should in his budget rely on early or substantial upswings in the economies of our major trading partners. I believe he should play safe. Fifthly, I want to appeal to him not to devalue further, except if it is absolutely essential in the interests of our country. A further devaluation will make the fight against inflation so much more difficult. What I think is necessary here is not a casual statement by the hon. the Minister to the effect that there will be no devaluation. There is a tendency today no longer to attach any credence to these statements. What we need are actions and attitudes which will demonstrate to the community that there is no danger of a further devaluation pending. The sixth aspect of my appeal to the hon. the Minister is that he should watch the money supply and the near-money supply. He must not allow it to rise unduly. The money supply rose by 19,3% in 1973 and by 18,7% the next year. In the fourth quarter of 1974 it rose at an annual rate of 44%. In the first quarter of 1975 it went down to 15%, and 8% in the second quarter, while in the third quarter it rose again to 21%. There is another aspect. We are concerned at the fact that many of our foreign loans last year were short-term loans. I shall not list them; they are all there to be seen in the answer the hon. the Minister furnished. I want to appeal to him not to rely on bank credit or on short-term loans. He must plan to finance by the least inflationary means. There is a seventh point. I ask him not to allow credit to get out of hand. Economic growth which is sustained and supplemented by making credit available, so that people can enjoy today and pay tomorrow, is a major cause of inflation. The hon. the Minister needs to take a long, hard look at consumer credit and the implications of excesses in this regard. Eighthly, I want to ask him not to cut down on expenditure which is necessary for the peaceful society which we need. We know there is going to have to be an increase in expenditure for defence. We accept that. However, if there are to be cut-backs, we ask that they should not be in education and job training, not in the development of social services for the underprivileged and not in housing for the homeless.

On what then?

The intention has been expressed not to increase Government expenditure in real terms. However, such cut-backs as are necessary to cover the increases in defence expenditure should not be in the fields I have mentioned.

In which fields then?

Ninthly, I think one should again appeal to the hon. the Minister not to carry on with purely ideological apartheid spending, for example, the spending involved in the moving of people. Tenthly, I appeal to the hon. the Minister not to proceed with luxury projects at this stage if such luxury projects can be delayed. Having learned a lesson from last year, my eleventh appeal—before I come to the round dozen—is that the hon. the Minister should not budget hoping for windfalls. He should be realistic and financially conservative. Lastly, to complete the dozen, I want to say that if unpleasant medicine has to be administered, he must not administer it to those who least deserve it. He should rather administer it to those who can afford to make some sacrifices in South Africa. Now these are some of the things one requests him not to do.

Let us now talk about some of the things we believe he should do. It is perhaps fair to say this to the Minister in advance of his budget. We believe that there should be a balanced budget. We believe that the Government must be seen to be playing the same game in accordance with the same rules as everybody else in South Africa. One cannot have a collective programme to fight inflation, and appeal to people to make sacrifices if the Government is going to play a different game in accordance with different rules. Secondly, in the budget the hon. the Minister should not avoid increasing social pensions. Inflation has made the lot of the pensioner more difficult and the gap between White and Black pensions cannot be left as it is at present. Those who are saving also need relief. Savings are necessary to finance investment in both the private and public sectors. The collective anti-inflation programme has devoted much of its efforts to savings in the broad sense of the term.

However, can one safely save for one’s old age when inflation hits at one’s capital and one’s income? We believe that the hon. the Minister must now introduce an index bond. We appeal to him to make at least a timid experiment, as has been done in Great Britain in respect of people who are over 60 years of age with a limited amount to be invested. There should also be some relief given to pensioners on fixed incomes who are not in receipt of a social pension, for example, by providing that mortgage interest or rentals which they pay may be deductible for tax purposes if they have passed a certain age. There are other things that should also be looked at. We need to look again at fiscal drag. I do not want to enlarge upon that because of the limited time available to me. We need to look at steps to encourage housing so that the middle income groups can now have some building done for themselves, particularly flats, a field in which very little is being done.

Now, if I may, I want to turn to the balance of payments. The balance of payments problem is perhaps one of the most serious, and here more action is required. One aspect that has received too little attention is the services account. The deficit on the services account has almost doubled in five years and is going to increase even further. International freight, transport, know-how payments and interest on foreign loans are all likely to increase further. Action is required to see how this deficit can be reduced, either by increasing our own invisible exports or by reducing outgoing payments. It seems as if, in the short term, containerization will also increase the deficit and we shall have to look very carefully at transport costs. As far as the interest on foreign loans is concerned, the existence of a withholding tax—even if it may now be waived in certain circumstances—tends to increase the rates to be paid. As far as dividends are concerned, we believe that incentives should be given to foreign-control led companies not to declare dividends, not only by the existing undistributed profits tax exemptions, but also by other tax concessions. Secondly, in respect of new equity capital taken up in approved ventures, nonresident shareholders’ tax should be waived for an agreed period in order to encourage equity investment. Thirdly, a no-tax position should be created for wholly-owned foreign South African registered companies in respect of income from dividends and interest. These provisions would encourage greater equity investment in South Africa, which we need in preference to more loans, and would assist in reducing the deficit on the invisibles account.

This should be accompanied by a drive for our own invisible earnings. Not only should we seek to export more of our own know-how and take more active steps to encourage tourism, but we should encourage equity investment by South Africans abroad in approved ventures which could become dividend-producing within a short time. The drive to close the gap between exports and imports of physical goods will be frustrated if we do not act now in regard to the gap in respect of invisibles. I believe our export trade also needs further attention. We need to look at its financing, and in addition to the present credit guarantee and IDC facilities, export bill financing should be provided.

There is another major issue which I think needs to be looked at. We say proudly that we are an open economy. Sixty-six per cent of our GDP is constituted by exports and imports. We rely on foreign capital, mainly loans, to utilize our resources. How satisfactory is that in fact? Can we afford, in our long-term planning, to remain so dependent on the outside world? Foreigners have vested interests in our country, and this can be economically advantageous and also politically useful. However, there are two factors which need to be looked into in the new situation in which South Africa finds herself. Firstly, are we not too much subject to the state of the economies of our major trading partners? When they sneeze, we catch cold. Secondly, are we not too vulnerable to possible economic action by boycotts and sanctions? Perhaps there could be added a third factor, viz.: Is it satisfactory to rely on foreign loans in large amounts to assist us in financing our own deficit on current account indefinitely? We hope that the money will be available, but no one can guarantee that it will be. An open economy has both strengths and weaknesses. We in South Africa, however, have in our own country vast markets which are untapped. We have millions of people whose living standards must be raised. They are waiting to buy more goods. If they can earn more, then they can buy more. If they are employed productively, they can be employed productively to produce the very goods that they wish to buy. If we produce more, we need to import less and we can export more competitively as we shall be able to employ the economies of scale. We shall improve our balance of payments position and become less vulnerable as an open economy, living standards will go up, there will be assistance in ensuring peace in our land and job opportunities will be created which will assist even further. The USA is perhaps the best example of an economy which sets the pace, and it is not affected to the same extent by others. To us increased local production is the answer to many problems. That is why we believe that here one needs to take real action. There are many economic challenges which face us today and they need attention. We believe that in order to act so that we can survive in South Africa, we need to defend ourselves by being strong. We need to defend ourselves by being prosperous and by having all our people prosperous in South Africa. We believe that we can survive if we share in every sense of the word, and that applies to the economy as well.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville quoted a number of “do’s and dont’s’’ this afternoon which he put to the hon. the Minister of Finance. I believe that the hon. the Minister will reply to him on that score in due course, but he also touched on a few other points to which I should like to refer. For example, he said “Devaluation is an act of bankruptcy’’, but in the same breath he added that the Minister of Finance was at the same time just as much a Minister of Defence; the Minister of Finance can also pose as Minister of Defence because he has to look after the economy of the country and in that sphere must obtain for us the best possible weapons with which to ensure the safety of our country. If that is so, then surely the hon. member should also have said to the hon. the Minister that he leaves it to him to select the best weapons at the right time against the right enemy. When I say this, then I am referring specifically to devaluation. The hon. member for Yeoville also pleaded that we should increase our exports and that we should create employment opportunities, but all these are the very aims which the hon. the Minister wishes to achieve by means of devaluation. However, I shall come back to this later.

The success or failure of any enterprise surely depends on the leadership and management in the enterprise concerned. This also applies to a country and its government. If the leadership and the management of the Government are sound, the country will make progress and will achieve success after success. After the past 28 years this Government, with its Ministers of Finance, has put South Africa in the forefront to such an extent, owing to the leadership that has been provided, that today we are one of the most sought-after countries in the world in the economic sphere. People want to export to South Africa and they want to come and invest here and create employment opportunities. If one wants to apply the norms of leadership and management to the political parties in the House too, one sees that over the past 28 years the National Party has shown a positive growth from election to election. The growth rate of the National Party has been basically sound because it has the right leadership. The United Party, on the other hand, has shown a negative growth rate; they have retrogressed from election to election. Over the past 28 years they have shown that they are a diminishing party with no real right to survive. That is the case because they have no leadership or no co-ordination in their leadership. As far as the PRP are concerned, one sees that they are one of these mushroom enterprises that springs up overnight and disappears just as suddenly. I can predict even now that this is the lot which will befall the PRP. They have no chance of survival because the goods they are offering are not the right goods and they can find no market for them.

At the time when virtually the whole world is battling with economic and financial problems and all nations are being afflicted by the inflation monster, it is only those who remain realistic and calm which are able to take the correct decisions. [Interjections.] I hear hon. members say that that is correct and at this point I want to add immediately that it is because the hon. the Minister of Finance has remained calm and realistic throughout that he has taken the steps he has. This is really no time for prophecies of doom. Prophets of doom such as those who have spoken on the Opposition side are in fact those who become panicky and eventually take the wrong decisions. South Africa, too, is experiencing financial problems at present. We all admit this because we know that we have economic problems. In fact this is so obvious that no one can deny it. We could advance as a reason for our problems that our economy and finances are intimately bound up with and concerned with world conditions. Then, too, there is the recession which has developed in the Western world, and also the decline in gold sales and the drop in the gold price. All these factors have caused us, too, to experience economic problems. Actually, we in South Africa cannot expect an economic revival until conditions overseas improve to such an extent that they can affect us too. The question can immediately be asked: what has the Government done to solve these problems, or has it simply waited for conditions overseas to improve? That has been the gist of this entire debate thus far. The Government has adopted two specific measures in particular: the first is devaluation and the second is its share in the action programme to combat inflation. Last Monday, just after he had risen to make his speech, the hon. member for Constantia stated that the hon. the Minister of Finance had made serious blunders. He referred to devaluation in particular. When making a statement of this kind, surely one must also propose positive and practicable alternatives to the measures adopted by the hon. the Minister.

