Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

It is not customary for the Minister to present a formal introductory speech at the Third Reading, but I do, nevertheless, want to avail myself of this opportunity to make an important announcement in connection with exchange control. I shall not occupy much of the time of the House with it.

During the past few months I have made several adjustments to exchange control in order to deal with new circumstances. In August 1975, for example, exchange control over the raising of foreign loans by South African bodies was relaxed, the control over internal loans by foreign-controlled firms was extended to cover leases as well, and the control over payments for imports and exports was applied more strictly. The regulations in respect of forward cover were also relaxed. I referred yesterday to the recently introduced transferability of the new securities rand. All these adjustments have contributed to the safeguarding and improvement of our balance of payments. It has now become desirable to adopt further measures.

This morning the president of the Reserve Bank issued a statement in which he announced new credit control measures. He referred to the fact that recently there had again been a considerable increase in the foreign exchange purchases of the Reserve Bank. These increased purchases indicate a new unfavourable movement in the so-called “leads and lags” in the balance of payments which have occurred so frequently during the past few years, and which have handicapped the administration of the country’s gold and other foreign reserves very considerably. Although it is assumed that these movements are for the most part occurring within the framework of the existing exchange control directions, it is surmised that in some cases, with the transfer of funds to and the holding of assets abroad, deliberate evasion of the regulations is occurring.

The president of the Reserve Bank consulted me in this regard, and I was in complete agreement with the idea that a thorough investigation should be instituted into such evasions. The Government attaches great importance to this investigation, and I am looking forward to hearing the outcome of that investigation. The banks are already engaged in the investigation, and the Government will not hesitate to take strict action in cases where contravention can be proved. In this regard the exchange control regulations make provision for a term of imprisonment of up to five years and/or the imposition of a fine of up to R10 000, or even more if the value of the subjacent transaction exceeds R10 000. This is an indication of the serious light in which such transactions are being regarded.

After consultation with the Reserve Bank I also deem it necessary to effect the following two adjustments to the existing exchange control regulations and directions—

1. (1) Inhabitants of the Republic who receive foreign exchange abroad for any reason, for example as payment for exports, are at present required to transfer this foreign exchange to South Africa within 30 days after receipt. This arrangement creates the possibility for exporters to invest export proceeds abroad for short periods. The regulation is now being amended, and in future all inhabitants of the Republic who receive foreign exchange abroad for any reason are required to sell it to an authorized dealer in foreign exchange in South Africa within seven days after receipt.
2. (2) As far as South African importers are concerned, authorized dealers may only provide exchange to an importer upon submission of documentary proof verifying that goods have been shipped. As a special concession authorized dealers are, however, allowed to make advance payments of not more than 40% of the factory cost of machinery or equipment which is being specially manufactured on order for a South African importer. However, documentary proof has to be submitted that the advance payment is required by the foreign manufacturer and that such payment is normal in the trade concerned. There is reason to surmise that this concession is sometimes abused, and therefore authorized exchange dealers will in future be able to effect such advance payments on imports only after they have received prior approval for the payments from the Reserve Bank.

I want to point out once again that the existing exchange control regulations and directions have been devised in such a way that there is no unnecessary interference with normal trade practices. This allows a certain flexibility in the control, which unfortunately is sometimes abused for short-term speculative considerations. The Government would not like to eliminate this flexibility, and I am consequently making an appeal to authorized exchange dealers and to the private sector to comply scrupulously with the exchange control regulations and directions in respect of all foreign exchange transactions.

The credit control measures which the president of the Reserve Bank announced this morning are intended to reduce the rate of increase in bank credit to the private sector as a temporary measure so as to strengthen the balance of payments and reduce the potential inflationary consequences of excessive liquidity to the economy. I referred yesterday to the importance of effective control over bank credit and the money supply, and it is also one of the undertakings of the Government under the collective campaign against inflation that it will ensure that there is no excessive increase in the money supply.

I want to give this House the assurance that the Government is bearing this undertaking in mind and will adapt its monetary and credit policy wherever necessary.

Mr. Speaker, the announcement by the hon. the Minister of Finance shows to what a sorry state he has allowed things to develop, when he has to announce, at this time of virtual crisis in the economic situation, that he is going to take measures which he should have taken a long time ago. I do not intend dealing with this matter, because I want to move to other matters. In this, the prelude to the budget, the normal rule has been reversed. It is normally the person who pays the piper who calls the tune. In this instance it is the Government which calls the tune and the people who pay the piper. Once again the Minister has given an indication that it is the people who must provide the solution while the Government calls the tune. This time, however, it is not so much a piper as a bugler who is playing the tune, and a sombre one at that.

I make no apology, Mr. Speaker, for returning to the central issue in the thoughts of the public of South Africa at this moment. We have already debated in this House three aspects of the situation: Our military action on the border and in Angola, the failure of the Government to inform and to motivate the people and, thirdly, the up-dating of the Defence Act. As a result there have been areas of agreement and areas of controversy, but the real facts are slowly unfolding. It is against this background that my leader, with his usual grasp of priorities, last week cut through the futility of post-mortems and put his finger on what matters—the reality of “now” and of “tomorrow”.

He has often done this on other issues, and each time we have found ourselves sidetracked into a futile political debate. We have therefore tried to return attention to the central issue of what lies ahead. We shall leave the Progressive generals and field-marshals to re-fight Angola in their caucus and in the Press, but I have to refer to one matter before I turn to other matters. I refer to a newspaper issued by the Progressive Party, Progress, of January/February 1976, on the front page of which I find two statements which cannot be allowed to stand. The one is, and I quote—

How very noble of them, Mr. Speaker! I quote further—

[Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on 30 January we had an amendment before this House, which read, inter alia (Hansard, 1976, col. 356)—

Here, Mr. Speaker, in this newspaper statement, the Progressive Party expresses its solidarity with the troops. Against this amendment, those words which I have just quoted, they voted; and they recorded their vote by dividing this House. [Interjections.] But, Mr. Speaker, the report continues—

On 30 January, in this House, Mr. Speaker there was an amendment before this House, reading (Hansard, 1976, col. 356)—

That same party, whose caucus had taken a decision, which they released, voted against this amendment and it stands recorded in Hansard. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the reason why I raise this is the target at which this newspaper is aimed. Alongside this report stand the words: “Calling Durban North.” [Interjections.] To the public outside, they express solidarity with our forces and antagonism towards communism and Russian imperialism. In Parliament, to the outside world, they say: “We are not prepared to vote for an amendment criticizing Russian military imperialism. We are not prepared to express our thanks to the troops of South Africa.” This, Mr. Speaker, is the “single” voice of the Progressive and Reform parties. And I deliberately refer to them in the plural, Sir. I hope that the people of South Africa will take note of this and will know what to believe when they hear the protestations and the pious platitudes of this party when they think they can get away with it. [Interjections.]

Sir, we could all be generals. We could have had a fiery debate for instance on the Washington Post report, but what would it achieve? History will judge when all the facts are known. History will also judge the Progressive Party as it will judge the United Party and as it will judge the Government. Until those facts are known, as my leader correctly said, there is no point in indulging in futile academic argument; we should rather look to the lessons we have learnt from Angola. My leader will be proved right as regards the direction to which he pointed, which is already fortunately proving to be a national approach and not a party approach, the approach of “talking” if you can avoid “shooting”. He will be proved right in respect of some of the other directions in which he indicated we should move, because I believe that the one political lesson we have learned is that events have shattered the euphoria, the dream, that time is on our side in South Africa. It has pointed to the tragedy of the wasted years, the years when votes appeared more important than political solutions to our problems.

In passing, Mr. Speaker, I want to try to make the Government understand why hundreds of thousands of South Africans can believe passionately in South Africa, in our sovereignty, in our security and in our territorial integrity, and yet remain totally opposed to the Government’s political policies. But because we are opposed to political policies it does not mean that we will exchange the Government which we have, much as we dislike its policies and its direction, for a Marxist dictatorship. Neither will we accept the abject surrender of the left—the abject surrender which I believe is aided and abetted by the views of the Progressive Party—nor accept a suicidal confrontation which is envisaged and which is in fact, I believe, desired by so many on the right. There still remains a central course in South Africa, which is the only safe course. So we can continue to be opposed politically whilst we can stand together as South Africans and still be South Africans.

Now, Sir, I am not going to go further on the political aspects, but there are military lessons. People have come back from the border. Information has been coming in from many sources. There have been allegations, rumours, reports and complaints, and we have tried to evaluate and to sift the tales that have come back. Again, one could have a ball of a debate. You could air all the allegations and the complaints and you could have an exciting and perhaps a heated debate, but I believe most of these are matters which need investigation first and having been proved can then be raised later on the Defence Vote. But certain matters need to be raised now because at this moment, as we sit here this afternoon, we have men on the borders and their families at home and it is essential that some of the damaging rumours—I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Defence could not be here—should be cleared. The air should be cleared in the interests of the morale of the nation, because often it is minor things which affect morale as much, if not more, than bigger things.

In the first place I want to turn to the question of preparedness. There has been a lot of loose talk, but what disturbs me is what I regard as the incredibly damaging statements by the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Defence to the effect that we cannot match all Soviet weapons. I can think of no single statement which has caused more concern and despondency amongst those who have sons on the border than that single statement. I can think of no question more frequently asked me than the question: “Is it true that we are outgunned and that our boys cannot match the weapons against them?” My own information is that except for “Rooi Oog”, the “Stalin’s Organ” which outranged us but which itself could be counteracted and neutralized by the superior skill, training and mobility of our men, we are able to hold our own in every field; in fact, not only hold our own but prove totally superior. It is my information that our 5,5s shot the daylights out of the enemy—the handful of them which we probably had there—and that it is one of the most feared weapons today in Angola. It is my information that we were able to stand up against the tanks and neutralize them. If these are the facts—and these are the facts I get from the boys who were there, who were involved themselves—surely it is incredible that the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Defence should have made such a statement, for what I believe was probably a political reason. They possibly wanted to encourage people to supply arms, and to point out that we were standing alone against Russian imperialism. That is the only reason I can assume for a statement which I believe damaged the morale, particularly of our people at home and of the troops who had not yet been up there and did not know for themselves that we could, in fact, match anything that was thrown at us.

Of course there are weaknesses. One reads stories of “digging in” in slit trenches with bayonets and tin cans, and all that sort of thing. These, however, are matters of detail. They are not issues that strike at the basis of our ability to fight back. I hope that this sort of statement will be clarified beyond any doubt so that those who are going up and those who have sons up there now will know that it is not true that we are unable to hold our own against anything they throw at us. This whole question of preparedness will need further consideration, but this is not the time or the place to deal with that.

The next point I want to raise is that I believe that the old military adage, “ Their’s not to reason why” does not apply to South Africa and to South Africans. I believe that we require and required in Angola and on the border, better motivation and a proper briefing of men prior to operations. It is not enough simply to have discipline and to say: “You are going in to do this.” South Africans are independent-minded people and I believe, that we have to improve the extent and motivation of our briefing before men engage in operations. Then, when they are engaged in operations, I believe we have to improve our communications and the information conveyed to them. When one is in action it is essential that one knows what is going on around one. It is essential particularly when aircraft are involved. It is also essential when quick mobility is involved. When people can move 20 and 30 miles in a couple of hours, it is essential to know what is going on so that if there is a sudden movement ahead, one knows whether it is the enemy or one’s own people. I think there is too much of a tendency in the army, as there is excessively in the Government, to apply secrecy which, in actual fact, does not aid but rather harms the effectiveness and efficiency of our operations. There comes a time when “secrecy” becomes secrecy for its own sake, not with an objective, but simply for the sake of secrecy itself. I believe that our army is perhaps the one army in the world that deserves to be taken—and will not abuse being taken—into the confidence of the High Command and kept fully informed in operations. I refer, as an example, to the motivation before the withdrawal of our troops. Surely when men are being brought back, one would imagine that they would be told “why” and that they would be motivated so that on their return—until they were told the full story—they would not feel they were perhaps withdrawing because of superior opposition by enemy military forces. Motivation is as important when one is making a tactical withdrawal as it is when one is making an advance.

These matters, which we have already raised in previous debates, all fit into the pattern of motivation and information. In the same way that we have criticized the failure to motivate our people at home, so I believe that in the field there is room for improvement in motivation and information.

I turn to other issues which, in themselves, may not be important. I think, for instance, of Grootfontein which is the major base and the key to our operations on the border. We have known for years that the Grootfontein base was to be built. I have pleaded in this House for priority to be given to the Golden Highway and the communication from Grootfontein northwards, so that if we were ever called upon to engage in operations, we would have a proper base and proper road communications and not the notorious roads on which trucks last approximately eight to ten months before they fall to bits. However, we delayed this. We delayed it to follow a programme and when the time came a crash plan had to be made to build what was required. Even at this stage the road has not even been touched, except for minor repairs, and the base itself is still in the process of being built. Admittedly, rain was a factor, but I think we could have been more far-sighted. I raise this question now because it is a matter of urgency. I do not believe it can wait months or even weeks until the Defence Vote comes up. It is now a matter which should enjoy total priority. Every priority should be given to get that base completed and to get the communications from it put into a state of usefulness.

Then I turn to matters affecting welfare and morale. Some of these may again seem minor matters. Let me deal with one immediately. At this moment, on 17 February, the wives of Citizen Force men on the border have not yet received their pay due at the end of January.

Scandalous!

It is a scandal. I have raised this matter in the Press. It has been taken up by other members with the Defence Force and it has been taken up by members with the Minister himself. Assurances have been given and excuses have been made and, finally, assurances were given that the cheques would be posted last Friday. It is now Tuesday, 17 February … Members can laugh, but would they laugh if their daughter and her child had not received their monthly pay? [Interjections.]

Who is laughing?

Do not be ridiculous. Nobody is laughing. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Deputy Minister, Dr. Treurnicht, is laughing now. How would they like it if it was their daughter who sat with no money, who had to go and plead for charity and who could not pay the rent or buy food because the Army has not been able to pay the men called up for three months? If this had been put right, I would have said nothing about it, but this has been going on for 17 days after the end of the month and rumour has it that it will take another week. It will be almost a month overdue.

You seem to be thriving on rumours.

This is no rumour. I challenge the hon. the Minister to show me any dependent of the Cape Town Highlanders who has received her money.

Why do you continue to spread rumours?

This is not a rumour.

But you called it a rumour yourself!

This is not a rumour; it is a fact. I said there were certain matters which had to be dealt with now because the men are on the border. They know their wives have not been paid. They have had letters from their wives saying they have not been paid. That hon. member would like me to shut up and keep it secret while the men on the border who are getting shot at are worrying because their wives have not been paid. Yet he says we must not raise that sort of matter. If you cannot get it fixed by direct communication, this is the place to raise it and that hon. member should be supporting me rather than criticizing and questioning me. He should be standing by me. [Interjections.]

While I refer to the men hearing from their wives, let me say that, despite the improvements that have been made, the postal services have not yet been brought up to the state they should be in. I am prepared to bet that Government members are also receiving complaints—we are certainly receiving them—of letters and parcels that are not arriving, undelivered letters that are being sent back “Return to sender” and parcels being sent up there and not being delivered. Some were already sent up on 16 November but they have not yet been delivered. What has happened to them? These are the things that affect the morale of soldiers and of parents. They are things which it is our duty to raise when one cannot get them fixed any other way. Perhaps by raising them in this forum, something will be done to put them right.

