Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned on Thursday, I had suggested that the speech of our ambassador at the United Nations had created a watershed as far as political thinking in South Africa was concerned, from which inevitable consequences would flow. I said that firstly because there was a public acknowledgment from our ambassador, and I quote his words:

“We do have discriminatory practices and we do have discriminatory laws in South Africa.” Secondly, he expounded a completely acceptable philosophy when he said that the Whites of South Africa are as much concerned about the implementation of human rights, human freedoms, human dignity and justice as any other nation in the world. Thirdly, in the words of the ambassador, he said there was an acceptance that the Government of this country does not condone discrimination purely on grounds of race or colour, and that discrimination based solely on the grounds of the colour of a man’s skin cannot be defended. These were public undertakings to the nations of the world that the Government of South Africa would do everything in its power to move away from discrimination based on race and colour. There was a further assurance from the hon. the ambassador, namely that there was no question of keeping apart people who wished to come together. These assurances were given to the world. These were expressions of intent. They were made some 15 months ago. We are entitled and, in fact, we are obligated today to inquire and to highlight what has or what has not been done to implement and to fulfil these undertakings.

Replying to the motion on Friday, 6 February, of the hon. member for Edenvale with regard to the setting up of a select committee to deal with questions of discrimination, and to identify them, the hon. the Minister of Justice made certain statements which need closer examination. He gave the assurance that the Government was completely aware of the statutes on our Statute Books which are no longer necessary, i.e. no longer necessary as discriminatory measures. Why then, in heaven’s name, must the Prime Minister appoint a Cabinet Committee if the Government is so aware of this? Must he appoint a Cabinet Committee to decide what laws should be changed? Is it necessary to have a Cabinet Committee? Why, 15 months after the statement was made by our ambassador, do we still have the salary and pension discrimination between racial groups, between people in this country, purely on the grounds of the colour of their skin? Why the discrimination referred to in the report of Mr. Justice Snyman which has recently been laid upon the Table of this hon. House? More than a year ago the Government, on the instructions of the hon. the Prime Minister, appointed a Cabinet Committee to investigate—and I quote the words of the hon. the Minister of Justice—“possible discriminatory measures with a view to their elimination within the framework of separate development”. This is a committee to operate in the closed circle of the Cabinet without a single voice from the Black, the Coloured or the Indian people as to what they regard as discriminatory legislation. Secondly, the hon. the Minister argued that discriminatory practices exist in the rest of the world. That is no answer to the fulfilment of the undertakings of our ambassador. Thirdly, the hon. the Minister suggested that a Select Committee would not lead to agreement, but that there would be fundamental differences of opinion amongst the members of the Select Committee. I accept that as a fact. There would be fundamental differences between the hon. gentlemen opposite and the members who sit on this side of the House. I would have thought, however, that it would have been far better if those differences, whether they be fundamental or superficial, were aired and considered in a Select Committee chamber rather than across the floor of the House.

I find it extremely difficult to reconcile the statements of the hon. gentlemen opposite. The Minister of Justice said: “Hierdie kant van die Raad erken mense se menswaardigheid.” On the other hand, the newly appointed Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education had this to say: “Black persons who are permitted to remain permanently in the White area of South Africa under section 10 cannot be accepted as a permanent part of our political or social structure in White South Africa.” The hon. the Minister of Justice said: “Ons evalueer elke mens op sy eie intrinsieke waarde.” How can this be reconciled with the statement of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education? How can it be reconciled with the nonsensical conditions which the hon. the Minister himself has imposed with regard to hotels, the so-called international hotels? How can it be reconciled with the statement of the hon. member for Sunnyside who said that the job reservation clause was not a measure to be eliminated from our Statute Book because it affected only 2,8% of the workers in South Africa? Do hon. members opposite not accept and appreciate that it is not the extent to which that law is applied in South Africa which is the cause of concern, but the principle which is enshrined in the very existence of job reservation, namely that a man, irrespective of his ability, because of the colour of his skin, is precluded from utilizing his God-given talents for his advancement in certain avenues of employment? That is the effect of that law. But it is not discrimination, Sir. The hon. the Minister of Justice announced further in a most dramatic way that in his opinion there was a departure from the present restrictions in regard to access to hotels. I am very glad that he referred to “international status”—in inverted commas—in that statement, because one wants to examine what is happening.

I have limited time this afternoon to deal with this, but I want to say that the hon. the Minister, in the statement he issued, said that the granting of international status to the establishments mentioned meant that liquor, refreshments, meals or accommodation, as the case may be, were to be supplied to persons who were not White from 16 February at the discretion of the licensee. We would be very happy if there were such a discretion in the hands of the licensee. However, the discretion is so circumscribed, and I would like to refer to one issue, namely the nonsensical statement about dancing. Does the hon. the Minister know what he has in fact said? He has said that a Black man and his wife can go to one of these hotels with a normal restaurant with dance floor facilities, and that they can have a meal there, but that they cannot go on to the dance floor unless, of course, they are foreign Black people. In the month of February or March a Xhosa gentleman can go into the Heerengracht Hotel, but he and his wife cannot go on to the dance floor. However, after October it will be quite all right for that same gentleman and his wife to go on to the dance floor if they should wish to, because they will have come from a foreign state. [Interjections.] That is the position.

My time is limited and I would like to turn to the question of the elimination of discrimination. The hon. the Minister said it would be eliminated within the framework of separate development. I think the time is opportune for me to make a few comments in connection with the report of the judicial commission on the disturbances at Black universities in the North. I am referring to the Snyman Commission. I understand that there is a limited number of copies of this report available. I would like to suggest that it should be compulsory reading for every member in this House, because the learned judge gives a very graphic word picture of the frustration and the hatred which is growing amongst Blacks towards Whites in this country.

Why?

Obviously the hon. member has not read the report. He wants to know why. The judge spells out the reasons and causes for this unhappy and dangerous situation. First of all, he points to the rejection of the policy of separate development amongst the Blacks. Secondly, he mentions the growth of Black consciousness which, the judge says, is nurtured by grievances and frustration of lagging behind Whites in the development of human civilization in this country. Thirdly, the judge refers to the aggravation caused, in his own words

Fourthly, he mentions the unpleasant personal experiences of the urbanized, westernized and sophisticated Blacks which impair their dignity. This is a class of persons which hon. members on the other side have never been ready to accept as even existing in our society. The judge adds, fifthly, that a source of antagonism is the fact that Black students regard the university as a product of separate development. Sixthly, he points out that the Blacks reject the ethnic groupings as seen by us Whites. Seventhly, the Black man does not see himself as part of a separate nation. He wants to be recognized as a part of the South African nation.

Nonsense!

Hon. members say this is nonsense, but I am quoting the findings of Mr. Justice Snyman. He goes further and says that the attitude of Blacks is aggravated by restrictions imposed upon them, which constitute a violation of their human dignity. These are his findings; these are the findings of a judicial commission. These are the facts which have led to the statement in which the hon. judge states that the state of affairs on the campus is now an agitator’s paradise.

The hon. judge also dealt with the establishment of the Black students’ organization, SASO. He said—

He continues that SASO advocates violent revolution and that it promotes racial hatred in South Africa. The organization propagates Black consciousness, Black theology and Black power as the means towards the establishment of the political goal of Black socialism in this country of ours.

Further, the judge finds that SASO was led by the ideology of a new organization, which caused its birth and formation in the student body. The judge refers to the University Christian Movement which was inspired, as the judge puts it, by the UCM of the United States, by the American Committee on Africa and by the World Students’ Christian Federation which is described by the learned judge as a Marxist organization. He goes on to recall—and I think it is as well that we should know this—that it was during the 1968 annual conference of the UCM in South Africa that the first Black caucus was formed which led to the birth of SASO. It was at this UCM conference that, I recall, the hon. member for Pinelands was an official delegate as the leader of the Methodist Church in South Africa. The judge says that it is this UCM that introduced the ideology of Black power and that it introduced the principle of polarization of Black and White in South Africa. It was this organization, as the judge said, which acted as the midwife at the birth of SASO in South Africa. These findings are a sombre warning to our church leaders in this country, who should exercise more care in the selection of organizations which spring up here and which they are prepared to back. Many churches supported the UCM from its inception. At the 1969 conference the UCM adopted a resolution in which it reaffirmed its affiliated membership of the World Students’ Christian Federation, the organization which Mr. Justice Snyman describes as a Marxist organization. That motion at the conference in 1969 was introduced by the hon. member for Pinelands. [Interjections.] I refer to this, because these are the facts of an unhappier period of race relations in South Africa. The hon. member for Pinelands was not alone in this; there were members of various churches who were also supporting this organization at that time. I believe that if we value and look forward to peaceful coexistence in South Africa and if we desire economic prosperity, then we have to look at the set of circumstances which, as the learned judge has said, creates a fertile field in which organizations such as SASO can operate. We must see to what extent we can, by action, and I mean immediate action, fulfil the undertakings of our ambassador at the United Nations, and let the world see that we are intent on carrying out the undertakings of our ambassador. We must see to it that those undertakings are not put aside by us as the Parliament of this country, but that we accept the consequences of carrying out those undertakings which were given in our name by the ambassador at the UNO.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point is known in this House to be a person who makes very good and well-balanced contributions, but I am afraid with this speech he has just completed, he proved to us that the presence of the Progressive Party in Durban North does not run through the life of that party like a golden thread, but like barbed wire which is separating them quite considerably. I want to say at once that if one had had appreciation for the contributions of the hon. member for Green Point in the past, one would have been very disappointed today. This hon. member told this House on Thursday that separate development could not succeed and that it had failed. I do not have the time this afternoon to deal with the matter in detail, but I would just like to remind the hon. member that we have reached the year 1976 and that we are on the eve of the attainment of independence of the Transkei. That event is certainly irrefutable proof of the success which the National Party has achieved in carrying separate development through to its logical consequences in South Africa. There are numerous other examples one could quote. I think the hon. member is being naïve if he merely states that separate development cannot succeed and that he does not see it as the solution to our problems in this country. He went on to deal with discrimination and gave us a long discourse on it. This was not the first time the hon. member discussed discrimination. He did so about a week ago and about 18 months ago as well. On that occasion he said that the solution to our problems, the alpha and the omega, lay in the abolition of the prohibition on mixed marriages as well as the following: Group areas, bus apartheid, the prohibition on social mixing, separate universities, the prohibition of mixed trade unions and work reservation, to which he again referred this afternoon and to which I shall subsequently return. He also referred to the abolition of the parliamentary representative of the Bantu as proof of those things which should now be abolished. He said if these were abolished we would have an utopia in this country. Then there would be peace and quiet and the world would be very fond of us.

I do not think it is necessary to go into these matters very deeply, for surely we know that these steps will not solve the matter. However, I think that, with reference to the discourse he presented today, as well as to his 1974 speech, it is necessary that we put a few pertinent questions to the hon. member. I want to ask him whether it is the standpoint of the United Party that the prohibition of mixed marriages should be abolished. [Interjections.] He agrees with that. We shall have to confront our voters with that and I honestly hope the United Party will not hesitate to tell the voters of Durban North and Alberton that the United Party advocates the abolition of the prohibition on mixed marriages.

Have you read that Act?

I want to ask the hon. member whether it is the standpoint of the United Party that the arrangement which is made in terms of the Group Areas Act should be abolished, so that mixed residential areas could be created. Should there be places in Durban North where the different colour groups could live together? Should they come and live amongst the Whites in Alberton and Green Point as well? I think the voters of Alberton and Durban North are entitled to know where they stand with the United Party in that respect. I also think we should know whether the hon. member for Green Point is speaking on behalf of the United Party when he says that he is in favour of Black people having a representative in this Parliament again, for he advocated in 1974 that that measure should be repealed and that the Bantu representatives should return to Parliament. If the hon. member says he is in favour of it, the voters of Alberton and Durban North, in fact the entire country, is entitled to know what his view is, on behalf of the United Party, in regard to the question of how many representatives the Black people should have in this House. If he is not prepared to supply these details, then one is forced to say—Mr. Speaker, you will probably call me to order here—that the United Party is hypocritical, that they distort matters and that they are misleading the voters of this country. Mr. Speaker, I think it is time this matter was cleared up …

Order! Would the hon. member please repeat what he meant when he used the word “hypocritical”?

Mr. Speaker, by that I meant that if the United Party is not prepared to tell the voters of this country that they advocate the representation of Black people in this House, and if they do not add either how many representatives the Black people should have here, they are hypocritical and they are misleading the people.

The hon. member may not make certain insinuations by means of an hypothetical statement. I think it would be better if the hon. member were rather to withdraw that word.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member this afternoon delivered a recitation on discrimination here. Now it is right that he should also hear, from the National Party side, where the latter party stands on this matter—as opposed to the standpoint of the United Party.

Where is that?

I shall now tell you. I cannot do it better than in the words of my esteemed leader, who is not only the leader of the National Party, but also the leader of every thinking, and I almost want to say decent, person in this country, and whose leadership is appreciated far beyond the borders of this country. My leader said in 1974—

This is what he said. There is not one hon. member on this side of the House who can rise here this afternoon and say with a clear conscience that he cannot see where the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government are carrying into effect this statement which the hon. the Prime Minister made in this House. I think the actions of the Government in this respect, are meeting with a response throughout the world.

On that occasion, however, the hon. the Prime Minister also made another statement, of which we should also take note. On that occasion he asked what the United Party wanted to do and where they want to go with the standpoint they were adopting on discrimination. Where do they want to take the nation? What is their idea? What are they trying to suggest to the Black nations of this country? Are they not suggesting to the Black people that under their régime things will be done which they know in their hearts they will not be able to do.

In this way they create expectations among the Black people. If people create expectations under such circumstances, I think it is right that we, as the voters of Alberton and Durban North, can draw our own conclusions about the motive behind this standpoint, the attitude which they adopt and the policy which they advocate. I think the conclusion one should draw from that motive, is that they do not see their way clear.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately my time is limited and the Whips will not allow me any more time. I say that the voters should draw the conclusion that the United Party is creating expectations among the Black people for one purpose only and that is to spur Black people on to a certain point. Pedagogically it is correct that by repeating something over and over again, people will eventually believe it. Therefore, if the hon. Opposition were to keep on repeating things to the Black people, as for example that they are being discriminated against, they will begin to believe this in the long run, and would eventually reach a point where they are no longer able to endure it. This would inevitably lead to incidents, for then there is going to be confrontation.

Mr. Speaker, is this not the conclusion we should draw concerning the motive of the United Party? Should we not draw the conclusion that they are heading for such a confrontation for the sake of what may be a little political advantage? I think the voters of Durban North and Alberton are intelligent enough to make sure that after the respective polling days there will be no occasion for the United Party to say that they made progress.

But, Mr. Speaker, I would like to express a few thoughts this afternoon on a few labour matters which were raised here from time to time. On Thursday we sat here waiting for the hon. member for Maitland to say something about labour, but he just never got around to it. All he did was make a few vague statements which he could not prove, and I could have challenged him to present his proof here to this House today, but now there will be no time for that this afternoon. But the hon. member for Maitland is a person who finds it very easy to say that the Government ignores the Black labourers and that thousands of people—these are the words used last year—want to work but do not have any work. Sir, he must be a Rip van Winkle for surely that kind of attitude does not hold water. It does not correspond to what is actually happening in practice. After all, there is no question of there being thousands of people who want to work, but who do not have any work. As a matter of fact, there is over-employment. In spite of all the problems we have, we are fortunate in this country not to have any unemployment. The hon. member went further and said that we see the entire labour question solely as a political problem, and he said that we should stop looking at the colour of a person’s hands. Work reservation, he said, should finally disappear from our vocabulary. I do not even think it is necessary for me to say here this afternoon that those were ill-considered statements which cannot be proved, and which are far from the truth and are of no significance. But these things are being said with a view to eliciting a little acclamation in a number of Progressive Party seats, because there is a perpetual struggle in progress between the Progressive Party and the United Party. The United Party is already on the run in the few seats they still have. [Interjections.] The hon. member who made that interjection is very wary of the Progressives in his own constituency. They are only too keen to bid for the support of the people, because they feel the Progressive Party is breathing down their necks. At the same time I must say that the Progressive Party is at least trying to be honest, when they try to adopt a standpoint here. [Interjections.] Sir, it would do us no harm to consider three basic aspects. One of their arguments is that Black trade unions should be recognized in this country. The second statement they make is that job reservation should be abolished.

