Mr. Speaker, in terms of Standing Order No. 25, I move—

Order! In terms of Standing Order No. 25 the hon. member for Green Point had to give me notice that he proposed to move this motion today, and I have consequently had an opportunity of considering it. I regret that I cannot put the motion to the House as there will be an early opportunity for discussing the matter when the debate on the Second Reading of the Part Appropriation Bill is resumed today. It was accordingly not necessary for me to consider whether the motion is one contemplated by the Standing Order.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that it is not possible to have a special debate on the decision of the Government to evict the squatters in the Cape Peninsula, I propose starting what I have to say by advising the House that we on this side take an extremely serious view of the squatter situation. [Interjections.] It is a human situation which requires a human solution, so we take an even more serious view of the steps which the Government are contemplating in regard to the squatter situation. [Interjections.] We believe that the steps proposed, that is the forced eviction of the squatters and the demolition of the squatter huts, when the Government knows full well that there is nowhere for these squatters to go, can only lead to a serious situation, and even an explosive situation.

I believe that these proposals … [Interjections.]

Order!

I believe that these steps could not have been more ill-timed. Mr. Speaker, as a special debate on this subject is not going to be possible, I do advise at this stage that one of our speakers, during this debate, will devote his time to this subject and will ask the Government to have a serious rethink of the whole situation. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether, in view of the fact that the Opposition regard this matter as so extremely urgent that they even want the House to adjourn, this speech will be made today?

Mr. Speaker, I can just inform the hon. the Minister of Community Development that I am not one of the Whips, and that the decision is therefore not in my hands. Nevertheless, I would be surprised if the matter were not raised at the first opportunity. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to return to the matter of the Part Appropriation Bill. When I started speaking on Monday I indicated that I considered that the hon. the Minister of Finance had been painting too rosy a picture of the economy, that he was not being objective and that he was not facing up to the real facts of the situation. This debate, which starts today, is the first major debate on economic and financial matters which we have had this session, and it takes place at a time when the economic situation can be described as anything but rosy. It is probably more aptly described as being a critical situation. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I hear interjections, but I believe that the time has come when we should talk completely frankly about this economic situation in our country. [Interjections.] I believe that there is no purpose whatsoever to be served by burying our heads in the sand and by trying to cover up what is a critically difficult situation. In fact, I would regard any attempt to do so as being a disservice to our country. Therefore, I hope that during the course of this debate we are not going to hear from the other side of the House any description of members on this side as being prophets of doom, or of harming the South African economy by talking honestly about the situation. [Interjections.] I believe that the boot is on the other foot, and that one is doing a service to the country by talking honestly about its problems.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to address myself through you, to the hon. the Prime Minister, because I was shocked on Friday, completely shocked, at his unedifying assault on Dr. Wassenaar. [Interjections.] I find an assault on a man who has been honest in his assessment of the economic difficulties facing our country, a man who has been honest in criticizing the Government for its responsibility for that situation, to smack of intimidation. It reminded me of the words which the hon. the Prime Minister used when he opened the congress of Assocom last October. I was present there and I know the actual words which he used. I know that if you analyse them, they can be subject to a different interpretation. However, what I do know is that the impression left by those words on the audience that heard them was that they were a warning to Assocom not to meddle in politics.

Absolute nonsense. [Interjections.]

I get back to the hon. the Minister of Finance. I have no quarrels with the problems which the hon. the Minister identified in his Second Reading speech as being the main problems facing our economy at present. My quarrel with the hon. the Minister is in his interpretation of the seriousness of those problems, their causes and the trends which are likely to arise from them.

The first problem which he identified was a lack of growth in the economy. He used the GDP—the gross domestic product—as the measure of our growth and he indicated that there had been a small positive growth in the economy. In my view the correct measure of the growth in the economy is the gross national product, which takes into account our trading relations with the rest of the world. It is the measure of what is available to sustain standards of living in the country. There we find the position is that for the past two years we have had a negative growth, an actual shrinkage in the economy, and it looks very much as if a third year of shrinkage is on its way. This, of course, coupled with the high growth rate in the population, which is approximately 3%, must mean lower living standards for the average South African, but it also means that unemployment is rising and that it is rising at a progressively faster rate. I very much question the figures of the increase in unemployment amongst the Blacks which the hon. the Minister of Finance gave the House in his Second Reading speech. I believe that those figures are a gross underestimate of the actual position. All the surveys of unemployment amongst Blacks that I have seen, even the most modest ones, show a much bigger number of unemployed Blacks than one would derive from the figures furnished by the hon. the Minister.

Can you name those surveys?

The lack of growth also means more and more insolvencies and more serious insolvencies. The country has recently been shocked by the failure of huge property companies. Glen Anil is only one. It was preceded by Van Agterberg, by the Swarts Brothers in Cape Town and I believe by others. I therefore do not think that anyone should underestimate the seriousness of these insolvencies. It is not only creditors who stand to lose; there is a chain reaction as a result of insolvency as we have already seen. One even gets a situation where banks get into difficulties as a result of insolvencies in other spheres of activity. What disturbs me most, however, about insolvency is the destruction of our capital that is involved. That is something which we cannot afford in a country where capital is a scarce resource. The lack of growth which we are experiencing also means that we as a country are getting poorer and not wealthier. It means that we are less able to afford our top priorities such as increased expenditure on defence. It means that we are less able to afford expensive projects to which the Government has committed us, such as nuclear power development. It also means—and I shall return to this subject later—that we are less able to afford Government policies which inhibit growth such as all the restrictions which are placed directly or indirectly on the productive employment of Black labour, such as job reservation and the Environment Planning Act.

The second problem about which the hon. the Minister spoke was our balance of payments situation. We still have a serious balance of payments problem. It is true, as the hon. the Minister said, that the balance on our current account—that is our trading account—has improved, because on the one hand our exports have improved. This is the one bright spot I find in the whole economic scene, viz. that our exports have held up well and in fact have consistently improved. This is something for which we should be thankful and which we should encourage. On the other hand the improvement in the trading account is due to a reduction in the value of imports. Although it helps the situation in the short run, I find little consolation in the fact that the reason for the reduction in the value of imports is the low state of our economy and the fact that our living standards are going down. Our balance of payments problem has really shifted from one of a current account problem to a capital account problem. For years South Africa has relied on foreign capital to help pay for imports and also to provide an important part of the capital needs for investment and development in the country. This inflow of foreign capital now shows every sign of drying up. It is certainly becoming subject to shorter and shorter terms of repayment. The drying up of the inflow of foreign capital was clearly demonstrated by the figures which the hon. the Minister gave in his Second Reading speech. The fact that he did not mention the fact that our foreign borrowings are subject to shorter and shorter terms of repayment, is another instance of what I mean by him painting too rosy a picture of the situation. I think that it is very significant that a very large proportion of the State’s foreign borrowing during the current year has come from the International Monetary Fund. I say that it is significant because those borrowings come from a source which is not part of the international monetary market, and therefore those borrowings have not been tested in the monetary market for the confidence that the lenders might show in our country.