The hon. the Minister spoke of “rumours”. I heard a rumour which I was not prepared to touch, but now I have found the facts. Some of the hon. members here, for instance, may have contributed to the Turkeys for the Troops Fund on Springbok Radio. I do not suppose they did; some of us did. Where are those turkeys? They never got to the troops in the field. This is the sort of lack of organization and lack of attention to the welfare of troops that must be put right. I know where those turkeys went as well.

Durban North?

The hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs is again getting up-stage. He is accusing me of rumours, but this is not a rumour.

But you called them rumours yourself!

I said I had heard a rumour which I would not touch until I got the facts. Then I said that the facts proved to be these.

On two occasions you referred to them as rumours yourself.

Read my Hansard. [Interjections.]

Let us take up another matter. The men who came back from the field, when they were withdrawn from Angola, came back to Grootfontein. All the preparation that was made for them was that the tents were up. The place was flooded with mud. There was no preparation made to receive them and they were kept there four days, not to debrief them, but to await the convenience of the Minister who wanted to come up to meet them personally before they were sent back to South Africa. It then took them another three and three-quarter days by train. When they had to go up, they were flown up but when they had to come back after having served there—and not having had a picnic, because it was not a picnic—they were delayed for four days at Grootfontein after they had come back to South West Africa. After that they were on the train for nearly another four days. This is not the way to treat our men. They are loyal and dedicated soldiers and, when they go into action, they go in to serve South Africa. When they come back, we owe them something. We owe them something when they come back in the same way as we owe them much more when they are in the field, but when they are in the field they must put up with inconveniences and the things that are wrong. That is part of being in any army in any country in the world. Afterwards, the other issues leave lasting resentment. Not what happened while they were fighting, not what happened when they were in the field, but what happened when they came back causes a resentment that stays in their mind long after any other. They want to know: “Why could I not have gone straight home?’’ I want to say at once that in the field up there, with very few exceptions, there has been fine leadership from the Permanent Force officers, the Citizen Force officers and the National Service officers.

There has been, again with a few exceptions, a fine response. Generally, I believe, training has been adequate, although there have been examples where it could have been better. That is why I believe it is necessary to raise these other things. We have fine forces and we have outstanding men—South Africa owes them a great debt of gratitude. The way to do that is to ensure that these petty annoyances, these things which are unnecessary, these things which could be avoided, these things which simply affect morale, do not happen. Unless one brings them to light, unless one discusses them, unless one raises them and shows up the sort of thing that must not happen, then they are going to go on happening. That is why I believe it is necessary, not when we discuss the Defence Vote at a later stage, but now on this Bill, to raise them so that what can be done to put things right can be done now and not when the next batch of men go up.

The debate is drawing to a conclusion. It means that we now have to wait for the Budget at the end of March and until then we shall have to face events as they happen. I believe we are going through a difficult time which is going to call for cool heads and cool decisions. I hope, although I am very doubtful at times, that the financial management of this country under the hon. the Ministers of Finance and Economic Affairs will give that leadership.

Why do you not stick to defence?

That will be shown in the weeks ahead and in the budget itself. At this stage we want to say that for the sake of the economic security of South Africa we support the Government, but not as far as the economic maladministration is concerned. In the defence of South Africa we support the Government, but where there is maladministration, we shall raise it and not support the Government. That is the attitude in which we approach our responsibility as an Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, it has become very clear to me that the hon. member for Durban Point’s image as regards matters of defence has taken a knock since he went on that accompanying trip. It is very clear to us that he is very sensitive on this score, and I wonder whether that is why he made such a fuss today during the final part of his speech. He became completely over-emotional. I share in his concern when gossip is involved which will prejudice our men in the Defence Force and lower their morale, but then we should also be careful when we participate in this debate and speak in this House, not to contribute towards lowering their morale. I can, of course, not agree with the point of view expressed by the hon. member when he said that the measures announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance this afternoon were proof of, as he called it, the “sorry state of the economy’’. No. To me this shows a large degree of responsibility on the part of the Government, i.e. that it is prepared to take measures whenever they must be taken, irrespective of whether or not they are popular.

Over the past few days we have heard much during the debate on this Bill, about defence and Angola. We have also heard a great deal about devaluation and inflation. I think that those matters have been dealt with fairly exhaustively. However, the basic question concerns an amount to be appropriated for spending in the interests of South Africa. I find it ironical that while the hon. member for Durban Point is kicking up a tremendous fuss—I cannot judge the merits of what he said, because I do not have the facts available—because the salaries of members of the Defence Force have allegedly not been paid out, the Opposition is at the same time involved in opposing a measure which seeks to spend a certain amount of money in the interests of South Africa. Can one imagine what would happen if that of which the hon. member for Durban Point is accusing us, were to become reality and salaries could not be paid out and the Government could not meet its obligations? Surely that would result in chaos. One can understand the Opposition criticizing the Government about the amount involved, inter alia, that the amount is too large, and so forth; after all, it is the task of the Opposition to criticize.

However, when they refuse to pass the Second or Third Reading of the Part Appropriation Bill after they have received all the assurances for which they asked, and have been informed that the Government has taken effective steps, and will do so in the future—we had another example of this this afternoon—it is somewhat stupid and irresponsible. Surely it would amount to a complete disruption of the South African economy if payments which must be made, cannot be made. This will expose South Africa to its enemies. One expects a responsible Opposition, for the sake of South Africa and its people, to put forward positive suggestions for improving and strengthening the economy, but we had very little of this in the Second Reading debate. We rather gained the impression that the official Opposition as well as the “Opposition in those benches”, as they are known these days, were intent on creating a psychosis of pessimism. They do not give a hoot for what the economic effects of such a psychosis will be or otherwise they are too stupid to realize what it will be. They join in gaily in the prophecies of doom made by irresponsible and certainly incompetent so-called “economic reporters” in certain newspapers. Why all the clever economists who write for the newspapers are not very wealthy or sitting in Parliament yet, I really cannot say. The fact is that anyone who in present circumstances makes politics of a natural economic trend such as the present downward movement in the business cycle, is engaged in subtly sabotaging the Government and therefore South Africa as well. A pessimistic psychosis is something unpleasant. It gains momentum and can lead to a collapse. Hon. members must therefore be careful when they are discussing economic or military situations in this House not to cause a pessimistic psychosis to arise. I want to quote what a man such as Dr. A. S. J. Baster said long ago in his Twilight of American Capitalism, viz.—

This is of course the truth. One may ask whether that is what those people who are creating a pessimistic psychosis want. Do they want the South African economy to come to a standstill, with all the unpleasant consequences thereof?

We have challenged the Opposition to tell us where the Government has wasted or incorrectly spent money. But what have we had from that side of the House? The hon. member for King William’s Town delivered a terrible tirade about Cadillacs, Mercedeses or Mercedes Benz cars—it did not matter, he said, which it was. He also mentioned houses which were being built. I like the hon. member, but his arithmetic is poor. If the hon. member were to sit in the lounge and order brandy and soda for himself as well as for me—and I am inclined to think that the hon. member would do this—and if he were to buy a packet of cigarettes as well, he would have wasted more of his parliamentary salary on a percentage basis than the wastage by the Government—about which he made such a fuss, would be in relation to the total income of the State. When one listens to something like this, one feels that people who bring such absurd examples to the House, are politically and economically immature. I agree that it is the little foxes who ruin the vineyard, but one must retain one’s perspective.

A great fuss has also been made about the so-called misapplication of funds at Port St. Johns. We have already received facts, and shall receive more. The action of the Government was in the best interests of South Africa. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has already answered this fully. The hon. the Minister of Water Affairs and of Forestry also dealt with this. I shall therefore leave it at that.

Let us look in all sincerity at the economy and the State’s handling thereof. The first point I want to make is that there is no historical analogy for the unusual upward swing of the economy of the Western world after 1950. It does not exist. Indeed, it was no ordinary upward movement in the business cycle. I should much rather say that it was a change in the structure of the whole economic system. It was a period of rebuilding in Western Europe. In South Africa, however, it was the awakening of a young country with an immense potential. A new social order was developed, thanks to the National Party’s policy. Even people like the hon. member for Johannesburg North—I am sorry that the hon. member is not here—could not, in spite of the fact that they did not subscribe to the policy of the Nationalist Party, withstand the attraction of a surging and progressive economy. It was the progressive economy which brought a member like the hon. member for Johannesburg North to South Africa and not the Progressive Party. It is the progressive and driving economy which keeps him here. Over a period of 26 years we had a state of net investment in South Africa, that is, there was an addition to the existing capital supply of the country. At that time this was caused by a growing and developing population. It was also caused by development in several fields—such as agriculture, industries, viticulture and the private sector, which also played a role. The public sector saw to the establishment of an infrastructure so that development could continue in the various fields. Exceptional opportunities for profit also arose. The net investment stimulated consumption and this in turn was an incentive for further production. We are therefore dealing with a progressive economy which must lead, and did lead, to a rising real national income. I believe that the economic rise of South Africa will be held up as a classic example to students of the economy in the future.

The upward swing in or the structural change of the South African economy was so powerful that hardly any notice was taken of short-term business cycles in the economy over the past 20 years. It is no wonder that some of our more optimistic economists and businessmen and, very important, the Opposition as well, apparently knew that something like a business cycle existed. The hon. the Minister of Finance had to express himself in the following terms, and rightly so, when he addressed the Financial Mail Annual Investment Conference in Johannesburg on 14 October—

The long-term upward swing of the South African economy was powerful, and is far from ending, otherwise the hon. member for Johannesburg North would have pulled up his tent pegs long ago.

As has often happened in history, a few important external factors suddenly hit the driving young economy and caused it to lose speed. We can mention two here: the impact of the energy and oil crisis and the stagnation of the economies of our most important Western trading partners. The oil crisis resulted in inflation and rates of inflation increased throughout the world at a faster rate than ever before. South Africa imported inflation as never before. As a result of selling gold at a high price, the effect of inflation could, however, be reduced. Unfortunately—and no one could foresee this—our trading partners became bogged down. Their economies stagnated and the result was that the price of gold dropped, bringing with it the usual results.

Now we are waiting for an upward swing in the economies of depression-stricken countries with which we trade. Today I want to make the statement that the downward swing of the business cycle in South Africa has an exogenous explanation in the main and that the Government is not to blame and the hon. the Minister of Finance even less, for measures, for example devaluation, which were taken in order to effect the necessary rate adjustments in the economy.

We have become part of an international economic system with a particular rhythm. It would be foolish to go against this rhythm on our own. The measures which we take, must be aimed at riding the economic wave when the time is ripe. The period of rest which our economy is enjoying at the moment may be to our advantage. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. A. Engelbrecht, the chief economist of Volkskas, in what he said in Rapport of 15 February 1976 (translation)—

This is exactly what we are doing. The Government is prepared to take less popular steps. The Government is prepared to put a damper on bank credit, if this should be necessary and if it is in the interests of South Africa. The hon. the Minister gave us proof of this today. There is no reason for unnecessary concern. However, we must be careful and act responsibly, but we must not be over-hasty if the downward phase of the business cycle continues for a somewhat longer period than that to which we have become accustomed. We must mark time. The brakes of the economy cannot be released immediately in the light of the high rate of inflation which we still have. This would create the danger of demand inflation while we are still struggling with cost inflation.

Balance of payment problems will definitely come to the fore very quickly too. There is enough potential in South Africa, however, for a rapid revival when the time is right. We have reserve production capacities which can be utilized at once. We also have several projects which will stimulate the economy which can be launched. We have had assurances from the hon. the Minister in respect of the steps envisaged by the Government and what has already been done. I believe that if everyone co-operates in the interests of South Africa, also as far as the economy is concerned, there will be a rosy future for us in this beautiful country under the competent leadership of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Urban Transport Facilities in the Republic, commonly known as the Driessen Report, drew the attention of the public to the acute traffic problem in the Republic. The gist of the recommendations of the Driessen Report is that all available means should be utilized in a co-ordinated fashion so that all the inhabitants of the Republic of South Africa may derive the maximum benefit from it. The traffic problem is not a phenomenon which is limited to the Republic of South Africa. It is indeed a world-wide tendency and a direct result of the process of urbanization, which is typical of industrialized societies. Notwithstanding its apparent and obvious cultural, educational and recreational advantages, the migration to the cities has created a problem with which all planning authorities are struggling. The picture as regards Western traffic, as seen by J. N. Thompson, the well-known transport economist, is described as follows—

Basically, the traffic problem occurred due to this increase in the urban population and the increase in the number of motor vehicles. It is conservatively estimated that by the year 2000, the urban population of the Republic will have increased by 150% from the present 10 280 000 to 25 180 000. The present number of motor vehicles will, it is estimated, increase ten-fold to nearly 10 million in the year 2000. If the handling of transport on our roads already creates a problem today, can hon. members imagine what the situation will be in 10 to 15 years time? The concentration of large numbers of motor vehicles in urban centres gives rise to a host of acute problems, which are assuming the proportions of a crisis. The traffic problem entails inter alia the following: Traffic congestion during peak hours; insufficient parking facilities in metropolitan areas; poor support of public transport facilities and a weakening of the economic social situation of the central business area.

A facet of the traffic problem which cannot be too earnestly stressed today, is spatial organization. It is estimated that every motor vehicle needs about 500 square metres to move in, whereas the urban resident has to perform his basic living functions in an area of about 50 square metres. This justifies the question: Who is the master and who the slave? It is due in particular to this discrepancy in spatial organization between road user and means of transport that the general point of view arises that cities are being suffocated due to motor transport. The problem of urban transport is not limited to traffic jams and parking problems. The problem is far more complicated and relates to aspects such as pollution, preservation of the environment, safety on the roads and fuel conservation measures. It is usually argued that the traffic problems can be solved by building ever larger throughways and by providing more parking areas. This is an illusion, a chimera, because overseas experience and local experience has proved irrefutably that this is no solution to the problem. As long ago as the 19th century Robert Louis Stevenson had stated: “When a road is once built, it is a strange thing how it collects traffic.”

In the feverish haste to deal with the traffic problem, parks have been replaced by parking areas, while trees have had to make way for parking meters. Yet at best, this can only afford temporary relief. The construction of more and bigger roads and the provision of more parking areas in cities are and remain artificial solutions to the problem. To my mind, the short-term solution to this problem should be sought on a fourfold basis. In the first place, a re-evaluation of the existing aspects of the transport policy should be carried out. In the second place, there is the staggering of working hours, and in the third place, a re-evaluation of the land use factor in urban centres and lastly, the optimum utilization of suburban public transport facilities. When we consider certain salient aspects of the transport policy, we notice that the traditional method of approach has been to transport labour to the place of employment. The serious nature of the transport problem necessitates a radical and realistic re-evaluation of this method of approach.