That is correct.

The hon. member for Maitland says that that is correct. In the third place it is their standpoint that the kind of measures which are being taken to bring about racial harmony is harmful and that more should be done in the form of training for the Black workers.

As far as the recognition of Black trade unions is concerned, I can, of course, understand the United Party adopting an attitude of this nature, because they are certainly very conscious of the fact that a trade union is an instrument which may be used for political purposes, and I can well understand that the United Party is so badly in need of a little more assistance in future that they would use any method or medium to realize the hope they cherish of making progress in future. Sir, I want to accuse the United Party this afternoon of not being honest towards the Black workers when they say that they are in favour of the recognition of Black trade unions, and I shall furnish proof of this in a moment. In the second place, they are not being honest towards the White worker because they are not telling him what the implications of such recognition would be. That is the point. They are being dishonest towards the Black worker as well as the White worker. [Interjections.] It is now being asked that I should furnish proof that they are dishonest towards the Black worker. They are being dishonest towards the Black worker, because they qualify that approval. They say they would be prepared to afford only so much power; the real power they would continue to keep in their own hands. But surely, one cannot give a person something and only allow him to go so far. What they should do, is to elucidate to the Black worker the standpoint they advocate. They are being dishonest towards the White worker because they tell him that they are protecting his position within the work context. I want to ask them how they are going to do this. If the position of the White worker were to be threatened, would they afford that protection with force or brute force? If the Black trade union has negotiated for a lower wage, are they going to guarantee the present wage of the White worker to enable him to maintain the same standard of living, or are they going to be prepared to sell him out to the other person as long as they are able to derive a little political advantage from it? A great deal can be said about that. While there is a National Party Government in this country, however, nothing will be done to jeopardize the position of the White worker unnecessarily. There must be no doubt about that. The United Party can carry on and shout as loudly as it likes. They will simply have to reconcile themselves to this situation.

On the other hand the Government admits that there should be channels of negotiation for the workers, whether they are Black or White. The Government is thoroughly aware of that. For that reason the Government took the necessary steps several years ago to create these channels for the Black worker. Today it is history that that instrument is being used very effectively, and thanks to that instrument which has been established by the Government, confrontation and strikes have become a thing of the past. I think the United Party should admit to the Government that they have great appreciation for this fact, and that they are unanimous in their support of the Government for the further development of those channels that have been created.

Nor should the United Party have any doubts about work reservation. Without work reservation the White worker would not be prepared to allow his work to be reclassified. It is a fact in this country, and we have to accept that, owing to economic and other circumstances, it has become necessary to reclassify certain work from time to time. Up till now, however, the White worker has always co-operated on the basis of the fact that he knows his position is safe in the hands of this Government. But I repeat that the White worker will not agree to reclassification of any type of work he is doing if he is not protected by work reservation.

This Government has the finest record of any previous Government in respect of the training of workers. [Interjections.] But of course that is true. I just want to furnish a few particulars. There are 350 different trades in 18 industrial apprenticeships. In this way this Government has expanded and developed this aspect. Inspectors were appointed by this Government to supervise the training of apprentices, with the result that the pass rate among apprentices rose by more than 200%. At present the retraining of White workers, which is an essential matter, is being investigated. At present we have more than 37 000 apprentices in this country. Does this not prove that this Government is providing the necessary well-equipped labour force in this country?

As far as the Black workers are concerned, the State itself has made provision for eight centres or institutions at which Black workers can be trained. A further eight, at which Black workers are being trained, are privately controlled. Is this not a contribution by a far-sighted Government? In spite of this the United Party comes forward, in season and out and presents a picture which implies that nothing is being done in this country. The United Party is being extremely presumptuous in attacking the Government on this score. There should be nothing but appreciation and respect for what is being done by this Government.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down had a lot to say at the beginning of his speech about Durban North and the concern of the UP about fighting the Progressives. All I can say is that whatever hopes the Nationalists may have thought they had there, have been dissipated now by his efforts. Sen. Worrall in Durban North and “Pik” Botha over in America must be shaking their heads. It was quite clear to us that what the hon. member is really concerned about, is the Alberton by-election. He is trying to convince the Hertzogites over there that they are still verkramp in the NP too.

My time is limited and I want to raise another matter in the House, so I shall not spend any more time on the hon. member. Despite the communist threat in Angola and Southern Africa, the public has centred its interest on something else. It has centred its interest on a possible internal scandal which has to do with the purchase of land at Port St. Johns. Port St. Johns is a picturesque, attractive village peopled by worthy citizens. Heaven knows why they must continue to receive slap after slap from this Government. They were living happily and developing a popular holiday resort on the strength of promises made by this Government. These promises turned to pie-crusts. The whole way of life in Port St. Johns has changed. A happy community became a troubled and insecure community. Successful businessmen found their livings dying on them as all development was stopped. All of a sudden property had no value because there was only one possible buyer and that was the Bantu Trust. The community looked to the Trust to recompense them for the losses they could see ahead of them. They also looked to the Government to see that they got a fair deal when the rush came on of people who wanted to dispose of their properties.

Then came rumours of a scandal of preference being given to two strangers to Port St. Johns. They were not residents who had come to settle there in the normal course; they were two speculators whose speculations had gone wrong. Preference was given to them above the interests of the genuine residents who also sought relief but who did so in terms of the rules laid down by the Government itself. The public outside Port St. Johns also pricked up its ears, remembering irregularities in Government spending disclosed in public inquiries a short while ago. In addition, this story of Government spending seemed incredible in the face of the Government’s exhortations to the public at large to tighten their belts and cut spending.

These two deals have been given a great deal of publicity. The facts as stated in the Press are well known and, until they are denied by the Government and other facts are given to the public, the public will have to accept the facts stated in the Press because these facts have been bandied about daily for ten days and no Minister or department has gainsaid them in any credible way. Because of the reluctance shown by the hon. the Minister on Friday to enlighten us, I have to deal with the facts as stated in the Press.

The Sunday Times.

Not only the Sunday Times. I have not quoted one word from the Sunday Times yet.

That is where it comes from.

The hon. the Minister should keep quiet and listen. [Interjections.] It would have helped us in our discussions if we could have had a full and frank statement from the Government. If we have drawn the wrong conclusions, it is the Government’s own fault. What is disconcerting about the reports, are the contradictory statements being made by the principal characters. In one case one character even contradicted himself, and not on some minor point but on a major issue. I refer, of course, to the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs and of Forestry.

Incidentally, according to a remark made by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration on Friday, he is the one who will give the details of these transactions to this House. That is a pity, because he has to rely on second-hand information. One would have thought that the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs and of Forestry, who at the time was the Deputy Minister concerned, would give the facts. I still hope he will. According to a report in the Press—not in the Sunday Times, but in The Sunday Tribune—he said—

Well, his suppositions have proved correct. The people have made a big thing of this and it has “come to that”. Therefore, he should tell us what the position is. I do not for one moment question his honesty. What I do question is his efficiency. I say he has been lax in dealing with public funds. He has been taken for a ride. A member of Parliament whose memory is so much at fault should not have been entrusted with or allowed the influence he apparently had in spending public funds. At one stage, too, his faulty memory embarrassed his colleague, the Deputy Minister, Mr. “Punt” Janson. Mr. Raubenheimer had said that he had dealt with only one matter, viz. the Schoeman matter and that Mr. “Punt” Janson had dealt with the other.

I never said so.

Well, in the Press the hon. the Minister is reported as having said so. Afterwards he denied it and said that, on referring to his notes, he found he had made a mistake.

I said right from the start that I was not quite sure whether it was … [Interjections.]

He now says that right from the first he was not quite sure … [Interjections.]

I dealt with hundreds of cases.

You handle a million rand and forget it?

He now says that right from the first he was not quite sure, but that makes it even worse. His memory must be failing him. Surely, he is not telling us that he handled so many cases involving R1 200 000 that he cannot remember whether he handled it or not? Surely he must remember whether he gave instructions to his department as to what should be done with regard to this transaction? At that time there was a shortage of funds. We were experiencing a financial crisis. Other offers that had been made to farmers in the Ciskei were withdrawn because the Government did not have the necessary funds. Yet the hon. the Minister wants to tell us he cannot remember whether he authorized that this property in Port St. Johns be purchased for R1 200 000, and not from a farmer but from a speculator. It is also incredible that he could forget that he gave instructions to his department that the matter had to be treated on a priority basis. When questioned by a particular pressman about priority having been given to these two gentlemen, he said—

He supposes that the matter was looked into by the department and that they were given priority treatment! Then, to another paper, he said he had instructed his department to give these two gentlemen priority treatment. Why were they given this priority treatment? The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said that he was going to deal with the question of priority. I hope that both of them are going to deal with it, and especially the then Deputy Minister, because he apparently is the one who authorized this priority.

In August last year the secretary of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development wrote to the people of Port St. Johns that the purchase of the Port St. Johns area would be attended to when it had been zoned by the department. Those owners who wished to dispose of their properties could then offer them to the S.A. Bantu Trust after zoning had been completed. After an inquiry by a one-man commission, a Mr. Grey who went to Port St. Johns to consult with the people—I was invited by the Government to consult with him—Port St. Johns was zoned in terms of a proclamation published on 14 November. From that date on the people in Port St. Johns could offer their properties. However, Mr. Henning’s deed of sale was signed on 9 September. His deed of transfer was registered on 18 November. Mr. Schoeman’s transfer was registered on 21 November, which means that the transfer papers were with the conveyancer in Cape Town by the end of September at the latest. The negotiations with these two gentlemen were therefore going on at a time when the Government was still telling the people of Port St. Johns that the place was going to be zoned and, indeed, the Government was going through the façade of consulting them about the zoning while, in fact, it had already concluded agreements with these two gentlemen. [Interjections.] Those negotiations must have taken several months because, according to the Press—I want the hon. the Minister to confirm the reports—the valuators were not sent from Umtata, but apparently one came from Pretoria and the other one from King William’s Town. The valuator usually used in the Transkei was not used in this instance. All this was done while the Government was putting up this façade.

On Friday the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development told Parliament that no priority list had been prepared and he said that he would deal with the question of priority today. In reply to another question he said that no basic priority scheme had been determined for the area. I think the hon. the Minister speaks in ignorance of what was happening in the Transkei. A circular letter dated 1 December 1975 was sent to all property owners in Port St. Johns. I can give the hon. the Minister the reference number should he wish to have it. In that circular letter it was clearly stated that the department was compelled to acquire a priority scheme in order to give preference to the most urgent cases. It also stated that such priority scheme was already in operation and that the cases covered by it were aged persons, chronically ill persons, insolvent estates, widows, persons in dire financial stress, etc. One takes it that the order of urgency was as set out, viz. that first priority would be given to the aged, to chronically ill persons, then to insolvent estates, and so forth. I know that there are aged and chronically ill persons in Port St. Johns who had made their offers but who had been by-passed by the committee and I am sure that will not be denied.

Why didn’t you simply table the Sunday Times?

Let us turn to the only possible provision in terms of which Schoeman and Henning could have been given priority. That would be cases of “financial stress”. What financial stress could there have been in these two cases? This question is fundamental to the whole situation and the hon. the Minister must not tell the House that he cannot give details since the matter is confidential. Public funds are involved and the public are entitled to know.

Let us take the case of Mr. Henning first. According to some, Henning bought the property for R49 000. However, others dispute that statement and say that he bought it for less, but I do not intend going into all the details. The fact is, however, that Henning was paid more than R1 200 000. If Henning was in financial trouble …

Then he is no more.

I do not agree that he was in financial trouble, but I should like to know why, if he was in such trouble, he was not treated on the same basis as Mr. Upton, another name mentioned by the hon. the Minister. Upton was in financial trouble—it is common knowledge down there. The department gave a guarantee that it would pay the amount he demanded, but it has not taken transfer of his property and it has not paid him the balance of the purchase price. The department met his financial problem, but his was a genuine case. From other sources we find that Henning is a man with a varied career. He has been insolvent. I am not sure whether it was once or twice, but he has been insolvent. Henning owned several companies which have been liquidated, companies interested in the purchase of properties in Port St. Johns. A Mr. Oosthuizen phoned me the other day—I mention his name because his name has now appeared in the Press. Henning admits that he owes Oosthuizen R10 250. He says that he will see Johannes, whom he knows well, and will come to some settlement with him. A lady phoned me this morning. I am not going to give her name; I shall give it to the hon. the Minister if he wants it. This lady lives in Steynsburg. In 1972 she bought a property from S.A. Vakansiebelegginge. She gave me a description of the property and I can also give this description to the hon. the Minister. She bought the property for R9 500. She paid R950 in cash and has been paying quarterly instalments of R285. She has paid these regularly, but on one occasion her letter with the cheque was returned to her by the Post Office marked “address unknown”. She was worried and got into touch with her attorneys in Pretoria. She wanted to know what was happening. The attorneys investigated the case and eventually she found Mr. Henning in a fish and chips shop. I do not know whether he was working there or what he was doing there. She then inquired about her instalments and Mr. Henning replied that she should send them to another company, the address of which he gave her. Since then she has continued paying her instalments. However, she did not send instalments for November and December because she saw in the Press what was happening. What worries her is the question as to whom she should pay instalments to. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether, since his department has paid out Mr. Henning, he knows about this woman who has been paying instalments for a plot and if he does know about her, why has she not been notified that she should pay instalments to the department and not to Henning?

When will she get transfer?

I suppose she will only get transfer when the plot is proclaimed in the township.

When the hon. the Minister dealt with the valuations for these properties, he was asked by the hon. member for Walmer if the valuations had been based on a proclaimed township. The hon. the Minister replied “Of course”. When it was pointed out to him that the township had not yet been proclaimed, the Minister said that it was partly proclaimed. One cannot have a township partly proclaimed. Do you know why the township was not proclaimed? It was not proclaimed because the municipality of Port St. Johns would not agree to it until provision had been made for sewage and the proper construction of roads. My information is that the roads have been roughly constructed, that the surface is un-cleared bush and that there are no services for those properties. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether all those aspects were taken into consideration, as well as the extra costs which would be involved in establishing a township there. Did they take that into account when the prices of R800 000 and R1 200 000 were fixed?

In any event, as regards Henning’s financial position, I should like to point out that he said he saw Deputy Minister Raubenheimer two years ago. He said then that he would try to give the business priority. What hurts the people of Port St. Johns is that neither Mr. Henning nor Mr. Schoeman live in Port St. Johns; but Mr. Henning is not leaving the area now that he has sold; he is going on with his business. He has a very lucrative business too. He is paying R5 000 per year for a business which has cost the Government R1 200 000; in fact, he is paying 0,5% of the value of the property in rental. What does Mr. Henning’s son say? He says that this is a very profitable business; it is the most profitable coastal resort business from Durban to Port Elizabeth and he is making net profits of R60 000 to R80 000 per year. This does not sound like a business which is in dire financial straits. [Interjections.] Mr. Henning is very lucky. From the figures which he has supplied—he has to pay off a bond of R150 000 and he has to pay out R100 000 to people who have bought property which he owned—he will have R1 million left to himself to invest. He can invest that amount at 10% and he will receive all the interest. He has all these advantages, and he has a lucrative business for which he pays R5 000 per year. He may be financially embarrassed, but he is not embarrassed because of the property at Port St. Johns. Henning has many other coastal resort interests and that is why he is financially embarrassed, but why should the Port St. Johns property be called in to rescue this man?