I should like to refer briefly to what the hon. member for Constantia had to say. At the same time I shall also refer now and again to what the hon. member for Yeoville said. The hon. member for Constantia said that in these times the hon. the Minister had a very difficult task to perform. I think we all agree with him. That is undeniable, because the Minister has indeed a difficult task to perform.

The hon. member went further and pointed to five elements around each of which, he said, there was a problem area. We agree that there are problem areas in our economy today. No one can deny that. In the first place, the hon. member referred to the defence situation. We fully agree with him that this is a problem area. The hon. member also said that owing to devaluation and our large budget for defence purposes, arms would now cost a great deal more. That is partially correct: Arms will cost more after devaluation. However, the hon. member tried to instil the wrong attitude among the people by giving out that our entire budget of R1 000 million voted for defence last year was going to be utilized for defence purposes. Apparently the hon. member has forgotten that a large portion of that sum of money is utilized for administrative purposes. The major portion is also spent on the purchase of arms manufactured within South Africa itself, and which we therefore do not need to import. In this way we are at the same time stimulating our own arms factories. It is true that part of our arms supply is imported, but many of the arms which had already been ordered last year only have to be paid for now, unless we had already paid for them before devaluation.

The hon. member mentioned a few other matters as well. He joined the hon. member for Yeoville in saying that we should abandon our ideological politics. The hon. member for Yeoville went further and said that we should abandon the purchase of land for the homelands. The hon. member for Constantia stated that this would boost inflation and condemned it in strong terms. He said: “Stop ideological policy spending in respect of homelands, etc.” Yesterday, the hon. member for Albany asked for exactly the opposite. He asked that the hon. the Minister of Finance should vote larger amounts for the purchase of land for the homelands this year. Therefore the members of the Opposition parties are in fact contradicting each other entirely.

Actually I want to leave the hon. member for Constantia at that. I want to refer briefly to devaluation again because apparently some of the hon. members of the Opposition are failing to bear certain facets in mind. What really gave rise to the devaluation of the rand on 20 September last year? The hon. the Minister, and some of the other speakers too, have already referred to this, but in all seriousness I once again want to make it clear to hon. members that South Africa became involved in the poor economic conditions prevailing in most Western industrial countries, and economists and other experts have predicted that the position will not improve soon. The fact that South Africa became involved caused uncertainty for us, particularly as regards our exports, and little improvement was envisaged. A second important factor was, of course, the sudden drop in our gold price in the open market and the resultant lower production in our gold-mining industry. South Africa was not responsible for either of these factors. These two factors also gave rise to certain other things. The drop in the gold price resulted in the resumption of speculation against the rand which, in its turn, had a very detrimental effect on our reserves. The poor gold price prevented us from selling part of our gold on the market and drawing on our gold reserves because we should thereby have forced the gold price even lower. For these reasons, and particularly in order to stimulate our exports so that we could improve our balance of payments position again, the decision was taken to devalue the rand on 20 September.

One asks oneself what the benefits of this devaluation were. I think the hon. members of the Opposition would also very much like to hear what the benefits are. Reference has already been made to various advantages of devaluation. In the first place, it stimulates our exports. Perhaps this will not happen immediately, but our exports will in fact gradually benefit from this. Certain contracts have already been entered into at fixed prices and we shall of course have to carry out those contracts. We cannot do otherwise. In the second place, imports will be discouraged to a certain extent. Our balance of payments will therefore improve automatically as a result of devaluation. Already it is possible to detect signs of an improvement which has occurred after devaluation of the rand. We could have expected a further drop in the gold price in the future. That is why it was as well that the hon. the Minister devalued the rand by 17,9%.

Mr. Speaker, I see that my time is almost up. To conclude, therefore, I want to refer to the joint action programme against inflation. In my opinion this is an outstanding programme which we have launched in this country. It is a programme which will be of major importance to our country if all parties co-operate in this regard. One has in mind in the first place the public and the industrial sectors, and private people too. If we all co-operate to combat inflation, then we shall undoubtedly be able to show a sharply rising growth rate again before long, a positive growth rate which we have thus far maintained consistently, in contrast with the majority of Western countries. I want to associate myself with the words of the hon. member for Carletonville, who asked that the Government do everything in its power to impress upon all sections of the population of this country that they must assist in combating inflation every day. I have in mind our youth in particular, to whom the hon. member for Carletonville also referred. I think it would be an excellent start if we were to impress upon our youth that they too should co-operate in this regard. However, we must not be content to impress this upon our youth and the White section of the population alone, but also among the non-Whites. They too must co-operate to combat inflation. Various speakers have referred to the issue of productivity and all of them, including the members of the Opposition, have asked for higher productivity among our people. When one sees work teams working in the field, one sometimes has to ask oneself whether they are really working or not. One so often sees one or a few of them working while the others stand around. We are constantly having complaints from the voting public that only half of the work teams of the municipalities, the Railways, the Post Office, etc., work. That is why I want to ask whether it would not be possible to request our industries and all bodies providing employment to evaluate their labour. Every employer should carry out an evaluation of the capacity for work and production capacity of its staff. An evaluation of this kind can be carried out from time to time in order to make it possible to determine statistically whether our people have in fact increased their productivity. Once we have taken such a step, we shall in time be able to point out to our people where productivity has and where it has not been increased. Our country with its few skilled labourers cannot afford to under-utilize skilled labour. We must utilize every ounce of labour potential to its fullest.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to represent the constituency of Middelburg here in the House of Assembly. Since I am a newcomer here it would necessarily mean that I shall have to go through a period of adaptation. I trust, however, that I shall have adapted myself before long, that I shall be able to make a positive contribution here and that I shall be a useful member of this House for as long a period as I shall be granted to be here.

I represent a constituency in the Eastern Transvaal, one which is of mixed composition. In the first instance, there is a strong farming or agricultural element, mixed farming which varies from Highveld farming to Bushveld farming, from grain farming to irrigation farming. On the other hand, my constituency is one of the largest electricity supply areas. There are three large power stations in my constituency, viz. that of Arnot, that of Hendrina and that of Komati. In addition considerable progress has been made in that region—in neighbouring constituencies such as Ermelo and Witbank—with the erection of power stations. At least three have been built, while another few are still under construction. My constituency is also one of the largest coal-producing areas in the Republic. Hence the fact that the railway line between Broodsnyersplaas and Richards Bay commences in my constituency.

The constituency consists of the principal town, Middelburg, and eleven mining and power station towns. In recent times one can see considerable industrial development in the constituency because of the very fact that favourable circumstances have been created through the availability of coal, electricity and water. Consequently we are experiencing enormous development and a remarkable population increase in the area in which we live—a development similar to what one finds in most other parts of the Republic as well. This phenomenal growth throughout the Republic is making ever higher demands on the available manpower, skilled as well as unskilled. Consequently one hears more and more of a shortage of manpower and of manpower being unobtainable. On many farms in our district an acute shortage of labour is being experienced, as a result of which many farmers have been obliged to change their way of farming.

Some farmers have been obliged to mechanize. Now I am not always so sure in my own mind that mechanization does mean a saving of labour in all cases. Only too often it simply amounts to a change in the method of operation and not necessarily to a saving of labour. Sometimes it is also the cause of more labour being required. We have inevitably reached the stage when the available labour must be utilized more effectively. This is not only because of the fact that labour is becoming scarce, but also because there is strong competition on the labour market.

Labour has become expensive, and in order to compete with its price, the productivity of labour must be increased. Consequently I should like to confine myself in this maiden speech of mine to a few thoughts on training as a means of effecting improved or higher productivity.

I did not tell the hon. member for Potgietersrus in advance what I was going to discuss. Therefore the thought with which he concluded his speech was not intended as an introduction to what I want to say. In recent times great emphasis has been placed on the matter of productivity and the scientific utilization of manpower. The shortage of labour, especially of skilled labour, and the increasing inflationary conditions place the focus more and more on the quality of manpower and the ratio of real production to management expectations. Productivity is described as the optimum effort per person, evaluated quantitatively and qualitatively. For the determination of these optimum norms, yardsticks have to be found so that expectations may be realistic. When productivity is not satisfactory and a latent ability does exist in the manpower, it is the duty of the management to ensure that the full potential of every worker is developed to the optimum.

Industrialists and other sectors in South Africa have never before been encouraged by the Government to provide training to the Bantu as they are now. Generous tax concessions in respect of Bantu training in commerce, in industry and in agriculture mean that training in all sectors qualifies for these Government concessions. Therefore it is clear that as far as training is concerned, it is not only the individual worker who is in earnest about this, but also the Government to whom it is something near to its heart. Proper coordination with incentive measures from the side of the Government, and, on the other hand, an employer who is profoundly aware of the pressure of the labour shortage and realizes the value of efficiency, and, finally, employees who are enthusiastic about training and the advantages it holds for them, are all factors which can give rise to high productivity with a direct influence on the prosperity of the employer as well as that of the employee. Advantages to the economy of the country flow from this.

In order to train somebody, it is important that there should be a reasonable knowledge of the person who is being trained—of his background and his trainability. It is logical that the approach will differ from person to person, and that the programme and its presentation will have to suit the specific needs of the person who is to be trained. Then one also has to determine whether all forms of unproductivity is really due to a lack of training or whether it may not also be due to defective management or to some inability of the manager himself. Therefore it is necessary that the direct cause of unproductivity be determined before one proceeds to an expensive training programme. It remains a relentless condition that training, i.e. being trained, and management or managerial ability are inseparable. In considering a training course for Bantu employees, one has to take a few very interesting factors into account. Firstly, it is characteristic of the Black man to show a very keen interest in and need for training which inevitably results in training offered being accepted enthusiastically. Secondly, one should never try to make the training too advanced. One should rather concentrate on basic principles and especially in agriculture one should rather make use of in-service training. Thirdly, one can make use of techniques which are commonplace in that particular industry, rather than using impressive techniques. In training, and especially in Bantu training, it is important that the programme of training be repeated. The English language has a very good word for this, i.e. the word “back-feed”. One will do well to inform the candidate repeatedly of his progress. In another instance the evaluation of the effectiveness of the training programme is very important. There would be no need to continue with a programme if the results were not effective.

In training labour effectively, one can make successful use of one’s own experience and skills. One should also ensure that the training will be differentiated. Furthermore, the training should be in keeping with the knowledge and the ability of the candidate. It is good to make use of professional know-how and assistance in respect of the drawing up of the programme, but the training is more effective when it is undertaken by the employer himself. By way of summary it may be said that training should be offered only to employees who have a basic inability or inadequacy and not to all employees simply because a particular training programme is available. Secondly, training should be offered with the necessary discretion to the Bantu labour market in a particularly industry which requires specialized training. It is particularly essential due to the specialized and the unique nature of most activities. Thirdly, the development of Bantu labourers is an indispensable necessity due to the critical shortage of labour in all sectors. This question is of national importance. Where training programmes are offered, it is advisable to revise them periodically so that approaches in respect of training do not become outdated or even obsolete. Moreover, better techniques are forever being developed.