It is clear that consideration should be given to a policy of deconcentration in accordance with which the place of employment should be localized as close as possible to the labour force. A second aspect of policy which deserves attention, is that local authorities and the South African Railways should work out a formula according to which sufficient parking areas and junction stations are to be provided, so that people can park their cars there and travel the rest of the way to their place of employment by train. The South African climate is particularly suited to the staggering of working hours. The urban transport problem is intimately bound up with peak hour traffic. The major problem in urban centres occurs mainly in the early morning and late afternoon. The reason is obvious, namely the uniform opening and closing down times of businesses. It is common knowledge that industries should plan their operations so as not to coincide with the peak hour traffic for a period of two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon.

The extent of the problem is such that it would be justifiable to ask whether the staggering of working hours could not be regulated by legislation. Should so drastic a measure be deemed unnecessary at this stage, it should be brought home to the private and the public sectors that it is to their own advantage, in terms of productivity, to promote the staggering of working hours.

It is a well-known fact that the zoning of land in the urban centres generates traffic. The use of land plays an important role as far as the density of traffic is concerned. Thus we can expect the traffic to be very heavy around the city centre and the industrial areas and reasonably light in residential areas. As I said before, the traffic situation in the metropolitan areas necessitates the co-operation of planners and local governments in working towards deconcentration. Attention should be given to the bulk factors which apply in urban centres. To freeze the traffic situation in any way, it is desirable that the existing business zoned area should not be increased.

Public transport, which includes suburban train services and bus transport, is an important link in the solution of the traffic problem. It is general knowledge that public transport demands substantial initial capital and investment, and furthermore, that it operates according to a simple economic principle, viz. that the more people use public transport, the lower the unit cost per person will be. The converse of course, is also true. Furthermore, it is a well-known fact that public transport facilities are not used to their full potential. In fact, we find a strange pattern, and in addition to that an anomaly, are being created in the structure of urban transport, and the taxpayer is directly involved, on the negative side unfortunately.

The anomaly, as it seems to me, lies in the fact that on the one hand we find that millions of rands are spent on the construction of major access roads, on the purchasing of expensive land and parking areas and on the buying out of road widening reserves which without exception are zoned for business purposes, while on the other hand, public transport facilities are subsidized by millions of rands due to the under-utilization thereof. In order to support this statement and elucidate it further, one need only look at the results of working of suburban train services for the past three years. This is on a country-wide basis. The losses on suburban train services on a country-wide basis for the financial year 1972-’73 amount to R46,3 million; for 1973-’74 it is R60,3 million and for 1974-’75, R68,5 million. A passenger survey of suburban train services in the Cape Peninsula indicates that a daily total of 309 000 passengers were transported, that 748 trains were used daily and that 631 vehicles travelled approximately 22 000 km per day. Most of this was fully utilized. In fact, in certain respects it was over-utilized—this occurred during the two peak hours, in the morning and in the afternoon. In practice, therefore, what it amounts to is that the taxpayers are charged with the financing of an impressive road-building programme as well as with an indirect subsidy on suburban train services and public bus transport. The irony of the matter is that neither of these two transport media function as they ought to. Public roads which lead to urban complexes do not function properly because they are over-occupied, and on the other hand public transport services do not function satisfactorily either, because they are under-utilized and have to be subsidized directly or indirectly by the taxpayer. If the position as regards suburban train services causes concern, then from the point of view of traffic, the position as regards public bus transport is alarming.

The problem as far as public bus transport is concerned, is a formidable one and is intimately bound up with city planning, residential development, road construction, traffic engineering, the South African Railways and urban traffic facilities. Because bus transport represents such an important component of public transport, and if we are in earnest in wishing to solve the traffic problem satisfactorily, certain priorities as regards bus transport will have to apply. One necessarily thinks in terms of giving consideration to having streets which are reserved chiefly for bus transport and pedestrians, lanes in busy streets which are reserved for bus traffic, traffic lights which allow bus traffic to flow faster and the far more important aspect of the incorporation in our traffic set-up of the traffic principle that buses picking up or off-loading passengers enjoy preference when re-entering the main traffic stream. In the new dispensation, a more fluid traffic set-up, there is no room for the well-known parkades in the urban centres of the metropolitan complexes. This is an uneconomical investment from the viewpoint of both the entrepreneur and the taxpayer. Consideration should be given to the placement of parkades on the peripheries of urban centres, and I understand there is a movement in this direction, the so-called “park and ride” system, from which the travelling public is then transported to its place of employment by bus transport.

The ideas I am expressing here may sound somewhat far-fetched in some respects, but if the council bears in mind that three-quarters of a bus transport fleet cannot be used during peak hours in most urban areas, or to put it differently, that three-quarters of the bus fleet is unproductive for 20 of the 24 hours, and that the losses suffered by the municipalities of Johannesburg and Durban on public bus transport amount to R7 million and R4 million respectively, it will be realized that strong medicine is needed for a very sick patient. The urban transport problem is a state of affairs which, in the long run, can seriously harm the economic viability and the vitality of a healthy national economy.

The transport system is the vital artery of the economic framework of a country, and it has a direct influence on the prices of consumer goods and, by implication, also on inflationary conditions. The largest single item by which inflation is imported is fuel, the price of which is manipulated by an overseas monopoly. By improved utilization of public transport, the travelling public can make an important contribution to the battle against inflation. The traffic problem is a top priority problem of national importance. The biggest contribution to the solution of the problem rests upon the shoulders of the travelling public. The traffic problem is not so much a physical or structural problem as one of attitude and orientation. It is a social problem. Should the orientation towards public transport change, then the practically insoluble traffic problem will become a problem which can be solved by scientific planning and co-ordination.

The same principle applies to the anti-inflation campaign and the fuel conservation measures. The success of the anti-inflation campaign or the fuel conservation measures, and therefore the traffic problem as well, depends on the mutual, motivated and sustained co-operation of the general public. Because there are encouraging signs that the anti-inflation campaign and the fuel conservation measures are meeting with success, there is no reason to assume that the traffic problem, too, cannot and will not be solved with the motivated and purposeful co-operation of the travelling public.

I do not expect these few ideas I have expressed concerning the urban traffic problem to cause the public transport facilities to be overcrowded tomorrow. This is only a modest effort on my part once again to bring a complex problem to the attention of this House. If we are aware of the problem, then that is half the battle.

Lastly I want to avail myself of this opportunity to wish my predecessor, Mr. Louis Pienaar, at present South Africa’s ambassador to France, everything of the best on behalf of the constituency of Bellville. It is an honour and a privilege for me to succeed Mr. Pienaar in looking after the interests of the Bellville constituency in this hon. House, and it is the wish of the Bellville constituency that he should see to the interests of South Africa in Paris and in France in the same modest yet distinctive way that he saw to the interests of his Bellville constituency.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to congratulate the hon. member for Bellville on the occasion of his maiden speech this afternoon in this debate. He dealt with a difficult subject, the question of urban transportation, the various facets of the Driessen report and the overall question of urban transportation and its effects on inflation and on the cost of living. It was a constructive and positive speech and we on this side of the House would like to congratulate him and wish him well and hope that in the future we can look forward to further contributions on the level of the speech which he delivered here this afternoon.

The previous speaker, the hon. member for Malmesbury, dealt with various aspects regarding inflation and criticized the Opposition, which he believed was being pessimistic in its outlook of the future of South Africa, particularly as far as the economy was concerned. No person in his right senses could be pessimistic about the position of South Africa, bearing in mind the vast potential which still awaits exploitation in this country, such as the vast labour force which requires training and in some respects requires re-training, and the tremendous advantages which can be gained from exploiting the potential of South Africa. We on this side of the House are optimistic about the future of the economy of South Africa, but we would be even more optimistic if the hon. the Minister of Finance would adopt some of the do’s and some of the dont’s which were suggested to him by the hon. member for Constantia when he spoke on the Second Reading of the Part Appropriation Bill.

We on this side have put forward various suggestions which we believe to be in the interests of South Africa and which we believe are in the interests of the economy of South Africa because the two are so closely interwoven. That is why the hon. member for Malmesbury should bear in mind that we, as a responsible Opposition, put forward suggestions in a constructive manner so as to improve the economy of South Africa where we think that improvement can be brought about by executive action or by the Government that is in power. The position of South Africa at the present time is one which, as far as the economy is concerned, people of many walks of life have looked at with trepidation. Indeed, there are many financial articles that appear in numerous journals that point out the difficulties and the problems that are facing the economy of South Africa. One article which I read recently on finance and the economy, and which appeared in the latest edition of To the Point, indicated in its introductory remarks that this country does face some difficulties as far as the economy is concerned. It mentions the fact that the forecast for 1976 could be hard, particularly in the first half of the year with a slow recovery later, perhaps in 1977. It then goes on to describe the various difficulties which are facing the economy of South Africa. It also deals with the various priorities that have to be given in relation to expenditure and in maintaining our economy. We know that the hon. the Minister of Finance has indicated in Press statements and also in the House that various steps are to be taken and that various cut-backs are to be made in the expenditure of certain departments. Here I think we must get our priorities right and see the situation in its correct perspective. In this connection there are certain aspects which we would like to put to the hon. the Minister of Finance, matters which we believe are priorities and which should receive his urgent attention.

There is, firstly, the question of compensation to be awarded to those men who are serving our country, and to their dependants, when they suffer various disabilities. Here I believe the Government must take its full responsibility and carry out its duty to see that these people are properly and adequately cared for in their time of need. The War Pensions Act of 1967 does make provision for various benefits are based on outdated legislation and persons who are serving in the Citizen Force and to our national servicemen, but these benefits are based on out-dated legislation and certainly the benefits are in present-day circumstances hopelessly inadequate. If we look at the position of the increasing numbers of men who are serving on our borders, and we bear in mind the increased claims that will be made by the dependants of these people and by the servicemen themselves, particularly those who suffer severe disabilities, we realize that it is indeed a question of top priority to see that these people are more adequately cared for. Immediate attention should be given to this matter to see that that responsibility of the State is fully carried out and fully met. We know that in terms of the existing legislation of 1967 there are persons receiving pensions at the present time, and it is interesting to note that of these people those who are receiving war disablement pensions number 14 450. As far as widows’ benefits are concerned there are 4 002 recipients, and dependants’ benefits are paid to 801 recipients. This makes a total of nearly 20 000 people who are receiving benefits. Amongst these are also Coloured, Indian and Bantu people who are still paid their benefits according to the outdated ratio basis of 4:2:1, which we believe this country should move away from as soon as possible. The question of dispensing with the whole basis of the system whereby the benefits are awarded should receive the urgent attention of the Government. I hope that when the hon. the Minister of Finance introduces his budget next month he will be able to give this House some indication as to whether the Government is to fulfil the responsibility that they have to see that these people are more adequately cared for.

As far as the question of priorities is concerned, obviously the defence of our country is a top priority and we are all anticipating considerably increased expenditure in regard to defence. This is perhaps the one department where the hon. the Minister will not be able to cut back expenditure in any way at all.

Now, Sir, we on this side of the House believe that there are other aspects where the hon. the Minister of Finance would find it extremely difficult to try to cut back. Here I particularly have in mind the responsibility towards those people who served in the Civil Service in the past, particularly those who retired prior to the consolidation of the various funds on 1 July 1973, when considerably improved benefits were awarded to those who were still in the employ of the State. People who have gone on pension since that date have received pensions and gratuities far in excess of those older civil servants who retired prior to that date and are still subject to the conditions that were applicable at the time of their retirement. We must remember that these people, Civil Service pensioners, and also Railway pensioners who retired prior to the improvement in the Railway pension, are specifically precluded from claiming any social pension whatsoever from the State. Consequently, it is for the Government to ensure that these people receive a better pension. Their pension should be improved in order for the Government to meet its responsibilities as far as this group is concerned.

If we look at the situation in which these people find themselves, we find that at present there are almost 50 000 Civil Service pensioners, including 14 000 widows. We know that they have received some increases in the past, e.g. in 1974 an increase of 10%, and a further increase in 1973, when the funds were consolidated and the allowances were consolidated. In the 1975 budget, however, the hon. the Minister of Finance unfortunately did not see his way clear to grant any relief whatsoever to these 50 000 people who served the State in the past, many of them for periods of 30 to 40 years. These are the people who built up the various pension funds. Indeed, if one looks at the latest available figures of the Government Service Pension Fund, one finds that it amounts to R1 500 million. That is the amount standing to the credit of that fund. This fund has been increasing at a rate of about R1 000 million a year from 1972 to 1973, and again from 1973 to 1974. These people can only look to the Government for alleviation and for assistance.

For several days we have heard in this House the discussion on inflation, and indeed, if one looks at the whole problem of inflation, one can immediately see that the group that is hardest hit by inflation, is the poorer group, the lower-income group, as well as those people who are living on fixed incomes and those who are living on small pensions. These people have to bear the brunt, the burden of increases in the cost of living and as a result already had to reduce their standard of living in many instances. They are subject to increases in rentals, in rates—those who still own their own property—increases in maintenance costs, increases in the cost of food—all necessities of life. These people are unable to increase their income to any extent by virtue of the fact that they are fully dependent on the Government for their pension.

I believe that this group of people, who were overlooked in 1975—the older Civil Service pensioners—should receive some form of priority from the hon. the Minister of Finance when this matter comes up for his consideration. I do not wish to bore the House with the various details of the improved benefits that came about. We on this side of the House supported those improved benefits and the consolidation of the fund. We hoped, however, that the Government would come forward with some formula for some form of greater assistance to those people who helped to build up the fund in the past and who are receiving very little compensation for rises in the cost of living. Speaking about the question of inflation, we must also bear in mind that this group of people are indeed helpless and unable to assist in the campaign against inflation. It is a campaign the responsibility for which has to be shared by the State, by commerce, by industry and by the public. Unfortunately, this section of the public is unable to do anything to assist in the campaign against inflation by virtue of the fact that their savings are dwindling and that their income is inadequate. They have landed up in the vicious circle of having to use their savings in order to supplement their income. These people require the urgent attention of the hon. the Minister of Finance.

The position of the many hundreds of thousands of social pensioners is another aspect which must receive priority from the hon. the Minister of Finance. We know that in the past the Government has seen its way clear to grant increases from time to time. Of course, it is its responsibility to see that these people are able to survive. In helping them to survive, the Government should subsidize the various welfare organizations, without whose help many of them would not be able to survive merely on their social pension. I do hope that the hon. the Minister of Finance when he does grant relief to these people, will do so from an effective date—perhaps April 1 or May 1—and that he will not ask these people to wait until October 1 before they are to receive any relief. In these days of computerization it is certainly possible for these people to be granted relief at an earlier stage, instead of their having to wait for a period of some six months before receiving relief.

Another aspect to which the hon. the Minister of Finance should give consideration, is the question of the means test that is applicable to those people who qualify for a social pension. I mention this point particularly because here again the matter was overlooked in 1975. There was no relaxation as far as the means test was concerned. Indeed, the present basis for calculating pensions with a free income of R42 per month and free assets of R9 800 as far as the Whites are concerned, has remained static since 1 October 1972. There has been no change in the means test limit since October 1972. Surely, with inflation and with the reduction in the purchasing power of money, these people have to carry a heavy burden, including the burden of losing on their savings. Many of them did make provision for their old age, but find themselves now completely overwhelmed by the rising costs. These people, too, should receive consideration. There should be a relaxation of the means test in order to assist them.