This drying up of foreign capital is a serious matter, because our domestic savings are insufficient to finance the capital investment which is needed to provide a basis of growth to employ our increasing population. Our very growth is now dependent on an inflow of foreign capital and whether we like it or not—and I certainly do not—there is now an effective external restraint, through lack of capital, on our growth. I do not think that we should be too sanguine about the prospects of attracting foreign capital, certainly not until we make fundamental changes to the policy of apartheid and until foreign investors are convinced that our economy is properly managed.

They have certainly not been impressed by the spending orgy on which the Government embarked in the years 1973 to 1976, when Exchequer receipts were rising at double the rate of the gross domestic product of the country, nor are they impressed by the size of our reserves in relation to our foreign debts, particularly in relation to our foreign short-term debts.

These views that I have been giving on the foreign capital situation are not just my personal views. I have no doubt that important American bankers who have been visiting the country and who saw the hon. the Minister last week, gave him the same picture. They gave me that picture, and I have no doubt that they conveyed the same thoughts to the hon. the Minister of Finance.

Were those not confidential discussions?

I should like to quote from a prestigious international journal, the International Currency Review, from an article entitled “The South African Rand”. I quote—

It is referring to the financial community in Johannesburg—

Another passage reads—

I want to come back to the question of the ejection of the squatters from the Cape Peninsula. Foreign investors are going to interpret this decision in one way only. [Interjections.] They are going to interpret it as an unacceptable act, an inhuman act, within the framework of apartheid. They are going to interpret it as the unworkability of the policy of apartheid, because Coloured and Black people are involved and their elected representatives on the CRC were not even consulted before the decision to remove these people was made. [Interjections.] Foreign investors are going to interpret this decision as mismanagement by the Government by not providing housing or alternative accommodation. Above all, they are going to interpret it as a sign of oppression by the White people which may lead to renewed unrest.

The third problem is that we still have a double-figure inflationary rate. It is hurting everyone, in particular those who can least afford to be hurt by it. I should have liked to say more about this subject, but other speakers on this side of the House will speak on it at a later stage.

In anyone’s language these are serious problems. These weak spots are more numerous and more diversified than anything we have ever experienced in this country before and are greatly intensified by the financial and economic mismanagement by the Government. By the “financial and economic mismanagement by the Government” I mean the over-spending which took place particularly during the period 1973 to 1976; the raising of capital for State enterprises by huge price increases, such as we have seen in the case of petrol and electricity; the buoying up of the economy in 1975 and 1976 when the signs were starting to turn down and the Government should have started to trim its own sails; and the deficit financing of State expenditure which resulted in a huge increase in the supply of money, which implied a large shift of funds from the private to the public sector via the banking system and the further strangling of private enterprise.

What was the deficit financing? Can you name it?

I do not have it off-hand. There was also the grabbing of capital by the State from the financial institutions, insurance companies and pension funds which has made it more difficult for the private sector, particularly the private manufacturing sector, to raise money to expand, and which in turn had a worsening effect on our balance of payments because it has precluded import replacement facilities. There was also the deepening involvement of the Government in the economy, which has made it less competitive. One need only look at the rising cost of energy to realize that. Another factor was the wrong expectations which have arisen as a result of an easy monetary policy over a long period, where people have been encouraged to believe that they can have higher and higher standards of living without working harder and harder for them. These are the things that have intensified our problems. These are the things which have made necessary the present harsh fiscal and monetary measures which seem likely to be with us for some time yet, but the real crunch in the situation has become more and more clearly identified, put into perspective and magnified in the process, and that is the harm that our political situation, our racial situation, our policies of apartheid, are doing to the economy. We desperately need a resumption of growth in the economy. We need it to provide jobs for the growing population. We need it to help find the money requested by this Bill, we need it to ease the burden of the cost of defence and we need it to give everyone the higher standards of living which South Africa is capable of giving them. We are not, however, going to get that growth unless confidence is restored in our political situation and in our economy.

I believe that the rioting and the unrest which started last June brought home to the rest of the world—and particularly the financial world—first of all, that apartheid will not work and that it cannot work. Secondly, it brought home the fact that it is a policy that is not acceptable to the urban Black population or to the Coloured people who are the majority of the non-Whites in our country. To put it bluntly, investors have lost confidence in the political stability in South Africa. They want to see clear evidence of planning for a future political structure which will ensure that stability. Clearly the policies of this Government are rejected by investors generally, and increasingly they look to the policies advocated by this side of the House. The implications of this lack of confidence on the balance of payments situation are critical. Without a sound balance of payments we cannot hope to resume satisfactory growth. This is the Achilles’ heel of our economy at the present time. Clearly we have reached the crossroads where there can be no true economic solution for South Africa without a political solution, and there will be no political solution without far-reaching changes in Government policy. I should like to put to hon. members on that side of the House that if they put South Africa first, i.e. if they put South Africa above their own and their party’s interests, they must opt for the far-reaching changes that are necessary for our economic recovery.

I think I have raised most of the serious aspects of our economy that are facing us and I believe I have identified the main trouble spots. I have given the views of this side of the House on the seriousness with which we view the situation.

I consequently move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, having listened to the hon. member for Constantia, I think he might just as well have spoken about the squatters because his exposition of the financial position was one of the poorest I have heard for a long time. [Interjections.] Actually, the hon. member did not prove anything. All he did here was to utter a few commonplaces and generalizations. Furthermore he gave very sombre, pessimistic tidings about our economic position. [Interjections.] I think that we have been mercifully spared the fate of having our economy in the hands of the hon. member for Constantia. It is very clear that the hon. member for Constantia, and possibly some of his other supporters and other members of the Opposition, is as usual jumping onto the bandwagon of Dr. Wassenaar.

But he is telling the truth!

After all, this is probably what we should expect on the part of the Opposition. Recently, the hon. member for Constantia has been speaking in very general terms of “mismanagement” and more “mismanagement”. This put one in mind of a very boring long-playing record stuck in the groove of “mismanagement” … “mismanagement” … “mismanagement”. Sir, a UP man is a strange thing. Once he has hold of a theme, he sticks to it like a leech.

May I just say in passing that I am very interested in the Independent UP.

Watch us.

Yes, I shall watch you. For me, if there is anything typical of dyed-in-the-wool UP supporters, then it is the group sitting opposite me. I come from the Ermelo constituency and if there was ever a group who would fit in marvellously with the dyed-in-the-wool UP supporters of Ermelo, then it is the group sitting here. There is just one thing I want to ask of them: Please do not tell the voters of Ermelo that General Smuts is dead, because the voters will not believe them—they think he is still alive.

I now want to return to the financial debate. I do not want to discuss the squatters. The hon. member for Constantia discussed the matter and he and other members on that side who want to do so, will be answered thoroughly by other hon. members on this side of the House. We will deal with every aspect of it because we consider it to be an important matter. We consider it to be serious.

Sir, this side of the House and people outside appreciate the open manner in which the hon. the Minister of Finance gave us an exposition of the financial and economic position of South Africa in his second reading speech.