What about Mr. Schoeman? A former director of his, a Mr. Wakefield, said that the Government paid out four times more than the developers expected to make. What was his case? Mr. Raubenheimer said—

However, he went ahead and bought the land. Why must a man like that be protected? He was warned by the Government and by the hon. the Minister that he might lose money, but he goes ahead and speculates with the land and now he gets preferential treatment. All Mr. Schoeman said, was: “Those who criticized did so out of envy.” How right he is! There are many people who are very envious of Mr. Schoeman. Of those who are envious, there are especially the old widows, the sickly persons and the businessmen in Port St. Johns who have lost their incomes and have nowhere to turn. Why are these gentlemen favoured? As far as procedure is concerned, the hon. the Minister, Mr. Botha, said—

However, what did he say about procedure in the south? Was the procedure carried out in this case? No, it was not. A comprehensive statement of procedure was issued by this department to all landowners. It stated quite clearly—

It goes on to set out the requirements for the advertisement, etc., and through which source it must be submitted to the adjustment committee. That procedure was not adhered to at all. I would like the Minister to explain what he meant when he said that it had gone through the normal channels.

Do not forget about the form.

I beg your pardon?

The form.

Yes, what about the form?

Do not forget to complain about that.

I am not complaining about the form, but about the procedure.

It is part of the procedure that was followed.

What procedure was followed?

It is part of the procedure.

There was a form that had to be signed, yes. How simple can the hon. the Minister be? [Interjections.] Sir, in addition to this the hon. the Minister said the following, which does not seem to read quite correctly—

I take it that means it was favourable to the Bantu Trust. If the appraisement was favourable to the Bantu Trust, I assume the hon. the Minister will continue to use these two valuators, because they are valuing the properties at less than their value. Will the hon. the Minister now give us the assurance that when the rest of the properties at Port St. Johns are offered, these two valuators will be sent to make valuations at Port St. Johns on the same basis as the valuations which were made on these properties? I will tell the hon. the Minister why I ask that. Once before I had experience of this, when the farms around Umtata were to be sold. Dr. Verwoerd sent a valuator and bought a leading Nationalist’s farm at an exorbitant price. When the other farmers found out about this, they held a meeting and said that Dr. Verwoerd could buy all their farms provided he sent the same valuator. I mentioned this to Dr. Verwoerd, who laughed and said that he would not send that same valuator again. The other farmers got much less for their farms which were valued on a different basis altogether. That is the reason why I would like an unequivocal statement from the hon. the Minister that the same basis of valuation will apply to the remaining properties at Port St. Johns. I would also like the hon. the Minister to assure the people of Port St. Johns that they will not have to wait another year before they are paid out. Those people are in a desperate position. The hon. the Minister does not realize the antagonism towards him and this Government for what has happened there where cases that deserved treatment have been left in the cold while these two speculators were given preference.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Griqualand East took up a great deal of the time of this House for his speech and among other things, he reproached me mildly because on Friday I did not deal with the specific problem with which he dealt. I could have dealt with this matter on Friday but, as the hon. member said, I did not furnish the details on Friday. I waited because I wanted to hear what the hon. member for Griqualand East had to say on this matter. However, it was not at all necessary for me to wait for his speech, because the hon. member said nothing more than what can be obtained from a collection of newspaper cuttings. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, with your assistance I would like to come to arrangement with the Opposition. All they must do is to listen to me as quietly as I listened to them. I shall answer any question which they might ask, but only after I have finished speaking and not in between. I want to come to an arrangement that I am going to put my case first. I have facts which I want to mention this afternoon. I do not have newspaper clippings and fabrications. However, I would like to be given a hearing. This is a very reasonable request.

I am going to answer all the minor points in the assertions of the hon. member for Griqualand East, especially those of his mentors which he obtained in the newspapers. Before starting with my actual speech, I would like to tell the hon. member that I do not know why he complained about the fact that no Minister “gainsaid” it. The hon. member quoted from my Press statement about Port St. Johns, which I made eight or ten days ago. He said no Minister had said anything about this, but nevertheless he quoted from my statement. Hon. members will hear that basically I have very little to add to that statement. Nevertheless the hon. member said nobody had spoken about this. My hon. colleague, the hon. Minister of Water Affairs and of Forestry, the former Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, also replied to it. I will also deal with the position of the lady referred to.

Quite a fuss has been made in recent times. Lately the Opposition has made many attempts to make political capital out of the situation. The most recent attempt was the one made five minutes ago in this House. While everything possible is being done to try and put the Government in an unfavourable light on the basis of what has happened here, let us consider the facts. It is a great tragedy, but the fact is that a great many facts have already been shot to pieces. They have been shot to pieces by the sharpshooters of the Press and of the Opposition. Many others have had their teeth drawn and I do not know whether all of them are going to recover. However, I want to spell out the facts very clearly, in far greater detail than I did in my statement to the Press. My time is, however, limited and I hope that, at the end of my speech, I will have time to answer relevant questions. Fortunately there is also a Third Reading debate.

It is a very easy matter for me to explain because everything happened in a straightforward and proper manner. [Interjections.]

Hold your tongue for one moment.

I do not take it amiss of my critics on the Opposition side and on the side of the little mushroom party—and neither do I take it very much amiss of the newspapers—for their incorrect utterances, although they have done a great deal of harm, also harm to people who still have to sell property to us. I do not take it amiss of them, because they based their criticism on misrepresentations. They have based all their utterances on grotesque facts. They published incomplete and tendentious reports in the newspapers and these were echoed by the Opposition.

When do we start?

We start right now, and I wish that the hon. member would wake up.

I am going to use the names of Mr. Schoeman and Mr. Henning. The fact is, however, that in both cases companies were involved. The names of the two companies, however, are very similar, and therefore it is more convenient to refer to Henning and Schoeman. For the record I just want to say that Prof. P. J. Schoeman’s company is registered as Tweedestrand Eiendomme (Edms.) Bpk., and that the registered name of Mr. Henning’s company is Tweedestrand Hotel en Vakansie-belange (Edms.) Bpk. I therefore prefer to speak in terms of Henning and Schoeman, because they were the owners of companies. Schoeman and Henning separately approached the department and the then Deputy Minister on behalf of their companies after it had become clear to them that the inclusion of Port St. Johns in the Bantu homeland area was being strongly mooted. They came to inform us of their position there and especially of one fact which was of great importance to us, i.e. that township development was taking place there. It appears that township development was taking place on the properties of both these men and that a certain number of plots had already been sold in those developments.

It is probably the woman.

Yes, the woman is one of them. I will deal with the woman in a moment. The hon. Chief Whip need not be so concerned about her.

He is a gentleman.

Yes, he is especially a ladies’ man. That is why he is so concerned about the woman. In the case of both Schoeman’s and Henning’s companies, there were surveys in which parts had already been sold and these sales took place with the knowledge and even with the approval of the Cape Provincial Administration. The hon. member for Griqualand East, who is a lawyer—I will say more about his being a lawyer later—ought to know that throughout the whole country many properties are being developed as townships and that sales take place before they have been proclaimed as such. This however takes place on condition that transfer can only take place after proclamation. This was also done in this case. Surely, the hon. member knows this.

I said so.

Very well. I am glad the hon. member says he knows it. There are however a great many of his colleagues who pretend that they do not know it. In fact, I think a whole crowd of them do not know it at all, and are just stirring up feelings. [Interjections.] The hon. member should contain himself a little. The developed areas were being sold out and the people informed us about it. They told us that there were some developed areas—the hon. member for Griqualand East referred to this—in respect of which the local authority had laid down certain requirements in connection with services that had to be provided there. There was especially the important service of waterborne sewerage which had to be laid on according to the demands of the local authority of Port St. Johns, which does not even have it in their own town yet. We discussed this matter among ourselves and I was present. The hon. member need not think that the Deputy Minister would have gone about these things like a wild bull of Basan. On the contrary. As I said in my statement, I was constantly kept informed of matters and I constantly made decisions with them and gave certain indications where these were necessary. I was present at the discussions when the Deputy Minister and certain of our officials discussed the position and decided that further township development should be stopped if the area was to be incorporated into the Bantu area later. We advised them to stop it. Why did we do this? I am going to deal with this point for a moment, because this is a very important point, as hon. members will see later. We had it stopped because it could involve additional high costs. One does not know what these services cost. No tenders or anything of the kind have been submitted. It could have cost anything, and hon. members must remember that if the proclamation of those townships had been further finalized, all those buyers, one after the other, could of course have obtained transfers. If the process had proceeded still further, other people could have bought plots before obtaining transfers, and once they got transfers, we would have had a whole crowd of owners in that township with whom we would have had to negotiate. We considered it in the best interest of the Trust—and time proved that this was indeed so—that we should rather negotiate with two owners, i.e. the two companies in the person of Henning and Schoeman, instead of negotiating with potentially more than 100 owners of all the individual plots as well as the original owners. For this reason we asked them not to continue with it, because those people too would, in turn, have had profits, expenses, and so on, which we would have had to take into consideration.

It is very difficult for me to tell the House how much we saved by stopping the development of the township. How were we to know what these people’s claims would be? How were we to know what the costs would be? What we do know is that it would have been a very expensive process. We must also bear in mind that it would then have been necessary for the Bantu to live in a township developed according to the Cape system and regulations, while in an independent Transkei they might want to do things in a different manner. Considering it from all angles, it was sensible for us not to allow that township development to continue. As a result of this commission of ours, both Henning and Schoeman had to repossess properties from people who had already bought, but who did not have title deeds. Dozens of people’s properties have been repossessed by both Henning and Schoeman so that we do not have to consider them as separate owners today.

I now wish to deal with the woman to whom that hon. Chief Whip over there and this hon. Chief Whip over here referred. That woman—if I understood the hon. member on the other side correctly—bought one of these subdivided properties in the unproclaimed township area. Surely, the hon. member has been an attorney long enough to know that she did not obtain a title deed for that plot.

I said she did not.

Now we come to …

Not before proclamation. I said so.

Now the hon. member is getting annoyed, because he sees the implications of his senseless remark. [Interjections.] If the hon. member will keep quiet, he will hear my point. It is very clear that that woman was not a legal and registered owner with whom we had to negotiate. [Interjections.] No, of course not. Please wait a moment. I said I was going to answer hon. members’ questions and I am keeping my word. I am replying to the point raised by that hon. member. That woman was a purchaser from that company, and the company undertook to take back all those properties so that we would only have to buy from the company itself and not from all the purchasers. That woman was unable to obtain transfer, because until now that township has not been registered, and therefore that woman has no claim against us. If she has not received payment yet, she has a claim against the company with which she negotiated. She could probably claim from them. [Interjections.] I cannot hear what the hon. member is saying.

Do you have no responsibility at all?

We do have no responsibility towards that woman.

Why did you pay out then?

We bought from Henning and Schoeman and not from that woman.

Highly irresponsible.

That hon. member is too stupid to understand. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to remind hon. members that I watched the hon. the Minister while the hon. member for Griqualand East was speaking and that, except towards the end, he listened in silence. I think hon. members ought to do this too.

Does the hon. member over there know—I presume the facts are more or less correct—that Henning alone repossessed 34 such plots from people who had bought from him and were already paying off, but who were unable to obtain title deeds? That woman could have been one of them or someone who had not yet offered hers. That is a matter between him and her and not a matter for us. She was not a registered owner of property from whom we had to buy. The hon. attorney on the other side must prove the contrary to me.

The position concerning this matter remained like this until Parliament took its decision. This is an important matter. Hon. members were all present last year when Parliament decided that Port St. Johns should be added to the Bantu area, besides other areas which were decided on. After Parliament had taken its decision, we gave instructions for the valuations to be continued, because we had had a decision from the highest authority in the country, i.e. Parliament, and the law provides, and the hon. member for Griqualand East ought to know this, that once Parliament has taken the decision, the State President, as a formality, has to declare those areas released areas. Thereafter, in terms of the Act, we zone the areas. This is the position and the hon. member ought to know this. In other words, we immediately made a start with this. I shall deal with this again in a moment when I deal with the priorities. But hon. members will appreciate the urgency which existed concerning the properties of those two people which had to be bought before the area could be proclaimed as townships. Therefore we had it valued. As I said, we could not leave it in midair, because if we left it in mid-air, those people could have continued, under pressure from the local authority, to have their township provided with services and have it proclaimed, and then we would have had to negotiate with a few hundred buyers and would perhaps have had to pay far higher prices. Now, you must understand this quite well, Sir, that if we say that there was no basis for priorities here, as I told the hon. member with reference to Port St. Johns, I want to refer him to what the hon. member for Sea Point asked me. The other day, the hon. member for Sea Point asked me whether a priority scheme had been laid down in the Port St. Johns area, and my reply was that no priority scheme had been laid down for the Port St. Johns area.

What about the September letter?

Oh, Sir, I wish that hon. member would contain his excitement. I told him that priorities had not been laid down for Port St. Johns alone. In that circular I said—and this still applies—that as far back as in 1966, a priority scheme was laid down for the whole of the Transkei, by no other person than myself, and that priority list still applies to the whole of the Transkei, of which Port St. Johns forms part. This applies to all the remaining people. [Interjections.] Both these statements are quite correct. The priority had not been laid down for Port St. Johns alone and the priority which had been given to the land of these two companies—let us now deal with this point, and I think that from what I said now, it is quite clear—was in our own interests and not in the interests of the buyers. The hon. member wasted his time during his speech here this afternoon by suggesting that we gave priority to Henning and Schoeman, and that it was in their interest. It was not in their interest. Seen from their point of view it may have been important to them, but we were concerned with our point of view. [Interjections.] The hon. member can believe what he likes. He can even believe what he sucks out of his thumb, as he usually does. What was our approach? I have just outlined it to you. We wanted to prevent those townships from developing further and thus becoming a more expensive proposition to the Trust, and they would have become just that. Therefore, in our own interest, we decided first to buy that land with the money which was available and which was kept available for this purpose. And all other people are as subject to the general priority position which applies there, i.e. that we consider sick people and people who cannot continue with their work and we consider estate cases and court orders, and so on. Indeed, the Upton case which the hon. member referred to this afternoon, was being dealt with by the court. It was for this reason that we had to buy it out. Of course a far smaller amount was at stake, but it was in court. [Interjections.]

Now the hon. member refers to the two valuators. The hon. member need not be concerned about those two valuators. The properties at Port St. Johns are not the only properties they have valued for us. Those two valuators have valued several other properties for us in the Transkei and in the Ciskei. The one person originally came from the Transvaal and the other from King William’s Town. It was merely a funny trick on the part of the Sunday papers to say: “They were specially flown from Pretoria. ’’ This is utter nonsense. I do not know whether they perhaps walked from Pretoria if they were there, but both those men are experienced men in the property market, sworn appraisers, experienced people, people appointed by our department for the Adjustment Committee to carry out those valuations in the Transkei and the Ciskei. I do not know whether they will still be available indefinitely, but we may most definitely use them again if we want to. We do not only have the one man in the Transkei we have to use, the person whom the hon. member referred to a moment ago. He is still being used, but others are also used. He was not the only man who was used in the past, and these two people were not used for Port St. Johns alone. Prior to Port St. Johns, a great many other properties were also valued by them.

Then the hon. member referred to the forms, or rather, he asked me about the forms and then did not understand my interjection at all. I read in the newspapers that we allegedly deviated from the prescribed procedure on two important points. The one was with reference to advertising, which the hon. member referred to this afternoon—I shall deal with this presently—and the other was with reference to the forms which were not completed or not submitted to the magistrate at Port St. Johns, as is stated in the circular and applies since 1966. Yes, the forms were not submitted to the magistrate; they were submitted directly to us. What does it really matter?

It is not the correct procedure.

But good grief, Sir, what is the procedure? [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. member is upsetting himself now because … [Interjections.] First calm down. Sir, what is the meaning of those forms? Does the hon. member think, and do those senseless little newspapermen who write about things they know nothing about, think that the magistrate of Port St. Johns has to finalize those forms? Sir, he is merely a local representative of the local people, and the same procedure applies in all 22 Transkei and Ciskei towns. The owner completes the forms and submits them to the magistrate and he forwards them to us, just as they are. [Interjections.] Sir, there is an hon. member who does not want to hear what I have to say. Would you not rather allow him to leave the House? I am talking to the hon. member for Griqualand East, if the hon. member will give me a chance to do so. [Interjections.] Yes, he may leave the chamber before it is too late. Those forms are received by the magistrate merely in transit, on their way to us. The people in Pretoria where the negotiations took place, completed the forms. I saw them in the files myself.

But the hon. member did not refer to forms.