Similarly those people who have paid into private pension funds—and I know it is the policy of the Government to encourage private pension funds. We have no objection to that. We too wish to see private pension funds encouraged. We know that the hon. the Minister of Finance makes concessions from time to time in this regard. However, the fact is that many of those who do belong to private pension funds and who paid into their funds a long time ago, receive a social pension, but now suddenly find that an increase of their pension being paid by the private fund to which they had contributed over a long period, results in the husband and wife losing their social pension. This means that they are in fact far worse off than before. In many cases where funds have felt inclined to assist the older pensioners by granting them an increase, they had to find subsequently that the pensioner was in actual fact R20 per month worse off than he had been previously, as a result of losing his social pension that he had enjoyed before. This is a matter, I believe, which deserves the urgent attention of the hon. the Minister of Finance as a priority in assisting these people.

The question of an increase in productivity is indeed a vital factor in any economy, and I believe that there is a vast number of people who have reached retiring age, but who could still be productively employed in the economy. However, they are loth to do so because of the taxation situation, because by working they attract a higher rate of tax. They are therefore discouraged from working. Others, of course, would be disqualified in terms of the means test, which has specific low levels for what a person can earn over and above a certain income. In the case of a single person it is R42 per month. If he earns anything over R42 per month, his pension is subject to reduction. In the case of a married couple it is R84 per month. If a husband obtains another job and earns more than R84 per month, his pension is reduced, both his own and that of his wife.

There is a vast number of people who could assist as far as this country is concerned. Indeed, it is estimated that 45 000 people are retiring every year from the economy, people who still could make a considerable contribution towards the economy. Many of them are qualified, and experienced in their particular occupation. They can remain active, many of them for another five years, and in some cases even longer. I believe that these people could make a real contribution in a national emergency that could arise. If one looks at a situation of emergency, one could rely on these people to come forward and fill the posts of younger people who have been called up for defence duties. Under such circumstances these people could be fully utilized to assist. However, they must be given some encouragement to do so. One way is by means of taxation and the other by the relaxation of the means test for those people who are still keen and anxious to play a productive part in the economy of South Africa.

I had a case not very long ago of a man who was employed by the State. He is 81 years of age. However, he must continue to work because of income tax difficulties. Here then is a man who is still considered competent and efficient enough to be employed in a Government department at his time of life. This does prove that there are people who are prepared to come forward and play an active part and remain productive in the economy. Similarly, we have those people, a large group, who do not qualify for any form of social pension. Some do not receive a pension from a past employer but are living on fixed incomes. They carried out the Government’s advice and saved for their old age. They have now reached the stage where they are unable to continue in employment or find that they must retire.

However, having retired on what they believed to be an adequate income, they now find, as the result of the ravages of inflation, that they have to find some means of supplementing the inadequate income that they are receiving, whether it be in the form of interest or dividends from some or other investment. These are the people living on fixed incomes, the older people, people who have made the necessary provision. Last year the hon. the Minister did increase the abatement for the over-60-year-old taxpayer from R400 to R600. This means that a married person with an income of R1 800 per annum need not pay income tax and that an unmarried person with an income of R1 300 per annum need not pay income tax either. In the present circumstances, however, these people should be encouraged, where possible, to play a productive role in our economy. This is another field that could receive the attention of the hon. the Minister when he prepares his budget. He should see that a greater tax concession is granted to these people who are having to live on fixed incomes. Many of them have to invest their money in very high-yielding forms of investment, for example participation bonds, to try to maintain a decent standard of living, and such interest as is received from those participation bonds is of course fully taxable. The sliding scale on which the hon. the Minister bases the taxation for the over-60-year-olds, a system whereby the abatement is decreased by R2 for every R10 over R5 000 income per annum, has also remained static for some time.

In view of the present financial position I wonder whether the hon. the Minister should not also give consideration to this abatement starting at a higher figure in preference to the R5 000 so as to assist many of these people who, as I say, have played a major role in developing this country. It is indeed a great pity to see so many of these people, the senior citizens of our country, having to suffer severe financial hardships in many cases as the result of the ravages of inflation. They feel so helpless in trying to meet this difficult situation created by a high cost of living and inflation. Many of them feel they simply have no alternative but to lower their standard of living. This is a matter to which the hon. the Minister of Finance should give priority so as to ensure that the economy of South Africa take care also of the pioneers of South Africa who have made such a great contribution in the past.

Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure for me to listen to the hon. member for Umbilo. When he has a case to state, he states it positively, and if he has criticism to level, he still remains positive and pleads his case. I cannot say the same for many of the members on that side of the House. In general, they tend to be negative and they act negatively, too.

Yesterday the hon. the Minister of Finance disposed of, inter alia, three hon. members of the Opposition in a short, sharp and effective way. I should just like to refer to one of the three, the hon. member for Johannesburg North. As a matter of fact, the hon. the Minister had not intended to reply or react to him because the nonsense he spoke was not worth reacting to. However, I feel that I have something which I want to say to this hon. member for Johannesburg North. This hon. member was not even able to solve the problems of his country of origin, and now he comes here to us, to South Africa, a multinational and problematical country in comparison with his country of origin, and he wants to come and solve our problems for us. I want to say, with all respect, that although many of these people come to this country and want to solve the problems of this country, that is not the point. They are only too grateful that there is a Government here which acts responsibly so that they can skim off the cream. That is the point. Often the Opposition refers, inter alia, to a crash programme, and then reference is made to the training of our manpower. But it is the Opposition that is crashing; after all, we know that they have been crashing for years now. The other one, the Progref Party, together with their policy, will crash much sooner than they think.

We are accused of restricting the economy of the country by means of “chains of ideological measures”. The hon. member for Maitland is very fond of this crash programme story and of the “chains of ideological measures”. However, the National Party policy is a long-term policy which has yielded dividends through the years, whereas we only have to look at the number of times that that party has changed its policies since 1948. But not only that. Only the other day the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked that we should recognize the three trade union levels among Black people as well. Now it is not even three levels any longer; now it is simply open to everybody. The National Party is not, nor ever has been opposed to the training of our labour force.

Never?

Yes, I shall prove it. The National Party has never been opposed to the change that must occur from time to time in the traditional labour pattern in South Africa. We must bear these two things in mind very clearly this afternoon, and consequently I shall repeat what I said: The National Party has never been opposed to training, nor has the National Party ever been opposed to change in the traditional labour pattern. However, there is a condition attached to these adjustments which are made from time to time, viz. that it be done on a basis of exemption, and when we say that it is done on a basis of exemption, then this raises a host of matters. It must occur in an orderly way. However, that side of the House wants to do everything in a rush; unsystematically and head over heels they fall into things.

“Crash programmes.”

Yes, “crash programmes” and everything that involves, the National Party, on the other hand, is the realistic party, the party which approaches matters in a realistic way. It is the party which seeks to utilize and adapt our labour in an orderly way in this country, as circumstances demand. At the same time the National Party is the evolutionary party. However, when we look at that side of the House, over there where my friend is laughing now, we are looking at an unrealistic party, an opportunistic party, a party which wants to do things in a revolutionary fashion. We know what the result of a revolutionary approach is. There is one thing they fail to bear in mind, namely that we are living here in a multinational country with a multi-national set-up and a multi-national labour pattern. They are very concerned with inflation and the economy of the country, but I wonder what would have happened if this responsible National Party Government had not been in power to adapt matters carefully and systematically as they have in fact done. We on this side of the House think about the future of the country and the future of our descendants. It seems to me that that hon. member has forgotten about 1922. It seems to me that he has also forgotten what the result is when one simply opens the floodgates as one desires, without the necessary planning. The National Party still has certain principles on which it bases its policy, because it is a responsible Government.

Let me point out the principles followed by this party as regards industrial development in our country. Through the years this party has proved that it strives to provide for everyone, to make it possible for everyone to earn a living. It is this party which, to the benefit of everyone, has consistently encouraged the establishment of industries, irrespective of whether this has affected Whites, Coloureds, Indians or Bantu. After all, we know what the standpoint of the hon. Opposition was when Iscor was established. Surely we know what their standpoint was the other day when Sasol was established. Now they are terribly concerned about people who supposedly lack employment opportunities, whereas the National Party Government has ensured that there are employment opportunities for everyone in South Africa.

Even Tony Hickman can find employment.

This Government thinks in terms of systematic national and industrial development and can be judged on the basis of its achievements over the past 28 years in regard to the establishment of industries with the specific aim of creating employment opportunities for everyone in this country. As a result we do not have sufficient people in the country today to do all the work.

That really is not true.

Does the hon. member for Maitland want to dispute that? Why do we have foreign Bantu in this country?

But we do have unemployment.

There is absolutely no unemployment. Has the hon. member looked at the unemployment figures of all the other countries in the world? At the moment the percentage of unemployed in this country is 0,5%. To tell the truth, we have over-employment. There is work for every man, be he White, Coloured, Indian or Bantu; in South Africa there is employment for everyone who wants to work. We have a shortage of farm labourers and also of mine-workers.

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

My time is too limited. We have a shortage of mine-workers. In fact, there is a shortage in various fields.

The second principle on which the labour policy of this party is based is not merely the creation of employment opportunities for people but also ensuring a liveable wage. Evidence of this, too, is available. It is a pity that owing to a lack of time I am unable to present this evidence. However, if the hon. Opposition wants to contest this, I shall give them the figures with the greatest pleasure when we deal with the Labour Vote. The third principle on which the policy of the National Party is based is that everything be done to bring about optimum utilization of the available labour, inter alia by means of training. I want to refer the hon. member for Maitland who is so boisterously kicking up a racket there, to a memorandum by the Department of Bantu Education in which all the schemes for the training of Bantu are set out, I think that when they refer to crash programmes they are referring more especially to the Bantu.

May I now ask the hon. member a question?

If there is still time the hon. member can ask shortly: I shall reply to him then. The fourth principle on which the industrial policy of the National Party is based, is that there must be labour peace and industrial peace. The hon. Opposition is now enjoying the fruits of the measures taken by this Government to bring about the industrial peace and labour peace which have prevailed in South Africa over the years. Nor is the Government interested only in effecting industrial peace and development, it also believes that there must be security for its people. Our labour corps must have a feeling of security. If they should fear they might soon be supplanted or kicked out unreasonably, then one would have a dissatisfied labour corps, and when that is the case, problems occur. It is under this policy, too, that the degree of productivity we have in South Africa can be maintained. The fact that we are still able to increase our productivity is ascribable to this policy. The fifth factor as regards the labour and industrial policy of the Government is that in times of unemployment and illness it stands by the people. These measures, too, have been adapted from time to time the better to provide for the labour force of our country.

The hon. member for Maitland still owes me a number of answers from 1973 when we discussed job reservation. After all, the hon. Opposition wants to abolish job reservation because they say that it covers only 2,8% or 2,9%.

You say that.

Surely that is not the point. Surely that is not true, either. What is important is that this side of the House, the Government of the country, is concerned that people should not be ousted from their jobs. That is the point. It is a question of controlled employment and controlled labour. That is where our industrial peace and our labour peace come from. The hon. member still has to tell us what they want to do. They want to abolish job reservation entirely, and now I want to know what they will do with the Public Service, for example. What are they going to do when they have to implement the full consequences of their policy?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether job reservation applies on the Railways?

Yes.

Never.

Of course it applies on the Railways. That is exactly what I have just tried to explain to the hon. member, because as a shortage of Whites develops, the non-Whites are shifted up into higher posts whereas the Whites are shifted still higher. That is labour control, and of course it applies on the Railways as well. Initially I said that it was the policy of the National Party that the labour issue be regulated on a basis of exemption. I do not know whether the hon. member knows what this means. It does not mean that one simply throws open the market, but it does mean that this is done on a basis of exemption. It means that until such time—we do not expect that there never will be a change—that those posts are filled by other people, they will be filled by Whites. That is what is meant by that, and consequently the Railways, too, falls under job reservation. I hope that that answers the hon. member’s question.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hercules has devoted the greater part of his speech to the policy of his Government towards labour in South Africa. I must say that some of the principles which he outlined came as a great surprise, particularly when one hears that it is a principle of the Nationalist Government to make the best possible use of all available manpower in South Africa. The history of this Government is that they have failed to do just that. But if it does mean that there is yet again another change in their developing policy, then we in these benches will welcome it very much indeed.

I shall in a moment or two refer to the reply of the hon. the Minister of Finance to the Second Reading debate yesterday, but before doing that I should like to refer to a few comments which were made earlier this afternoon by the hon. member for Durban Point. He referred to and gave us a gratuitous advertisement for the newspaper called Progress. If he and others would like to be put on our circulation lists, we shall make quite sure that it is done, because we should like to educate as many people as possible. However, one of the things that he did try to do was to misrepresent the position of members in these benches. He did this by referring first of all to the article in Progress where we make two points: (a) our solidarity with our troops on the borders of our country, and (b) our opposition to Russian imperialism in southern Africa. [Interjections.] He then went on to say that we did not do this in this House. Of course, he is quite wrong—as usual—because if one looks at the volume of Hansard which gives the debate on the no-confidence debate, one reads that the leader of this party said on our behalf (Hansard, 26 January 1976, col. 97)—

Did you vote for or against the amendment?

The leader of this party also said in col. 104—

Lip service!

I read further—

I should like the hon. member for Durban Point or, indeed, the hon. Leader of the Opposition himself, to give us one specific example from the history of the Westminster system of Parliament where, in reply to a vote of no confidence, the mover of that motion voted for the amendment moved by the Government in which he had no confidence. It is this kind of really stupid approach … [Interjections.] … which demonstrates why there is need for a new official Opposition, which is well on the way.

To return now to the reply by the hon. the Minister of Finance to the Second Reading debate yesterday, I want to say that we were disappointed with his generalized statements and his vague references. Although the hon. member for Yeoville made specific and concrete suggestions, the only response to that was: “I will bear them in mind.” One would have liked to see some concrete response, some indication as to whether they made sense or whether they were going to be taken over. However, the response was very vague and general.

I suppose the hon. the Minister of Finance will go down in history as the only Finance Minister in the world who regards devaluation as “a sign of strength”. If we adopt that attitude and say to our creditors that we will pay them 50 cents in the rand, I wonder how many of them would regard that as a sign of strength instead of a sign of weakness. The harsh facts of the matter are that both inflation and devaluation are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth—the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. As an example of this I quote from the latest issue of the Financial Mail where I read—

This means that although there have been very significant increases in Black wages—we are appreciative of that—the gulf between the income of Whites on the one hand and African, Coloured and Indian on the other hand is growing wider and wider.

I should also like to put the record straight as regards the hon. the Minister’s comments regarding my colleague the hon. member for Johannesburg North. The hon. the Minister of Finance accused that hon. member of saying that South Africa has now become a banana republic. The hon. the Minister himself quite rightly does not like to be misquoted or misrepresented. Again and again, indeed very recently, he said: “How on earth can anybody who has access to Hansard make statements which are simply not there!” Yet, this is exactly what he has done here. Here is the Hansard of the hon. member for Johannesburg North and I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he actually referred to Hansard or relied on his memory. It is very clear from his Hansard that the hon. member for Johannesburg North said that because of the actions of the hon. the Minister of Finance and his Government that the country could become a banana republic. He then went on to say: “Of course it is not true at this time.’’ Here it is.