That is the second joke you have made in your speech.

No, it is not a joke. We are being serious now. In a moment we shall come to the “mistake of Wesbank”. We shall come to that, too, in a moment. That is another joke which the hon. member might also have to rectify.

If you want to debate that, let us do so.

In his part appropriation speech the hon. the Minister actually told us more than one usually expects from a Second Reading speech on a part appropriation. There are very positive factors in this connection. In particular we welcome the announcement of the hon. the Minister on the new dispensation in respect of our gold reserves. It will bring about a very realistic evaluation of our gold reserves. At the 1975 evaluation of R29, the reserves amount to approximately R374 million at the moment. If we evaluate this at the more realistic market value, the balance of our reserves will amount to approximately R1 800 million to R2 000 million. I think that this is a realistic disclosure. It is the correct reflection of the matter. It also holds particular advantages and therefore we welcome it.

I think that the central idea of the hon. the Minister’s speech introducing this part appropriation may be effectively summarized in the concluding paragraph of his speech—

We accept this. He went on to say—

This is indeed the case, and it is not I who say so. Thirdly, he said—

I want to say: Not only are the policies right, but the policies of this Government are dead right. [Interjections.]

As dead as a dodo.

I shall prove it. We are dealing with the realities of South Africa. I accept that we are living in difficult times. It is a difficult time for the economy.

The hon. the Minister furnished comparative figures in order to indicate the position in the world. At present the world is experiencing a cyclical financial recession against which South Africa’s position compares more than favourably with that of other comparable countries in the world. It is informative to read the following from The Observer which was quoted in The Cape Times on 29 December last year—

Indeed, this is the fundamental situation in our international economy. The article reads further—

This is what this international economist alleges. He goes on to say that—

It is true that the position in America today is that unemployment is in fact increasing. The position is also that the means which are made available there today, will possibly be absorbed by the cold weather which they are now experiencing there, instead of bringing about a revival. What does Mr. Lawrence, the chairman of the Chamber of Mines say? He says—

That is true. It has a bearing on our own position here and it has a bearing on the collapse of Glen Anil. I accept that there was a certain degree of injudiciousness involved. It also has a bearing on what I mentioned a moment ago, the “Wesbank mistake”. I also read in the Rand Daily Mail of the intervention of Barclays Bank:

I do not want to allege that this was merely attributable to lack of skill or to blundering on the part of the management of Wesbank. It has a bearing on the position in which we are living at the moment. I should like to concede that point to the hon. member for Yeoville. It is precisely because they realized this situation that the Government accepted the challenge and applied limiting fiscal and monetary measures in its purposeful 1976 budget, a budget which was praised by the rest of South Africa, except the Opposition and Dr. Wassenaar, as one of the best budgets ever submitted to this House. What does it provide? It includes provisions in respect of the limitations on bank credit; liquidity is restricted to 6%; a controlled policy in respect of fuel; a limit on the retaining and transfer of currency abroad; the struggle against inflation; the limitations in respect of imports; an effort to increase the gold price, which was carried out quite successfully; export of our minerals in particular—coal and so on; restriction in the increase in the amount of money and quasi-money, etc. It is notable that in the third quarter the annual rate increase was 2% in comparison with an increase of 18% in the second quarter and 15% in the first quarter—

These were the words of Mr. Lawrence, the president and chairman of the Chamber of Mines.

These measures were not painless; nor could they have been painless.

“Omstandighede het die aanvaarding van ’n tydperk van ekonomiese bestendiging, wat nie pynloos kan wees nie, voorgeskryf sodat ’n platform vir nuwe vooruitgang gebou kan word.”

This is what Mr. Lawrence of the Chamber of Mines had to say. The consequences were logical objectives: A reduction of our credit and liquidity brought about a slowing down of activities in general; a decrease in expenditure, a decrease in demand, in supplies, capacity and so on; money had to become scarce.

Secondly, the Minister said: “We are on the right road.” Of course! “We are on the right road.” Remarkable improvements have been outlined and spelled out by the hon. the Minister, improvements in connection with our current account and our balance of payments. The deficit on the current account has been halved, from an amount of R2 300 million to approximately R1 070 million. This is better than it has been for a long time. There has been an improvement in the gold price, an increase in long term deposits, an increase in gross domestic saving, a great improvement in exports, a decrease in the rate of inflation … Who says capital has dried up? Capital has not dried up, as the hon. member for Constantia alleges. Last year there was a capital inflow of R560 million.

That was all from the IMF!

Not all from the IMF! Not on your life! [Interjections.]

*Mr. Speaker, since November last year we have received an amount of R235 million from the IMF. However, let us look at the amount which Escom received from an export agreement with France—R800 million! Yet Nigel Bruce of the Sunday Times says—

There is no such thing! [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, we must keep our heads. We must not shout slogans. We must not speak of “socialism unlimited”. We must not say “Let us sell Iscor to the public”. We must not say “Business top brass joins the clamour”. We must not speak of “The freeway to communism”. We must not lose our heads, allow ourselves to be stampeded, we must be realistic. We must not lose our heads.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer now to the third statement the hon. the Minister made. He said:

I repeat it, in spite of the grin on the face of the hon. member for Johannesburg North on the opposite side. The financial and political policies of the Government are dead right. This has been confirmed and (supported) by the people of South Africa since 1948 … [Interjections.] … with a regularity as precise as that with which a clock ticks off the hours of the night.

You probably mean deadly! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the Government and the NP are really involved in an unequal struggle in South Africa. The Government has to contend with a recession, with inflation, with the UNO, with the gold price … All this is true. [Interjections.] The Government has to contend with an external onslaught. I am simply referring to the resolution which was adopted at the Havannah congress, to the effect that South Africa must be broken economically because it is a vulnerable country. There is Peter Hain and his “clan” who want to break Barclays Bank because that bank wants to invest its own money in South Africa for the safety of this country, money which is earned in South Africa with the work, assistance and skill of South Africans. However, there is another tragedy, and it is not the 1976 budget. That tragedy is that the Government and South Africa also have to deal with an onslaught by “Peter Hain’s” in South Africa itself. [Interjections.] It is true! [Interjections.] There are bodies who are not prepared, or who are not able, to show a normal patriotism towards South Africa. In December 1976—only about two months ago—there was a conference in Johannesburg, the Financial Mail Investment Conference. Hon. members on the opposite side know about it. The hon. member for Johannesburg North was there and the hon. member for Yeoville was probably there too.

Yes, I was there.

Mr. Speaker, there were guest speakers present at that conference, guest speakers not only from South Africa, but from all over the world.

Will you quote what I said there?

Mr. Speaker, I shall not quote it now, but I shall say what was quoted there.

It was quoted at that congress, and I mention it to support what I say, that there are people in this country who are not prepared to act in a patriotic manner towards South Africa.

Is ambassador Pik Botha unpatriotic because he is in the UNO?