No, the hon. member did not, but other people referred to them. I said I was going to deal with all the points. I now come to the second point about which the hon. member raised such a hue and cry where, according to him, the procedure was deviated from. This concerns the so-called advertisements, why the properties of those two companies were not advertised. Sir, what are the requirements concerning advertising? What, must I ask first, is the purpose of this whole property take-over? The purpose of it is that Whites who have property in those parts of the Transkei which become Black, must have their properties taken over by Black people. If there are not Black people to take them over immediately, the Trust with its machinery and the corporation and the Adjustment Committee come along and buy it. The requirement was that the ordinary people who owned houses and small properties, should first try to find a Black buyer through advertising. Sir, that advertisement is not meant for Whites, for Blacks or for anyone. That advertisement is only meant for Black owners, the colour group which should be the ultimate owners of the Transkei. In this case we decided that they do not advertise for Black buyers. Why? This is obvious: Which Black buyers would have come forward to buy these properties? It was impractical for another reason. If those Black buyers had bought any property, and steps had been taken so that the townships were later proclaimed while the Black buyer was in possession of the property, the State President would have been required to grant a Black buyer permission to own a property in a White area. This is the reason why we have the provision that no transfer takes place before the zoning is approved, because once the zoning and the declaration as a released area are approved, a Black man, or whoever is allowed to buy in that zoned area, may buy. The hon. member should know those legal provisions. Therefore the fact that no advertisements were published, means absolutely nothing. This would only have been a waste of time and would only have caused further delay.

What do the Blacks think of this?

Sir, I must now interrupt myself and say that it is quite clear that I will not be able to finish my speech in the prescribed time. However, I promise to continue in the Third Reading debate, if the rules of the House allow me to do so. Now I shall reply to the hon. member’s question.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what he meant when he said that the proper procedure had been followed.

The normal procedure? Yes, that is the part I still have to deal with—the White paper and all the other things. [Interjections.] There is a Dutch saying: “Empty vessels make the most noise.” The valuations took place according to the basis laid down by the Adjustment Committee. This is what I mean when I speak of the prescribed procedure. A procedure has been prescribed, and the hon. member has been a member of this House long enough to appreciate this. If he looks through his old papers, he will find it there. Here is a copy of White Paper CC of 1964. In this the Government laid down what the procedure is when white properties are bought in Transkei towns. The Adjustment Committee was announced in this White Paper. This is the procedure, and we have followed the procedure throughout. I would like to tell the hon. member that the White Paper does not even mention the form, neither the advertisement. This is an administrative arrangement which I introduced myself.

Furthermore, the basis laid down in the White Paper, was followed. We used the valuators appointed by the Adjustment Committee and the valuators made their valuations on the basis laid down by the Adjustment Committee. Everything was done according to the criterion laid down by the Adjustment Committee. The valuations were completed towards the end of July, and by the end of July 1975 the negotiations took place with the owners of the two companies. Negotiations were conducted about prices. Of course, they wanted more and we wanted to pay less, and so on. These negotiations took place mainly with the Deputy Minister. In fact, I never saw Henning and saw Schoeman only on one occasion when he came to see me. The Deputy Minister of that time handled the whole matter correctly to its conclusion. Then the prices were agreed upon, i.e. R1 212 967 and in the case of Schoeman R800 000. In both cases the prices were within the valuation. It is most important to take note of this. Now I should like to deal with the two valuations. I have copies of the valuation lists here. In the few minutes left to me, I would like to say what I intend doing in future. I want to go through these two valuation lists with this House to show the intensive and thorough manner in which the valuators went to work to arrive at a valuation. Secondly, I would like to point out some of the special conditions which we laid down at the time of the sale, and then I want to refer to certain aspects in general, i.e. the prescribed provisions contained in the White Paper, how they work and what action was taken. I also want to talk about the ridiculous story that the cost price was used as a basis, a matter which the hon. member for Griqualand East also referred to this afternoon, although he is a lawyer. He asked that the original cost price be used as a basis for the calculation of the present purchase price. I shall deal with all these matters. I also want to deal with the question of priorities and the action we take in respect thereof, but I regret that we shall not be able to deal with all these matters this afternoon. I can do nothing about it, because I have only half an hour at my disposal and there is no more time available to do so in this debate. [Interjections.] I did not waste a minute, except on the interjection made by the hon. member. Before dealing with the valuations one at a time, I shall furnish hon. members with a very comprehensive explanation of it in so far as I am prepared to divulge confidential information.

Hon. members must take note of this. They can giggle and balk as much as they like, but I cannot divulge the intrinsic particulars because this may hamper us in hundreds of other transactions we still have to finalize in the Transkei, Ciskei, including Port St. Johns, and many other places. For that reason I cannot table the valuation lists, as I have already said. We will continue with this tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the hon. the Minister for Bantu Administration and Development will take some time off to relax before we come to the Third Reading, because when I listened to him today, I could somehow not help feeling that he was worried about this. So far he has not given us any information which detracts from our request that a commission of inquiry should be appointed into the whole affair. The hon. the Minister said, in reply to a question which I put to him on Friday, that there was no basic priority scheme for Port St. Johns. I believe that he is playing with words, for what is then the value of sending out a circular addressed to all the owners of land in the township of Port St. Johns setting out the priority scheme. This circular has cruelly mislead the people of Port St. Johns. For the Minister to say that there is no priority scheme for Port St. Johns, is to play with words. The hon. the Minister said there was no need to advertise. I want to tell him that had he advertised the scheme or that the properties were up for sale to the Bantu Trust he need not have paid as much as he had paid. The public’s attention would have been drawn to the fact that this transaction is about to take place, and many of the people who were in the process of buying plots prior to proclamation, would have been warned not to touch these plots, not to buy them. I have no doubt that we will hear more in the Third Reading.

I am particularly interested to know the basis of valuation, because in a statement made by the hon. the Minister last week he mentioned that the land had been subdivided into a survey township at the time the Trust started negotiations. As far as the Schoeman land was concerned, only that part which is valued at one-third of the total cost price—the 63 stands—were in any way affected by the survey diagram. The other for which the hon. the Minister has paid Mr. Schoeman the amount of R550 000 was at no stage surveyed. It was at no stage a township; it was merely a town planner’s recommendation that such a scheme could be developed. There are other questions which should, in particular, be directed to the hon. the Minister for Water Affairs, the Deputy Minister concerned at the time. When did Schoeman and Henning first get into touch with him? I believe that it was not when Parliament was dealing with the matter, but during December 1973 and in January 1974. The hon. the Minister has said that as soon as Parliament gave the green light he decided to proceed with the scheme. I put it to the hon. the Minister: When did he tell Prof. Schoeman that this land would be bought out? When did he tell them that this area was going to be a Black area? I believe that the information was given to Mr. Schoeman and Mr. Henning ahead of the information given to the general public. Before Parliament and the general public knew these two gentlemen were apprized that Port St. Johns was going to be Black. I want the hon. the Minister to tell us whether this was so or not, that he went and told land speculators what he had in mind but not the general public. I put it to him: When did he tell either Henning or Schoeman that his department would buy the land?

I did not tell …

It was told way back in 1974, long before the decision of this Parliament. I know that we will have further debates on this subject but I hope that in the end we are going to get the commission of inquiry which the matter deserves.

Mr. Speaker, I want now to turn the debate to a subject which is dominating public discussion and public thought in South Africa today, and that is the Angolan situation. I especially want to look at the developments during the last two or three days and I want to look at the consequences of some of these developments for South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the story is gradually unfolding. There are reports from Washington, reports from Lusaka and the stories told by our own young men who are returning from the border and from areas beyond that. We on this side of the House have said all along that the Government has not only not told the whole story, but that the Government has not told the whole truth. Mr. Speaker, unless the Prime Minister and the Government reject the reports of the statements made by Dr. Jonas Savimbi which appeared in Rapport yesterday, then I say that those statements of Dr. Savimbi indicate that the Government has not told the truth. The Prime Minister, in this House, went out of his way—I do not have the time to quote it, but I can give the column references—to say that we were in no way involved in a civil war. Three times he said: “I tell you we were in no way involved in a civil war. We were not a party to a civil war.” Yet, Mr. Speaker, when one looks at what Dr. Jonas Savimbi said—if it is to be accepted as correct—we were directly involved. We were involved on a partisan basis, and in support of Dr. Jonas Savimbi. I am not arguing the rights or wrongs, but I am saying that, as a result of what has happened over the past four months—the secretiveness of this Government and the deviousness with which it dealt not with this House, but with the people outside—this Government has broken a bond of trust which has traditionally existed between the Government of South Africa and the people of South Africa, no matter what political party they belong to. This is what has happened, Mr. Speaker. Until the Prime Minister or the Leader of this House repudiates the statement attributed to Dr. Jonas Savimbi, we will have to say that this Government continues to live and to operate under a cloud of mistrust as far as the people of South Africa are concerned.

So much about the past. What is much more important, are the consequences for the future. I hope, although there seems to be a lull in the tension and in the fighting, that we are not going to slip back into any mood of complacency. I believe that the dangers that flow from our involvement in Angola are just as great today as they were three days ago, and in fact they are going to be just as great in the years to come. I want to touch on this briefly on three critical areas. The first relates to our involvement in Angola, the second to South West Africa, and the third to the situation within South Africa as a result of our involvement in Angola.

As far as Angola is concerned, a couple of points have been made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but I want to restate that I believe every effort should be made to achieve a negotiated settlement regarding the unfinished Ruacana and Calueque schemes. I believe that this Government made a serious error in using its protection of these schemes as the cover-up for its major involvement in the civil war. It has brought these two schemes not into the sphere of the protection of some services, but into the whole sphere of international tension and conflict.

I also hope that the Minister will make it clear that South Africa per se has no interest in these schemes, that we were there purely as the administrators of South West Africa, and that we were acting on behalf of the people of South West Africa, to whom we intend to hand these assets when they accept independence in a short while. Secondly, as far as Angola is concerned, we still have troops in southern Angola. The Minister is reported differently in the Washington newspaper from the way in which he is reported in South Africa. According to the Washington newspaper he said we were up to 80 km across the border into southern Angola at points and that this reduced to 30 km in places. Be that as it may, I believe that this Government should take all possible steps to withdraw the South African forces from Angola. We believe that the presence of South African forces on Angolan soil on any continuing basis is fraught with the greatest dangers for South Africa. We obviously have to protect the borders of South West Africa as they move towards independence. Obviously we have to hit back in no uncertain way against people who violate those borders, but if our forces should be trapped in a war on foreign soil outside the borders of South West Africa, I believe that South Africa will be falling for the very trap which the Russians are setting for us. I believe the Government must weigh up very carefully indeed the advantages of being on the other side of the border against the very grave disadvantages and dangers which are inherent of the situation.

Thirdly, I believe that as soon as an effective authority emerges in Angola, this Government should take immediate steps to normalize relationships between Angola and South Africa. More than this, the Government should go out of its way to offer technical and other aid to Angola in order to get its economy going again.

Fourthly, there has been a new development. There has been an announcement by Dr. Jonas Savimbi of Unita that he is now going over to guerrilla warfare. I hope this Government will say, in unambiguous terms and without any delay, that whatever the relationship with Dr. Savimbi is, South Africa will under no circumstances support any guerrilla movement in any country. I say this because there is a relationship between the South African Government and Unita. I believe it is of tremendous importance, before it is thought that we are now involved in assisting guerrilla movements, that this Government should publicly declare that we will have nothing to do with guerrilla campaigns in any part of Africa or in any part of the world. I believe it is important that such declaration should be made without delay.

As far as South West Africa is concerned, the hon. member for Von Brandis and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition pointed to the need to speed up the time-table for self-determination for that territory. They also pointed out the need to try to include in the constitutional talks people other than those present now—if possible, the domestic wing of Swapo. I believe that other people should be included, including the Federal Party of South West Africa, to see that it is not only constituted on an ethnic basis. The Government should be moving towards the establishment of a multi-racial provisional government. There has to be an interim phase. I believe that we should be moving into the phase of establishing a multi-racial or, as the people on that side of the House might like to call it, a multi-ethnic provisional government for the peoples of South West Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the Administration in South West Africa there has done well in eliminating discrimination in the social field. I believe it should take the next step and throw open the civil administration of South West Africa to all the peoples of South West Africa on a non-discriminatory basis. I believe that serious and urgent attention should be given to the phasing out of direct representation of South West Africa in this House. If this is not going to be phased out, I believe that people other than Whites should also have the right to be represented in this House. I believe it becomes an affront to the whole concept of self-determination if only Whites have representation here, while members of the other communities do not. I further believe that this Government should start moving in the direction of setting up separate South West African citizenship for those people who claim to be of South West Africa. When it came to the Bantu homelands the Government immediately said that each Black citizen would become a citizen of that particular homeland, because identification as a citizen was necessary before moving into independence. I would suggest that this step of setting up citizenship for South West Africa is a very necessary and urgent prerequisite for independence for that territory.

Having said that about countries to the north and the territory over which we have jurisdiction and for which we have responsibility, I want to direct the attention of this House to what I believe are certain important aspects of mood and attitude in race relations which have developed as a result of the Angolan situation. I believe that the effective defence of South Africa has now become a matter of critical importance. But having said that, let us not delude ourselves. We Whites will never be able effectively to defend South Africa from attacks across our border or from subversion within, unless we have the unqualified support of Black South Africans. Four million Whites, without the support of 21 million Blacks, will not be able to provide an effective defence of South Africa. This is something we should be looking at this moment. To what extent can we count on the masses of Black and Brown people in this country for the effective total defence of South Africa? It is a pity that we do not have in this House Black leaders who could tell us of the mood and the attitude of the Black people. I believe that, at this stage, we would come in for a rude shock, because all the indications are that a significant number of the Black people of South Africa will not be able to throw themselves in the way we would wish them to, to the defence of South Africa at the present stage.

I will probably be accused of saying an unpalatable thing, but I believe that, unless these things are said, we shall go on living in cloud cuckooland. There must not be any doubt about this: There will be some Blacks who will rally round the White Government, but the masses, the young people, the educated people, the articulate, the politically-aware people, perhaps will not. We would like to attempt to try to ascertain the attitude of Blacks but I admit that it is not easy. But there is no doubt that more and more Blacks are seeing what is happening to the north of us in a White man’s war.

They do not see this as South Africa’s war or their war. They see it as a White man’s war, and many Black people see what is happening in the north and in Angola as part of the process of their liberation from discrimination and domination within South Africa. Let us make no mistake about this. Just as many of them cheered the Frelimo victories in Mozambique, so I believe that many of the Black people of South Africa are getting a silent satisfaction out of the successes of the MPLA. I am saying these things because I believe that there is an element of tragedy in this. I believe the Black people want to give their loyalty to South Africa, and yet this Government is making it impossible for them to do so. This Government has cut Black South Africa out of the decision-making process, especially the decisions about whether we should go to war or not. It has told the Blacks that they are not South Africans. It has given them separate citizenship. It has conceded that the Coloureds and Indians are South Africans, but it has then proceeded to humiliate them by treating their citizenship as second-class. I now want to test hon. members present. When Black people listen to hon. members on the other side talking about defending South Africa, they get the impression that hon. members over there are talking about defending White South Africa. Is that right or wrong? Is that what they mean by defending South Africa? Are the Blacks right in saying that Government members are speaking of White South Africa? When hon. members opposite talk of loyalty to South Africa, do they talk—

You are being absolutely irresponsible. You should be ashamed of yourself.

The hon. the Minister can answer me. When they hear hon. members on the other side speaking about loyalty to South Africa, the Blacks interpret this to mean loyalty to White South Africa. I want to know if that is what hon. members believe. When speaking of patriotism, we want those hon. members to say they do not mean a commitment to the status quo or to the White man’s position or to apartheid and separate development. The Black man interprets their calls for patriotism as having a political and racial connotation. When the Black man hears the hon. members opposite calling for national unity, does he feel that the Black people are included? Let me now ask if the Black people are included when they talk of national unity. No, the Black people do not believe that because it is not a true national unity encompassing all the people and all the groups of this land.

You are an agitator.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Waterkloof permitted to say that the hon. member for Sea Point is an agitator?

I said he was an agitator, Mr. Speaker.

Order! The hon. member for Waterkloof may not use that expression. It is unparliamentary.