It is very important to be acquainted with the Bantu himself so that relations between the management and the worker will be meaningful and harmonious. Knowledge of the race should not, however, occupy all the attention of the training officer or the supervisor, but attention should much rather be paid to the difference between the real achievement of the worker and that which is expected of him. My personal opinion is that the Bantu will react favourably to selective training in general and to an extent to specialized training.

The South African national economy will have to adapt itself to accommodating better and specifically trained labour to an increasing extent. This in itself will be a useful instrument for effecting better and better labour relations. Apart from the objective of being productive and making productive, we also have a responsibility of ensuring that South Africa’s unskilled manpower is equipped to be competitive on the labour market. The Bantu’s bargaining power is weak as a result of his lack of skill. For that reason it is important to train the labourer himself, as that will equip him better to improve his productivity and to enter the labour market. It enables him to earn a better living and consequently to raise his standard of living. Secondly, the employer will be able to use his labour more effectively and will, for that reason, be able to operate more effectively with fewer labourers. Consequently he will be able to offer a better salary. The national economy of the country in general will-inevitably benefit from the population being more productive.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to congratulate the new hon. member for Middelburg. We enjoyed listening to him because his delivery was particularly clear and because the contents were also particularly interesting. We look forward to hearing more about his approach to the training of labour, which is a very important subject in this House. We also hope to hear more from him about mining, because mining is something with which his constituency and its environs are richly endowed and also perhaps because his colleagues in this House are not as richly endowed in that respect. However, I want to congratulate the hon. member and tell him that we look forward to further contributions from him in this House.

†Mr. Speaker, when one listens to the economics debate, especially as conducted from that side of the House, one is inclined to feel a certain degree of sympathy for the hon. the Minister of Finance. He must sometimes say to himself: “I can protect myself from my enemies, but heaven help me against my friends.”

He has broad shoulders.

We have heard various defences of devaluation and gradually as the debate goes on, we are almost led to believe that devaluation is a very good thing. It is now being likened, to a glass of old brandy; if it is not taken too often it will actually do the economy a lot of good. In fact one is beginning to suspect that even inflation, provided it happens under this régime, has certain hidden benefits perhaps like some new type of gin which we have not yet heard of. Members opposite have got very close to approving of inflation in saying that it will lead to a kind of co-operation that will eventually stimulate growth. If this is the effect of inflation, perhaps we shall have to put up with the inebriating effects of both inflation and devaluation for the rest of this Government’s tenure of office—which we hope may be short.

I now wish to deal with another subject and that is the question of Angola. I do so with the express purpose of supporting the arguments of my hon. leader and perhaps dealing in more detail with one or two points which he was obliged to touch upon somewhat briefly. I believe, that in respect of Angola we must recognize the fact that we are approaching a watershed. We are approaching the end of phase 1. Phase 1 is the operation in which we participated for a time, in which we are still indirectly involved, but which is now running to a close. I believe we are now approaching phase 2. It is this phase which I wish to discuss in some detail according to the time which I am allowed.

As regards phase 1, it is not my purpose at this stage of the debate to indulge in any recriminations as to what might or might not have happened during that phase. It would be pointless to do so. The Government has indeed claimed that there are certain advantages flowing from that phase, and they have gained time, that they were able, at a certain period, to influence the OAU and that they alerted, or hoped to alert, Western opinion. In all fairness, we must admit that these benefits, if they existed, were short-lived. As we read of events yesterday, and again this evening, in the evening papers, one begins to wonder what it was all about. However, let us leave it at that.

The situation is now that phase 1, that is to say the first stage of a civil war, is closing.

It is not a civil war.

It is and was a civil war. It looks extremely likely that the MPLA, with the help of foreign interventionists, are in fact gaining control very rapidly over Angola. It must be expected that the MPLA will assume de facto control over Angola within a matter of days or weeks. In consequence of this, they are also gaining more support from African States. The number of supporters is growing daily, and it must be expected that formal recognition of the MPLA as the Government of Angola will follow. Much as we may and do dislike it, and even though the MPLA control over Angola will predictably be insecure and sporadic in many areas where, no doubt, guerrilla warfare will continue, I believe we shall have to accept the fact that the MPLA will assume de facto control over Angola and will in due course be given de jure recognition in that capacity. This is the first feature of the situation of the new phase, the second phase, which I think we must face squarely and recognize.

The second feature—and this is perhaps a slightly more hopeful one than one has been led to believe so far—is that the more securely the MPLA establishes itself in Angola, the greater is the likelihood that direct Russian and Cuban and other intervention will diminish. I say this deliberately because it has been the experience in Africa that it is weak Governments that lean heavily on outside intervention and strong African Governments which tend to eject it.

If there is one force that is stronger than any sort of force the communists can bring to bear on Africa, it is the force of Black Nationalism. There is no Government in Africa which, having cast off Western European colonialism, will be prepared, in exchange for that, to accept Eastern European colonialism, or Chinese colonialism or Central American colonialism for that matter.

Let us have no illusions about the dangers of the communists or their ultimate intent to establish a communist world order. That purpose will continue and must be guarded against. However, let us also have no illusions that that time is not now in Africa. We have much to beware of in Africa. There will be areas of which the Russians and the Chinese and others will take advantage and which they will use to our disadvantage. However, there are already signs, very clearly being stated, that Angola is not ripe to become a colony of either Russia or China. This is a sign of hope for us, one we must recognize as being a hopeful factor in the situation. It is already clear from what is being written in Moscow in newspapers like Pravda and Isvestia, which bear an official character, that they are preparing the Russian people for the withdrawal of the Russian interventionists from Angola. They realize that if they stay there after the MPLA is installed in power and after it has affirmed its position there, the thing will become counter-productive for Russia. They will have to go. There are also signs from Luanda that Dr. Agostinho Neto is in fact beginning to appeal to the West for technical, economic and financial aid to rebuild his devastated country. For that reason we should not take it for granted that Angola, any more than Mozambique, Guinea, Tanzania, Ghana, Nigeria, Egypt and many others, all of which have accepted communist aid at one stage or another, will necessarily become a Russian puppet.

We must stand ready to deal with it as an independent Black State. Even though it be provided, as it may, with an inefficiently administered Marxist type economy in grave need of economic aid, and with all the other weaknesses of such States, we must nevertheless stand ready to deal with it as an authentic, self-respecting Black State which expects to be dealt with as though it possessed full economic and political sovereignty.

The third feature is that, despite the customary threats of liberating South Africa, Rhodesia and South West Africa by force, there is at this stage unlikely to be a full-scale military attack on our frontiers. There is a great deal of alarmist talk about whether the Cubans will stop or not. It is not hard to predict that the forces now striking southwards, consisting as they do of a few thousand Cubans backed by a large number of irregulars of the MPLA, are extremely unlikely to attempt a full-scale frontal attack on the South African forces which stand ready to meet it. I believe this is most unlikely, and it would be a most foolhardy thing for them ever to contemplate. I believe there will come a halt in this operation. There will come a pause. And that period of time, when they pause to re-group, re-think and re-consider, will be the time to find a peaceful solution. It will not be much time, but we must be ready to use it.

The fourth feature of the second phase is the seriously underestimated role of Swapo in the whole affair on both sides of the border between Angola and South West Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister was inclined to shake his head this afternoon when the Leader of the Opposition drew attention to the very great significance of Swapo in this situation. Swapo exists in some strength as a political party, as a domestic wing and as an internal political party in South West Africa, not only in Owambo, but all the way down to Windhoek, where you have a large sort of mini-Soweto consisting of many tribal or ethnic groups and where Swapo is running rife. It is very strongly supported in that area. Surveys have been produced, with official protection of the Administration, respectable surveys, showing that Swapo in fact commands enormous support, not from the majority of Black South West Africans, but certainly from the majority of literate Black South West Africans. That is the important and relevant point. They also stand astride the border and are unidentified or indistinguishable from other members of the tribes inside South West Africa. They have numerous bases, and influence in the outside world. We are going to have to deal with Swapo. [Interjections.] Make no mistake about it. We cannot avoid it or blink it away, or pretend that it does not exist. If the hon. the Prime Minister thinks the time will come to talk to Sam Nujoma, he is making a very grave mistake. Sam Nujoma is in fact the effective leader of Swapo. And Swapo is real; it is not a bad dream. It is a bad reality, if you like, but it exists and no amount of constitutional talking in South West Africa will do much good if Swapo, which is probably a larger political party than any other in South West Africa, is not brought into account. After all, this is what we said to the Rhodesians about the ANC, and we will have to face it. Now, hon. members on that side of the House are a little surprised at what I am saying. [Interjections.] They may assume, because they have read it in certain propaganda organs, that Swapo can be ignored. They will find, to their surprise, that even if Swapo figures are not as large as alleged, its influence in South West Africa, Angola, in Africa, at the United Nations and in other parts of the world is far greater than they assess. If one speaks to African leaders or European diplomats who attend the United Nations, they are convinced that Swapo is the future government of South West Africa.

You are talking a lot of nonsense. [Interjections.]

Whatever those hon. members say, they are protesting because I am telling them something which they find unpalatable. I find a lot of it unpalatable too, but I think that it is necessary that we should know the truth in this House and not merely say to each other what we would like to hear. Those are the facts.

What do the Owambo leaders say?

I know all about the Owambo leaders and I can tell the hon. member a great deal about it. However, there is nobody in this House who will stand up and espouse the cause of Swapo.

You are doing so. [Interjections.]

If I cannot penetrate the mind of that hon. member, then there is no use my continuing to try to do so. It is a grave disadvantage to South Africa that Swapo exists in its present form, with its present organization and with its present influence. It is a grave disadvantage and it is going to impede the finding of a constitutional solution for South West Africa. What I am trying to say is that Swapo, for all its unpleasantness, and notwithstanding the fact that those hon. members do not like it, is a reality and we are going to have to do business with it. That is what I am saying.

The fifth feature is that the time for reaching a constitutional solution in South West Africa is rapidly running out. The prospect of international intervention is increasing, escalating from general economic sanctions which are now being openly spoken about around the world, to local embargoes which are being discussed openly and blockades which are openly being discussed and advocated, to eventual military confrontation which might be deliberate or inadvertent, flowing out of these blockades and other measures. These dangers loom larger every year. If hon. members do not want to hear these facts, let them remain blind to them. I believe that it is the duty of a loyal and concerned South African to be aware of the dangers which threaten us. It is my purpose to bring these pertinently to the attention of hon. members and it will not deter me if they think that in mentioning these things I am in fact advocating them. What I am advocating, is awareness and alertness to threatening danger.

Our failure to divest ourselves quickly enough of our former responsibilities in South West Africa, is in fact becoming a grave liability. It is blocking any attempt to achieve détente anywhere else in Africa. It is blocking the possibility of making new alliances with the Western world to defend our position in Southern Africa. It will stand in the way of creating a sphere of interdependence and co-operation in Southern Africa, because even our allies, the people of Africa who live in the most friendly countries and with whom we practise détente, make no bones about it that on the question of South West Africa they are wholly committed against us to the point of using violence. This is the fact and if we do not recognize this, then we are blinding ourselves to the realities of our situation.