Read that, would you?

I quote …

Is that revised?

No, unrevised—

The Minister also went on to make a quite remarkably intemperate attack on the leader of this party. I have his unrevised Hansard in front of me now also. For someone who accuses many other people of being intemperate, it is quite remarkable that a Minister of Finance, a senior Minister of the Cabinet, should dare to say the kind of thing he has said in this House. There will come a time when we will have to return to the words he used. Suffice it to say now that so long as that is the kind of reaction from a senior member of the Cabinet, so long will we go on trying to put as clearly as possible the facts and the true situation of South Africa. The fact of the matter is that we in these benches have called consistently since the very beginning of this session for a new patriotism, a new whole South African patriotism, as against a very stunted one-sided patriotism. A very long time ago a man called Stephen Decatur gave a toast at a dinner party in these words: “Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be right; but our country, right or wrong.” A hundred years later another American, speaking in Chicago and referring to that toast, used the following words: “Our country, right or wrong; when right to be kept right, when wrong to be put right.” Sir, I put it to the hon. the Minister: Which attitude, the first or the second, illustrates a greater patriotism or a greater love of country; the first, which blindly supports any course of action taken by the State, or the second, which dares to look critically at the direction in which the country is going and expresses criticism without fear? We in these benches believe that this is the kind of new patriotism which is long overdue in South Africa. [Interjections.] We call on this Government to think again as to the direction in which it is taking our country at this time, for the tragedy is that with the deteriorating situation on our borders, there are many—and I choose my words—Black and Brown South Africans who do not find it in themselves to bind themselves to a common purpose and loyalty because they believe that the policies of this Government are divisive and discriminatory. [Interjections.] In 1910 when Union was established …

Why do you not speak for the Whites whom you represent?

I will never be able to speak for you because you have nothing to say. In 1910 Union, indeed a paper Union, was established in South Africa, but at least a common objective was stated, and the objective at that time was enshrined in a motto in this country which has since gone by the board since 1948, and that motto was “Unity is strength”. Again and again this was the appeal, and while it is true that that unity represented more a union between White and White, nevertheless there was need for a Union as one ushered in the birth of a new nation. In 1961, when we left the British Commonwealth and became a Republic, I believe that that action did a great service for this country in helping to unite the English- and Afrikaans-speaking people.

Did you vote for it?

In answer to the question whether I voted for it, I was in Holland at the time. [Interjections.] Some of us studied further than others. The fact of the matter is that this new Republic which came into being certainly did a great deal to overcome a great many of the differences of opinion and the misunderstandings and the history of antagonism between English and Afrikaans in this country. That we concede. But I believe that this country needs now a new Republic, which speaks no longer merely of uniting English and Afrikaans White people in South Africa, but a new Republic, a new situation, which impels and calls for a common commitment and a common loyalty because we are in a common predicament, facing a common destiny. And, Sir, we will sink or we will swim together. It is therefore imperative that this Government begins now to declare a new opportunity and a new way forward. [Interjections.] If only this Government would acknowledge the need for a new loyalty and a new patriotism which involves all 25 million South Africans! But the tragedy of this Government is that it has deliberately divided the country by saying to the majority of people, to Black and Brown: “You are not South Africans.” As a direct result of that, we who should be standing really and truly united are totally divided at this time.

We saw many evidences of this. Many of us have seen it at sports matches when visiting teams used to come to South Africa in the good old days, and when we were faced with that situation we were appalled by the fact that the Black people who watched the match always supported the foreign team and never the South Africans. Why? Because that Government had decided that they were not South Africans, so why should they support South Africa? And in a much more tragic way, one sees one of the direct results of our intervention in Angola, because this highlights the fact that there are many people in South Africa, alas, who cannot find it in themselves to bind themselves to this common loyalty and this common purpose. Sir, we can quote times without number many leading Black people in the State, like Chief Gatsha Buthelezi, who stands up and says it is a great pity when we are looking for unity in South Africa that we cannot find it because of the policies of this Government. Again and again this fact is proved, and I say that we need a new patriotism in South Africa, and we need it desperately.

Sir, a further illustration comes not from Progress, but from the Snyman Report, which has been quoted in this House already and no doubt will be quoted many times still. I hope it will be, and I want to agree with the hon. member for Green Point that I think it is absolutely right that everyone of us should be given one of these copies and that it should be required reading, because this is a sobering journal. The hon. member for Green Point cannot resist at any time referring to me, but unfortunately I am not really interested in quoting anything about him. What I want to do is to look at the words we find again and again in this report. Here are the words written by the judge himself, who was appointed by the State President—

This is not a remark made by anyone in these benches, or even by anybody in the Opposition. This is something which comes straight from Judge Snyman’s report. Sir, what I find very interesting—and I did not know about this until the last few days—is that in November, 1972, another report of an inquiry into student unrest at the University of the North was published. That was published several years ago. It was a commission of five members, under the chairmanship of C. W. Wright. Two of the members were Africans, and one is now Chief Minister of Gazankulu. The facts which emerge from this report are very interesting. Paragraph 17(1)(a) says: “Students are conscious of the fact that they are debarred from attending other universities, and particularly other White universities.” Paragraph (b) states: “The fact that students have to attend ethnic universities causes further strictures and academic problems.” Paragraph (d) states: “The Blacks resent paternalistic treatment.” Paragraph 19 is most important—

That is the heart of the matter—it is of a “political nature”. It stems from the society in which we live and not merely from the university. They bring with them to the university their frustrations which have been building up over the years. This Government was warned five years ago by that commission’s report. [Interjections.] I am sorry, but I have not time to answer any questions. The fact of the matter is that this Government was warned several years ago by that commission’s report. What has resulted? They did precisely nothing! The policies of this Government are indicted by the Snyman Report. It is apartheid that is on trial in this report, and nothing else. It is rejected again and again and the appeal is made in one recommendation after the other: “The word is out; change your policy now.” Snyman makes the point very clearly and very strongly that those people who are already there are full of frustration and hostility and, to use his exact words, “the hatred for Whites”. These people will be going out to teach in schools, they will be going out to conduct affairs throughout South Africa, and they will be taking with them this kind of frustration—unless the situation is so changed and altered that there will be a new chance and a new opportunity for them.

I said earlier that what this country needed desperately and urgently was a new patriotism, a patriotism which transcends the 1910 Union and even the 1961 Republic. What is very clear is that a house divided simply cannot stand.

That is the Progressive Party!

Yes, these are also the words of the Bible. [Interjections.] A house divided cannot stand. The waves washing over these shores now, the very dangerous situation in which we find ourselves, mean that the house itself is about to totter. When that happens there is no room for the papering of the cracks, no putting up of wallpaper to hide the very real divisions existing in our society. Then the time comes for the building of a new house, a new Republic, I say, and a new patriotism which can bind together all the people of this country. A house big enough, wide enough and free enough for all the peoples in this country. [Interjections.]

That is why we call for a constitutional conference now. There is no other way. We have made many, many suggestions from these benches also during this session. We have suggested a number of ways in which to move away from discrimination, a number of ways to bind the broken heart of the society, but these, of course, are always thrown back at us, because they cannot happen and are not according to policy. The Government is perfect and popular, and so is the hon. the Prime Minister himself!

I would like to conclude with a single suggestion and recommendation. Just as we have had to do it in South West Africa and just as it is being done in Rhodesia, let us too, while we can still speak from strength, call a constitutional conference immediately, where all the peoples of this land, all their representatives can come together to find a way through. [Interjections.] No matter how you bluster and no matter how many interjections you make, and no matter how much you laugh, you all know as well as I do that we are in trouble. The only way to get out of this trouble is to do it together as one united South Africa. That is our deepest need today.

Mr. Speaker, as I undertook to do yesterday afternoon I am rising to furnish further particulars and not to react to questions or to discussions. I said yesterday that I should like to refer in detail to the valuations made by the two appointed valuators of the two properties concerned. I have here a copy of the valuation of the property of Prof. Schoeman’s company. It is a valuation which was drawn up in the minutest particulars, in the minutest detail of the components of each property. I am not going to quote all of it to you, for it is far too long for the available time. However, I want to give hon. members an insight into the way in which the valuators set about their task. As an example we can consider the residence. I am going to read their entire description of the residence. They mention: 23 cm concrete walls, semi-pitched roof of corrugated iron, 2 rooms with ceiling the remainder without ceiling covering an area of … a corrugated iron storeroom with cement floors, covering an area of … a room of asbestos construction on the verandah with a corrugated iron roof and covering an area of … concrete formations of a certain length, and so on. After they had made their calculations they arrived at a grand total of what they would pay for the house. As I said yesterday, I am not furnishing the tariffs at which they calculated the areas and the lengths.

Why not?

Because it would prejudice my entire position in respect of numerous other transactions.

Now you are talking nonsense!

The hon. member ought to know it and could understand it if he wanted to, but he is unwilling to do so. That is the point. The valuators then proceed to deal with the outside rooms in the same way …

Why get so excited so early?

If the hon. member cannot contain himself, he must do something to himself. The valuators then proceed in the same way to describe and give the dimensions of the outside rooms and the outside toilets. They adopt the same procedure even with two small corrugated iron buildings, and subsequently they adopt the same procedure with the land, which is the major item. In regard to the land they say that they have gone into the origins and history of the land. They go on to say (translation)—

They had the proof in front of them. They then proceed to describe other things, and I need not quote this now. They also described how the land consists of various parts. They say that there are 43 plots which had already been sold to individual buyers in 1971 at an average price of R4 000 per plot. These are the plots which they called the “concealed” plots and which individuals had purchased from the various companies by means of deeds of sale. They took the prices, as ascertained by them in 1971, as a basis for the calculation of a price at which the plots could be valued in 1975. On that basis they arrived at the valuations of the number of plots, and in the same way they valued the other piece of land which was still in the process of being surveyed and which was large enough for 60 plots. The latter calculation they based on the same valuation which they had adjusted to the 1971 price, and arrived at their figures for it. Over and above that there are still of course the caravan park, the streets, the parks and the lagoon situated there. All these things they took into consideration in the minutest detail and on that basis they determined a total valuation. As I said yesterday, it was subsequently checked by other people from our department, by the Deputy Minister and by our departmental officials, as well as by another controller of whose services we avail ourselves in Pretoria for all the Transkeian properties. Therefore, it was checked and double-checked, and within that total valuation the negotiations were conducted and the agreement entered into with the Schoeman company on the purchase price which was paid to it. The amount was R800 000.

Next I want to deal with the case of the Henning company. Here the, same two valuators went to work in the same way with this major difference that in the case of the Henning properties there were far more properties involved and consequently there is a much longer and more detailed inventory, approximately 8 pages of particulars. I want to describe the shop to hon. members as an example. There is a shop of which they give a description, e.g. how thick the walls are, how many rooms there are, what the area of the verandah is up to the telephone booth, the cellar, amenities, the counter with a yellow-wood top, etc. They describe no fewer than 16 shelves, each of which was properly measured down to the minutest detail. I am certain the hon. member for Griqualand East would not have taken as much trouble as these people did. He would have said: “All those shelves, I estimate them at so much.” However, these people measured each one. They continue in this way to describe the residence as well They give its area and a classification of its various components, verandah, open verandah, equipment office, shelters for motor vehicles, the rain-water tank, the other shelters and so on. They then itemize the other buildings, such as the offices, the ironing room and showers, the bathroom, the toilets, the round wash hand basins, the bird cages, the sports facilities, which they subdivide into the various amenities, for example the tennis courts, the trampolines, the jukskei pitches, the concrete blocks which serve as seats for spectators, etc.

What part of the purchase price do the amenities comprise?

That hon. member had better keep quiet, for I am not in the least interested in his nonsensical remarks. They then proceed with the valuation of the rondavel cottages. They do not simply say that there are so many rondavels; they classify them into categories as well, for these rondavel cottages are not all identical. They mention all the different types. They deal with seven rondavels in one group, furnish a full description and then give their valuations on the basis of the particulars. They even counted the number of baths and mirrors in each room. There are altogether 17 rondavels in the various categories. Another group of houses consists of the wooden chalets, 14 of them, and in this case they also furnish full particulars. Another group consists of the holiday homes, of which there are ten. The women’s and men’s ablutions are not all identical either and are divided up into three different groups. They furnish all the particulars—how many toilets, showers and mirrors there are—and on that basis they make their calculations and furnish the tariff—as I wish to call it—at which they calculate the value of these articles, with the totals appended. They also furnish the particulars of the boiler room, the linen room, the roads and bridges …

Mr. Speaker …

No, I said that I would reply to questions afterwards. I am now carrying out the undertaking I gave yesterday. They go into the details of the water supply, the pipes which have been laid, the storage dams, water tanks, steel tanks, etc. The details of each of these items are furnished, each one is itemized with the proposed prices. The same applies to the situation of trees on the site, lawns and all kinds of holiday and beach amenities which had been provided. They also classify the servants’ rooms into various categories.

What is the ratio?

The ratios and tariffs of all these things were examined by people who know ten times more about these things, and who are ten times more reliable than that hon. member. In this way they went into the particulars of each of the improvements made to the properties. As in the previous case they concluded the report, as in the previous case, with the land, and this, too, they classified into various categories of land, inter alia, the land which had been planned and surveyed, with holiday cottages on it, those with shop sites and business rights, the large site which is intended for the luxury hotel and the luxury flats with the parks included, and they furnished their calculations for these as well. They dealt next with the holiday resort area with its holiday cottages, etc. In that case, too, there is in addition the water, roads, etc. In this way they arrived at a total amount which was checked and double-checked by the people in Pretoria, just as in the previous case, and within that total valuation which they made, negotiations were entered into with the owner, a final agreement was reached, and the amount paid out as hon. members know. Therefore I need not repeat this.

Certain general special conditions were attached to these transactions. I am not going to enumerate all these conditions. Many of them are ordinary routine conditions. But I do want to point out to hon. members single condition which is of importance. The first very important condition which applies to everyone—and which will also apply to everyone in future—is that payment only takes place after transfer of the property into the name of the new purchaser, i.e. the Trust, has been registered.

That is the usual thing.

Yes, I said that was the usual thing. The hon. member on the opposite side, who is an attorney, does at least know a few usual things, but yesterday he was ignorant of a good many things.

But he is not a teacher.

I would rather be a teacher than an empty pumpkin. [Interjections.] I can also see that there are members on the opposite side of the House who still require the services of a teacher. In both cases certain fixed amounts were held back to ensure proper take-over of the assets which we took over from them. In both cases we said that the transfer could only take place after the released area had been declared and after the zoning had been done, because we concluded the purchase agreement before the zoning and before it had been declared a released area, although we did so after Parliament had decided. That is the point I dealt with yesterday. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Umhlatuzana and the hon. member for Griqualand East ought to know that as a rule the Trust does not purchase areas which have not yet been declared released, and have not yet been zoned, and in exactly the same way these cannot be transferred to the Bantu before the areas have been released and zoned, unless we have the approval of the State President to do so. It was on account of those formalities that that claim was instituted.