Then I shall withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

By adopting these attitudes—and this includes the hon. member for Waterkloof—of excluding Blacks from South African unity, they are making it impossible for Black South Africans to give their loyalty to the whole of South Africa.

In this situation of mounting tension, I do not believe that Black South Africans, in a moment of conflict, are going to take sides because of ideological calls. Blacks are not going to respond to the call of Communism or the call of Western democracy or the free world. The attitude of Black people, in this time of pending conflict in South Africa, is going to be determined by the impact of their experience in their daily lives in South Africa. This is going to be the decisive factor. Their decision about whose side they are going to take is not going to depend on generalities. It is going to depend upon the impact of the Group Areas Act, job reservation, the pass laws, their rejection, their exclusion and the humiliations they have to endure each day in this apartheid society. Their opinions are going to be formed on the basis of the inequalities they see in housing, wages, education and advancement. Their attitudes are also going to be formed on the basis of the discrimination they suffer. Hon. members must read the Snyman Report. Let them read that report and see what these people feel.

If there is this danger, as the result of the policies and attitudes of the members opposite, it is made even more dangerous because of the impetus which the Angolan situation has given to the forces of division in this society. We must make no mistake about this. What is happening up north is divisive. White South Africans, in the main, are being swept up into a new White patriotic laager, and more and more Black people are growing together, confident that their liberation from discrimination is just around the comer. This is what is happening. This is the divisive impact of Angola. I have the fear that intransigence is going to be met by increasing intransigence, that arrogance is going to be met by increasing arrogance and stubborness by increasing stubborness.

This is the situation in which we find ourselves. I believe that South Africa is poised on a knife-edge between greatness on the one hand and disaster on the other; greatness if, as the result of the trauma of our experience in Angola, there comes a new commitment to a new national unity embracing all the people of South Africa; disaster if we in South Africa face the future as a divided people. That is the choice. On the shoulders of the hon. the Prime Minister, in particular, and on the shoulders of all of us in this House, rests a very heavy responsibility indeed. I believe this to be a matter of urgency arising out of the situation that has unfolded over the past four months. We must make a commitment to a unity that embraces all South Africans. We must now proceed to repair the damage that history and practice and legislation have done to the fabric of our society. I want to suggest to the hon. the Prime Minister that he takes a leaf out of the book of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. When the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs had to fight inflation last year he called in the leaders of commerce and industry … [Interjections.]

Order! I shall be pleased if hon. members at the back would stop that running commentary of theirs.

He called a meeting of all the leaders of the various groups involved. I suggest we should do the same thing at this stage. In the face of a crisis, in the face of pending conflict in South Africa, the hon. the Prime Minister should call together the leaders of the people. If hon. members do not believe me, let him hear and let us hear from the Black people of South Africa about their frustration at the present time, about the agonizing problem they have of reconciling their love for South Africa with their hatred of a racial system under which they have to live in this country. This is the situation. I do not believe we can at this stage determine the end of the road to the future. What we should be able to do, however, at this moment of crisis is at least to decide on the first and immediate steps that we should be taking in order to bring South Africans together. I believe that out of such a conference, such a council for national unity, could come a new definition of South African patriotism, a patriotism which is not White patriotism or Black patriotism, but South African patriotism, a patriotism not geared to protect one section of the community, not geared to maintain White privilege or White domination, but a patriotism committed to defending the rights of all South Africans irrespective of their race. I believe that this is a critical stage in South Africa’s history. We are, in fact, poised on a knife-edge between greatness which could be ours, and disaster which will be ours if we go into the future divided. I therefore urge the Prime Minister to respond, to rise above party politics and accept as his credo, and the credo of South Africa, a patriotism which is South African and which includes all the people of this country.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sea Point amazed me and, I think, most of the hon. members in this House by his demonstration this afternoon. He tried to exploit a situation for political gain. The patriotism of that group has long been suspect and this afternoon the matter was put beyond all doubt. He came here in order to try to put forward their philosophy as the salvation of South Africa. He is acting irresponsibly in regard to human relations and in regard to the future of South Africa too, particularly the future of White South Africa. He said that it was mainly Whites who were fighting, but I want to tell him that Blacks are being trained everywhere. He wanted to know for whom the Whites were fighting. Are we not fighting for Black South Africa too? He tried to create the impression here that we were not fighting for the other peoples as well. He came along with these extravagant statements in order to boost his party’s prestige a little owing to their demonstration of a lack of loyalty towards South Africa. I fear that he has not succeeded in this aim, but instead that he has once again placed himself and his people under suspicion. I do not want to dwell further on the hon. member. He raised certain important matters in connection with Angola and that will be replied to in good time.

I should like to come back to the issue of land purchases, specifically land purchases at Port St. Johns, an issue which has been dealt with in great detail by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. I shall not discuss the aspects of the matter dealt with by the hon. the Minister. He stated that we had co-operated very closely and I want to express my appreciation for the co-operation I had from the hon. the Minister for many years. I shall therefore leave the details of this matter to the hon. the Minister. Hon. members need not be afraid that I shall get excited about this. I shall do my best not to get excited, although hon. members will realize that as far as this matter is concerned there is a great deal of provocation.

Firstly, I want to deal with the question put by the hon. member for Sea Point, viz. whether the people were informed before Parliament decided. I think the hon. the Minister has already replied to this question. To be specific, he said that when it became known that the inclusion of Port St. Johns would be considered, some of those people—not Henning, but certainly Schoeman—came and asked what they had to do. I informed the newspapers of this. After consultation with the Minister and the department I informed Schoeman and told him: “I think that this is for the best; I cannot give you an assurance, because Parliament must still decide. Once Parliament has decided, we can discuss the matter further. But I think it is in your interest to stop this development because it is going to cost the taxpayer money if we should have to buy. If you can do that, we shall give you priority in due course.” In other words, here we were taking deliberate action at an early stage in order to prevent unnecessary development.

Why were there only discussions with these two people? Why was a general announcement not made?

These people specifically came and asked us. They said that they were engaged in this matter. One cannot make a public announcement on every occasion in regard to a man’s personal problem. It is merely the specific circumstances which caused this. These people—first the one and later the other—came and asked about the situation.

Now I want to refer to the campaign which has been waged in the Press over the past week. This is virtually all the hon. member for Griqualand East had to base his argument on. He quoted left, right and centre from the Press. In all the time that I was Deputy Minister of Bantu Development—a period of almost five years—I had a great deal to do with the issue of land and the emotions which it involved, and I want to say that I have great appreciation for our farmers in particular, but also for landowners in general for the calm and responsible way in which they approached this matter. I mention this because of certain insinuations that have been made by the other side of the House. It has been alleged that we have simply been riding roughshod over these people and have not been consulting them. Consequently I want to convey my appreciation for the co-operation we have had.

Let me now refer very briefly to the newspapers which have been quoted at such length by the hon. member for Griqualand East. I want to tell hon. members candidly that I do not have the time to set right every newspaper story, every wild rumour, and to ask the newspapers to set the record straight. I gave certain newspapers information when they phoned me. I tried to behave as decently as possible towards the Press. Which newspapers in particular were involved? I told Rand Daily Mail, for example: “Read back what I have told you; you can place it as it stands.” As far as I can remember, I read through it quickly and found nothing wrong with it.

With the Sunday Times it was a different matter. They say that I made inconsistent statements, but I told them expressly that I was dealing with the matters and can clearly remember that I finalized the case of Schoeman and granted approval in that regard, but that I had no clear memory of giving approval in regard to the case of Henning. What I said was: “There was a question of adjustment committee funds and I should prefer not to tell you now” and as soon as I had made sure, I told them. I say honestly and candidly: “I have nothing to hide.” Let me say at once that if there are people who want a commission of inquiry—to me it would be very inappropriate to appoint a commission of inquiry for every newspaper rumour, every piece of gossip—I am quite prepared to state my case. I shall have no objection whatsoever except to the principle that a commission of inquiry should be appointed and a lot of time and money wasted for every piece of gossip. If we want to publish figures and the hon. the Minister provides further details—we agreed that he would deal with those matters and that I would deal with this aspect or would act as I saw fit—then I have no objection. However, we must bear in mind that if we make the details of one case available, it may be expected of us to make them available in regard to all cases. I want to ask the Opposition whether they want us to make all transactions public. After all, one cannot publish details merely because the Sunday Times has a gossip story. What has happened here? They only refer to Henning and Dr. Schoeman, but Upton is right in the background. However the principle is the same. Afrikaners from elsewhere are involved in that.

You have not yet paid Upton out.

No, Upton’s case concerns a farm. It does not come out of adjustment committee funds because those funds are for urban areas. We decided that the South African Bantu Trust would buy the farms and the adjustment committee the rest. The adjustment committee funds were available. [Interjections.] As the hon. the Minister said, we knew that we should have to buy the land because we interfered in the development which those people were engaged in. We told them they should abandon it and they did so.

What was the principle as far as Upton was concerned?

The hon. member knows the story of Upton. His firm summonsed him and then Upton came to us.

[Inaudible.]

I cannot quite hear what the hon. member is saying; but I shall tell him what the principle is in Upton’s case. This man who was charged and sentenced came to us. We then said what we always say when people have problems and we feel that the normal interaction of supply and demand is absent because the Government has said that the Trust is going to buy there. [Interjections.] It is possible that this may influence the prices, but I shall deal with the hon. member’s people. That is why we interfered in Upton’s case. In that case it was his personal financial problem. In the other two cases an advantage for the Government was in involved. What story would we have heard if we had waited? They would then have said: “You knew those people were going to develop. Look at the development you allow. You allow them to continue; you allow them to sell the plots and effect improvements and only now do you want to buy it. Why did you not put a stop to it and buy?” That is the story one would have had then. They would have said: “It cost millions. See how you are wasting the money.” The Opposition wants the best of both worlds. That is why their situation is what it is. One cannot be opportunistic. If the hon. member for Griqualand East wants to ask a question, he is welcome.

Did the hon. the Minister not warn Dr. Schoeman that he would lose if he were to continue with his scheme and if he were to buy there in the first place?

I do not quite understand. He told us that he was engaged in a development scheme.

But before he bought.

That man bought a long time ago. He has now taken transfer. Surely as an attorney the hon. member knows …

Was he not warned before he bought?

I warned him at the stage when he said: “Look, I have this land. I have an option to buy the land and it is included in the planning. ’’ He had part of it. We then told him: “Abandon all further development. Buy back what you have sold and round off your affairs so that we can negotiate with one owner and need incur only the minimum expense.” That is basically what was involved.

Had he bought it at that stage?

He had committed himself to purchase and I could not stop him from going ahead with the transaction because I should then have had to negotiate with more people. That is the position. His whole set-up comprised a certain complex in respect of which he had commitments.

I want to come back to the newspaper reports. I find it regrettable that whereas we are dealing here with a matter of general importance, a matter like the purchase of land, which arouses emotions because it constitutes the personal possessions of people, some people kick up a fuss for political gain. I do not mind criticism; to me it is only right that there should be criticism. However, I find it regrettable that statements I have made are taken out of context in newspapers with the aim of arousing emotions and blackening people’s names in order to see whether some benefit may not perhaps be derived from the matter in this way. About The Sunday Tribune I want to say nothing. This is the newspaper which sent stories about Dimbaza abroad. This is the newspaper which did not hesitate to place its own country under suspicion and foul its own nest. What can I as an individual expect of that newspaper? If a person has no feeling for his fatherland, what feeling will he have for a person? I expect nothing from this newspaper, because this is a newspaper from which the biggest stories about South Africa in general and Dimbaza in particular are sent abroad. The most flagrant untruths I have received back from abroad have been quoted virtually verbatim from The Sunday Tribune’s stories about Dimbaza, stories which were devoid of truth. Consequently I have no more to say about The Sunday Tribune.

The Sunday Times mentions two points on which I had supposedly backed down. One point was that I said that I was not sure. I said that I was not sure, and now the hon. member wants me to tell him how I could not have been sure. I have personally examined hundreds of transactions. The Minister instructed me to examine every transaction, irrespective of whether a hundred rand or a million rand was at stake. I examined every one and analysed them all to the best of my ability. I discussed the purchases with people who had problems. The hon. member for King William’s Town and the other hon. members over there know about this. The hon. member for Griqualand East states that we make exceptions. For what exception did he come and make representations to me? He wants us to buy out a shop in a Black spot since the Black spot is going to be moved some day and the owner may suffer as a result. This is a matter which is now being dealt with through the hon. the Deputy Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, of Planning and the Environment and of Statistics. The hon. member knows about the case; he has been dealing with it for years. [Interjections.] We have hundreds of cases and when the time is ripe each case is dealt with on its merits. However, the hon. member is asking that we should buy out a shop which is in a Black spot and where nothing has happened yet. On the one hand he complains that priority is given in certain cases and states that we are benefiting certain people in this way and on the other hand he asks for priority to be given. [Interjections.] Unfortunately people have shown tremendous enthusiasm in trying to exploit this delicate situation. The hon. member for Albany is not present this afternoon. He, too, made quite a fuss about this matter. He says that we were disturbing sound relations in the process. In the course of carrying out my task as regards the purchase of land, I told people that the task of obtaining approval for borders had given rise to difficulties, but the man who has to buy out all the land and satisfy everyone is going to experience bigger difficulties. I did not have the slightest doubt about this. Nevertheless I received letters of congratulation and thanks from two homeland leaders for land which had been consolidated during the period that that task was entrusted to me. Surely this is conducive to good relations. Of that there can be no doubt. We do not receive much thanks for this task and for that reason I sincerely hope that the new Deputy Minister of Bantu Development will meet with a favourable attitude and will receive the necessary assistance.

As far as priorities are concerned, I want to dwell on the way in which they are determined and the problems which arise from this. However, I must first point out that this was not the first transaction which had to be given priority. Hon. members will remember that little more than a year ago we requested special authorization from Parliament for the purchase of the Zebediela estate because we wanted to give it preferential treatment. It would not have been necessary for us to approach Parliament had it not been that this area had not yet been declared a released area. I requested the department to thrash out the matter before reporting to the Minister. I wanted to know whether we could not do this without parliamentary approval, since it took three years of delicate negotiations. I myself conducted many of the negotiations but for the most part they were conducted by the department. We then approached Parliament. The PRP voted in favour of it, but not the UP. It was in the interests of the country that the estate should have been purchased and more than R8 million was involved in the transaction. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South made a tremendous fuss about it, but he should ask us today how affairs are progressing at Zebediela. At the time he was disparaging about the matter and the hon. members in his party voted against it. If there had been sufficient time in regard to the case under discussion, we could have come to Parliament in this regard, too, but there was insufficient time and furthermore it was unnecessary. As I have said, in the case of Zebediela it was necessary because it did not fall within a released area. If this had not been the case and if it had been a unit, we should have been able to take it further without approaching Parliament. I referred to Zebediela in order to indicate that the State had its own priorities and that it was in the interests of the country and to the benefit of the taxpayers that certain matters be given priority.

I now come to a further aspect as far as the Sunday Times is concerned. I told the people that we would give them priority, but it was then alleged that I had said “Top priority”. There is always an attempt to give the thing a twist. I said that the people would be accorded priority because they had co-operated in the interests of the country. I have nothing to hide. I did not say that top priority would be given, although it is now being alleged that I did in fact say that. Probably one gets differences of degree, but all these little things are used in an attempt to blacken people’s names and sow suspicion. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development will probably furnish further details, but I want to point out that I looked at the valuations. Capable men submitted valuations and provided motivations. The Department also perused the valuations and submitted them to me. I asked whether there were difficulties in regard to the valuations although I was unable to find any difficulties. The valuations were thoroughly checked by people who had carried out a great many valuations themselves. However, we find this sowing of suspicion. I can do no more than say that I perused the valuations and could find no reason why our people could not make offers based on those valuations. I submitted the valuations to the Minister and certain offers were then made. We asked one person concerned to make us an offer. I want to leave the matter at that and speak in general terms.