The Government has handled phase 1 in a certain fashion and I believe that it is for this party to show how phase 2 should be handled, because there is increasing evidence from that side of the House of an unwillingness to face up to the facts of the situation. In the first place, I believe that we must maintain a strong military presence in the operational zone along the frontier. I believe that this is necessary because it will create a pause, a stage at which the forces, moving from the north, will stop. It will create a breathing space in which we shall be able to operate and to seek a peaceful solution. We are either going to talk to Agostinho Neto or we are going to fight him and I leave it to members on that side of the House to tell me what they would sooner do—fight or talk. I believe that it will not be possible to talk directly to Dr. Neto in the present situation. We will have to find a strong intermediary. The sort of person who might be helpful—and this is merely a suggestion, an indication and an illustration—is General De Arriaga, who was, until some time ago, Commander-in-Chief in Mozambique. He is a man of the highest standing in Portugal. He enjoys the respect of this Government and many people here who have done business with him and who know him well. He also enjoys the respect of President Samora Machel, who has stated publicly that he holds Gen. De Arriaga in the highest possible regard.

I believe that he may be held in the same high regard by Dr. Agostinho Neto. This is the kind of man who could start a dialogue going and who would be trusted by both sides, including ourselves. I believe we have got to start talking, because if we do not start talking, we will soon be at each other’s throats, and the end is unpredictable. We should also take a strong diplomatic initiative, accompanied by a massive information campaign, especially a massive information campaign, because we have information organs in this country that waste their time by explaining to people the new rules that have been imposed in our hotels. There is certainly more important work for them to do. They should say that South Africa desires peace in Southern Africa, and drive the lesson home that it is our ideal and objective that there should be peace in Southern Africa. Secondly, they should say that South Africa will withdraw from Angola as soon as an Angolan Government that can guarantee peace and order on the frontier areas is formed.

It has been said.

It has been said in this House in reply to probing questions from this side of the House. I believe it is time to tell the world, because the world does not yet know our position in these matters. I think it is important that we should conduct a massive propaganda campaign. Again, I shall repeat a truism that has been heard in this House, namely that all Southern African States should jointly demand the withdrawal of foreign troops from the sub-continent. This is something we must work at, for which we must seek agreements and alliances, but there are certain inhibitions we have to overcome in the minds of those people before they will join us in such a common endeavour. South Africa should give a decisive lead in co-operation with all political elements in South West Africa in order to resolve that question and to instal a provisional Government in South West Africa not later than the end of 1976 because I do not believe that we have much more time than that to get it off the ground. After that, we can proceed by experience and evolution to strengthen the Government, but an embryo Government, a beginning, must be made in this year.

There are other things that can be done. We must move rapidly and deliberately towards the removal of race discrimination in this country. Private enterprise has in some respects already set the example. I believe it is time for the Government to take up the running and to search its own statute books and to see what it can do. By way of example, I may mention the private member’s motion which was debated in this House on Friday when the Government refused to work through a Select Committee in order to remove statutory discrimination from our law books. I believe they should think again.

Lastly, we must alter the economic priorities in this country. We must develop a new look, in our embattled position, in our threatened position and in our dangerous position, at the elements of growth and productivity in our economy by giving private enterprise more scope and every inducement to develop and to grow and to create jobs by removing the present political restraints from our system. Our prestige and credibility in Africa and in the world depend essentially on a strong economy which is not only strong in reality but is seen to be strong. I believe these are some of the elements which are needed if South Africa is going to deal with the situation in which it finds itself and to deal effectively and successfully with that situation. I am not alarmed about South Africa or its position in the world, or the threat from Angola; I am only alarmed about the constant delay and the unwillingness to face facts on the part of the gentlemen who face us on that side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I must honestly say that I was speechless with surprise after having listened to the hon. member for Von Brandis. It is quite beyond me that a member of this Assembly, in the times in which we are living, in the situation in which Angola finds itself, and in the light of the onslaught of communism against Southern Africa and the deliberate stirring up of unrest by the communists, can say in this House that we should negotiate with Swapo, and recognize Swapo. Then we might as well capitulate to a communist power, because the hon. the Prime Minister has already told the Opposition that Swapo is communist inspired. The organization was founded under the leadership of communists, and their aim is a communist take-over in South West Africa. I think it is absolutely outrageous and shocking that a member of this House says we should negotiate with them. He uses the argument that the world recognizes Swapo and that we, too, should therefore negotiate with Swapo. Then he might as well argue that the world recognizes Mandela as the leader of the Black people in South Africa, and that we should therefore let him out of prison, in spite of the fact that he is a communist, and that we should negotiate with him on the desires of the Black peoples. [Interjections.] No matter how the hon. member argues, the fact remains that Swapo is a communist organization that wants Russian communism to predominate in South West Africa. Then there is another point to which the hon. member did not refer at all. What on earth is to become of the other people in South West Africa, the hundreds of thousands of people who are not in the least bit enthusiastic about negotiating with the communists on their continued existence in South West Africa? No, sir, it is truly the greatest expression of capitulation, and to me it is completely unthinkable and incomprehensible that in the times in which we are living, an hon. member of this Parliament can dish this up to us, knowing full well that what he says today in this House will be disseminated in all the newspapers throughout the world tomorrow, and knowing full well that these things that they said here today, will be held against us in the world tomorrow. Now I must say that I have listened to the hon. Leader of the Opposition for many years outside this Chamber itself, and also in a few sessions inside this Chamber. As a person I have a great respect for him, and as a backbencher I also occupy a particular position in regard to him, but I must tell him that I was profoundly disappointed to hear him say to us in these times, which are so critical for South Africa, his country and mine, our country: “It is because of institutionalized forms of discrimination that the world dislikes us.”

Is it not true?

He says that we, as Whites, should capitulate internally, to satisfy the world, so that the world can help us in this situation in Angola. Sir, will these people never in all eternity reach the point where they realize that communism is engaged, throughout the world, in every country where there are differences between people, between groups and between races, in stirring up and fanning those differences into contentious issues with the object of causing revolutions so that they can eventually take over? Can they not realize that in the South African situation the race element is the element which the whole world is utilizing to try and expose us to public contempt, to present us in a despicable light, so that they can find good reason to do what they want to do in South Africa, namely to overthrow our Government here? It is our enemies who are behind all these things. What have they got in store for Rhodesia? What is happening there? There is a White Government that says that it is prepared to share the government in Rhodesia with the Black people, but the whole world is pressurizing them to a point where they have to capitulate. Why? There is only one reason for this and one reason only: Because world opinion, under the instigation of communism, has succeeded in presenting the Whites in Rhodesia in a despicable light! I will not express an opinion on the policy of that Government. The argument is that no matter what we do internally, as long as the Whites in this country and in Southern Africa try to maintain their authority, the entire world in all the council chambers and the O.A.U. in its council chambers and the communist-inspired world to which the leader of the Opposition referred, will keep on bringing pressure to bear on us in order to destroy this country. Now I want to ask: Do we Whites in South Africa truly not have the self-respect, in the face of this struggle against us, to stiffen our spines and to say that we are here to stay, we have an identity which we will maintain, and that this is our primary task? And, moreover, that proceeding from that which is our task, we are going to stay here and are going to maintain ourselves, and in the process lead the Black, the Coloured and the Indian peoples to what is justly theirs, in this set-up in South Africa? Why is it necessary to try to imply in this critical hour, as the hon. member for Von Brandis again did, that it is our policy, a policy of so-called discrimination, which discredits us in the eyes of the world? Sir, I wish I had the time to enter into a discussion with the hon. members of the Opposition of their attitude on the regulation of matters in South Africa, so that I can show them once again for the umpteenth time that they have no right to say that we, who comprise the Government, are discriminating against and are doing an injustice to the non-Whites, for in the political sphere—and I do not even want to talk about this—the whole nature of their political philosophy is discriminatory. They come with pretentions of law and justice in the social sphere as well, but if you get them into a comer, you find that they are also trying to entrench the rights and privileges of people in all sorts of ways. They are just trying to put it in a nice way. However, if one dissects it to the bone, as for example their policy of separate residential areas, their policy of separate schools, as the hon. member for Johannesburg West pointed out a few days ago, one comes to the conclusion that in their entire structure and in their entire viewpoint, they are contemplating nothing for South Africa but a policy which the outside world will continue to regard as discrimination.

But let us leave the outside world at that. Then it is still a policy which the Black people in South Africa regard as a policy of discrimination. And this is something the hon. members of the Progressive Party can consider. So, we should consider for a while when we are discussing discrimination against the Black people and the Coloureds, how the Black people and the Coloureds in South Africa view the future dispensation. If we now make an analysis of the viewpoints and the attitudes of these people in various walks of life, then we will find that the result of giving in to all these demands, the result of reaching a compromise with all the demands these people are making, will be nothing but a capitulation of identity. Sir, we have an identity which is not merely a white skin. We speak so readily of maintaining an identity in South Africa, as if it would only be a white skin which will be lost. But this is not our identity. This is only one element, an outward and physical element, of a much larger concept of identity, a concept of identity which includes also the institutions which we have established and which form part of our culture, inter alia our political institutions, our political democratic institutions and our capitalistic system, which is also a part of a social arrangement in which we claim certain things for ourselves which we would like to preserve.

In this country there is only one way of escaping from the concept of “discrimination” and that is that we should carry out our policy to its full consequences and give substance to it. One thing I want to admit frankly, namely that it is necessary to give this policy of ours a greater physical content in all spheres of life to create opportunities for the non-Whites. If we want to apply the greatest measure of discrimination against the non-Whites in South Africa, we must do what the hon. member for Johannesburg advocated. We must create a situation of “equal opportunities”. He knows as well as I do that with the differences between the peoples of Southern Africa, the situation of “equal opportunities” will ultimately boil down to discrimination—whether one has laws for it or not—against the non-Whites. It will lead to a resistance from those people which we will not be able to handle.

He need only look at his own organization. I do not like to refer to this, but I want to say candidly to the hon. member that if they—especially he—persist in trying year after year, to indicate in what respect our policy towards the non-Whites is discriminatory, we shall go to those places in which they operate and shall prove on the basis of factual evidence that they are practising a deceit there. We must expose this deceit. He cannot speak to us of “equal opportunities” while he knows in his heart that these arguments being levelled at us about job reservation and the holding the non-Whites back from opportunities, have never prevented any employer and even his own organization from appointing non-Whites to managerial posts. I want to ask how many of them there are? He realizes that he is dealing there with people, his White workers, whom he must also satisfy. Mr. Wilson, who recently retired from the service of Anglo American, stated his attitude in the most outspoken language possible in an interview with the Financial Mail. He said that in the mining industry as well—in the Anglo American set-up—they must protect the rights of the Whites and must therefore be careful and not simply what they like. If the hon. members persist with this argument, we will expose them fact by fact and from platform to platform. The non-White leaders in South Africa are fast becoming aware of the transparent deceit which is being practised against them. They will not accept it. The students broke away from a militant student organization and the businessmen to whom I referred, will also find themselves up against a lack of communication between themselves and the Black leaders. As members of the Government we made one of the greatest possible mistakes—I know that I am now saying a dangerous thing—when we allowed the Black leaders of South Africa to come under the auspices of those people only and to be in their company only. Those people are sowing poison from morning to night.