There was another provision, about which a considerable fuss has been kicked up, i.e. the lease in the case of Henning. At the sale he was told that we wanted him to lease the property. Please take careful note now—a lot of blatant lies have been told in public and outside this House about the lease. There is no possibility, and there never was any possibility of that property being leased for five years. I do not know how people sucked that out of their thumbs. It is explicitly typed in the agreement that it is leased to Henning as long as we want to lease to him. Why are we leasing it to him? We are doing this because there are a large number of properties—as hon. members have seen. If he vacates them immediately, all the movable property there has to be looked after. We have applied the principle of leasing even in the case of farms. We ask the person selling the farm to us, the person who has sold the property to us, to lease it from us in order to help us over the interim period until we can take over properly. We have already contacted the XDC and told them that they should prepare themselves to take over that property as a running concern. In other words, we leased it to that person to look after it for us, and it is in that light only that the rental of R5 000 should be seen. It was not intended as a business proposition, but as an interim arrangement for him to look after it for us.

How was it calculated?

It was calculated on the basis of the person’s financial statements, what he would make from it on a temporary basis. I said yesterday … Does the hon. member want to hear? [Interjections.]

I just want to a make a few more general statements. I elaborated yesterday on the White Paper. I have the White Paper available here, the White Paper which was tabled in Parliament in 1964, and which the procedure for the valuation is laid down. There is no such thing as people looking at purchase prices and add percentages to it. The White Paper lays down very clearly that there shall be an Adjustment Committee and that the following three elements of all properties should be assessed, i.e. the land value, the value of improvements and the goodwill. It is also stated that the Native Trust should purchase the properties, and in addition the White Paper also contains the provision that the Minister has the right to appoint a person or a corporation to manage such places for him, which is what we did in this case. It is stated expressly in the White Paper, too, that the valuations should be made when the property is offered. As hon. members know, this is primarily because there are many people who thought that one could make a valuation today and a purchase in 20 years time. The White Paper states very clearly what the basis is, and that is the basis of the procedure we adopted. We arrived at a valuation of those three things, and having taken those three things into consideration, we then arrived at the price. The value of these things was taken into consideration, and not the cost price. As far as the cost price is concerned, I want to add something to what I said yesterday. Words to this effect appeared in newspapers, and it was even said by certain persons in this House: Look what the people paid for these properties—in some cases ten, eleven years ago. Then the cost price only of a bare piece of land ten years ago is deducted from the price we are now paying, and it is said: Look at the profit the man made. But none of these improvements to these properties I have mentioned were taken into consideration. Should those improvements be ignored, and should we consider only the original cost price, and add a percentage to it? The hon. member has just asked me what the percentage and what the ratios are. You can therefore see that his thinking is completely twisted and distorted. They want us to work on that basis, while we are committed to the basis laid down in the White Paper, which determines that the valuation should be made at the stage in which the property is purchased. We must not go back and add percentages to the original cost price. What else should we take into consideration?

Of course there is also the character of the land. If we use the cost price as a basis, it must be borne in mind that the person purchased a bare piece of land. Now one is dealing with a surveyed township which only has to be proclaimed and is in the process of being surveyed. Should this fact, the development not be taken into consideration? Of course we have to take it into consideration—the character and the nature of the land. In this case the procedure we adopted was the tried method, the only method laid down for us by the White Paper and which we have been applying all these years up to the present. The hon. members are being extremely unfair to allege that each property purchased should be approached in a different manner. One would then find oneself in a mess, in a chaotic situation, and then the hon. members opposite would of course revel in the chaos for their own political benefit. After all, that is what they think.

I want to conclude by telling you that according to what we have heard there is ostensibly talk of all kinds of irregularities. But I want to tell you that there was absolutely no irregularity in any of these transactions, nor in the case of the Upton land either, which was not even relevant here. There were no irregularities because we followed the stipulated procedures, the procedures as laid down in the White Paper, and as tested by us through experience. The only two deviations which occurred, were the departures from what was set out in a circular which I sent out, and in which it was stated that the people could submit their forms to the magistrate, actually the Bantu Affairs Commissioner, for he is our man in Port St. Johns.

Not could, must.

I said yesterday that it was nonsense that it is a “must”. I say it is rubbish. I want to ask the hon. member why it is a “must”. What should the magistrate do with the forms? He has to post them to Pretoria, that is what he has to do. To bring this up as a departure, as an irregularity, is childish foolishness, absolutely childish foolishness. The only other departure, not from the White Paper, but from the procedure which I laid down, was that, unlike the ordinary properties, there should not be advertised. Why? As I have said, the purpose of advertising is to see whether Bantu persons want to buy the properties, for if they do this we need not purchase it, for then we have achieved our aim, namely that the property has been transferred to Black hands. In this case, as a result of the nature of the property and the fact that it had been halfway surveyed into a township, and because of the extent of the cost involved, it was in our opinion simply a waste of time to advertise the property, for no Bantu persons would have come forward. This would merely have proved to us that the Trust should purchase the land. Mention was also made of extravagance, and it is true that the land cost a great deal of money, but we received value for it. There was a valuation. I shall not deny that they received a great deal of money, but there was a valuation and we avoided higher costs by the procedure we adopted. It was alleged here that friends were given favourable treatment. But this was not the case, and I have dealt with this aspect in great detail. There was no nepotism. The only preference there was, was that of our own interests, as I indicated yesterday. No one else was prejudiced; in fact, all the other persons who still have properties there, may still offer their properties for sale, and all these transactions will be dealt with in the same way as these properties. They will all, if they can prove a personal urgency on their part, be dealt with under the general arrangement which exists in regard to preference for urgent cases. They must be able to prove it, and the predominant provision is of course that money has to be available. The arguments raised here yesterday by the hon. member for Griqualand West was that there had been laxity from the top. I said yesterday, and I want to repeat it here, that there was no laxity. The former hon. Deputy Minister, at present the Minister for Water Affairs, and my department’s officials, the valuators and I, in so far as I was involved, all gave our attention to this matter. It is not the first transaction we have dealt with. In the entire Transkei area we have already since 1964, purchased land to the value of more than R30 million on that basis, I mean on this very basis laid down in the White Paper.

Not in that manner.

In that same manner. The hon. member is living in a dream world. He has not yet seen any of those transactions. He has not yet made one, and therefore I do not know why the hon. member discusses that matter. He does not know what he is talking about. I repeat, Mr. Speaker …

You want to bet?

That hon. member can go to Kenilworth to “bet”; you mustn’t make any “bets” with me. I repeat: Since the years 1964-’66, when we began to purchase land, we have purchased land to the value of far in excess of R30 million in the Transkei alone, all of it on this basis. The other people whose land has to be purchased there will also be dealt with on this basis, and no one will be prejudiced. And no one has been prejudiced. I can tell you what kind of thing could be prejudicial. This kind of debate which the Opposition and the newspapers conducted is not to the benefit of sound co-operation between our department and the people who still have to sell their land, for everyone is being placed under suspicion. It is being implied that those people are dealing with super scoundrels of South Africa, while we are not dealing with super scoundrels of South Africa, but with people who know what their duties are and who are discharging them correctly. What we are in fact dealing with is a group of super inciters, that is what we have been dealing with.

I want to express a last word of appreciation to the hon. the Deputy Minister of that time—at present the Minister of Water Affairs—who had to endure most of this nonsensical hubbub which centred around all kinds of farcical and inane maneouvres such as the question of where he went for two or three days and what he did there. If one takes such things into consideration as where a person slept for two or three days when he went to do certain things, then I am extremely grateful today that I never availed myself, and never shall avail myself, of the offer the hon. member for Griqualand East made to me a year or so ago when he invited me to make use of his beach cottage (strandhuis) at Kei Mouth. I have never availed myself of that offer, and here I am learning my lesson. I am very grateful to myself, for the hon. member for Griqualand East and I … [Interjections.]

When did I make that offer?

Yes, in my bench there … [Interjections.] I say … [Interjections.] I have plenty of time. I say I am grateful that I have not yet availed myself of anything of this nature, for then he and I would also have been under suspicion now. Not only I, but he as well. Both of us would then have been under suspicion. The hon. members of the Opposition must realize that they cannot keep on with this double-barrelled propaganda of theirs. They level this accusation at you, and if it does not work they level another accusation at you. We achieve nothing by it except to stir up suspicion among people who get along well with one another. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that it is not only the Minister of Water Affairs who suffers memory lapses, but the Minister of Bantu Administration too. I do not have a “strandhuis” at Kei Mouth. I do not even have a property at Kei Mouth. I do not know what he is talking about. [Interjections.] I certainly have never invited that Minister to come to my “strandhuis” at Kei Mouth. [Interjections.]

It might have been at another place, but I got an invitation to it. [Interjections.]

Order!

I told a joke to some members about the late Mr. Paul Sauer being offered a holiday at Kei Mouth.

You invited me while I was sitting in my bench. In my bench, not outside.

I did not.

You did.

I did not invite you.

You did. [Interjections.]

: Wishful thinking.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon the hon. the Minister told us at great length—he repeated it several times—that he was going to deal with the valuations today. He was going to tell us all about valuations. What has he done this afternoon? He has wasted the time of this House. [Interjections.] He has given us no information of any use with regard to valuations. The hon. the Minister speaks about needing teachers and ignorance about different matters. The hon. the Minister showed his ignorance this afternoon, when he read to us the details which he gave on valuations. Does he know anything about how appraisements are made? What sort of appraisement would it be if it did not give all these details? What sort of appraisement would it be if they did not measure shelves? Surely that is a normal thing to do. If the Minister thinks this is an outstanding appraisal, because of these details he has given, I am getting worried about the appraisements on which his department is acting.

They are all the same.

Then why mention so particularly how many baths there were and all that sort of thing? What sort of appraisal is that?

It does not suit you to hear all that.

When I asked the hon. the Minister for an assurance that the same appraisal, the same basis of valuation, would be used throughout the rest of Port St. Johns, I meant the basis of land valuation and not that of baths and shelves and things like that. This is the valuation of a hotel. When the ordinary residences are being valued at Port St. Johns, we are going to be told that the high valuation given in these two instances was because of goodwill and because of the value of the loose assets. We want to know the basis of the land valuation and of the building valuation. That is what we want to know, and unless the Minister gives this, we are not satisfied with the story he has told us. [Interjections.]

Yesterday the hon. the Minister spoke a lot about my being an attorney, and that I ought to know this and that I ought to know that. It is a pity that we did not have an attorney to handle these transactions. To leave transactions of this nature to an ex-teacher, when one is dealing with two wily speculators, is only harmful to the State. We cannot allow this sort of thing. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. the Minister told us what he thought was important in these transactions. What does he say about the agreement of sale? He says that there were certain conditions. Of course there must be conditions of sale. He said he was not going to give us the normal conditions. He said he was going to give the extra-ordinary conditions. He also said the purchase price would only be paid after transfer. [Interjections.] That is a normal condition. He said that transfer would only be passed after the zoning of Port St. Johns. That is the legal position. He cannot pass transfer before that. [Interjections.]

You did not know that yesterday?

Oh, don’t be silly!

Sir, then the hon. the Minister went on to say that the transfer would not be passed until the State President had declared this a released area. What he is actually telling us, is that he acted legally. All that he had put in his conditions of sale, was that he had not acted illegally. Have you ever heard such nonsense, Sir?

Yesterday we heard the reply of the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, who was then Deputy Minister of Bantu Development. He spoke about the Press, and about how he had been misquoted. Then he went on to deal with Dimbaza. Dimbaza had nothing to do with this case. All he was trying to do, was to draw a red herring. He spoke about the dealings in the King William’s Town district. The accusation which the hon. member for King William’s Town and I made was that they had unnecessarily paid out this large sum at Port St. Johns when they withdrew offers made to farmers in King William’s Town district. The hon. the Minister of Water Affairs did not answer to that allegation. What did he do? He tried to tell us that some of the people who had offered their farms in that area, in Braunschweig, did not have title. He said the families who had occupied the farms for 150 years or more had to go to court to obtain title. That is not the allegation we were making against him. We were dealing with the withdrawal of the offers that they had made. On 10 or 11 September they withdrew offers that they had made.

He explained to you why.

He did not explain why. [Interjections.] He said it was because they were short of money. They had given the people 60 days time to accept the offer, and they did not know whether the people were going to accept it or not. When the offers were accepted they had to withdraw. Why did they have to pay out this large sum if they were so short of money? If an ordinary business man makes an offer and gives one 60 days time within which to accept the offer, he has no hope of withdrawing that offer. He cannot say that he did not expect the offer to be accepted within 30 days. This is absolute nonsense.

Why did they not accept it in time?

But they did accept it within 30 days; not after 60 days. You had given them 60 days.

Now, what is the priority? Why was the priority given in this case? The hon. the Minister tells us it was to the benefit of the State and that these people did the State a good service. Sir, we have it on record—in the interview given by the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs to the Press—that Schoeman consulted him before he bought. When I questioned the hon. the Minister about it yesterday, he said that Schoeman had already bought one property and that he told him he had taken an option on the other property. The hon. the Minister said that he then warned Schoeman that, if the area was proclaimed … [Interjections.]

Schoeman bought out shares.

Yes, but the hon. the Minister himself mentioned that Schoeman had options, and that Schoeman exercised the options after he had been warned that he might lose money. Why were Schoeman and Henning not treated in the same way as Upton? We did not complain about what happened to Upton. Upton had a court case against him and the Government only paid out the amount for which Upton was sued. That was all. The balance he has not received yet. They have not transferred the farm from him. Why did the Government not act in the same way with Henning and Schoeman? That is what I want to know.

It is still in the process of transfer.

What is in the process of transfer?

That sale.

Yes, but it has not gone through, not so speedily as these two went through.

I suppose it was handled by your firm.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he knows how many people were involved in buying plots in the subdivision. Was that part of the agreement? I want to know why we cannot get a copy of the agreement. Why can the agreement not be shown to us? There can be nothing secret about those agreements.

We bought from the company, not from the others.

Why can we not see the agreements that were made by the company? When these agreements were made with the company, was there no provision for payment to the people who had bought the subdivided lots?

They had to buy back …

Did the hon. the Minister take any steps to see to it that those people were going to be paid? In his speech yesterday he told us …

That is not my duty. [Interjections.]

Oh? On what basis did you pay out Schoeman and Henning? Was this taken into consideration?

The whole property was under valuation.

The hon. the Minister tells us they had to buy, one reason being that Henning was being sued by the people who had bought subdivided lots and now did not want to go on with the deal. Is that not right?

Who sued whom?

They were to be sued by the people who had bought the subdivided lots and who were paying instalments. They wanted their money back.

I said nothing of that sort.

Of course the hon. the Minister said so. If they were not suing them, who was suing them?

Suing whom?

Schoeman and Henning.

I said that the local authority required them to …

No, I am sorry; the hon. the Minister said these people had been sued.

Take my Hansard and show me.

Has the hon. the Minister got …

I did not say it.