I want to say something about the sowing of suspicion. I sacrificed part of my holiday and went to the Transkei because I had been unable to find the time to visit certain areas last year. I was also charged with agricultural development and was simply unable to find time for everything. As far back as October I phoned to find out whether I could be accommodated at a certain hotel. I was informed that no accommodation was available. At the time I thought that I would leave it at that. Later I heard that it was possible that I might in fact be able to stay there for a few days. I could have gone to stay in Umtata, but I wanted to visit other areas and towns like Lusikisiki, too, because important decisions concerning the Transkei had to be taken in Parliament and because my department had to take important decisions in regard to development in the Transkei. Consequently I had to be in possession of the facts. Then I made use of accommodation there which happened to be offered. It was all I could get, and this too, is dragged up and I am slandered. I now want to leave it at that and I do not want to dwell on it any further. [Interjections.]

Sir, I now want to come to the hon. member for King Williams Town. [Interjections.] You will get information concerning the valuations from the Minister, as much as he wants to supply. I want to suggest that possibly he could inform the Leader of the Progressive Party and the Leader of the Opposition about these things, but I do not want to dwell on this further, except to say that the matter was dealt with directly and openly and honestly. But then the hon. member for King William’s Town came along and, in the debate here the other day, stated that the land was proclaimed in 1952. It seems to me that he was just as confused about his dates as about the motorcars, because it must surely have been 1972. Now my department and I have drawn up a programme and it has been approved and published. He complains about Braunschweig. That land was to have been purchased. This was envisaged for 1978. The people then made representations and we said that we would advance the date. Now I want to tell you, Sir, what problems there are, because it is important that the House take cognizance of them. I listened to that hon. member’s problems, just as I listened to the problems of other members. Each of their voters received the same treatment and they will continue to receive the same treatment in the future.

What are the problems as regards these properties at Braunschweig and at Wooldridge? Some people offer land while not enjoying ownership of the land, and one has to determine what the state of affairs is. Now people come along and tell us that they have been there for 150 years with their families and they thought that it was their land. Now they have to go to court and prove their right in court and request a court order confirming their right to stay on the land because they have been staying there for so long. If the court grants them this, they have to go to the Deeds Office. Then, too, there are people who have properties in the town with a right in the commonage. These things are registered and have to be valued separately. There is endless difficulty. This Parliament votes a certain sum of money. Parliament votes that we should purchase for that sum of money. Now my department has to make a reasonable and approximate estimate of where we can buy land with that sum of money. A rough estimate is made, but we do not know what that land is going to cost before we have valuations. We have only an approximate idea of the value of the land.

But you made an offer.

I am coming to that. One does not know what the land will cost. When one makes an offer, one does not know whether the farmer is going to accept it. In the beginning we gave people a long time. Now they sit and brood. They have an offer, but they do not let us know. Consequently one does not know whether those people are going to accept the offer or not, and we have only a certain amount which has been budgeted. And if they should accept it, one does not know when registration will go through, because each of those farmers can use his own attorney.

In other words, one has these three unknown factors whereas one has only a certain sum which one can spend. The point is this, that one cannot wait for people indefinitely. But we gave those people a chance and we were then instructed that we should not spend any more money. We then had to notify immediately all those people who had not yet accepted. For how long have they not been sitting and brooding on those offers? I was sorry to do it, but we then let them know that we could not continue. After all, these are not matters which are under our control. We then let them know that the offers had been withdrawn. But after all, we told the farmers many times that they should not incur obligations before they had their money, because we are aware of the practical problems one comes across on registration. They only receive the money when the transfer has been registered. Braunschweig was on the programme for 1974. Peddie was on the programme for 1978.

I think that is correct, but the fact is that we made a start and we had all these practical problems. Now we could not wait until Braunschweig had been dealt with. If we should come to the end of the year without having been able to obtain transfer for these people or pay out the money, then surely the Opposition is going to shout blue murder and ask what we are doing. If delays and problems occur, then we take the following section. So we moved into the Peddie section. We were going to purchase and carry out valuations there, and we made offers. I have the highest praise for the dedication of our department in the light of the enormous number of transactions and the problems which they involved. They tried to be objective in dealing with these matters. Sir, perhaps I should say in regard to this whole matter that I had to address hundreds of people. Now the newspapers say that if one buys a farmer’s land, apparently one may not greet him afterwards because as soon as one talks to him he is a friend of yours. I have said this before, and I want to say it again here, that if I had made friends with all those hundreds of farmers who came to see my department and me, then I have many good and stable friends in this country. I do not doubt that my department will make even more friends in the constituency of that hon. member for King William’s Town, too. We try to obtain co-operation. The hon. member must not come along with stories. After all, we warn those farmers and I want to repeat today that they should not incur obligations before they receive their money.

Are you prepared to give those farmers an indication of when you are going to pay them out, after they have been waiting since 1974?

No, I am not prepared to give an indication because we cannot pay out before all those cases of theirs are in order. Those whose cases are in order will be considered this year, but I cannot give that assurance. I have compiled a programme and every time we inform the farmers of it, I tell the department that they should state that it is subject to the availability of funds. We have stated this repeatedly. The hon. member should go back and do his job, or else there is going to be danger for him in that constituency. After all, the hon. member states here that I handled the matter badly and that I am incapable, but the reason he is making such a fuss, Sir, is that he feels the problems of King William’s Town getting closer to him.

Sir, there is one matter to which I want to draw attention very forcibly here concerning leasing and re-leasing, particularly at Port St. Johns. The newspapers keep saying that the land has been leased back to the people for five years. It has not been leased back for five years. It was taken over at a stage when we did not have people to take over the management, and it was then approved that they would lease it back for R5 000, until the department was in a position to take it over. It was leased back for R5 000, until the department was in a position to take it over.

Within five years?

Yes, they can take over at any time after a year has passed. We are giving the department a year in which to prepare itself, or the XDC. I now want to state this very clearly. It was not leased back to the people for five years. We must examine the matter carefully to see what we can do to best advantage, but this is a major undertaking and one cannot push people in from the outside. This has been my practice throughout with regard to farms, and I think my successor will continue with it because the department has found it to be very effective. Now, when we make a farmer an offer, we ask him whether he wants to lease back, because one cannot have a farmer leave today and establish a Black man there the next day on a planned basis.

Then these improvements on the various farms deteriorate. We have undergone a great deal of criticism in this regard in the past. Now one has to adopt measures as soon as possible, and the best man to do so—and I think everyone will agree with me here—is the farmer of that farm. He is equipped to do so. Now we have to call for tenders. How long does that take? This man has to leave, because he cannot continue there. We now have to give the highest tenderer the opportunity to carry on farming operations there. Theoretically there are certain advantages to this, but now the new man has to come along with implements and all his equipment and he has to move in, and in many cases it is only for a short period—a year—and consequently one does not get people who are interested in doing this. Sir, the various methods as regards, inter alia, making best use of the land and how best to effect the change-over, have all been investigated thoroughly by the department because we want certainty and security and we do not wish to cause destruction and harm to a State investment. We are continually being accused loudly by that side of the House of purchasing land and then neglecting it and then we are asked to see what it looks like there. Here are photographs showing what farms look like after the Trust had bought them. We want to occupy that land in a planned way; and one has to supervise, and the best supervisor is the previous owner. A certain sum of money is held back until he duly hands over the farm, after which he receives the full payment. We can criticize this method of operating, but in practice the department has succeeded in finding a workable and meaningful way of handling the whole issue, in the best interests of Black and White and in the best interests of the taxpayer as well.

Mr. Speaker, I want to return to other aspects of the debate, but I feel that I should nevertheless comment on the discussion of the Port St. Johns matter which has recently been occupying the attention of this House. To me it appears to be the right and the task of the Opposition, wherever there may have been an irregularity in the utilization of funds or the purchase of land, to ask the necessary and pressing questions in regard to the matter. I feel that the Opposition would be shamefully neglecting its duty if it did not do this. When I refer to a few other little matters, I want to make it clear that I am not participating in any denigration. In fact, I do not think that any member on this side of the House was engaged in anything of that nature. The example or anology which the hon. Minister of Water Affairs used in regard to Zebediela does not hold water. Zebediela was a business undertaking which showed, or ought to show, certain profits every year. We would have had an analogy if Parliament had appropriated an amount of R8 million to purchase Zebediela, and we had then leased Zebediela back to the previous owners at ½% interest, i.e. R40 000 per annum. The analogy would then have been correct.

It was only an example.

I think the example was badly chosen.

Let us, in all calmness, try to extract from this discussion the essential points which were actually at issue in the debate. It seems to me that we could summarize the essential points into five basic problems which the Opposition came up against. Firstly, it would seem as though there was preferential treatment in the case of the properties in which the two companies were involved. [Interjections.] It would seem as though there was preferential treatment in regard to the purchase of the particular properties, and I shall go into this a little further at a later stage. With due deference I want to say that the misgivings have not been removed by what the hon. Ministers told this House. The second problem is why so much capital was spent at that stage on the purchase of the land. It has been said that it could subsequently have cost the State more. In view of what I still want to say, this argument does not hold water. This side of the House and I are not convinced that an adequate reply has been given to the question of why the owners of the land were given preference as far as the purchase of the land was concerned. Thirdly, it would seem as though there was a departure from the procedure. We can become excited about this if we wish, but no satisfactory explanation has yet in fact been given as to why, if this was the case, it should in fact have been necessary to deviate from the procedure. The argument of the hon. the Minister that it was not necessary to advertise because there would have been no Blacks to buy it, may indeed have been true. However, the hon. the Minister did not know this for a fact. He based his defence on an assumption.

Another problem to which no adequate reply has yet been given, is the amount which was paid. The hon. the Minister indicated that he would furnish further particulars, and I want to suggest to him that he should consider making the details of the deed of sale available. The fifth problem was the leaseback. We have as yet received no adequate reply as to why the lease-back occurred on the scale on which it did. I am saying these things in the light of the policy which was stated in reply to the misgivings expressed by the hon. member for King William’s Town, i.e. the policy which was adopted, and is being adopted, in regard to the purchase of White farms. I should like to quote what was said in this connection during a debate last year. I am quoting from Hansard, Vol. 56, col. 6032. This deals with the consolidation proposals, and the hon. the Minister said—

The question which occurs to me is why these owners were not told not to proceed with the development. Why were they not told that the Government would not be interested in purchasing properties that had already been developed? If this can be said to farmers, then it seems obvious to me that it can also be said to people engaged in township development. These are the type of questions which crop up, but I shall leave at that. I hope that the hon. Ministers will be better able to give us a satisfactory reply to the misgivings I have expressed.

I want to return to other aspects of the debate. This is the first opportunity I have had to return to the subject we discussed in this House the week before last when I introduced a private motion on discrimination. In the motion I asked for the appointment of a Select Committee which should give consideration to statutory measures which discriminate on the grounds of race and colour. In my motivation I made it very clear that our internal situation urgently requires us to get rid of discrimination perceptibly and as quickly as possible, that our relations with other African States and with other powers are going to be determined by this, and that, since Mr. Pik Botha and the hon. the Prime Minister themselves stated it as policy that South Africa had to and wanted to get rid of discrimination, we should remove the discussion of this critical matter from the sterile atmosphere of confrontation prevailing in this House and create another forum in which we could deliberate on this matter more calmly and more objectively.

The outcome of that debate is now history. More people than only the Opposition members in these benches in this House were and are bitterly disappointed at the negative attitude adopted by the Government in this regard. Only the hon. the Minister of Justice admitted, at least by implication, that discrimination does in fact exist, and that the Government is instituting an investigation into what discriminatory measures could perhaps be abolished within the framework of apartheid. I shall return to this if I have time. However, it will not be taken amiss of me when I say that the other speakers on the Government side did not express a single constructive idea on this matter. On the contrary. Their contribution can only be described as childish, party-political shadow boxing, and as poor attempts to escape from reality.

I want to repeat what I said at the time, i.e. that the matter is indeed extremely urgent. If the Government members are not in a position to be really well-informed of what leading personalities among our non-White groups are thinking, then they must be prepared to accept the information we furnish in this regard. Under these circumstances I have no choice but to try to convince our friends on the opposite side of this House of how important it is that cognizance should be taken of what those people are thinking and saying. It is most certainly not pleasant for me to convey to this House that resentment and bitterness which exist among them. It is certainly not pleasant for any of us to be confronted with those facts.

No one will doubt that effective resistance to the Russian-Cuban intervention in Angola and their presence in Southern Africa can only be offered if we are able to rely on the full co-operation of our entire population, White and Black. Now listen to what the non-Whites are saying. I am referring to leading non-White intellectuals and political leaders, and I want to try to convey to you what they are saying. They are saying: “You have rejected us and pushed us away, and how can you now, in your hour of need, expect us to support you and to fight at your side?” They are also saying—I repeat that I am coming back to what those people are telling us—and we can no longer evade this: “You have divided us mercilessly into separate groups and have done everything in your power to keep us apart, and with that you have destroyed the concept of a common loyalty.” They are saying to us: “You have said that you do not recognize us as part of the South African nation, that you want to establish us in separate nation states. You have said this time and again, and with that you have destroyed the concept of a common fatherland. You have constantly excluded us from proper participation in the political structure, and have persistently adopted resolutions which affected us intimately without our being able to make our voices heard and without our being consulted. That is why you have eliminated the possibility of collective participation and collective responsibility. You have discriminated against us, and you have separated us from yourselves and from one another, solely on the grounds of our race or colour, a God-given attribute which we did not create and which we can do nothing about. With that you have denied our common humanity. You have made us strangers in the land of our birth. You have driven us from the inheritance of our fathers to the separate group areas which you created for us, and with that you have forfeited any claim to our assistance and our support in keeping the inheritance of your fathers inviolate for you. ’’ [Interjections.] It may be nonsense, but I am merely repeating what they are saying. It is not I who am saying these things; I am simply repeating what was said. This emanates from prominent Coloured, Bantu and Asian personalities. [Interjections.] If hon. members were to talk to them they would hear that their young people regard the Russians, Cubans and the MPLA as liberators. That is a fact. I do not know why hon. members are at loggerheads with me here, for the hon. member for Green Point has already indicated what was stated even in the Snyman report. I want to quote precisely what was stated there, and which confirms what I have said here. It is stated in the report—

The report goes on to say—

[Interjections.] It is stated in the report. It is not I who am saying this, and I could give you the references if you want them. It states further—

In addition the report refers to an “anti-White attitude” which has been engendered “since childhood”, and it is said—

In addition, the report states—

The report goes on to say—

I quote further—

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

My time is almost up, and I cannot reply to any questions now. In addition it is stated in the report, in paragraph 7.1.3 on page 124 for the information of the hon. members—

The report also states—

[Inaudible.]

The report emphasizes—and I want to read this in reply to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Information and of the Interior—

I need say nothing further than what is said in the report about how alarming the situation is. I want to reiterate that we can no longer afford to continue with a policy of discrimination which alienates those people from us to an ever-increasing extent.

Mr. Speaker, I have the unpleasant and unenviable task of having to say what I want to say within the space of 14 minutes. For this reason I shall not elaborate in detail on the speeches I want to refer to, including the one made by the previous speaker. We know that he came to this Parliament from a university atmosphere, a very learned atmosphere. But when one listens to his logic, I simply must say to him: Preserve, oh preserve us from learning! I really want to speak with reference to the speech made by the hon. member for Sea Point, as well as those made by the hon. members for Maitland and Von Brandis, and by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

The hon. member for Sea Point really disappointed me today. We know his general standpoint and we know—he has never made it so clear as today—that his party’s policy is based on fear of a Black majority government in South Africa. He mentioned that we are four million Whites in this country as against 21 million Blacks. I know that the hon. member is a very brave member, that he is at least honest and that he speaks with the utmost sincerity. However, I want to remind him of something which Shakespeare said: “A coward dies many deaths.”

I am amazed at the things that have been said in connection with South West Africa, Swapo, the Angolan question and so on, and I hoped that I would have a little more time to refer to them and to illustrate these aspects in greater detail. However, I shall only discuss these subjects briefly.