Do not shout so loudly. [Interjections.] I read from the Rand Daily Mail of 11 November—

[Interjections.] This is what was said at that conference by Dr. Zac de Beer, a colleague of the hon. member for Johannesburg North. I say that to say in these times “it is not safe to invest in South Africa for private enterprise” is absolute treason against South Africa in the times in which we are living. [Interjections.] Who said this? It was said by a director of Anglo American Corporation who is collecting his millions in South Africa “by the way of private enterprise”.

What does the chairman of Sanlam say?

Let us hear what else Dr. de Beer had to say. He said—

But you are not quoting what he said at …

Now I ask: “Which are the reforms that he was advocating here?”

[Inaudible.]

Yes, I know that this hurts the hon. member for Yeoville. I shall quote what Dr. Zac de Beer went on to say—

And then, significantly—

Is it not a fact? [Interjections.]

I consider it the grossest treason imaginable to make a statement of this kind in the present situation in South Africa and Southern Africa. [Interjections.] Let us ask Dr. Wassenaar to take note of this. Here we have the words of an executive director of Anglo American, someone who serves with the hon. member for Johannesburg North. Dr. Zac de Beer is not only a member of Anglo American, but is also a member of the federal executive committee of the PRP, together with the hon. member for Johannesburg North, and there is speculation that he is going to become the leader of the PRP because the hon. member for Sea Point is getting rather old. [Interjections.] This is the language of a party which, in its political endeavours, is controlled by liberal financiers and which, regardless of the interests of South Africa which are at stake, aims at the destruction of the NP, supported in this by the English-language Press. In October the Rand Daily Mail, whose instructions this party carries out here, wrote—

I say that “This is an assault on the NP”. I maintain that “This is an all-out assault on White South Africa” and nothing less. I allege that: “This is not the free-way to communism, but in fact the free-way to Black majority rule in South Africa” if we accept the norms and doctrines which the leaders of the PRP have accepted in the words of Dr. Zac de Beer. What could this gentleman have said if he wanted to be more positive? Let me tell you, Sir, what he could have said. He could have said what Mr. Lynne Bosch, apparently the next chairman of the Chamber of Mines, said. He could have said the following at that select conference, namely that the expected income from the export of minerals is R5 800 million in 1975 and that it would be advantageous and safe for the private sector. He could have said that at a price of 130 dollars gold would possibly realize R2 550 million this year. He could have said that the export of minerals in 1977 would be 30% higher than it was in 1975 and that this would be advantageous and safe for the private sector and the country. He could have said that we are exporting 69 million tons of coal to Japan; he could have said that South Africa supplies 75% of the world’s gold, 85% of the world’s diamonds and most of the world’s uranium. He could have said that trade with Africa increased by 38% and already amounts to R400 million. He could have said that our reciprocal trade with Britain already amounts to about R1 000 million. But what did he do? He played politics, for he said: “The electorate is White.”

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ermelo spent a considerable portion of his speech condemning actions and statements which are harmful to the economy and security of South Africa. I want to say to him that we on these benches agree with him, not in the interpretation of the particular actions to which he has referred, but in the sentiments and in the approach which he attempted to adopt. I want to quote to him from the Bible. Leaving out the first word of the quotation because it is an unparliamentary word when applied to an hon. member, the quote reads—

Forty-eight hours ago, this Government issued a public statement and has since embarked upon a course of action which, I say without fear of contradiction, has deeply shocked the conscience of South Africa.

Shame!

Apparently, however, members sitting on the Government benches regard it with amusement, as an amusing incident, when it was referred to by the hon. member for Constantia and now come with expressions like “Shame”, when I raise this matter. I can only hope and pray sincerely that the abhorrence of every decent South African will be obvious enough to lessen to some extent the damage done to our country’s reputation and to our professed concern for the uplift and welfare of the Black and Coloured people of this country. That statement was made at 3 o’clock on Monday afternoon, 48 hours ago.

I say three o’clock, because the time is most significant. It was issued by way of a joint statement, and not by one Minister acting on his own. It was a joint statement by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and by the hon. the Minister of Community Development. This statement was then made public at a Press conference held by the hon. the Minister of Community Development, the hon. the Minister of Public Works, the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Affairs. The whole Cabinet galaxy was there before the Press when the statement was issued. What was the essence and the intent of the Government’s decision? First of all it acknowledges the existence of some 15 000 squatters in the limited specified areas referred to in the statement. They are housed in 2 526 huts occupied by Blacks, 483 occupied by Coloureds and 2 by Indians, giving a total of 3 Oil huts. These huts are in the restricted areas of Modderdam Road, Werkgenootskap lyn and adjacent to the University of the Western Cape. Notice has been given to the occupants of 869 of these huts, occupied by approximately 4 500 individual souls, that they must vacate their huts, and if they do not, these huts, their homes, will be demolished, bulldozed between the 17th …

That is a lie … [Interjections.]

If hon. members say it is a lie, I want to say …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Carletonville allowed to say that it is a lie?

Did the hon. member say it was a lie?

It is a lie that that is what will happen. I cannot withdraw the truth. Therefore I stand by that, Sir.

Order! Did the hon. member say that what the hon. member for Green Point said, was a lie?

No, Sir; I said it was a lie if someone said that that was what would happen. [Interjections.]

In the light of the explanation by the hon. member for Carletonville, I ask the hon. member for Green Point to proceed.

I accept that that hon. member and others on that side of the House are touchy, because they have used the bulldozer before. They have used the bulldozer before to remove shacks. Is the country to believe that they will not use the bulldozer again? Sir, this is the commencement of an action which will be continued in the case of another 10 000 people; it will be progressively applied to finish off the whole of these areas.

I have said that the time of the announcement was important, namely 3 p.m. on Monday, the 7th Feb. On 11 January—almost a month before this happened—during the course of one of the frequent discussions which we on this side of the House have with the elected representatives of other race groups, the question of the position at this squatter camp arose and was discussed, in particular the health hazard. On that same day the hon. the Minister of Community Development received a telegraphic request from the elected member of the CRC for that particular area in which these squatters are living, to receive a deputation to discuss the matter. On that same evening I phoned the hon. the Minister myself. I found him in Durban and pointed out to him that there was a serious situation in the squatter camp. I told him that the situation might become explosive. I requested him to give it his urgent attention and he undertook to do so and to communicate with his colleagues in the Bantu Administration Department. I also assured him that I had no intention of making any Press statements until such time as he had had an opportunity of investigating the matter and seeing what could be done in order to help these unfortunate people. Four weeks later, on 4 February, the CRC member concerned with the matter, Mr. Lofty Adams, was advised that a deputation would be received at 4 p.m. on Monday, 7 February. The time of the announcement is most significant, because before the deputation of CRC members who were to discuss the matter had been received, this statement was issued, a Press conference was convened and decisions were taken. I want to go further, Sir. According to my information—and the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations or one of the other hon. Ministers can correct me if I am wrong—this decision was taken without consultation with the Government’s own nominated chairman of the executive of the CRC, and without consultation with Mr. Bergins, the leader of the Federal Party in the CRC.