Recently I attended a conference at Turfloop. One non-White leader after another rose to speak, and I as a White person could have died of shame. After they spoke and even before they spoke, they sat next to members of the Progressive Party. When they stood up they said the most blatant, racist things imaginable about the White man. Those people are playing a game. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me I have already wasted too much time.

I now want to come to another aspect which is of deep concern to me. It is something which the hon. member for Carletonville also mentioned here today. This debate deals with economic and financial matters. In their entire attack in this debate, the Opposition made vague allegations about politics and alleged that we are obstructing politics with our policy. They tried to ignore the measures which were taken in fiscal and monetary spheres—and all the measures which were taken by the anti-inflation programme. Not one of them stood up and tried to attack or disparage the steps which the Government has taken to combat inflation, point by point. We must thus conclude that they are in any case satisfied with the Government’s actions in so far as we have tried to combat inflation. That problem is still there. In this debate much was said about one element in this fight against inflation. I am referring to the element of production, the increasing of productivity. In the anti-inflation manifesto, the entire action programme, there is another element on which great stress must be laid.

Here I would like to associate myself with the hon. member for Carletonville. I now want to put my modest standpoint to the hon. the Minister. Even if we could readily tame inflation, even if we could deal with cost-push inflation, we will still have to deal with demand inflation in future as a result of the buying power of the Black people. We will thus live in a situation of relative inflation for ever. The people who must handle that situation, are pre-eminently the young people who are still at school, and here I am also referring to the Black people in their schools and the Coloureds in their schools. One element of this fight is that we must educate our people. It worries me that there are so many of us in this Parliament who are popularity-seekers. Perhaps we are all, as politicians, political popularity-seekers as far as this matter is concerned. Instead of all of us rising to our feet and telling the people what the nature of the problem is, the Opposition accuses us, as the Government, of being responsible for it. Often we, as members of the Government, accuse the businessmen of being responsible for the increase in prices. Then we also have the other popularity-seekers, our newspapers. We as politicians are seeking votes, if I may put it so blatantly, and the newspapers are seeking to increase their circulation. But what are we doing in the process? In the process we are neglecting to tell our young people what the essential characteristic of our economical system is. In the process we are neglecting to tell our young people and others that we cannot divide the economic population into two compartments. What worries us, is that such a large number of our people see the South African population as being divided into two groups of people; the one group existing of employees, the workers, the salaried people, the so-called people who are being exploited; the other group consists of the businessmen, the industrialists, the dealers, the so-called exploiters. If we preserve in our polarized thinking along these two lines, we will not be able to determine the nature of our economic system. We must do this if we want our system to function properly. We forward arguments about the profits which businessmen make. I am also speaking as a businessman now. We are taking these arguments to such extremes that the businessmen may justifiably ask: If we are carrying on to such an extent, if we are doing you such an injustice, is it still a pleasure for us then to do business? Do we still like what we are doing then? Do we ever tell our young people outside that what we really need, is more business concerns which make greater profits so that the State can utilize the increased revenue—at the moment 40% of the State’s revenue is derived from company profits—to the advantage of everyone in Southern Africa? Here I want to deliver a plea. We should educate our people rather than echo what others say. We should also ask our newspapers to educate rather than do this. We speak of productivity as one element.

There is another element as well. In this anti-inflation programme frequent mention is being made of that element. I am referring to overspending wanting to buy too much. What is the main source of that element? It lies in the deepest nature of man himself. Man has primary requirements—food, clothes and housing. Then one comes to his secondary requirements—recognition and security. Let us as economically active people admit honestly to ourselves that our need for security and recognition often turns into absolute mis-spending in the economical picture. Then we reach the point where it is no longer necessary just to have a house, but to have a specific house. Where it is no longer necessary just to have one motor car, but, as the hon. member for King William’s Town said, to have a Mercedes and a Mercedes Benz.

But Boet was good!

Then we reach the point where we have to have a beach cottage as well, where we not simply need clothes to wear, but clothes to show off as well. It is a false concept in the minds of our people that the security which man seeks, the recognition which he seeks, can be found in material things. I think that we would have progressed very far in our anti-inflation fight when we reach the point where we can honestly say to one another that we should not only, seen from a psychological point of view, seek material things in this fight in order to gain recognition and security, but should also return to the security which is important to mankind—the security of being at peace with yourself, you as a person created by God. However, we as political people must also tell ourselves that we are seeking security in the belief that we as Whites have the right to survive and that that right also means to us that we will do what is right by other nations and will create opportunities for them with a strong economy. We must also educate our people to this end.

Mr. Speaker, it is a special privilege for me, as the member for Gezina, to follow the hon. member for Innesdal, because Innesdal is one of my neighbouring constituencies. I do not want to comment, but will instead proceed with what I should like to say to the House this afternoon.

All the time experiments are continually being carried out, and new approaches and trends investigated, in order to keep abreast of the demands of the times. Many such experiments never reach their final form and the end result is such that the original plan has to be abandoned. This is the case in the field of education too. In the past a number of experiments have been made, investigations instituted and new methods tested. Some have barely survived the experimental stage before being simply dropped—early births which were simply unable to stay alive. For better or for worse, and rightly or wrongly, the Transvaal Education Department has nearly always been in the forefront with such experiments, with the result that to the man in the street and even to the parent community, it has sometimes been a source of concern, irritation and even dissatisfaction.

However, many sound, educationally justifiable things have also resulted from these investigations and researches. One of them is undoubtedly the new differentiated education system which was given effect to in terms of the National Education Act No. 39 of 1967. For the first time education could be implemented on a national basis as it ought to be done, and, what is more, should have been done a long time ago. Education in South Africa is not merely an appendage to the national economy. It is not merely an applied layer of veneer, something essential but incidental.

On this occasion, which I regard as a special privilege, I do not want to discuss differentiated education in general. This policy is already acquiring concrete form, blazing its trail. The Transvaal reaped the first fruits of this method when its matriculants wrote their examinations at the end of last year. Permit me to convey in this House the congratulations, the thanks and appreciation of the Transvaal parents to the bodies and persons concerned. I have in mind the Director of Education and his officials, inspectors of education, headmasters and, in particular, the teachers who, with such fire and enthusiasm, but also by making sacrifices, accepted the changes and carried out the task that faced them. Only 7,6% of last year’s Transvaal matriculants did not pass, and 44,3% obtained university admission. A parent community, yes, a nation, is grateful that in the face of a manpower shortage and a lack of professional staff, a new door has been opened for the White person in South Africa to qualify and train himself to the best of his ability.

I want to confine myself to a single aspect of differentiated education. I refer to the so-called “practical course’’ which was formerly known as the “practical occupation-oriented course” and which forms part of this whole framework. Of all the fine things which this policy embraces, I regard this course as the gem of the whole structure, a gem which has not yet been perceived, recognized or identified by everyone. What is this practical course? Since Act No. 39 of 1967 specifically laid down as a principle that the labour requirements of the country should be taken into account, it is envisaged that this course will meet the requirements of pupils who are unable to derive the full benefit from the ordinary, normal course of secondary education. The course is only offered at high school and forms part of both the junior and the senior secondary school phases, viz. Stds. 6 and 7 in the junior and Std. 8 in the senior phase—with the proviso and possibility that pupils have the opportunity of continuing in this course for a further two years. This very point is one of the beauties of this course. In the past, many Transvaal pupils wrote in for the so-called “’Std. 8 course” the old C-stream, which made the pupil a compulsory school leaver after Std. 8. In terms of this new dispensation the same pupil is now given the opportunity to spend the usual time—five years—at school. In this way the pupil is afforded the opportunity to reach full maturity instead of being sent out into the world without further ado. We must bear in mind that the difficult stage of puberty has been reached at this very age, viz. 16 years. Under the new dispensation a child has the opportunity to continue with his schooling in the normal course and therefore to go on being concerned with the interests of childhood without being forced into adulthood. However, the child still has the choice of leaving the school after the third year or, to put it another way, at the end of the year in which he turns 16. I hope that in the future, as far as this course with all its possibilities is concerned, the possibility of making it compulsory for the child to stay at school for a longer period, at least until the end of the year in which he turns 17, will be considered.

A second facet of this course which should be considered is the syllabus and also the methodology. The orientation of the course is towards the practical—practical syllabi, practical presentation of subject matter which amounts to practical training, and then, too, practical testing and evaluation. According to the Transvaal Education Department the syllabi are drawn up as follows (translation)—

In order to succeed in this aim, various fields of study are offered in this course. In order fully to understand this course—it is important that our parents in particular should grasp it—consideration should be given to what is offered in the various fields. It would be impossible to deal with this here in detail, but information in this regard is available at all schools. I therefore want to confine myself to two examples.

Apart from the compulsory practical subjects offered and the non-examination subjects, the following occupation-oriented subjects are offered in the technical field: Workshop Theory, Workshop Practice, Technical Drawings and Sketches, and Business Methods, with a choice between the latter two. What is of real importance here is the minimum number of periods allocated to a subject such as Workshop Practice. In the first year it is 16 periods of 30 minutes per week, in the second and third years, 18 periods and in the fourth and fifth years 20 periods per week, viz, at least 10 hours per week. It can therefore be expected that when a pupil has completed such a course, he has undergone an exceptionally high degree of specialized training. He has acquired his own value and qualification. He is a boy who, when sent out to become a member of the work force, is properly trained and has attained a maturity which would otherwise not have been possible. Doors are opened to him which would otherwise have remained closed.

The second example I want to mention, is that of a girl in the practical course who chooses typing as a subject in the general or commercial field of study. In her fourth and fifth years the number of periods for each of the two subjects chosen, of which typing is one, is 12½ periods per week, or more than six hours per week. Here an outstanding typist is being trained, one who will be capable of contributing her share, and perhaps more than her share, towards productivity. It will be she who will be capable of typing long memoranda. I predict that the employers will be falling over each other to get hold of these typists.