I should like to refer to Swapo. I have before me the Hansard of the hon. member for Von Brandis, in which he asked why the Prime Minister did not go to have discussions with Sam Nujoma, the leader of Swapo. He also said “Swapo is real”, etc. The hon. member for Maitland, too, asked why we did not ban Swapo if this organization had communist leanings. By doing so, he showed once again that he had no idea of the position in South West Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went so far as to say, “I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that if he could achieve the objective of having even a section of Swapo round the conference table he would be doing a great deal of good in solving this particular problem.” This was what he said in connection with Swapo. The impression was created that Swapo was just another organization, and, well, what were we going to do with it? I want to make it quite clear that Swapo consists of two parts: an international Swapo which operates outside the country and a Swapo which operates inside the country. The Swapo which operates externally is completely communist orientated. That part of Swapo was founded here in Cape Town in 1957 by four White communists, Jack Simmons, Solly Sachs, Fred Carneson and Ben Turok. They were all outspoken White communists and only in the following year, in 1958, did they instruct Sam Nujoma to take over the leadership, so that it would not be so obvious that White communists had been responsible for the establishment of the organization. Nor is there any doubt about the fact that Sam Nujoma, too, is an outspoken communist, because he received his training in Moscow and Peking. He makes no secret of this. So there is not doubt about the situation, but …

I know him.

I am glad the hon. member admits it. Within the country there is a section which calls itself the Swapo Youth Movement and sometimes the Swapo League. They claim to have nothing to do with the external Swapo, to be an ordinary political party. We have always been accused by hon. members on the other side of seeing a communist behind every bush. We have various political parties in South West Africa, such as Swanu, Swapo and National Convention, but let it be said to the credit of the Government that we have not banned any of them because we do not see a communist behind every bush.

What does Innesdale say?

Wait a minute; I shall come to that. I do not want the hon. member to fall into a trap so soon. I want to tell the hon. member that the Namibia National Convention was established to unite the Black people of South West Africa against the Whites in South West Africa. What happened the year before last? Swapo walked out of the National Convention, and this can only mean: “If we get the upper hand in South West Africa and a unitary government is established in South West Africa, the people who will have a say in it will not be the Herero or the Damara or anyone else, but we, Swapo.” By doing that, the organization showed its true nature.

It is difficult to distinguish between insurgent elements which come from outside, crossing the Kunene and the Kavango, and which make terrorist attacks inside South West Africa as happened again yesterday near Okahandja, and Swapo inside South West Africa. I want the Government to consider banning the internal branch of Swapo as well, if it wants to eliminate these dangers with which we are faced in South West Africa today. Otherwise we shall be faced in the future with attacks of which we do not know the origin. We have not done this yet, because it is true that Swapo has not given us any reason to do so. But if this is proved, I believe that the Government will not hesitate for one moment to act against Swapo.

How large are the numbers of Swapo in South West?

Swapo has 6 000 members outside South West Africa. As far as those inside the country are concerned, it is impossible, of course, to give exact figures, but they are probably not more than 1 000. During the successful conference in South West Africa, Swapo claimed to be the legitimate representative of the Ovambo people, because Swapo consists only of Ovambo and does not include members of other peoples, as the hon. member for Von Brandis said. Because the Ovambo and the various population groups had met to find a solution to the constitutional problems of South West Africa and had even undertaken a successful trip abroad, Swapo lost a great deal of its prestige. It used to enjoy great prestige, because it was recognized even by the UNO and it received funds from every person who was hostile to South Africa and the Whites of South Africa. Because it had lost some of its prestige, it decided to flee across the Kunene, to be trained there and then to deal with the Ovambo leaders and with the rest of South West Africa by means of terrorist attacks. I want to refer to the situation which has developed in respect of Angola, because the hon. member for Sea Point spoke of South Africa’s involvement in Angola in a manner which made it very clear to me that he had no idea of what was going on.

What South Africa did in Angola was in accordance with its policy. We did not interfere in Mozambique when Frelimo took over there—in fact, we said that we would recognize the de facto and de jure Government of Mozambique and that we would co-operate with it and we are prepared to do that in respect of any Government which comes into existence on our borders. The situation in South West Africa is that the South African troops were assembled there in the first place to protect the borders of Ovambo, the Black people, against the attacks of Swapo and of other terrorist movements. Their first aim was to guard the borders and to protect the water projects, which benefit the Black people and the Angolans themselves, no matter what Government eventually comes into power there, no matter whether it be the MPLA or any other Government. The situation has now arisen that there are certain countries which are beginning to recognize the MPLA as the legitimate Government of Angola. If you know the country as I know it, you will know that Angola has a population of 5,5 million people, among whom Jonas Savimbi’s people, the Oviumbu, account for 3,5 million, the Barakongo—who support the FNLA—for approximately 2 million, and then I am not mentioning the smaller groups such as the Portuguese, who number ½ million, the Okuambi and so forth. Even if we were to recognize the MPLA, it is by no means sure that it will remain the de facto Government of Angola.

The Portuguese had 45 000 troops in the field at the time, and they were unable to stop the terrorist movements. The best proof of the fact that we should not speak of our involvement—I do not like this word; I do not like the term “involvement in Angola”—is this: If South Africa really had got involved in the war in Angola, we could have flattened Angola in one week’s time, before a single Cuban or Russian or East German, or anyone else, had set foot there.

However, we adhered to our policy of no intervention in the domestic affairs of another country. The Western world must give us credit for this. Of course this Government is going to consider the facts in the future. We shall consider these. If the MPLA were now to succeed—I do not know whether we are to recognize the Cubans or the Russians, because they are the people who are in power at the moment, with Dr. Agostinho Neto as leader—if the MPLA were to succeed in retaining control over Angola de jure and de facto, without assistance from the outside world, there would be nothing to prevent us from recognizing them. Co-operation between us would benefit us and them. I would almost say that they need our co-operation more than we need theirs. Angola is an undeveloped country. They will have to obtain capital and technical know-how. Where are they going to get it? They are not going to get it from the UNO, because that body is bankrupt. They will have to co-operate with South Africa.

It does not matter what government comes into power de facto and de jure in Angola, and when this happens, we shall continue and we shall put it to them that we are protecting our interests in regard to the Calueque scheme, from which both the Ovambo and the Angolans stand to benefit. Then we can recognize them as the government. I want to make this quite clear. We are practical. We are not living in a theoretical world.

However, there are hon. members, such as the hon. member for Von Brandis, who argue that we should conclude the negotiations, the conference in regard to South West Africa as soon as possible. The hon. member demanded that we find a solution to this matter before the end of 1976. I have here the Declaration of Intent which was drawn up by the conference at the time. I am sorry that I cannot come to the translation which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition used in Windhoek and which gave a completely wrong interpretation of the matter. However, I want to tell him that this Declaration of Intent forms the foundation of a future South West Africa. In this document it is stated clearly that we and these peoples absolutely condemn and reject the use of violence or any form of improper interference aimed at overthrowing the existing form of government or at forcing upon us a new dispensation.

Mr. Speaker, no one can require us to conclude this matter before the end of the year. When the Blacks asked us how long it was going to last, we said that it did not depend on us, but on them. We tried to set a target period of three years, which was accordingly embodied in the Declaration of Intent. Subsequently, however, the Black people told us themselves that we had been very optimistic and they even advised us rather to make it 10 years. They felt that this would be more realistic.

No one—not the Opposition of the UNO or anyone else in the world—will force us to conclude our constitutional affairs in South West Africa within a given period. Our actions are aimed at ensuring absolute peace and security for all the peoples of South West Africa, and I am able to say that this is also the aim of all the responsible peoples that are concerned in the matter.

Mr. Speaker, although nothing much was said about finance in this debate to which I feel it is necessary for me to reply, I do want to say that the debate was generally interesting and meaningful to me. There were only two or three exceptions. I am referring to the speech made by the hon. member for Sea Point today and last week’s speech by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. Then there was also, although to a lesser degree, the speech made by the hon. member for Edenvale today. It was a very disappointing speech. I cannot think that my hon. friends, for instance the hon. the leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Durban Point, the hon. member for Newton Park and many others, really agree with some of the things he said. The hon. member for Edenvale told us how all the non-Whites are apparently feeling about the situation in which our country finds itself. He blames the Government for the negative attitude of these people and says that the reason for it lies in our policy and our approach to them. I would like to know who those people are. He must mention them by name. Since when does he speak on behalf of the Bantu and the Coloured people and the Indians in this country? He must mention their names, then we can put this matter to the test.

However, before I continue, I would like to extend my sincere congratulations on their fine achievements to those hon. members of this side of the House who made their maiden speeches during this debate. It was really a pleasure to listen to them. I want to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Smithfield, for example. He spoke about a very intricate matter and showed us that he knew his facts. It was clear that he understood the provincial subsidy formula, something which is very involved. I believe that all these hon. new members will be great assets to this House. I also want to extend my sincere congratulations to my hon. friend, the member for Ermelo, on his appointment as chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. It is a very important post which was previously occupied with great distinction by the hon. member for Paarl. I want to thank the latter sincerely for the valuable service which he rendered there for many years. We are also looking forward very confidently to the contribution of the new Chairman. We know him as a very able member of this House and we have great appreciation for the work which he does here.

I would have proceeded at once to deal with all the financial matters and all the arguments which were used in connection with them, but I felt that I could not allow the speech made by the hon. member for Sea Point to pass without any comment. I must refer to it. I would not have spent more than one minute on the speech of the hon. member for Johannesburg North. It was an unpleasant speech, completely negative. In view of the speech made by the hon. member for Sea Point, however, I shall in fact refer to it.

†Mr. Speaker, in the circumstances prevailing in the country at large and in the world in which we live, I have never heard a speech such as that made today by the hon. member for Sea Point, a leader of a party in this House. Presumably, if one listens to him, this hon. member has a monopoly of the contact and of the confidence of all the non-White people of South Africa—not this Government, not this Prime Minister, but this hon. member.

There never has been a Prime Minister who has had closer contacts with all the non-White groups of this country than the present Prime Minister. I want to go even further and say that I do not believe there has ever been a Prime Minister of this country who has been held in greater esteem and who has had such confidence placed in him by all the people than our present hon. Prime Minister. That is the position. But the hon. member for Sea Point … [Interjections.] I do hope hon. members will give me an opportunity to speak.

I do not know whether I must gather from their noisiness that they agree with the hon. member for Sea Point. If they do, they must get up and say so. [Interjections.] One almost gained the impression that provided the hon. the Prime Minister approached all these people on terms and conditions set forth by the hon. member for Sea Point, the hon. the Prime Minister was free to talk to our non-White leaders. That is the impression I gained when listening to him. The speech of the hon. member for Johannesburg North was the exact prototype, in the financial field, of the speech of the hon. member for Sea Point in the broader political and security field. It was the exact equivalent, critical of everything the authorities are doing and wise in hindsight to the point of perfection. The hon. member for Johannesburg North by February or March last year knew all the answers to our coming financial problems. The tragedy is that he did not tell us anything about them. With the wisdom of hindsight, he stood up and made a speech here which led one to believe that he had gazed into a crystal ball and that only he could foretell the future. We have come to a point in our affairs where conditions are serious. We all know this and that is not because of the faults of this Government, but because of the absolutely unwarranted intervention in the affairs of Africa by the communists. That is why we are in this position. All we get from that party, however, is destructive criticism and a whitewash of everything the communists are doing. [Interjections.] That is the position. One can analyse it. One can go even further. When I listen to these hon. members and see the Press statements they are making and the way they put things, I find myself beginning to feel—I am not the only one—that there is a very serious fifth column developing in this country. [Interjections.] I think the sooner that is said the better. It goes on on all fronts in that party. It is a very serious fifth column, and the hon. member for Yeoville must sit up and take notice …

This is unworthy of you.

… because the hon. member for Yeoville has put his head not into a beehive, but into a nest of scorpions. That is what he has done. The hon. member for Yeoville is not going to get his head out of that either. The time has come to face the facts. We cannot have this double talk any longer, and I am entitled to say that this side of the House finds it intolerable that a group which calls itself a recognized political party in this country, can carry on in the way that party is doing, making the speeches they are making in public in this country. It is intolerable.

Let us see what the hon. member for Johannesburg North has said. Talking about devaluation he said one would think we were a banana republic like South America. A banana republic!

He went on to say we are not.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North has not been in this country very long and this country has been very kind to him. That hon. member has lived on the fat of the land in this country, if I may put it in those terms. I very much regret his present attitude, because I think that hon. member has it in him to play a different role in this country. However, today everything about this country must be disparaged; everything is wrong; this country is a banana republic.

The country and your performance are quite different.

He did not say that we have had more appreciations of the rand in recent years than devaluations. He did not say that. He did not tell the House that in the three years, from the beginning of 1972 up to the middle of 1975, when the depression settled so severely on the world, the exchange value of the rand measured in terms of all currencies in fact increased. For how many countries’ currencies over that period can one say that? Why did he not tell the House that?

What is relevant is how we got on with our trading partners.

Is that so? For a member like the hon. member for Johannesburg North to come to this House and say that this great country, South Africa, is a banana republic, is a disgrace. [Interjections.] That is the point, and I do not propose to pay any more attention to his speech. His speech was delivered here in a fit of pique; it was a most disagreeable speech. Just read it! He was piqued for two reasons. He was piqued because I had refused, a day or two earlier, to tell him how precisely we had estimated the tax income from the gold mines for the budget. I was not prepared to give him information which, I said, was not in the public interest. It now comes out in his speech that he was angry about that. I repeat that I have no intention of giving him that information, simply because if I did it would disclose a good deal of the gold selling strategy of the Reserve Bank and that is not in the interests of South Africa. There is another reason, however, why he was so disagreeable. Why, for instance, right at the start of his speech, in a completely uncalled for manner, did he hurl a gratuitous insult at the hon. member for Ermelo? What for? In comparison with the hon. member for Ermelo, what has he to contribute to the affairs of this House? You see, Mr. Speaker, he thought that this country had reached the point where it was financially and economically down, and he thought the only thing to do now was to kick the South African economy while it was down. However, he miscalculated, as that side of the House has miscalculated every time.

As I have said before and as I say again, although we have certain problems, those problems are nothing like as severe as the problems of most other countries of the world. What is more, we are overcoming those problems and we have a very great deal to be thankful for. I think the hon. member was so frustrated when he realized that our budgetary position was, in fact, remarkably sound and that we could handle our balance of payments position provided we continued to take the proper steps, although most of the countries in the world cannot handle theirs; when he realized that our growth rate was still positive and that, in comparison with other countries today, we really had no unemployment to speak of. That is the position in this country. In his position, why does the hon. member not say a single kind thing about the South African economy and the South African people? Why does he continually attack us in the negative and destructive way we saw the other day? I leave the answer to him.

Now I want to refer to something else. I want to refer to two items which appeared in the last few days in the Rand Daily Mail. On more than one occasion in this House during this session I have referred to the fact that we had in this country at the moment a positive growth rate. That is a fact. We are one of the very few countries in the world that has such a positive growth rate. My friend, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, a few days ago met with the committee that was called into being to deal with the anti-inflation campaign. It is a representative committee drawn from the whole economy. He had the Press present. My statements on the growth rate are in Hansard; so there is no question about them. As I say, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs had the Press present when he spoke about the South African economy and the anti-inflation campaign. He dealt specifically with the growth rate per capita and said that if the growth rate was proceeding at about 2¼%—that must be a pretty close estimate, although we do not have the final figures—and if the population was increasing at a somewhat faster rate, one could say that there was a slight negative tendency in the growth rate per capita. He said that if this growth rate of 2% or 2¼% or thereabouts continued into the following year and the population continued to increase slightly faster, that negative tendency in the growth rate per capita would continue.

He used that to stress how important it was for us to work harder and step up productivity and production generally. However, what did the Rand Daily Mail do? Having had that talk by the hon. member available to them, and having my statement on record in Hansard, the Rand Daily Mail on Saturday came with a leading article—‘ ‘Double Image’’—an article covering the whole length of the front page. The gravamen of this attack on the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and myself is that I am saying one thing and he is saying the opposite, that I am saying the growth rate is positive while he is saying it is negative. We stated these things in the clearest terms. Yet the Press proceeds on the basis of a completely false and dishonest premise to try to ridicule the Government, saying that different Ministers in the Cabinet talk a different language and do not know what they are talking about. That is the Rand Daily Mail. And that is not all they have said. The Rand Daily Mail also has a column being contributed, I understand, by someone who calls himself “Bull Ring” … [Interjections.] I know what the hon. members are probably thinking. I just want to repeat what I said in my Second Reading speech. I do so in order that the country may know how these things are being presented to the public. I was talking about the IMF quotas—that is where you get your voting rights. In my speech the other day—it is in Hansard—I said—

i.e. the Special Drawing Rights—

It is a question of the percentage increase. However, the Rand Daily Mail wrote as follows—

That is on 12 February—

The paper then goes on to try to ridicule still further what I said. It speaks of “a higher quota”, while I said we got a higher percentage increase in our voting rights in our quota than Australia and New Zealand. You see, Sir, one has to ask oneself what is going on in this country. How can any man with Hansard in front of him—Hansard is available at all times—make such an absolutely deliberate false statement such as this, together with the other one, the leading article which bears reading by anybody who has the truth in mind?