So much for liaison and open doors!

It is significant that this action by the Government has been taken in the sphere of race relations, and that the Government has rejected all reasonable attempts at co-operation by the people to be affected by the decisions they were to make, as I shall show later. The Government has again made a unilateral decision affecting Black and Coloured people, and I want to say in all sincerity that it has made a mockery of the concept of adequate consultation between those who govern and those who are governed.

Let me confine myself to the situation in Modderdam Road. These squatters are on State land and as far as I can ascertain there were approximately 100 squatter huts in this area at the beginning of last year. By the end of 1976 there were approximately 900, and 30 or 40 have actually been erected since the end of last year, during January this year. Some of the squatters living there—and a survey has been conducted to find out where they come from. Many have lived in Greater Cape Town for decades. They have come from Guguletu, Nyanga, Bonteheuwel and Elsies River. Others, according to the survey, have come from neighbouring towns and farms in the Western Cape and there are people there who left Lady Grey and Herschel after the incorporation of those areas in the Transkei.

Then what are they doing here?

The hon. the Deputy Minister asks: “Wat maak hulle hier? “I shall come to that. That is the only question which these hon. gentlemen have. The hon. the Deputy Minister believes that they must be spirited away as if they do not exist. They must not come anywhere where they can be seen and where they can create a problem for him and his Government.

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

No, Mr. Speaker, I have limited time. The hon. the Minister of Community Development and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration will be aware of the fact that in May 1976 there was an attempt by the Bantu Affairs Administration Board in Cape Town to clear the area. They went in and bulldozed and in appalling weather conditions huts were destroyed, and a number of persons were arrested. However, the influx continued because there was no alternative housing for the people who were moved away, and who, as I have said, have lived for decades in the Cape Peninsula. I want to point out that the people who are in the area have not conducted themselves in a lawless or irresponsible manner.

Have they not?

No, they have not, not in that area. If they have I would like to have proof that that is so. In the position in which they find themselves they are conducting themselves in a law-abiding manner. They have been driven to their present circumstance, as we all know, by economic causes, by the lack of adequate housing, and by the desire in many cases to establish a family life for their wives and children here where they are working. I wonder if the Government is aware that these people have organized themselves with an elected committee of representatives, a committee which consists of 30 members. They have themselves formulated regulations for the conduct of affairs in that area and I shall read some of them to you—

They have in other words attempted … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, words almost fail me in trying to respond … [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations should know that there is a limit to the number of families that can be housed in a certain area. If he has been to Modderdam he will have seen that they have attempted to house themselves in a reasonable space of ground without undue crowding upon one another. Because they have attempted to keep standards, the hon. the Minister laughs and thinks it is a joke. They do not allow single men and women to set up shacks; they only allow families who need housing. In addition, each of these shack occupiers has to comply with certain basic elementary standards of hygiene and sanitation. Each is obliged to have his own sewerage pit and each is obliged to build his own refuse pit. In terms of the regulations— and the hon. the Minister can laugh again— they are required to have both of them sprayed with Jeyes’ fluid every day. This is an attempt on the part of these unfortunate people to establish some form of living conditions for themselves and it is treated as a joke by the hon. the Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations. Anyone disobeying these laws is dealt with by the community. The committee recognizes—and has said so over and over again—that the squatters are technically unlawfully in the area. [Interjections.]

Technically they are unlawfully there in terms of the laws passed by the Government. They also know that steps must be taken to give them alternative housing somewhere and that any facilities they ask for themselves there, they are prepared to help finance as best they can by paying rental for the areas in which they are situated. They have offered to pay a rental. Most of them are working in the city. They believe, quite correctly, that there must be some control of the number of persons that do squat in that particular area and they also believe—or at least, they did believe—that they could have amelioration of their conditions in consultation with this Government. The squatter problem—and I think this should be known—is not a phenomenon confined to the Cape Peninsula where there are some 200 000, let alone the 15 000 we are talking about now. I see in reports that in the environs of Durban there are something like 350 000 Black squatters. From what I know I should imagine there are squatter camps in or around most municipal areas. This squatter problem is prevalent in most countries of the world as the result of urbanization, population growth and industrial development which is taking place in the towns. I have told the hon. the Minister, through his department, that an international conference attended by delegates of 28 countries, and observers of a further 15 countries, was held in London in June 1973 under the auspices of Unesco. I have also given the hon. the Minister a copy of the report so that he could also see that this is a phenomenon one cannot just wish away, saying everybody must go back to where they came from. It simply cannot be done. Our problem has been aggravated in South Africa by very many aspects of Government policy. It has been aggravated because of the too slow development of the homelands to retain, attract, and give work opportunities to the Blacks that live there. For how long did we hear, in this House, the cries from that side when we said let White capital and White entrepreneurs contribute to the development of the homelands? That suggestion was thrown out as a ridiculous proposition. What is happening now, however? The Government is falling over backwards to get White capital and White know-how into the homelands. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development is now even calling upon the agricultural industry to please come into the homelands and help the development of the agricultural industry. However, this is years and years too late. We have had these problems growing and growing. There are also added problems. We passed the Bill on the Transkei and now there are Transkei citizens coming into South Africa, as they are now legally entitled to do as foreign citizens with travel documents issued by the Transkei Government. I have seen one of those documents, stating that the holder is authorized to proceed to Cape Town to work with permission to enter or leave the Transkei as often as he wishes for one year, and the document is signed by a magistrate of the Transkei. The man concerned in the Transkei obviously is unaware of the arrangements there may be between Governments, arrangements involving what can or cannot happen to him. He accepts at face value a travel document issued to him by the Transkei Government. He arrives in Cape Town and the document is then endorsed: “Leave the prescribed area immediately.” These are added problems because of the policy the Government has introduced. [Interjections.] The Government has over decades tried to prohibit the movement of people, prosecuting those who transgressed. It tried influx control. The figure given to I think the hon. member for Rondebosch the other day was that there were 16 000 prosecutions for pass offences in the Cape Peninsula. Nevertheless the influx goes on because the Government will not face the reality that these people have to be accommodated, that they have to be accepted. The Government must realize that they are a factor in the life of the South Africa of 1977.

Throw open the doors!

Sir, I doubt whether many of the hon. members opposite listened to Radio South Africa this morning at about 8.15.

Unfortunately yes.

At that time a very interesting interview was broadcast and I want to congratulate the SABC for doing what our television has not done for us yet, viz. to arrange and broadcast a realistic discussion of our problems. I want to refer to just one aspect of the interview. An official of the hon. the Minister’s department was present to make certain comments and when he was asked what was to happen to the people concerned and why some facilities could not be provided for them in their present situation, his reply was: “My department cannot provide water and sanitation because the ground is wanted for Government purposes. ” Sir, at the present moment I can think of no more urgent and no more realistic purpose than to declare that area as an emergency camp for housing in terms of the powers the hon. the Minister already has. That is what he can do with it.

Surely those facts you are giving are not correct.

They are. The hon. the Minister must just listen.