What does the future hold for this course? Where do we want to go with it? It must be acknowledged immediately that there will be certain hitches and problems in its implementation which will have to be dealt with. Wrong approaches and increasing antagonism on the part of both the teacher and the parent may result in this course being doomed to failure. I want to deal briefly with a few problems and obstacles experienced so far in practice, and express the confidence that the authorities concerned will continue with perseverance to attempt to eliminate these obstacles. Firstly, there is the issue of physical facilities and accommodation. To demonstrate how easily a crisis can occur in regard to accommodation and physical facilities, there are certain things I want to point out briefly. An average school in the Transvaal with 900 pupils ought to, and can easily, have two classes each in Std. 6 to Std. 8 and one class each in Std. 9 and 10, in the practical course. If such a school offers the general field of study with Industrial Arts (Theory) and Industrial Arts (Practice) during the first three years, and Woodwork Theory and Practice and Metalwork Theory and Practice in the fourth and fifth years, this will mean that 146 periods per week are engaged. If a school week comprises 50 periods, at least three centres are required merely to offer these subjects in the course concerned. Three centres is the normal quota at such schools. Consequently, provision has not yet been made for the accommodation of Industrial Arts, which has to be offered in the ordinary course. This situation is already developing in the Transvaal and as soon as the first group have progressed into their fifth year next year, the situation could become critical. I share the concern of the Director of Education in the Transvaal, who said that with the limited funds at the disposal of the Transvaal education department in 1977, when there will be about 6 000 pupils in this course in Std. 10—there are more than 6 000 in Std. 9 this year—problems will arise in regard to the provision of sufficient centres, laboratories and other premises if thorough planning is not carried out in this regard. The same situation could occur in regard to the typing rooms, domestic science centres and workshops at technical schools. It is therefore essential to make urgent provision for additional accommodation and other facilities, and this must not be allowed to cause the failure of the course.

In the second place there is the issue of the provision of staff. Apart from the supplementary posts awarded according to a fixed scale, a shortage of staff in the occupationally oriented subjects will also have to be guarded against. Looking at one of the examples mentioned, it is apparent that already more than three members of staff are required in order that the Industrial Arts subjects may be offered in the coming year in the practical course. At least a further two are required in order to offer these subjects in the ordinary course—in other words, five members of staff per school for these subjects alone. These men are trained and specialized teachers. It is not possible to use other people in their place. In the first instance, they have to be trained people. In the second place they have to be men, and thirdly, they have to be teachers. I am worried, because where are we going to get these men from? Everyone who takes an interest in education will know how many men enter teaching and how many enter a specific field. It is still a drop in the ocean. I want to point out once again that they have to be trained male teachers. One cannot take a man off the street and tell him to teach Industrial Arts.

Furthermore, we have already taken cognizance of the concern expressed by Prof. Jooste, Director of Education in the Transvaal, in regard to the fact that the technical schools are heading for a crisis as far as their staff position is concerned. Here I refer to the Transvaler of 24 January. In reply to questions, he gives further details. In the subjects Woodwork, Metalwork and technical subjects, the following shortages existed as at 31 January this year: In Industrial Arts, a shortage of ten posts, and in technical subjects a shortage of 102 posts. However, the picture is even more sombre than that. The department is doing everything in its power to combat the problem. However, we have taken cognizance of certain situations. The recruitment of suitable persons in the technical subjects becomes virtually impossible when we find that a tradesman with a Std. 8 certificate, for example, can earn up to R8 100 per annum at municipalities in accordance with a basic scale. As a teacher, such a person cannot be employed unless he is in possession of a Std. 10 certificate and his trade certificate. With that he can earn at most R5 940 per annum in education. A few inspired tradesmen have in fact made themselves available in education, but they are the exception to the rule. In the normal course such a person would have earned R5 160 per annum in category A. In 1974 the Committee of Heads of Education decided to remunerate such persons in accordance with a special category B scale, as a result of which he can earn R5 370 per annum. The reaction to this was disappointing and in 1975 the Committee of Heads of Education decided to adjust the salary to a special category C until December 1977 with a maximum salary of R5 940 per annum. Even this had no effect on the availability of staff and more than 100 posts in the technical schools are still vacant.

Fortunately, the normal establishment for such instructors is ample, and up to now the schools have been able to cope well. However, if this situation is allowed to continue, we shall not merely be creating another educational problem, we shall be digging a grave for the practical course.

In the third place we come to guidance. This is undoubtedly one of the most important components of the successful practical course. Ignorance and antagonism can cause this course to miscarry entirely. In the first place it is the task of the head of the primary school to give the parents guidance in this regard. He is assisted by the psychological and information service of the department. The parent must realize that this course is geared to assist the child who is unable to derive the normal benefit of ordinary education. The child who would not progress adequately under normal circumstances is accorded the opportunity to do so by means of this course. Usually about 35% to 40% of the school population which starts Std. 6 does not acquire a Std. 10 certificate. We should like to see as many of them as possible being taken up into this course. For the present, however, the trend is substantially lower. The total number of Std. 6 pupils in 1973 was 35 344; in 1974 it was 36 812 and in 1975, 38 483. The total number of pupils in Std. 6 in the practical course was 7 591, or 21,48% expressed as a percentage of all Std. 6 pupils. These were the figures for 1973. In 1974 the figure was 6 775, or 18,4% and in 1975 it was 7 721, or 20,06%.

Inquiries made in the Cape show that in this Province this percentage is substantially lower even than that. However, it is encouraging that parents and pupils are making increasing use of the concession in terms of which, if a pupil fails the ordinary course, he can transfer to the practical course under certain specific provisions and circumstances. The group which entered the practical course in Std. 6 during 1973, viz. 7 591, or 21,48%, increased to 26,44% in 1974 and to 28,16% in the Std. 8 year.

Once again I want to appeal to education bodies to put everything into the struggle to extend this course and to accord it the full and equal place in education which it deserves. Furthermore, I want to ask our parents to show more understanding and sympathy when looking at and giving their attention to this matter.

To conclude, I want to pay tribute to some of my predecessors who have represented the constituency of Gezina. Firstly, the late Prof. Avril Malan, who represented this constituency from 1948 to 1958. From 1958 to 1966 he was member for Hercules, when Gezina was included in that constituency owing to altered delimitation. I have already suitably expressed my sympathy on behalf of the constituency to his wife and children on the occasion of his death a few months ago. I should like to do so again on this occasion. He was an illustrious, respected, faithful and beloved representative of his constituency. Secondly, I want to convey my thanks to Mr. Jan Visse, at present ambassador in Berne, who represented the constituency from April 1966 to the beginning of 1974. I want to thank him for his unselfish service in the constituency and also for the services he rendered as deputy speaker of this House. Gezina conveys its sincere thanks to him. I should also like to convey my deepest appreciation and thanks to Dr. J. C. Otto, now Commissioner General of the Venda national group, whom I have the privilege of succeeding. As representatives of Gezina, these gentlemen served their country and their people in an exceptional way and I should like to convey to them my deepest appreciation of this. I do so with sincere faith, in deep humility and praying Him who led me here for His blessing when I say that I trust that I shall be able to play my modest part.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to congratulate the hon. member for Gezina on his maiden speech—a speech which was pleasant in presentation and interesting in content I get the feeling that whenever education is being discussed in this House, as he did, there is always more than the usual amount of interest. This is probably because education is a matter of such special importance to South Africa. I do not think I am saying too much in expressing the hope that the hon. member for Gezina—with his very thorough knowledge of this subject—will spend a very profitable time in this House. I should like him to believe what I am saying, so I do not want to wish him a long stay here, but nevertheless want to express the hope that his stay here will be a very pleasant one. Now I have had another privilege—I must say that it was indeed a privilege—and this was to listen to the hon. member for Innesdal. The hon. member for Innesdal warned us. He said he was a man with a broad knowledge; he had looked at matters from outside this House. He had not only looked out, he had also looked in. Therefore, when he spoke to us about national relations, we must take note of his command of this subject. I must say that as far as the content of his speech was concerned, I could not help but think of the latest definition for verkramptheid. I am not saying that he is verkramp—not at all! The latest definition of verkramptheid is: A verkrampte is a man who sneaks into Graaff’s Pool early in the morning wearing his bathing costume. [Interjections.]

However, I wish to leave the subject of verkramptheid at that, because I do not want to accuse the hon. gentlemen of being verkramp. I must say, however, that he amazed me with his thorough knowledge of affairs. He made what is called a “peper-aanval” (pepper attack) in Afrikaans on the hon. member for Von Brandis, as well as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

What kind of attack?

A “peper” attack, a bitter attack. Mr. Speaker, I see that I have to teach my hon. friends the Afrikaans language. [Interjections.] He made the attack on my hon, leader and the hon. member for Von Brandis. Do you know why? Because the two hon. members had suggested that the advisability of negotiating with Swapo should be considered. It really surprises me that, about a week ago—it cannot be much more—a question was put in this House to which, I think, the hon. the Prime Minister replied. In this reply a few facts were stated. Firstly it was said that Swapo was a legal organization, an organization within the law and therefore with every right to put its case, to promote its case, to print any publication, to make a propaganda, etc., just like any other movement. However, the hon. member came forward with the suggestion that here we were dealing with a lot of communists. Now I should like to know from the hon. member why—if these people are communists—the Government does not take action against them in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act? [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. member that the Suppression of Communism Act is applicable in South West Africa as well. Did the hon. member not know this? Did he not think of this before he launched this type of attack here?

I remember that a statesman once said—I think it was Winston Churchill—that if he was in trouble and he found that the devil was on his side, he would not even mind addressing a friendly word to him in the House of Commons. I want to put this to the consideration of my hon. friend. If he wants to make bitter attack, pepper attacks, as I call them—he should first reflect what is at issue, what the matter involves. However, he proceeded…

You are not making a pepper attack but a curry attack.

He said that we as a party—and here the Government naturally agrees with him—did not participate in any way whatsoever in the anti-inflation programme. The stand of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs was a lone one; he was supported by the National Party only. The other day the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs was so kind as to list in this House a number of extremely important points appearing in that very programme. I have the Hansard here in front of me and I should like to mention a few of these points. You must remember, Sir, that they do not want any co-operation from the United Party, that they do not want any part of this kind of cooperation.

No, I did not say that.

One of the points which the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs made, was that accelerated immigration must be encouraged. Is this a completely new idea, or will the hon. the Minister admit that this is a matter which has been recommended over the years with great impact and emphasis by this side of the House? This is a plan which flows from advice given by the United Party years ago at the time when action should have been taken. Now the hon. member says that we do not do anything, while this plan actually comes from us. In addition it is being said that non-Whites should be absorbed into more productive jobs. Good grief, Sir! This is being presented as one of the points with which we do not agree. In reality, this is a view which we have held for years and which has been offered with great emphasis as advice to the Government from this side of the House, but which has usually been rejected. It is also said that technical training should be expedited. That hon. member will not remember it, but I sat in this House when the previous Minister of Labour let the words “crash programme” for training roll off his tongue sounding as if he was crushing stones. It was an idea that was ridiculed in this House.

But the tragedy of the matter is that it is 10, 15, 20 years too late. That is the problem, and now the hon. member tells us that we are not participating in the programme. Had the Nationalist Party Government followed the advice of the United Party over the past 15 to 20 years, they would not have needed this programme today. In that case it would not have been necessary for the hon. member for Carletonville to stand up and to make an emphatic appeal to the nation, because everything would have run normally, as one could have expected from a competent and supposedly effective Government.