Has the hon. the Minister got no responsibility towards those people who bought from this company? He knows Henning’s record or he should have known. Henning himself had been insolvent. Several of Henning’s companies have also been liquidated. What happens to these people now who have bought and have not yet been paid? I want to quote what the hon. the Minister said. Will the hon. the Minister listen to me? The hon. the Minister said the following—

Has the hon. the Minister taken any steps to see that these “ander kopers” have been paid?

It is not for me to do that.

But surely the hon. the Minister has an interest in this. What sort of an agreement did he make with Henning and Schoeman? Let me refer again to the woman I spoke to. She bought an erf, and as far as the hon. the Minister is concerned, it was an ordinary business deal. If Henning does not pay her she has lost her money and he is not interested. Why were Henning and Schoeman not treated on the same basis, that is to say that they had entered into an ordinary business deal where they speculated and bought that land? Why were they given preference in Port St. Johns? Why were they treated differently from people involved in other business deals?

They were not.

The only excuse the hon. the Minister could give—and this is how we understand the matter—is that the buyers of the subdivided lots were demanding from them the instalments they had paid. Is the hon. the Minister worried about these people at all? Is he worried about how they get their instalments back? Is he worried about whether they are getting interest on the instalments they have paid? Or are they just being sacrificed to the wolves? No, he is just not worried about them at all. It is not good enough. Preference has been given to these people and the hon. the Minister has not justified such preference. There are other ways of stopping the proclamation. Did he get in touch with the province to find out how far they had gone with the proclamation of that township?

That we knew.

Could the province not have stopped it then? My information is that there was no hope of those townships being proclaimed because no money was available to install the sewerage or the water. There was consequently no hope of those townships being proclaimed. Did the hon. the Minister take that into consideration? Did he take into consideration the costs these people would have to meet to supply sewerage and water services? When he paid them out did he take into consideration the expense to which these people would still have been put in order to develop that area as a township? The reasons given by the hon. the Minister in connection with the leases could hold some water. They wanted somebody to look after the property after they had bought it and taken it over, but it was not necessary to lease the property to them at that price, i.e. R5 000. According to the son they are making between R60 000 and R80 000 a year profit.

According to whom?

The son.

And according to other information that is not so.

Well then, why does the hon. the Minister not give us the information? How much were they making? [Interjections.] We hear from the son, from the man who is managing the business, and he knows that the Receiver of Revenue will know what he says. He knows that the Receiver will check up. He said they were making between R60 000 and R80 000, and he is the manager of the concern. Now the Minister says: “That is not true; we know what he is making.” The hon. the Minister should make that information available to us. No wonder the country is worried. It is because of the kind of evasive answers we get from the other side that the public is worried. The answer the hon. the Minister gave us today and yesterday has certainly not allayed any of the suspicions the country has.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to discuss Port St. Johns. I shall leave that subject in the able hands of my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. [Interjections.] However, I wish someone would be kind enough to invite me to spend a holiday on the beautiful coast of the Eastern Cape, preference or not.

It is really a privilege to me to be able to refer on the second consecutive day to a particularly competent and valuable maiden speech which was made here today by a new member on this side of the House. I say “on this side of the House”, because I do not know when last there was a new member on that side. The hon. member for Bellville discussed a very important subject, urban transport. I can assure him that we shall give very serious attention to his speech. I wish him all the best in his future career in this House.

I referred today to an important statement made by the president of the Reserve Bank this morning concerning the improvement we have made to the system of exchange control. In my short introductory speech this afternoon, too, I referred to arrangements that are being made and steps that are being taken to introduce further control over bank credit. I would have expected someone on that side of the House to have spoken on this subject, but the only person who had anything to say was the hon. member for Durban Point. I say with all respect that he speaks much more effectively on defence matters than on finance. He did not say that the steps should not have been taken, but he did say that the steps had come too late and should have been taken earlier. That was the only comment on this matter in the whole debate.

We said it before you said it.

The only speech from the official Opposition which dealt with financial matters came from the hon. member of Umbilo. As is his custom, he put his case soberly and carefully marshalled his facts, and I listened with great attention to what he had to say. I can assure him that the points he raised will have the very careful attention of myself and my senior officials, particularly when we come to consider the forthcoming budget proposals. However, some of the things he referred to are matters that have had the very careful and constructive attention of the Government. I can merely refer him to the fact that in the last budget the improvements we made to social pensions alone cost almost R60 million in one year. That is an exceptionally large figure, and I think the hon. member will agree. I think the hon. member for Walmer might be interested too, because he raised the question of the increase in food prices since 1970. He said the increase had been 76%. Of course, food prices constitute only one item in the cost of living, admittedly an important item. Its weight is about 25% of the whole. However, while the cost of living index has risen, since 1970, by about 63%, social pensions have, in fact, risen by 84% over the same period. I mention these things because I think we must be fair and keep a balanced view.

There is another very interesting point. The hon. member for Umbilo quite correctly referred to defence expenditure and mentioned that defence expenditure was a very big item in the Government’s budget. What interests me, however, is the complete volte face we have seen in the Opposition generally in connection with this issue of defence. Less than a year ago we were being severely criticized for the defence budget that we presented. We were told that … [Interjections.] Oh yes. If hon. members want me to refer to Hansard, I can do so when I have the opportunity. [Interjections.] I remember clearly what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said and I also remember clearly what the hon. member for Hillbrow said. [Interjections.] What they said is recorded in Hansard.

What did they say?

They said we were spending too much on defence. [Interjections.]

I said that with your Government you have to spend twice as much on defence.

I want to remind the House that in the last budget we increased the Defence Vote by 50%, by hundreds of millions of rand. In other words, we did the right thing.

Can you show where we opposed that? You will not find it. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I do not expect any credit from that side of the House, because they are unable to give credit. Nevertheless, I will state the facts, whether they like them or not. The fact is that on defence we did the right thing. It is because we took timeous action on the Defence Vote that I shall not have to come to this House next month with an absolutely punitive Defence Vote, as some people are trying to suggest. We shall be realistic. We know our responsibilities and we know how to arm this country. I want to say that we took timeous action in this matter a year ago. I want to draw the House’s attention to that fact.

Who is arguing?

The hon. member for Pinelands referred to what I said yesterday. He also referred to what the hon. member for Johannesburg North had said. It is very interesting that a man who is internationally known as an authority on gold, among other things, has just arrived in this country. I refer to Dr. Schultz. Immediately on arriving, Dr. Schultz expressed his unbounded confidence in the future of gold. He is one of the world’s authorities on gold. His words are in stark contrast to what the hon. member for Johannesburg North has been telling us about gold. In view of the fact that, one might say, his own whole future and that of the companies with which he is directly connected are based on gold, one wonders why the hon. member takes this extraordinary negative view on gold. That is what I and this hon. House do not understand.

He said we must not put all our eggs in one basket. That is all.

Talking about the hon. member for Johannesburg North and what I said about him, the hon. member for Pinelands took me to task, saying that I had not correctly represented what the hon. member for Johannesburg North had said when he made that extremely serious allegation about a banana republic. Let me quote what the hon. member for Johannesburg North said (11 February, page L2)—

He did not deny that he had said that we were becoming a banana republic, but he denied that we would devalue, because even he could see that. However, that is not the impression I got when I listened very carefully to the hon. member for Pinelands a few minutes ago. I clearly understood him to say that the hon. member for Johannesburg North went on to deny the question of South Africa being a banana republic …

That is right.

But he did not; he referred to devaluation.

Oh, please!

I will stand on this until the length of days because I can at least try to understand English. I challenge the hon. member to say that I am giving a wrong interpretation. It is manifestly absurd to say that he was referring to the banana republic when he denied that he was referring to the devaluation. I have his speech here. One must be careful before one attacks someone else for misrepresenting facts when you do so yourself. [Interjections.]

Order!

Nothing will alter the fact of the scurrilous attack which the hon. member for Johannesburg North made on South Africa when he associated South Africa with a banana republic.

That is untrue.

Of course he did. I say that that is a scurrilous thing to have said. My difficulty with the hon. members of the Progressive-Reform Party is that they sit here under the protection and respectability of this legislature, the highest Legislature in this country, and day by day, in my humble opinion, abuse their position by attacking their country on every conceivable score and by attacking the White people of this country. That is the position. We had it again this afternoon from the hon. member for Pine-lands.

Where did I attack them?

Order! May I point out to the hon. the Minister that if any member abuses his position in this House, it is for the Chair to call him to order. Will the hon. the Minister therefore withdraw that remark?

Sir, if you would like me to withdraw that word, I do so. Perhaps I should say they exploit their position in this House by doing that. While the hon. member was speaking, the question was asked here: “Why not say something for the White man?” That is what comes up in our minds every time these hon. members speak. These people talk about discrimination and racialism, but I believe that they are the greatest racialists in this country, because all the time they are putting the case for the Blacks and they are doing it in such a way as to stir up resentment against the Whites. [Interjections.] That is so, and it is on record. The great advantage of having a system of parliamentary government such as ours is that everything a man says here is recorded in writing.

That is true of your speeches too.

These things are recorded in Hansard and everyone can study the speeches made by those hon. members.

It looks as if you are starting to panic.

The hon. members on that side give the impression—and, in fact, actually say—that they glory in and gloat over everything that is a misfortune or a disadvantage to their country. Absolutely …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister entitled to say that we glory in matters that are a misfortune to our country? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Sir, I say that in the most deliberate way and I base it on what I have heard here and on what I have read as to what has been said by those hon. members.

The hon. the Minister is a misfortune to this Government.

An intolerable situation has arisen and this country is going to reckon with that party.

What are you going to do?

The voters will reckon with them. Almost half the members of that party came here under a different banner altogether. How many of them will come back in the next election? [Interjections.] Let us look at the facts.

What are the facts? You have never fought an election in your life.

That may be, but I have not changed my colours in this House. So do not tell me where I stand. The best thing I ever did in my life, in my humble opinion, was when I threw in my lot unreservedly with this great party I have the honour to represent. [Interjections.]

Well done!

I have never regretted it and I have never been so pleased. [Interjections.]

Order! I should be glad if the debate could be conducted with less noise from the floor of the House.

I really have nothing more to add. I do not want to prolong the debate. I hope I have made my point clear that I think that that party must stop pointing a finger at everybody else as being racialists and must see themselves as the greatest racialists of this country today.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to conduct a debate. I am just rising to say that we put our objections to clause 3 on record at the Second Reading and in the Committee Stage. Those objections still stand. We are dissatisfied with the replies of the hon. the Minister and we still feel that that particular clause infringes on private initiative and on private rights. However, since it is one clause in a long Bill we shall not vote against the Third Reading, but we put on record once again our objection to the method and result of the high-handed action of the Administration and the Government in connection with the harbour carriers of Durban.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches also want to take issue with the hon. the Minister on the infamous clause 3 of this Bill. We believe that the conduct of the Government in pushing this clause through has been disgraceful. We believe that the rights people have had for many years have been seriously prejudiced. I should like to put one request to the hon. the Minister, perhaps the last request in terms of this Bill. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether, if the members of the Harbour Carriers’ Association can bring concrete proof before the Minister of severe hardship which will be suffered by them as the result of this Bill being passed, he will give consideration again to the question of compensation. I sincerely believe that the rights of these people, which they have had for a very long time, are being taken away from them, and that their businesses and their whole way of life are being severely prejudiced. The hon. the Minister, I know, does not agree, and says that there will be plenty of work for them, but all I should like from him is an assurance that if hard facts can be brought to his attention to show that hardship is being suffered by these people, he will give further consideration to the question of compensation.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Orange Grove rising merely to state their objections here since we have already discussed this particular clause, to which they are objecting very thoroughly during the Second Reading and the Committee Stage. Allow me to use this opportunity, the Third Reading of this Bill, to say that it is by no means our intention to deprive other people of their privileges or to make money through the Railways Administration from these steps we are contemplating here. What we are doing here and what we envisage with clause 3, to which objections are being raised, is merely to promote efficiency in the handling of containers. We believe that it is essential that there should be the greatest measure of efficiency in the handling of these containers, especially in consideration of the large amounts of capital that have been invested in this; we would like to promote that efficiency as much as possible. If it had been a matter of rands and cents or financial considerations by the Railways, my approach to this question would have been entirely different.

The hon. member for Orange Grove again spoke about compensation. As I have already said during the Committee Stage, I do not believe that there need be any damages in respect of this work. I want to agree with him that since the Railways Administration will be responsible for a large part of the handling of these containers, there will provisionally be less work for the private sector which undertakes this work. I agree with him here. However, there is one thing I find very strange. Other people are also going to be affected by this, for example the stevedores, amongst others, but hon. members on that side of the House have not objected to this. That side of the House has only raised objections on behalf of the carriers.

But the stevedores will not handle the containers in any event.

But there will be less work for the stevedores as a result of this change which has been effected. All I want to prove, is that in due course there will be certain people who will have to make sacrifices for the promotion of procedures and the more efficient handling of transport. That is why some of these private carriers are likely to have less work. However, I am not aware of any financial losses or damage which will be suffered as a result of capital investments which have been made. Naturally I am not prepared to consider compensation for any losses which may arise as a result of less work for these people. If there are justified cases where losses are suffered as a result of capital investments which were made, one can consider them, but under the present circumstances I do not believe there is any likelihood of this happening. Prior notice of this was given so long ago that I cannot for one moment believe that capital investments have been made which cannot be utilized. If people have indeed made such capital investments, it was really foolish of them. I am therefore not prepared to reply unequivocally that I shall consider the matter as the hon. member for Orange Grove advocated. If I say that I am prepared to do so, it is possible that it will be concluded from that that I am prepared to pay damages. If there really are justified cases in which compensation has to be paid, the necessary procedure in accordance with which claims may be made is already in existence. These claims can then be settled on that basis. I think that it is common knowledge to all hon. members in this House that my office is always open to people who feel aggrieved about something done by the Railways Administration. If there is any carrier who would like an interview with me at a later stage, I am prepared to give him a hearing at any time.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Berea asked certain questions relating the definition of “sell” and I promised him that I would consult the legal people. They gave me the following reply: If an Act dealing mainly with the subject of selling did exist, the definition of “sell” and also of “advertise” used therein would have been used. The Trade Practices Bill which is due for consideration by Parliament is considered to cover the subject of selling and the definitions contained in that Bill could, subject to certain reservations, possibly be used. As that Bill had not been approved it was deemed advisable to formulate a definition which would be acceptable for the administration of this Bill. This is the only reply I can give the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister for his kindness in going into this matter and for the explanation which he has tendered. I appreciate the difficulty he has in dealing with a Bill which is not yet before the House. However, I did point out during my Second Reading speech that certain Acts which have been on the Statute Book for some time also contain definitions for “sell” which seem to introduce different phraseology and in certain cases different words. I should like to refer once again to the fact that in this clause the definition for “sell” contains the word “send” in line 41. It reads—

However, in other Acts on the Statute Book we find that the term “consign” is used. I am not a legal person, but I wonder whether there is much difference in the intention when the word “sell” is used as opposed to “consign”. There is another point which I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. The definition for “sell” in the Bill is in relation to plant breeders but there is also a definition for “sell” in the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act, Act No. 101 of 1965. The definition in that Act includes the term “barter or exchange”. I find myself in a difficulty as to why it is necessary to use a term like “barter” in a Medicines and Related Substances Control Act when it would probably be more appropriate in a Bill of this nature which deals with plant breeders.