Just stick to the facts.

Sir, if the hon. the Minister is getting so upset, I will give him a tape recording of the broadcast. He can then listen to the whole thing again and then hang his head in shame at what is happening there.

Just stick to the facts.

The hon. the Minister can hang his head in shame privately if he does not want to do it in public. What did the hon. the Minister of Community Development have to say? He did appear on television. I happened to see him giving his explanation. He said these people must go back to their places of origin and that he hoped they would be sympathetically handled by the local authorities concerned when the returned to their places of origin.

I did not use the word “hope”.

What a pious, meaningless platitude from the hon. the Minister! Do they go back to Guguletu? Do they go back to Bonteheuwel, to Elsies River, to Nyanga? Obviously he does not know. Do they go back to the already overcrowded farms in the Western Cape?

We shall settle them in Green Point.

Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult sometimes to control my contempt for remarks of the nature of those made by that hon. member. Alternatively, will those people, in going back to their places of origin, return to the squatter camps they left behind them in other parts of the country and have their problem compounded with the proliferation of squatter camps throughout the country?

They will flood up to the “boere” farms.

Sir, what is a controllable situation at the present moment will be converted in to an uncontrollable situation throughout the country. I find it difficult to believe that this has been a premeditated step by hon. gentlemen I know serving on the Cabinet. I cannot believe that they have done this other than on ill-advice and without being fully aware of the facts. When people in this unfortunate position are prepared to co-operate through their elected committee, the Government should at least be prepared to co-operate with that committee. I see the hon. the Minister of Community Development is amused. I have asked him whether he would not make some endeavour to communicate with the representatives of these people. He brushed aside the request of the elected members. Perhaps he might be condescending enough to have a discussion with the people concerned or their representatives, or is that asking a little bit too much? Has the hon. the Minister read the leader in Die Burger this morning? I can refer to many other indications of what the public’s attitude is. I would like to suggest, if it were possible, that the radio discussion this morning be transferred to a television interview; it would be very enlightening. I say in all sincerity— and I agree, as I said earlier, with the hon. member for Ermelo—that we must be careful in what we do if it could be harmful to South Africa. The Government, by this action, this intended action, and the statement which was made on Monday, in these times of our intolerable isolation, in these times of our economic problems, has done a grave disservice to South Africa. One can only imagine what damage will be done, not by the spoken word, but by one short news flash on television of the demolition of shanties in Modderdam Road. [Interjections.] The hon. the Deputy Minister can go and watch it being done; it may do his should a lot of good.

He will cheer.

For days on end this House has been debating whether films should be seen in cinemas on Sundays. Government members have proclaimed the basis of the Christian ethics, the Christian attitudes which they wish to adopt. The Government, however, seems oblivious to one fundamental ethic of the Christian faith, and that is compassion. They can show that compassion by declaring this area, these camps, as emergency camps and by dealing with these unfortunate people with compassion. They must be looked after until such time as housing can be made available. Heaven knows what the demand is. Nobody knows better than the hon. the Minister of Community Development what a task it is to provide housing. He was frank with us last year and said that he hoped to get on top of the problem within five years if funds were available. The funds are not available. The problem has become more aggravated. Now he wants to be party to an action which is aggravating even further the task which he has. He has my sympathy in trying to deal with this problem. We can perhaps debate it on the 18th when the House will have a motion before it on the matter and we shall make suggestions as to what can be done. In the meantime these actions are taken by a Government which is incapable of taking a humanistic approach towards these people. It is hide-bound by its political philosophy of separateness. This is one of the reasons why I in particular have supported my hon. leader’s initiative for a new political dispensation in South Africa. I believe that it is necessary that people of good-will in South Africa should have a voice and be represented in this House in greater numbers than they are at the present moment. It is for that reason that I have expressed the views this afternoon of those who sit on these benches with regard to this particular issue. I have done so as far as I possibly can in a restrained manner. I hope that people outside will, as a result of our words in this house, indicate to the people outside South Africa that not only does this Government action not carry the approval of all the Whites of South Africa, but that it raises feelings of revulsion in the hearts of many White South Africans. I hope too that the people who vote in South Africa will realize in what manner their votes should be used in the future in dealing with the future of this country.

We shall see what happens during the election at Durbanville.

The hon. member for Ermelo talks about Durbanville. What happens every time the housewife goes to buy a loaf of bread or fill the tank of her car with petrol? Let the hon. member tell the people what is happening with regard to the mismanagement of our economy.

In conclusion, I hope that what has been said here will let the Brown and Black people of South Africa know that this Government’s action is rejected by many thousands of White South Africans who are no longer prepared to deny to them their personal dignity and their basic humanity.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point, with one or two small aberrations, has approached this matter calmly and, certainly, responsibly. He made certain mistakes, mistakes for which I do not blame him. The mistakes are due to the propaganda campaign with which we are faced outside this House and also to the difficulties the hon. member is facing within his party. I must say though that probably the most shocking thing I have heard in a long time was at the outset of the hon. member’s speech when he spoke about the Government’s intention “to bulldoze” the shacks of these unfortunate people. [Interjections.] I do not blame him, for that is the impression that has been deliberately created by outside media who are trying to discredit the Government and to embarrass South Africa in this respect. I want to say with the greatest emphasis that in no circumstances whatsoever will any shack be bulldozed. On the contrary. I go further and say that if the Government or any of its agencies should bulldoze any shacks, we shall be guilty of a serious breach of the law governing the prevention of squatting, for the law provides that when a shack is being demolished, the contents of that shack and the components of that shack must either be handed to the owner or kept in a place of custody by the department awaiting a claim from the owner for his property. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, if we were to use … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the hon. member had a lot to say about the seriousness of the situation, but look at what is happening now. Here we have had the hon. member misled by propaganda into making a shocking statement, a statement which it is excruciating to contemplate, and yet when I try to put the facts to him, that is the sort of reaction I get. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I do not mind. Those hon. members can shout as much as they like. They should, however, show some respect for the truth in this matter. [Interjections.]

Order!

I am just trying to help, so that all of us can understand the truth of the situation. [Interjections.] I say that there will be no bulldozing.

You could have fooled me!

I want hon. members to understand that we on this side of the House are not lacking in understanding or in sympathy with the plight of these people, as I shall prove in a minute. However, to make a statement like that, shows that the situation is not being tackled on the facts, but with emotion caused by misapprehension, misapprehension which has unfortunately been deliberately created. I want to go further and to point out that what was lacking throughout the speech of the hon. member, was the fact that we are dealing here with people who are continuously breaking the law and who are infringing upon the rights of other citizens and of other authorities in South Africa. That is something hon. members have to bear in mind. We are dealing here with transgressors, people who are transgressing the laws of this country. They are trespassing against the common law and the statute law. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I shall try to deal with all these questions, but I would appreciate it if hon. members would allow me to make my own speech. We are dealing with lawbreakers, and I am not aware of any duty upon the Government, when dealing with law-breakers, first to consult various people before upholding the law. However, on the manner in which one acts, one may be called upon to consult with other people, and that is what the Government did in this instance. When we came to the decision, for reasons which I will state, to uphold the law, the first thing we did was to consult with the interested parties. That we did. That is why conferences were held. It was not held to decide whether we should uphold the law, but to explain exactly how we would set about it and to obtain their views.