I should like to leave the hon. member at that and take a look at the other speeches we heard. I have been sitting here all the time and it was my privilege to listen to interesting speeches. However, there were also interesting speeches from this side of the House, like that of the hon. member for King William’s Town. Nothing will be gained by ridiculing the facts he mentioned. Those facts are recorded, I think, also in Die Burger and not only in The Cape Times.

Why are you not laughing now?

The facts which he mentioned, are that thousands of rand of the public’s money have been wasted in those land transactions. Has anybody given an answer to this? [Interjections.] I have been waiting since yesterday, because as you know, Sir, it was a sharp and a formidable attack. I am still waiting for the hon. member and for the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, who is holding the purse strings. No, I am wrong. He does not hold the purse strings, he must just see to it that the purse is filled. The hon. the Minister of Finance holds the purse strings. They should be worried about this expenditure, but nothing is said.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition rose just past two o’clock this afternoon and while he was making his speech, I watched my friends on the opposite side. They listened very attentively. But it remained at that—they merely listened and did not give an answer. It was a statesman’s speech, and yet there was no reaction to it. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs may laugh. It is a pity that he has not replied to that speech already. I shall listen tomorrow or perhaps on Monday to the answers which he will give to those points raised by my leader. I should like to see whether he can hold up a vision of the future to the people in the light of the circumstances today and in the light of what the future holds for us. This is the first point I want to make, namely that there has been no answer to important speeches.

Get down to making your own speech.

Yes, my friend, just sit quietly. You will get your medicine in a moment. I also want to say that the degree of euphoria prevailing in this House with regard to racial affairs and economic affairs, is amazing. It is as though everything in the garden is rosy, that there is nothing wrong with the people outside. If that is what hon. members think, it is, however, very far from the truth. Before dealing with this any further, I want to mention that virtually every speech in this House was opened by a reference to the serious times in which we were living. One hesitates to participate in a debate on such a serious matter, because one can easily do more harm by becoming panicky than by remaining quiet. But there is one thing in South Africa which the people cannot afford and that is to sit back in a spirit of complete self-satisfaction about the burning issues in South Africa. We dare not be self-satisfied about our economy; we dare not be self-satisfied about race relations either. Let us look at how self-satisfied, or dissatisfied, the people are, and I want to begin with racial affairs because it is the racial philosophy of this Government which runs through our economy like a black thread, a philosophy of which one finds traces everywhere—in the social, economic and political spheres. The ideology of so-called separate freedoms has left deep scars everywhere. I want to begin with this aspect. The hon. the Minister now offers me an opportunity by saying that they do take this matter seriously.

Sir, the razor sharp spearhead of the attack against South Africa today is embedded in the word “discrimination”, and who will doubt this? Perhaps the hon. member for Innesdal and perhaps the hon. member for Carletonville, who say that there is no discrimination. But every reasonable being in South Africa who has at least a little knowledge of politics, national or international, will admit that this is the weapon which is being used day in and day out against South Africa.

What does Andries Treurnicht say?

Sir, this is a matter of such gravity that discrimination as a concept has been taken to the international level and has been introduced into the highest council-chamber in the world, the UNO, by no less a person than an ambassador of South Africa. He introduced it there, not because he alone entertained that thought, but because he was supported by the Prime Minister of South Africa. Why did he do this? Because he knew that he was dealing with the spearhead of the attack against South Africa. Locally we also hear protests against discrimination. I remember the hon. the Minister of Transport saying, a few months ago in, I think Kleinmond, that colour differences would play a decreasing role here. I also hear talk here that discrimination must be removed. But in the light of the world danger and the world-wide attack upon us, the hon. member for Edenvale, however, made a speech here. He was extremely objective. He did not act piously by pretending that he was innocent while others were guilty, because no one in South Africa is innocent when it comes to discrimination. He suggested that a Select Committee be appointed to remove statutory discrimination. He said that we wanted to co-operate, and he went on to say that this delicate subject, which was used against us every day, must be removed from the party-political arena. However, what do hon. members on the opposite side of this House say? They say, “We do not need your co-operation!” They know all the answers and they therefore do not need our help. But when it comes to economic affairs, then they seek our help. When it comes to defence, then they seek our help. But when it comes to one of the matters on which we are attacked, the helping hand which we extend, is spumed. Is this true or is this not true?

It is dramatic.

The hon. member says I am being dramatic but is it not something to become dramatic about when one is fighting for one’s existence as a people? One comes here and as an honest South African, completely loyal to the country, makes an offer to help on the international level and this is rejected. Let us take an honest look at these things and be serious about them. A self-satisfaction as regards racial affairs in South Africa has settled over the whole country which is dangerous for our future. And if the Government is not self-satisfied, why did it not say that we must co-operate to remove this thing? We are self-satisfied and this is dangerous for the future of South Africa.

I want to go further. Let us look at the greater philosophy. There one finds similar self-satisfaction. The Nationalist Party believes and suggests that it has the answer to the great racial issue. Surely we know that separate freedoms as a policy have failed completely as regards the objectives for which it was formulated. The hon. member for Innesdal sitting over there ought to know this. The policy of separate freedoms had its origin in the fact that the numerical imbalance, White vis-à-vis Black in South Africa, had to be rectified. This is one side of the coin. In order to do this, the Bantu had to be removed so as to get their own political home. This is how it originated.

But is he not getting his own political home?

But what has happened? Numerically the imbalance is deteriorating progressively. Numerically the Black man is increasing in White South Africa and the only thing the Government has done, is to create the political home. The problem which the late Dr. Verwoerd saw, is twice or three times more serious today than it was in 1960, but the people believe that we have an answer. What is happening today, Sir? The White man is exercising political supremacy from the top while the Black man is gaining economic supremacy from the bottom. Who can doubt this? And is this not the direct result of Nationalist Party policy? We must consider this. We talk of safety and security. What beautiful words! However, let us get to the facts concerning South Africa. Let us ask ourselves: Can I entrust my safety to this Government?

Never!

I am worried about this. I am just as worried about the economic situation because here we experience the same self-satisfaction. The ideology, the colour policy, has failed and all its black marks have rubbed off on our economy. Who can deny that millions of rand have been spent in South Africa to support this ideology? Who can deny it? That is State money, Sir. Who can deny that one of the reasons for our productivity being so low today, is directly due to the lack of training of our workers? That training of workers, or the lack of such training, did not come about for no particular reason. The lack of training came about for one reason. The Nationalist Party through its own Minister argued that it did not dare train the Black man, because if one did, he would ask for social and other privileges which it dared not give him.

That is not true.

From where do you get those words?

I shall tell you now. The point of view of the former Minister of Labour was put clearly and to the point in the Other Place, i.e. that the training of non-Whites for technical … [Interjections.] Wait a minute. What really surprises me is that the hon. the Minister of Defence does not know these facts.

Quote what he said.

Yes, I shall quote to you what he said. I do not have the Hansard with me but the hon. the Minister knows of this. I believed that he had knowledge of the matter. The then Minister of Labour said that we could not train the Bantu for political reasons.

No, quote what he said.

Quote his Hansard.

I really thought that the Nationalist Party knew their own reasons, their own policy. What the hon. the Minister said, was true after all. Does the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs who is sitting over there sneering, want to tell me it is not?

No, you are quoting him incorrectly.

Am I telling an untruth?

Quote him.

I am asking a simple question. Am I telling an untruth or not? They are not saying a word.

He did not say what you are alleging.

He put it unequivocally that the Bantu in White South Africa could not be trained due to political considerations. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister may argue about this. I am truly convinced of one thing, and that is that unless the Nationalist Government changes its ways as far as racial affairs are concerned and unless it sets to work in the economic sphere, it will be a risky matter to leave one’s future in their hands.

Mr. Speaker, it is always very pleasant to listen to the hon. member for Maitland.

Not today.

He is a very compelling speaker. However, what impressed me most in his speech today was not what he said, but what he omitted to say. I thought that he, too, would have availed himself of the opportunity, as his colleague the hon. member for Albany did, to assure us that he had not the slightest intention of joining the National Party. Actually, like his colleague for Albany, he has been under strong suspicion recently. The hon. member for Maitland is an experienced and seasoned politician and he is keeping his options open. In a speech which otherwise, was not too bad, and which was quite good in parts, the hon. member went and marred his speech by making the ridiculous statement that the policy of separate freedoms had failed completely.

But the world is saying it.

Far from it. The way in which that policy is succeeding is the wonder of this age, and in the course of my speech I shall attempt to elaborate on this further.

A few months ago, headman Gatsha Buthelezi addressed a meeting of 80 000 of his followers at Mondlo in Natal. This is a noteworthy fact, and something which is probably the dream of every politician, viz. to address 80 000 people. This is the platform we have created for him. It is we who created it. We have given him and other leaders like him the status and the prestige among their people—I merely mention this in passing. On that occasion headman Buthelezi had many complimentary things to say about the Afrikaners. He told those 80 000 Zulus that it was a great honour for them, that it should be a privilege and an inspiration to them to live among these people. What Buthelezi had to say about the Afrikaner there, of course, applies equally to the people as a whole and specifically to the supporters of the National Party. Headman Buthelezi referred to the fact that as recently as a few decades ago the Afrikaner was poor, extremely poor, and he had since raised himself out of his state of poverty and today, he was well-to-do. In the second place, he said, only a few decades ago he occupied a subordinate position, and today we have the political power in our hands. When we consider the socio-economic rise of our people during the past three or four decades, and when we consider the political power we possess, the question immediately occurs: What are we doing now with this economic power, and what are we doing with the political power? I know of no other people in the world with such an opportunity, challenge and task. I know of no other people in the world with a better understanding of the needs of other peoples, the socio-economic needs. The non-White in our midst and in the rest of Africa is faced with the problem of poverty. We know that problem, because we ourselves have been poor. No-one has a better understanding of their urge for political self-determination. Virtually every people in Africa has had to do with colonial powers—we have, too. For generations we fought against Dutch colonialism and British imperialism. Therefore we, more than other people, know how to respect the freedom of other people.