These are some of the points which I believe could possibly be considered and, if my argument is a valid one, the hon. the Minister could agree to broaden the scope of this definition in the Other Place so that it will comply, more on a general basis, with other definitions already existing in laws on the Statute Book.

Mr. Chairman, according to my information it will not give us any problems in applying this Act. I can understand the hon. member’s problem, but I cannot see the difference between “send” and “consign”. What is meant is “om ’n ding weg te stuur”. We can have a look at the whole thing however and, if necessary, rectify the wording in the Senate, if that would make the hon. member happy. Personally I am not concerned about the issue.

*I am neither a linguist nor a chemist. I just want to see the job finished.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16:

Mr. Chairman, I promised the hon. member for Bryanston to reply to his question. He asked for the period of provisional protection to be limited. However, it is simply a fact that the Upov convention provided us with a directive. The provisional protection is in any case only granted for a limited period. It expires at the stage when the application for plant breeders’ rights is granted or rejected. As a rule it should not take more than one or two growing seasons before a decision on an application is reached. After one or two growing seasons, the quality of the specific variety is determined and then the provisional protection expires. It is not clear why the hon. member wants a limitation. But I can appreciate that he thinks we might impede the practical application. The fact is that a limitation is in conflict with the Upov convention and that it does not seem to be necessary in any case. I think that will satisfy the hon. member.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 27:

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I expressed my concern about the fact that a man who has obtained plant breeders’ rights would probably not be able to allow the multiplication of material to take place in such a way that the producers may benefit from it. The hon. the Minister said in his speech that he also believed that breeders will probably not be able to produce adequate reproduction material of varieties themselves. I want to repeat what I have already asked: Would the hon. the Minister consider, in terms of this clause and when the compulsory licence is granted, having a licence granted to the official plant multiplication organization at an early stage to undertake plant multiplication—I want to mention here specifically the KWV because it has spent in the past and is still spending an enormous amount of money on plant multiplication facilities.

Mr. Chairman, the intention is to co-operate with the KWV and for that reason we inserted the word “reasonableness”. An official, who is also an expert, acts as registrar. We leave the discretion to him when the KWV, for example, develops a new cultivar which we should like to administer in terms of this Act. Hence the word “reasonableness”, because one is unable to define this matter precisely. There is no question of wanting to harm anybody. All we want to do, is to place the practical application of the Act on such a basis that it will be to the benefit of the industry. We wish to accommodate everybody—the producer and the KWV—in this Act.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, but I have had second thoughts about it as is my privilege, and I am not going to move it, for the simple reason that I believe that until we have corrected one of the other anomalies that exists in our marriage law, i.e. the manner in which a surviving spouse out of a marriage out of community of property, can be disinherited where a husband or wife leaves a will disinheriting the spouse, I do not want the capital of either spouse to be drawn into this Bill. The purpose of my amendment was to see that a spouse who maintained capital which was not income bearing—in other words, invested in land, shall we say, at Port St. Johns or in diamonds or something like that—should in fact be taken into consideration by the court in assessing whether or not a spouse was contributing his/her pro rata share to the necessaries of the joint household. However, as I have said, I have reflected on this and I think it is right that the spouse, where the possibility exists that he or she might be disinherited, should in fact be allowed to accumulate capital which will not be taken into the court’s consideration as part and parcel of the bargain of the pro rata contribution to the joint household. Therefore I am not going to move this amendment, but I would like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the reason for the proviso which was initially inserted in the 1953 Bill. I have been doing a little further research, and I find that the proviso was in fact inserted in the Senate. It then came back to this House, but I still cannot understand, the reason why the then hon. the Minister introduced this, and I would like some of the legal luminaries in this House to explain what it means before I vote on this clause, because perhaps I have misunderstood the whole object of it.

[Inaudible.]

The point is that the original Bill of 1953 was passed without a proviso at all.

There was one.

Yes, I am sorry; there was a proviso but it was changed considerably. The proviso, before it went to the Other Place, provided that the spouse paying any such debt—that is in respect of necessaries for the joint household—would have a right of recourse against the other spouse for one half of the amount thereof. That went to the Other Place where an amendment was introduced which substituted that proviso by the following one—

That is the law as it stands now.

The husband had no recourse.

No, the husband had no recourse. The then Minister of Justice, in explaining why he had changed the proviso, made in my estimation the rather nebulous statement that: “It is a safety measure we have decided to take after careful consideration. It means that if a wife is sued for costs, then she has the right to sue her husband for the whole amount.” For the costs of a law case or what? I simply do not understand this. I want to know what “careful consideration’’led the Minister of that time, Mr. Swart, to introduce that change in the Other Place and why the hon. the Minister now, presumably after further careful consideration, is scrapping the proviso altogether and not even leaving the wife with the original right of recourse for half of the pro rata contribution she had made. In addition, why is he not following the suggestion of Judge Vos in the Engelbrecht case to the effect that the wife should have the right of recourse up to the full amount of the contribution she had made? I should like to have an explanation for this.

Mr. Chairman, I understood that the amendment to be moved by the hon. member for Yeoville would be moved before I spoke.

No, he is not moving it.

It appears that the amendment is not going to be moved, but I have an amendment to this clause which I propose moving, as follows—

Basically, the proviso as contained in the Bill at present, endeavours to circumscribe the manner in which the proportional contribution according to income should be assessed. It deals with two specifics and includes a generality clause, if I may call it that. The first of the two specifics, is to recognize as part of the income, assets which are applied in respect of such necessaries. The hon. member for Houghton has an amendment in her name on the Order Paper to change those words to “assets owned by each spouse” and I am very pleased indeed that she has seen fit to withdraw that, because I believe that in its practical application this would be completely and wholly unworkable and unsatisfactory for the reasons I shall give in a moment. The second of the two specifics is to recognize that if a spouse renders services to the joint household for which moneys of the spouse would otherwise have to be applied, this fact may be taken into account in assessing the proportional income of the spouses themselves. Here again, the hon. member for Yeoville gave notice of, but apparently does not intend moving, an amendment in which he further restricts this specific by stating that the services should be other than normal household duties. We believe that a tremendous number of interpretations can be put on the words “services to the joint household” which are contained in the Bill as it stands at the moment. I believe that the number of these interpretations could make the mind boggle. One could sit down and for quite a while be able to turn out interpretations of these words, interpretations which would probably differ from those of somebody else.

We believe that our approach is a realistic and practical one in that our entire intention is to try to give clarity to the man in the street. We believe that, in devising legislation in the unhappily popular field of matrimonial disputes, the statute law should be made as clear and as definite and as non-litigious as possible. We believe that the spouses should by means of clear legislation be fairly informed just what his or her rights and obligations are. The terms of any Act should, particularly, be capable of easy interpretation by the legal advisers of the parties who are so often called upon to settle matrimonial matters without recourse to expensive litigation. Any dispute between the parties should be considered clearly in terms of the Matrimonial Affairs Bill by the parties involved in the matter, as that they may ascertain the extent of their respective contributions to the household necessaries. To this end, Sir, we have framed our amendment, so that the warring parties, one might say, can be spared the formidable task of trying to assess with any certainty the quantum of their claim and we hope that, in so doing, we are making a contribution towards the speedy and satisfactory conclusion to this type of dispute.

We believe, too, that the generalities phrase which reads “or any other relevant fact” itself also creates uncertainty in the mind. Reading through this Bill, we feel somehow that the proviso was created in order to attempt to give the courts an opportunity of having as wide as possible a scope in deciding or coming to a conclusion as to the respective rights of the parties. We believe that, even if that is an admirable approach to the whole matter, the general public will be better served if it were narrowed down simply to contain the words “a spouse married out of community of property shall be allowed to contribute pro rata according to his or her income in respect of the necessaries for the joint household”. That is the effect of our amendment; by deleting the proviso altogether, it narrows it down simply to a matter of income.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say immediately that I am prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for East London City as I think it is a well-founded amendment. I have considered this clause very carefully and I believe that, by contaminating the principle of income laid down in the main body of the clause with possible assets and services, we would be indicating to the courts that we do not trust them enough to find out for themselves what exactly they should do. I believe that we must credit the courts with a certain amount of knowledge of the law and also of court procedure and that we should allow the courts to decide for themselves how they would like to apply the basic principle contained in this clause.

As far as the questions that the hon. member for Houghton has put to me, are concerned, I must confess that I am unable at this stage to follow the tortuous thinking of this particular assembly in 1953 or the tortuous arguments that were raised in the Other Place. In the same way, posterity will probably have a lot of trouble trying to find out what we were debating and why we were debating it. I believe that we should rely on the Law Commission and their arguments where they decided that income should really be the basic principle of the pro rata assessment. In the circumstances, I believe that we should not try to overdo this Bill. We must try to make it as basic as possible and leave it to the courts to indicate to us, in the case law, whether something else should be added or not. If the courts decide at a later stage that something else is needed by way of amendments, we can reconsider the matter then. In the circumstances, I am prepared to accept the Bill with the deletion of the proviso as it is at the moment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move amendments (2) and (3) standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (2) On page 9, in line 15, to omit “thereof”;
2. (3) on page 9, in line 20, to omit “(3)” and to substitute “(1)(b)”.

It is the intention to delete the word “thereof" in the English text on page 9, line 15, because, according to the law advisers, this word does not really fulfil a function, and to omit “(3)” and to substitute “(1)(b)”, because this is obviously a minor error.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Yeoville as well as my own, as follows—

1. (1) On page 7, in line 38, after “company” to insert:
   and of the words ‘and partners’, ‘and associates’ or ‘and company’.
2. (2) on page 7, to add the following paragraph at the end of subsection (1) of the proposed new section 28quat:
3. (d) if the memorandum and articles of association of such company and any amendment thereof, have been approved by the law society in terms of its rules.

I may say at the outset that these are amendments of a minor nature which do not affect any principle at all. The situation is that, on reading the proposed new section 28quat(1)(c) as contained in clause 4, it is quite clear that it is intended to restrict the name of a new company to the names of the people who previously practiced as attorneys in that company. There is one small exception, however, and that is that various firms have appendages at the end of their names such as “and co.”, “and partners” or “and associates”. After reading the particular subsection, I am not certain that this particular type of appendage to a firm’s name is included in the wording. I am not certain that it will be proper for a firm of attorneys, who may have six or ten partners, to call themselves, let us say, “Joe Smith and Partners”. I am not certain that the words “and partners” could come into the name of the new company. In order to ensure that there is no confusion at all, the suggestion is that those words should be added as stated in the amendment which I proposed.

The second amendment relates to the drawing up and the acceptance of the memorandum and articles of association, and this is also a minor point. It might even be described as looking for ghosts in the cupboard, and I am prepared to be persuaded that no such situation could arise. While I agree that the memorandum and articles are public documents, and while I agree that nothing that is illegal may be included in these documents, I do believe that, in structuring a company, in the utilization of the capital structure of a company, in creating a company, specific circumstances can arise where a memorandum and articles of association can be structured, which are not in the interests of the legal profession or of the State. I do not wish to quote specific examples that I have considered. I can see absolutely no harm in the law society concerned having the final say in regard to the drawing up of the memorandum and articles of association. It is not my intention, and I am sure it would never be the intention of the law society concerned, to look into the details inter partes of partners. I am thinking of some of the major issues relating to the structuring of a company when it is first created. Therefore, I think it can do no harm at all to ensure that no malpractices creep in, which could, in years to come, embarrass the legal profession, and, perhaps at another level, embarrass the State. It could do no harm if we had the provision that the memorandum and articles of association shall be subject to the approval of the law society concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not take too much of the Committee’s time, although I can see there is still a little time left. The official Opposition cannot agree with the two amendments moved by the hon. member for Sandton. In regard to the question of adding the words “and co.”, “and associates” and “and partners” at the end of paragraph (c), I mentioned in my Second Reading speech that I believed it would be right that, if a firm or a group of attorneys incorporated themselves under the Companies Act in terms of this particular section, the general public should be informed of this fact, and that therefore it would perhaps be advisable to add at the end of their names, as set out in paragraph (c), the word “incorporated”. I actually mentioned this in my Second Reading speech, and I have since discovered that the Companies Act itself provides for it in section 49(4). People will therefore know that it is an incorporated company. However, I believe there is no purpose in adding the words “and co.”, “and associates” or “and partners”. I believe that this will only tend to confuse the public, because at the moment there are numbers of firms of attorneys who do use those appellations at the end of the names of the partners who conduct the practice. So, we can see no reason for the inclusion of these words that are suggested.

In regard to the second amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Sandton, I would like to say that the memorandum and articles of association are always available to the general public. Secondly, if one reads the commencement of the new section 28quat, one will see that a private company itself conducts the practice of an attorney, and as such, is subject itself to all the rules and regulations to which an attorney is subject. Therefore, there is no purpose in providing for the memorandum and articles to be perused by the law society prior to, or even subsequent to, incorporation. We cannot agree with that.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member for East London City. Section 49(4) of the Companies Act states that it is absolute essential for the word “incorporated” to appear behind the name of the firm. To allow the word “partners” to appear there together with the word “incorporated”, will simply cause confusion. “Partnership” is a legal concept in itself, and “incorporated” is also a legal concept in itself. However, it is a different legal concept. In my humble opinion, it would be unheard of to allow the words “partners” to appear together with the word “incorporated”. The most I can do to help the hon. member for Sandton in this respect, is to say that I am prepared to allow the words “and associates” or “and company”. Those concepts are not in conflict with one another. Therefore, I want to move amendment (1) standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I think this will meet to some extent the request of my hon. friend over there in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to deal briefly with the second amendment moved by the hon. member for Sandton. I am not prepared to accept that amendment. I was informed by the lawyers that they had never reserved for themselves the right to determine the mutual arrangements of partnership between parties. Neither are they desirous of doing so now. They are prepared to abide by what the Registrar of Companies does in connection with matters of this nature. In that respect I cannot, therefore, accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sandton.

Mr. Chairman, I did hesitate, and I consequently consulted senior members of the legal profession and of the law society. I am aware of the fact that the law society is not keen to institute an investigation into everybody’s memorandum and articles of association. On the other hand, I think it is the duty of the Committee not only to take into account the wishes of the law society, but to take into account an even broader view as well, and to protect the interests of all the parties concerned in the legal profession and the various individual members of that legal profession. I particularly do not wish—and I am not going to press the matter any further—to quote any specific instances, but I do wish to warn the hon. the Minister that situations can arise in the converting from a firm of partners to a company, in the structuring of the company, in the way in which it is done, which will not redound to the benefit of the legal profession, and I would therefore have wished that there would be some protection for the legal profession against certain members who might adopt a procedure which is undesirable. That is why I proposed this amendment.

Amendment (1) moved by the Minister of Justice agreed to and amendment (1) moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling withdrawn.

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling negatived.

Amendments (2) and (3) moved by the Minister of Justice agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.