Mr. Speaker, there is this continuous transgression of the law. The laws of this country evince a keen interest in the use of land. Obligations are upon the owners of land to use land in accordance with legal prescriptions. The occupation of land is subject to municipal regulations, to provincial ordinances and to statutes of this Parliament. These are all intended to bring about orderly occupation and orderly development of land in the public interest. I do not think any Government can allow any section of any community the liberty to flout those laws and to apply land to their own use contrary to the greater public interest. This is what is happening in this instance. When land is to be used for urban occupational purposes, there are by-laws which regulate the minimum standards of health and hygiene as well as the minimum possibilities for communication. These aspects are also important for the proper and orderly development of land and communities. These aspects, however, are being ignored by this “wonderful orderly community” to which my hon. friend refers.

I say again that the Government is determined not to allow this to continue or allow the position to take on such dimensions that it will threaten to develop into a totally unmanageable situation for the country in that it can lead to disease and to the most unthinkable unhygienic and dangerous conditions for all the people of the community and not only for the people directly concerned. When one finds people living in circumstances that make it difficult for one to imagine how a child can be brought up …

Have you been there?

Yes, I have been there. It is not only a question of children having to live there and of having to survive there.

Those children have to be brought up to become responsible adults. When one finds such circumstances, one has the duty to act, but one must not act blindly, without compassion and without considering the question that was put to me just now: Where will these people go? We have done all that.

But where are they going?

The problem of squatting is not a new problem. Many years ago we tried to control it by allowing controlled squatting and the result was the indescribable slum of Elsies River. In 1974 we decided that an end had to be put to squatting in the Cape Peninsula and the problem has since been tackled along various lines. I admit that some of those lines were negative or prohibitive. However, the most important ones were positive. What did we do? As I told the House last year, we conducted a complete census of all the squatters’ huts in the Cape Peninsula, i.e. the areas of the Cape municipality, the Cape divisional council and the divisional council of Stellenbosch. We found that there were, in round figures, 22 000 squatter huts, housing about 110 000 people. Every hut was identified and numbered and the occupants of every hut were known. Thereafter we gave wide publicity inter alia, by means of long debates in this House, to our determination to prevent further squatting. We made it perfectly clear that people who squatted after that date and who erected new hovels would be subject to the force of the law and would have those huts demolished. We also decided that of the new houses that were being built at an unprecedented rate in South Africa, 37½% would become available for the housing of squatters, 37½% for normal purposes and 25% for purposes of resettlement of people mostly from degrading slum conditions.

From group areas?

Yes, but mostly—I would say 99%—from degrading slum conditions in group areas. That was our chief motive. The publicity was wide and general, but in spite of that, squatting was resumed. We cleared up hundreds of huts. Then a strange thing happened. It became known to the people concerned that they would be welcome to squat on certain land. Once they arrived on that land, there were people organizing them. This “committee of representatives” was not something which came spontaneously from the squatters. They do not react like that; they were organized, assisted and guided; they were given legal advice and they obtained help. They were encouraged to break the law. [Interjections.] No Government can tolerate such a state of affairs indefinitely. The result is that we now have to act only in the case of the 3 000 shacks which have been erected since 15 November 1974. Those erected before that can stay there and will stay there until we, through the municipalities or directly, can provide alternative housing.

The divisional council’s date is 1975.

That is wrong. In any event, 15 November 1974 is quite close to 1975. I want us to look at this problem as a whole and not as an isolated incident. We are serving notices on these post-1974 squatters to abandon their huts, but as we serve the notice, representatives of the Department of Community Development, of the Department of Coloured Affairs, and of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development go to every hut to find out what the problems of those people are and how they can be assisted. There is a total of 483 Coloured families involved. I am confident that we will be able to rehouse them. Those who come from the Cape Peninsula will be rehoused in the larger Cape Peninsula, as I have described it, and those who have come from elsewhere will be encouraged to return to their original homes.

How do you encourage them?

With a whip!

Mr. Speaker, I am willing to answer questions, but on such sheer stupidity I cannot waste the time of this House. We shall encourage them by telling them what can be done for them. We shall encourage them to go back. Sir, before we embarked on this experiment, we communicated. We have a list of everyone of these people and we know where they come from. We have communicated with the local authorities in each instance and we have obtained an undertaking of full co-operation from them. They will go out of their way to give these people shelter and to assist them to find a livelihood. I want to say one thing, and that is that we must be careful in our sentimentality that we do not become irresponsible. These people have not sprung from the forehead of Jove. They are families! The hon. member for Green Point said there were no single people, but families: man, wife and children.

And human beings!

Yes, and human beings. Human beings, however, do not establish a family in 10 minutes or in a fortnight. They were families before and lived somewhere before they came here and created the disastrous state of affairs that is arising along Modderdam Road on the university grounds. If possible, they must be encouraged to go back to where they came from and if they cannot go back they will be assisted by the departments concerned to find shelter and a livelihood. Other Ministers will supply more details about that, but be assured that everyone of those families have been interviewed in order to determine their particular problems and to find a solution for them. So, all this talk about a lack of compassion, rudeness and crudeness and bulldozers, is so much nonsense. How does this problem arise? It arises chiefly from the process of urbanization which our Coloured people are undergoing at the moment—a world phenomenon as my hon. friend rightly pointed out. Almost every major city in the developing world has this problem and some of the developed countries also have this problem. Other countries also have to take action.

Very few countries succeed, or can offer the undertaking which we are going to give, that we are willing to strain the resources of South Africa to overcome this problem in the following five, six or seven years. And we are making progress, Sir. Do hon. members know—I have mentioned it before—that from 1920 to 1960 four Governments governed South Africa and an annual average of 800 houses were built under the Housing Act? Last year this Government built 35 000 houses, financed by the central Government, for all race groups in South Africa. [Interjections.] This is 3 000 more in one year than in the 20 years after the establishment of the Housing Commission. I want to give some more figures in this regard. Since April 1974 until today we have built 13 000 houses for Coloured people in this area.

That is not enough.

This number was built and completed. We have another 9 000 under construction, 19 000 in an advanced stage of planning and, most important of all, in that same period we have rehoused 5 000 squatters.

How many did you bulldoze?

Not one. My hon. friend on that side of the House is showing himself utterly irresponsible and utterly unforgivable in his lack of appreciation of the problems we have to deal with by making stupid, false and untrue remarks like that. [Interjections.] I repeat: In the 20 months which I have mentioned—the latest available figures—we have rehoused 5 000 squatters, which means that if we can continue at this rate—and I have hopes that we will be able to do it, despite our difficulties—this problem will be solved, in its present dimensions, in five years’ time. It might perhaps take longer because more people will come into the cities, but not much longer. This can be done provided we are responsible in the face of the problem of urbanization and do what the United Nations’ expert committees recommend, namely to retard the process of urbanization.