Then there are the following two matters. I said that the hon. member referred to the poverty that prevailed among our people at the time and to the political power our people have acquired. Until a short time ago we were still extremely poor. Middle-aged members in this House will remember a time when our people worked for 3/6d. per day. In the early 30’s the Carnegie Report was published, a report which made mention of 300 000 poor Whites, people who lived below the breadline and, to a greater or lesser extent, had lost their economic autonomy. Time does not permit me to discuss all the steps taken to wrest ourselves from the oppressive stranglehold of impoverishment. However, the fact is that we triumphed over our poverty. The word “poor White” was banished from our vocabulary. Thirty years ago it was still a household word. Today our people are well-to-do, and our standard of living is one of the highest in the world. Our country is rich and is the economic giant of Africa. We are numbered among the foremost industrial countries of the world. The fact that we are rich is not in itself important. But what is important is what we are doing with that prosperity. How are we using it? Are we putting it at the service of others? Are we using it to refine and make pleasant the lives of our own people and of others in our midst? We have overcome the ogre of poverty and we are now showing other people the way to economic prosperity. What could be more satisfying than to let other people have the good things in life, those things which, by dint of effort and dedication lasting over generations, one has achieved for oneself? We have a programme of aid unequalled anywhere in the world, a programme of aid for underdeveloped countries. It is not only money that we are giving those people. In 1960 we invested R27 million in the Bantu homelands. This year the sum is R609 million. We are giving these people more than just money. We are putting the brainpower of our people and our technical skills at the disposal of those people. It is a programme of aid without parallel anywhere in the world. The hon. member for Maitland said that we should not be self-satisfied. Of course we should not be self-satisfied. However, we cannot allow the Opposition to refer continually in disparaging terms to the gigantic task which we are engaged in. It is an enormous task.

A few months ago, when making his presidential address on the occasion of the bank’s annual meeting, Mr. Robert McNamara, the president of the World Bank, painted a very sombre picture of the distress and misery in the developing countries of the world. He referred to 900 million of the poorest people in the world, a quarter of the world population, whose per capita income had dropped by ½% over the period 1971 to 1974 at a time when most of the countries in the world were experiencing the highest rate of inflation of all time. Mr. McNamara made a projection of the growth envisaged over ten years for virtually a milliard people. He calculated that between 1970 and 1980, the per capita income of these people would increase from R71 per annum to R73 per annum, viz. by R2 per annum, and that this would be the case in spite of the extremely high rate of inflation.

On the other side of the scale he mentioned a few of the most developed countries of the world. He calculated that the per capita income of the people in these countries would increase from R2 108 per annum—that was the figure in 1970—to R2 721 in 1980. Their annual income would therefore increase by more than R600 per annum. For a milliard people the increase is going to be only R2. For a handful of rich people it is going to be more than R600 per annum. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The gap between the have’s and the have not’s is going to grow.

In comparison with this, what is the position here? Over the same period, viz. 1971-’74, when the per capita income of more than R900 million people had dropped by a half per cent, the per capita income of the Black people in the homelands rose from R93 per annum to R113 per annum. Over a period of three years, therefore, their income rose by R40. Over this period their income rose by 43% while over the same period the per capita income of 900 million people dropped by½%. Surely that is something to write home about. Surely South Africa has something to tell the world. After all, we are achieving something in the homelands. And then the hon. member for Maitland comes along and states with a sneer that the policy of separate freedoms has failed completely.

In 1971 only two of the homelands had a per capita income of more than R100. The per capita income of Bophuthatswana was R113 and in 1974 it rose to R165. The per capita income of KwaZulu was R101 in 1971 and since then it has risen to R145. All the other homelands had a per capita income of less than R100. According to the 1974 figures each homeland, with the exception of the Swazi homeland, had a per capita income of more than R100 and I believe that since then their income, too, has risen. This growth, unequalled anywhere in the world, is a direct consequence of the development projects tackled by this Government. It has been my privilege to visit all our homelands and to see what is being done there.

Last year during the Parliamentary recess there was a tour to KwaZulu. The sharpest critics of this Government, people who speak most disparagingly of our policy, were conspicuous by their absence. The Progressive Party did not have a single representative on that tour to see what was being done in the industrial sphere, to see the agricultural development there, to see how an infrastructure for the homelands was being built up and how the human potential was being developed. More important than the projects we saw there was the privilege of talking to the officials there. Who are the people at the head of the development projects in the homelands? What struck me was that the people we talked to were children of people who themselves had not had the opportunity in the early 30’s—the depression years—to study further. The father had been unable to study further, but he saw to it that his son studied further and the son made his talents, knowledge and abilities available in the Bantu homelands for the upliftment and development of other people. This service and the idealism of our people is worth far more than all the millions we are contributing towards development. A handful of maligned Whites, scorned and disregarded by the rest of the world and disparaged by our own people, are achieving what the rest of the world has been unable to do, viz. to cause the growth rate of the developing peoples to increase at a tempo far greater than that of our own development.

I have referred very cursorily to economic development in the homelands. The Whip has said that I must finish now, but I should still like to discuss the political development in the homelands. It is not 15 years since we in this country realized the ideal of generations, viz. a Republic of our own. Barely had we become a Republic when we were already engaged in preparing and guiding the other peoples in our midst towards political self-determination. Over the years—the Transkei was the first, as early as the early 60’s—there has been an election in every homeland, with the exception of KwaZulu. On 26 October, without a drop of blood having been spilt, the Transkei will become a sovereign independent state. In the no-confidence debate the hon. member for Hillbrow asked very scornfully what there was to fight for. Surely there is something to fight for and to live for—the aim of carrying out such a task, a task which no other country in the world faces. If the hon. member for Hillbrow does not understand that, then he does not know what it is to live; then he does not know what it is to be a South African and a patriot.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Natal dealt with great eloquence with the historical events which have occurred in the life of this country and of its people. He has referred to the years of poverty and hardship and seemed to suggest that poverty and hardship were limited to a section of the people of South Africa. His whole direction was towards the fact of the Afrikaner poverty. Those of us who have lived in this country for generations, realize that poverty, and hardship caused by poverty, know no boundaries of creed or language or colour. It is interesting that the hon. member should have continued to speak with such great eloquence on the amount of money which was being spent—with which we agree—on the development of facilities for the Bantu. But, Sir, has he forgotten how his party came to power in 1948? It was because the United Party of those days was practising a “skinkbord-beleid”; we were spending too much money on the Black people of South Africa. That was how his party got into power. I think the reformation, particularly that of a man like the hon. member for Port Natal, is to be welcomed. But has he forgotten how for years and years this Government attempted to deceive the country as to what it was spending on Bantu education because it was too ashamed to say that it was spending more than R13 million, because it might lose votes? How long did it take before the bookkeeping caught up on them and they had to say what was being spent? They thought that it might upset their supporters if they spent more than R13 million per year. Now they are the people who are doing so much for the Black people and the non-White people of this country. There is not one of us who does not want to see the development of the homelands to their maximum, to be able to provide a living for the maximum number of Black people, but that is not the end of the road when it comes to the non-White people of South Africa. Only half of the Black population will be able to be accommodated within the homeland areas if they are all independent. Then we are left with the other half of the Black population in so-called White South Africa, together with the Coloureds and Indians, but we are asked to believe that the policy of separate development or separate freedoms is succeeding, because there is development in the homelands to that extent. Let me say, however, that we welcome the fact that it is occurring.

What about the position in Lesotho?

I am not for one moment suggesting that there has not been development, but it is not the answer, and I do not believe that separate development is the answer for the future of this country of ours, because with the maximum development of the eight Bantu homelands, there will still be an equal number of Black people resident, whether they are temporary sojourners or not, in White South Africa together with the Coloureds and Indians.

My point is: What about the Basothos working in South Africa?

Yes, obviously they are seeking employment, and I am not saying that there are no opportunities in South Africa. What I am saying is that the dispensation of separate development will not satisfy the needs, the requirements and the future of the Black people who will permanently be in what the hon. the Prime Minister chooses to term White South Africa.

Again I ask you: What about the Basothos working in South Africa?

I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will come into the debate, because there are several questions which I want to put to him and which my hon. leader put to him this afternoon. He may perhaps be able to deal with some of them on Monday.

Before I come to the main topic of my speech, I want to deal with one matter concerning the hon. the Minister of Finance. We all accept that at this time it is necessary that there should be pruning of expenditure and I believe it is a problem to find, particularly in respect of capital expenditure, where the selection for that pruning should be made. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider, before the budget is introduced, the pruning which he is directing towards necessary expenditure to provide for the pensioners and the old-age people. I want to refer particularly, in the Cape Town context, to a problem I have in mind. Not very distant from this House—we can view it from the Verwoerd Building—there is a wide expanse of ground almost in the centre of Cape Town, ground from which thousands of families have been removed and on which the Government has spent an amount of approximately R23 million. This land is lying idle with weeds growing on the sites on which buildings have been demolished. I am referring to District Six. Although that is there, not a single site has been sold and not a single cent has been gained from development. The hon. the Minister has found it necessary to indicate, through the Department of Community Development, that there is no money available to build a home for the aged in the Green Point and Sea Point areas. They have indicated that the project must be postponed. The site is available and the need for a home is undisputed, the plans have been drawn up and approved and funds for furnishing the building have been raised by the residents of that area, but now prospective residents must wait while money lies idle. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he ask his colleague, the Minister of Community Development, to put a small area of District Six up for sale to the Coloured people on a home-ownership basis. He would then get double the money he needs to provide for the old-age home in Sea Point. He could get double the money from the sale of a restricted number of plots in that area.

The point I want to come back to this afternoon in the course of this address of mine, is a point arising out of the debate we had in the House on Friday. It has been referred to before by hon. members on this side of the House. I refer to the motion of the hon. member for Edenvale that we should have a Select Committee to determine what discriminatory measures should be eliminated. That motion was rejected by the Government, and I believe that, in doing so, the Government did South Africa a great disservice. It therefore becomes necessary for us to attempt to isolate publicly, across the floor of this House, the discriminatory measures that must be done away with in this country. The Government, by its attitude, has denied us the opportunity of Government and Opposition meeting in a committee room as a Select Committee to try to sort out those matters that must be put right as far as our country is concerned. Now the debate must take place across the floor of this House. It must and will take place, and on every possible occasion during this session we shall deal with the matter of discrimination. I believe this is a matter of great urgency. Firstly, I believe that we must eliminate discrimination because it militates against the full involvement of the people of South Africa in the defence of South Africa. Secondly, I believe that we should do away with discrimination wherever possible and as quickly as possible as the elimination of discrimination is an essential element in the pursuit of the Prime Minister’s policy of détente which everyone on this side of the House wishes to support. Thirdly, I believe that we have to take these positive steps in order to establish South Africa’s credibility amongst the nations of the world, particularly those in the United Nations who listened to the speech of our ambassador on 24 October 1974. That speech by the South African ambassador in the Security Council on 24 October 1974 created a watershed as far as South African political philosophy is concerned. It is a watershed from which inevitable consequences must flow, and any interruption in the recognition of the flow of those consequences can only result in disaster for our country, leading to even greater isolation than we had before that speech was made by the ambassador. Having listened to the hon. member for Innesdal this afternoon, one wonders why our ambassador spoke at all at the United Nations, why it was necessary for him to have uttered a single word.

I have said that this speech was a watershed as far as South African thinking is concerned, so perhaps this is the appropriate time for me to say to the hon. member that I shall attempt, when I continue with this debate, to indicate to him why that speech was made and what the consequences are for us and what reactions must be forthcoming from us in this House if we wish to have any credibility as a nation and a Government—the ambassador was speaking on behalf of the Government—as far as our future conduct in race relations in concerned.