I now want to turn briefly to some of the more financial issues raised. I shall be as brief as I can. I want to refer, first of all, to what I thought was an extremely fair and able summing up of the point I tried to put to this House in my Second Reading speech at the commencement of this debate. I want to refer to the leading article by The Argus on my speech. With your permission, Sir, I should like to read a little from this article, because I think it sums up in a few words exactly what I was trying to say. I quote—

They go on to say—

They then refer to the issues in question. I think that, if I could sum up in one phrase what I tried to say, it would be that I was being cautiously optimistic, and I still am. I am not pessimistic about the future. I gave my reasons in fair detail, and nothing that has been said in this debate, with respect, causes me to change my mind for one moment.

I think the main criticism in the debate on the financial level again concerned devaluation. There was also the plea for the better use of non-White labour, a plea which was put in different forms. Such pleas, of course, are now becoming fairly old hat.

It is nevertheless true.

If one looks at the facts and at the situation as it developed up to September last year, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the only thing we could have done to protect the balance of payments and safeguard our reserves and, therefore, the strength of the rand, was to devalue. I have said it before, and I have given my reasons for it here and in other places. I do not want to take up the House’s time unnecessarily. However, the hon. member for Constantia, for example, said—

The monetary base is expanded, but not the real base. I should like to point out to the hon. member that the tax receipts on ad valorem duties simply keep pace with the rise in prices. In the case of specific duties—of which there are many—the real base is in fact reduced.

They refer to ad valorem.

I know. I am merely pointing this out because this is part of the whole question of financing from these sources.

Then, of course, the hon. member said that the Government should call a halt to forced or subsidized border industrial development. What is the point of coming to this debate and saying that we must stop our decentralization policy when we have a clear mandate from the public? How many times has this not been an important issue before the public? What is more, it has been supported every time. Perhaps, if the hon. member feels like it, we can discuss this at some length on another occasion. I think that the case that can be made out for decentralizing in conditions such as are experienced in some of our big metropolitan areas where very substantial increased social costs are incurred because of over-congestion of various kinds, is in itself a very strong case indeed. It is not based purely on economic grounds. There are other important considerations which I think the hon. member understands. I would merely like to say here that devaluation has stabilized our reserves. We still have balance of payments problems with the low gold price. Naturally that is so, but if we had not taken this measure, how would we have stopped the decline in the net reserves which had reached serious proportions by September? The devaluation did give us that relief, and it is undoubtedly having a stimulatory effect on the economy. It is stimulating a number of important export industries, including, most of all, the gold mines. These are being stimulated directly. The devaluation is also contributing to containing and, indeed, reducing the volume of imports overall. That was one of the main things we tried to achieve, viz. to encourage exports and to discourage imports. That is, of course, what the devaluation has been doing. I was interested to see in the latest copy of the Financial Mail, which appeared last Friday, that, in referring to my speech, that of the hon. member for Constantia and some others in the debate that had taken place, it said—

That is, of course, completely correct. I quote further—

That was of course a very good way to put it. That was the Financial Mail, and I do not think one really needs a stronger justification than that for this step. Incidentally, the hon. member for Constantia listed a whole number of “do’s” and “don’ts” which I can assure him I will look at very closely. The hon. member for Yeoville went much further. He did not worry about the “do’s”, but he doubled the number of “don’ts”. He told me not to do a whole series of things. I can assure him that I will bear every one of them carefully in mind. But talking about the Financial Mail, it is interesting to see that on page 459 it sums up these “don’ts” which the hon. member gave me. One of them is: “Don’t impose taxes that will raise living costs”. The Financial Mail proceeds further on to say—

That is just a reminder that these things are not as simple as they may look. One has to look at them in relation to the conditions prevailing and from all sides.

May I ask the Minister whether he does not consider that if in fact he were to increase sales duties on items which are important to the consumer, this would in fact have an inflationary and not a deflationary effect?

If you put up the tax on an item which must be bought, the consumer then must pay the higher price, and to that extent you could say that that is contributing to the inflation, but the argument here is that it causes that consumer to pay less for other things because it has eaten into his available disposable income. Therefore, overall and on the slightly longer-run view—as in fact the Financial Mail goes on to state—such price increases are “exceedingly deflationary”. Now that is a point that I leave with the hon. member. I do not want to argue about it, but it is an interesting point to show that there are two sides to the question.

The majority of South African consumers cannot afford it. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Yeoville amongst other things made the remark that many of our foreign loans last year were short-term loans. That is so; many of our loans were short-term, but the hon. member knows that this is a world-wide phenomenon. The term of even the long-term loans in the world today is six or seven years, whereas recently it was 15 years.

But you have been borrowing for only six months.

In the case of a few loans—we were able to repay them exactly on time because it was the right thing to do—but we also had a substantial number of long-term productive loans. In addition, in respect of the capital accumulation that came in from abroad last year, our capital inflow, we had a very substantial long-term private capital contribution of over R500 million, which is a very substantial figure. But the point on which I do want to cross swords with the hon. member for Yeoville is his statement—and he must have had the hon. member for Hillbrow in mind when he said this—that devaluation was an act of bankruptcy. Sir, I must say it is an astonishing thing to say. The devaluation was never an act of bankruptcy in any shape or form. It was simply a practical and, I believe, essential adjustment of the price of our currency towards other currencies, particularly the dollar. The hon. member must remember that we are living in a very different world. We do not have fixed par exchange values. To an increasing extent we have floating rates of exchange, and currencies are moving upward and downward all the time. For reasons which are important to us, we have a link with the dollar, because our foreign exchange market, as the hon. member knows, is not big enough to give us a reliable value on its own. We are linked to the dollar for technical reasons. The dollar is floating and it has been moving up and down a good deal. Obviously that means that we move too, and we have to watch this. We are not as big a country as America, but we do get substantial benefits provided we adopt a realistic exchange rate policy, and this is what we are doing.

Do you think devaluation is an act of strength?

The devaluation in the circumstances which hit us, through no fault of our own, was in fact an act of strength, because it corrected the fundamental disequilibrium that had set in.

Oh, come off it!

Of course it was. Sir, I would like to ask the hon. member: What else would he have done? Would he have adopted an outright policy of deflation in September?

You should have adopted it earlier.

Sir, the hon. member has been talking to the hon. member for Johannesburg North. He knew all the answers last March and February.

Read my Hansard.

I will tell you, Sir, that that would never have helped, because none of that earlier deflation could have foreseen the extent of the drop in the gold price, or the extent of the world depression which has hit our exports so severely. It could not possibly have been foreseen.

We would not have based our estimates on the gold price.

Mr. Speaker, on that point I would just like to tell the hon. member for Johannesburg North that in the process of estimating the revenue to be expected from gold mining companies in our budget I consulted not only all my top officials and the Reserve Bank, but also some of the greatest authorities on gold in the gold mining industry, and the figure we used was an absolute consensus. So the hon. member must not come here with the wisdom of hindsight and tell us what he would have done, because it does not make any impact on me. To say that devaluation was an act of bankruptcy is a pretty serious thing to say, and I hope it is the last time the hon. member will use that phrase in this House. As long ago as June, when we made that downward adjustment of nearly 5%, when we switched from the limited floating adjustment, short term, of the rand to the long term basis of adjustment, I said we would only devalue under certain conditions. I said we would only devalue if there was a fundamental change in the underlying conditions affecting us. The fundamental change came with that sudden, drastic drop in the price of gold on top of the very serious downward revision in export prices that hit us in September. That, I may say, is exactly my view today and I do not intend under any conditions to devalue. I know there are some people who like to think that if a Minister says that, it means he is going to devalue. Let them think what they like; I happen to be saying what I intend, and I want to say further that …

You said it three times last year.

No, you are talking absolute nonsense, my friend. You are talking as much nonsense now as you spoke when my hon. friend was talking about land purchases at Port St. Johns.

In the course of this debate the hon. member for Constantia and the hon. member for Yeoville made the point that we must watch the supply of money very carefully, and that we must not let it in any way get out of hand, particularly as far as bank credit is concerned. I think they also raised this matter during the no-confidence debate, namely that we must be very sure that we keep the supply of credit by the banks to the private sector within bounds. I want to assure the House that this is precisely what we have been doing for some time. The liquidity in the system, however, has been quite remarkable, despite the fact that there is this overall financial tightening world-wide, in the capital markets of one country after the other. The fact is that even after we had raised the liquid asset requirements of the banks, twice last year, there was still substantial liquidity in the system which was causing still more credit to be issued. This was so much so that even after the devaluation and the second raising of the liquid asset requirements of the banks, the credit issued by the banks to the private sector showed virtually the same increase in the fourth quarter as it had in the third quarter. The figures are preliminary but I think that the rise during the fourth quarter, at an annual rate, amounted to about 18% and in the third quarter to something like 19% or 20%. To me this was something quite remarkable. I would have thought that during the fourth quarter there would have been a substantial falling off in a credit issued to the private sector. This has led us to examine the situation very carefully. We have been looking at this regularly. We did so the week before last, last week and again today. It is quite correct; we have got to keep a very careful check on this credit position because it is a very serious potential inflationary factor for one thing and it does mean, if we are going to adopt a policy of holding down Government spending, which we are doing, we have certainly got to watch the concomitant credit situation and the supply of money. We are dealing with that matter very carefully and it may well be that as we discuss this matter further, we may very shortly have to take further steps in this direction. We will have to see how that emerges.

This brings me to a point which I do want to raise and deal with for one or two minutes, namely the criticism which has been raised in this House during the no-confidence debate and again in this debate of some strange sort of financial mismanagement by this Government.

There is nothing strange about it.

In the case of the Budget of last year, we made it moderately expansionary and we attuned our monetary policy accordingly. In June we made a small downward adjustment in the value of the rand because it was essential, and we changed over from the system of rapid and frequent small adjustments in the exchange value of the rand, which I think has been a very good measure. In August we raised the liquid asset requirements of the banks to try to cope with the very substantial liquidity and the potential inflation that could follow. We also made far-reaching and important improvements to our whole foreign exchange control system. One of the results of that has been that in the last few weeks we have set in working a revised blocked rand system. We have in fact abolished the blocked rand in certain classes of overseas investments and we now have a securities rand in operation. The Stock Exchange tells us that it has started very well. This is regarded as a substantial improvement in our foreign exchange control position and, indeed, has a very healthy effect. We hope that the initial signs are good and that it will have a healthy effect on foreign investment in the Republic.

Last year we made it easier for the banks to obtain funds abroad. When we came to the serious position in the balance of payments and the reserves, we devalued in September. We did that fairly substantially precisely to handle the situation that we have had during the last few weeks when the price of gold experienced a further substantial drop. However, for the gold price to be approximately $131 a fine ounce is a very fine performance, especially with the pressures on gold at the moment. That is the view which is expressed by some of our best advisers overseas. One has to wait and see what happens ahead. I believe there is going to be considerable pressure on gold for some time yet. Unfortunately there are a number of countries that want to phase gold out as a monetary asset. They certainly are not succeeding. But in the process of all this talk, they are giving rise to certain fears which I think are groundless in the long run. However, it has an unfortunate depressing effect on the gold market in the short run. However, under all these pressures gold has come up again to approximately $131, and I think that under the circumstances it has done extremely well.

So we will proceed. We are watching the fiscal, monetary and financial position day by day. In my opening speech I said that we have a great deal to be thankful for. The Argus called my approach one of “cautious optimism”. I think that that is the best way I can describe it, because I have every confidence in the financial capacity of this country. We will make the necessary adjustments as we go ahead. I believe that once we have gone through our budgetary procedures and made such adjustments to our fiscal and monetary policies as may be necessary, we will in fact within the next year or so come out extremely well at the other side.

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. the Minister say something about the Government’s reserves policy? Is the Minister satisfied with the 1 000 million …

Mr. Speaker, I am asked to say something about our gold and foreign exchange reserves. In a word or two I would say that one of the big problems round about September, when the gold price dropped so severely and our exports were badly hit by the depression in world markets, our net reserves, i.e. excluding borrowings, were falling. The hon. member will see that in publications of the Reserve Bank. The net reserve position is a better indicator in that sense than the gross reserves, because the latter include foreign borrowings. If one can borrow on a fair scale for a length of time then one might say that the gross reserves are quite a good criterion because we are getting a regular inflow of capital over a long period. However, we would much rather look at the position of the net reserves. These were in fact dropping. That is one reason why we took the step to devalue. When we did that, for the months through to December we stabilized the net reserves position, i.e. irrespective of borrowings.

Unfortunately there has recently again been a call on the Reserve Bank for foreign exchange, i.e. money that is sent abroad. I can only think that this is because some people insist on thinking we are going to devalue again. Therefore they purchase foreign exchange from the Reserve Bank, and that money goes out of the country. Some of it is outright speculation and some of it, I should imagine, is legitimate because there are people who have to meet commitments abroad. I fully appreciate this. However, there is no doubt that some of it is simply short-term speculation, in the sense that they are trying to make a quick penny, as one might say. It is a pity that under these conditions those people do not have more regard for their country’s position and less for their own immediate enrichment. Because of this we have to watch the situation very carefully. However, we do have loans coming in. We have a very good standing abroad. The hon. member may have seen that Escom recently succeeded in raising a loan of no less than $200 million. Then there are also our exports as well as our gold sales. On the gross reserves position we have something like R950 million. We are repaying loans from time to time, and we are also getting in loans from time to time. Overall, although the next few months might be fairly tricky, I have no doubt that an improvement in the current account, which is clearly there to see, is going to pull this position straight in the longer run. I see this as a problem of a matter of a few months. We will, however, have to watch it very carefully. If it were not for the fact that some of these people were purchasing foreign exchange from the Reserve Bank on a fair scale from time to time, we would be able to handle the situation without any problems at all. Even so, with the leads and lags moving adversely from time to time against us, we will certainly handle the situation. It simply means that we will have to give closer attention to the decisions week by week.

Basically I believe the current account is improving. In fact, the signs are clearly there. The balance of payments over the year will definitely improve as a result, and I have no doubt that we can cover any deficit that might emerge by the influx of foreign capital.

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. the Minister tell me whether it is his policy to build up a bigger reserve than we have been working on over the past year?

I think my answer to that would be that we have no particular targets. I am not setting a target for the reserves of, say, R1 000 million or R2 000 million. What we would like to see, however, is a fairly stable position in the reserves. We achieved this after devaluation for a good three months. The position is not serious at the moment either. The instabilities are sporadic and from week to week.

Your shock-absorber is not big enough.

No, I think it is. We certainly have an improvement ahead. I have no doubt that we are going to have an improvement on current account, and I am very grateful for this situation. I think the present level, from a security or safety point of view, is very adequate. [Interjections.]

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

I think I shall allow this as a last question.

It concerns the increasing deficit in respect of invisibles I raised with the hon. the Minister in my speech. Does he intend taking any steps to try to control that increasing deficit in respect of invisibles, and if so, what has he got in mind?

There is an increase in the invisible items, like shipping, insurance, etc. That is quite correct. It is something which every country is experiencing with the escalation in the costs of these services. One can only gradually try to improve this trend by trying to reach a position where one’s own insurance and one’s own carriers can, in time, handle more of the business. It is not as a result of devaluation that our current account has improved and is improving. It is a situation which we can certainly handle. I should like to thank the House for its indulgence. I do not want to prolong this debate.

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

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—91: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Potgieter, J. E.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W.L.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

NOES—44: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.