The Coloureds were urbanized … [Interjections.]

We should also retard the process of urbanization. That is why provision is made in the law that in certain municipal and local authority areas employers will not be allowed to employ Coloured people from outside the area of that local authority, unless they are assured that there is a home or some kind of shelter for that person. I had hoped that employers would act responsibly after our last debate about this matter and that they would do this voluntarily, but they have not done so. I think the big corporations have done it fairly, but some of the smaller employers have been utterly unscrupulous, utterly selfish and completely indifferent to the interests of their people. Talk about compassion! That is where compassion should be shown. Some employers have gone so far in the present period of unemployment as to dismiss sophisticated Coloured workers and to replace them with unsophisticated labour from the Platteland. This we cannot allow. That is why I want to say that during this week—if not this week, then early during next week—a proclamation will appear in the Government Gazette, applying the provisions to which I have referred, to the Greater Cape Town area. We must attack this problem, a real problem which concerns everybody who has the interests of the Coloured people and of the Cape area at heart. We have to tackle it from all sides. We are tackling it by building houses on an unprecedented scale. Any South African should be proud of what is being done towards the provision of housing for the people of South Africa. This is a great problem, a problem that has arisen over the years. I am not dishing out blame. I am accepting responsibility on behalf of the Government that we must do our utmost to solve this problem by building houses at the rate I have indicated to the hon. House this afternoon.

Secondly, we shall tackle it by not permitting further squatting, but by making available, again on an unprecedented scale, houses for new workers, houses to rehouse squatters and houses to give shelter to those people who have to be resettled under other laws and who are living in squalid circumstances at the moment. Those people who are living under decent circumstances as communities, will not be affected in present circumstances. Squalor, however, will be attacked, fought and be eliminated in every possible way and in the proportions that I have indicated to the House. I do think that any fair and just person will appreciate that the story I have told this afternoon is slightly different from the impression created by certain propaganda media. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Green Point was misled; he believed what he read. I hope he would be more cautious in future. I say it is a different story. It is the story of a responsible Government accepting responsibility for things that are historic in their origin, which, to a large extent, we have inherited and which have grown over the years, but which now must end. We accept that responsibility and we accept it with responsibility and with compassion for the people concerned. We accept it with the real intention to help the people concerned, specially those who have legal rights. Those will get particular attention from the Government in order to assist them. Even where people do not have legal rights one can always translate, administratively, one’s compassion into practical terms by making deserving exceptions where it is necessary and wise. I appeal …

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

The hon. member can ask me the question on the 18th; we will then have more time. I want to appeal to all South Africans, and if anybody voluntarily wants to exclude himself or herself from the conception “South African” let him do so. However, those of us in this House who are South Africans and have the interests of this country at heart, let us look at this responsibly and let us counter the wicked, lying propaganda about bulldozers, about hard-heartedness and irresponsibility for which there is absolutely no justification. We are dealing with a problem which is world-wide. In a certain African country the problem has assumed such dimensions that that Government is taking its own Black people and are forcing them into rural camps, miles from the cities, camps which they are not allowed to leave and where they live only on rations. I hope that we will never be reduced to that state of affairs in this country, and we are determined to prevent it. Why make it more difficult? It is in the public interest that this squalor should cease and it is in the public interest that people should have the security of a decent home. If there are people who cannot afford the minimum standards we require in this country, we are even willing to lower standards. We are experimenting with a shell house, a “dophuis”, and we are going to build a model township in the Cape Peninsula almost immediately to see whether it will work.

I do that reluctantly because I hate to lower standards, but we are determined to overcome this problem in the interest of the people concerned. I appeal to hon. members on all sides of the House: If ever there was an opportunity where we should think and act as South Africans and not try to score little political points and gain little temporary advantages at the expense of one another, it is when we deal with this tremendous and unfortunate problem: the lot of the badly housed and the homeless in our Republic.

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in what I think can only be a deviation from the reality of the situation, when the hon. the Minister of Community Development let forth against the enemies of South Africa who were talking about bulldozing. It is interesting and I would like to remind the hon. the Minister that we have not spoken about bulldozing. I would like to refer you … [Interjections.]

You could not have been here …

I was here. I would like to refer hon. members to where the word comes from. The hon. the Minister must now take his medicine and not squeal. Where does it come from?

*In today’s edition of Die Burger there is a report under the heading “Plan teen plakkers” which reads as follows—

Is this the enemy of South Africa? The tragedy is that when a newspaper or a speaker uses a metaphor in order to make a point, the hon. the Minister wants to use that fact for dismissing the whole affair.

†He does not have to talk about squatters and he does not have to talk about the problem. He can take advantage of a situation in view of a metaphor which an hon. member has used. That is typical of the hon. the Minister. I now want to quote the following—

*What does the hon. the Minister say now in connection with that matter? Now he is silent.

Who said that?

Who said that? He said that! It was none other than that gentleman.

†None other than that gentleman said these words, and I throw them back in his teeth today after he spoke so glibly about “give us a chance”. Everyone who agrees with him, of course, is in his view a loyal South African. With great respect, Sir, when that hon. Minister uses words we have to ask ourselves what words he will use tomorrow. What will he say then? [Interjections.] That hon. member can quote anything I have said because I stand by it. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister speaks about people breaking the law. There is, of course, no doubt that people who illegally occupy land are breaking the law. That is a crime they are committing.

Good.

Good, you say! That is a fine Nationalist approach. With great respect, there is a far greater crime being committed, and that is the fact that there are people who are without houses. It now seems to be a crime to be without a home, a place to live. That is the crime. What one must ask oneself here is who commits the greater crime—he who lives on a piece of land when he has nowhere else to live or he who pulls the purse strings and does not see to it that there is housing for people? Who commits the greater crime? If there has to be a judgment upon humanity, I choose to believe that those who are able to provide housing and do not do so commit a greater crime than those who happen to commit the crime of living on State land. The hon. member for Green Point and I listened this morning to an SABC broadcast, an outstanding, honest and objective broadcast in which both sides of the question were put. One of the questions put to a Government representative was: “Why do you want this land? Why are you doing this now?” The answer was: “The Government needs the land now.” Will some hon. Minister get up now and tell us what that land is needed for? What is the urgency in getting that land? There has been absolute silence on the issue. Will somebody tell us why the timing of this is so immaculate! No one has said a word about it. The hon. the Minister took his full allotted time but said not a word about the timing of this.

You did not listen.

I listened very carefully to everything he said. The truth is that I really cannot believe that anyone could have chosen a worse opportunity, in the delicate situation which exists in South Africa, for this masterpiece of timing! With respect to the hon. the Minister, the apologia he has given today is merely that of the brilliant orator, the good speaker, the man who can use words. Apart from that, however, one has to ask oneself about the sincerity of a community which itself lives in affluence and takes steps to remove the poorest of the poor from land on which they live and which, however poor it may be, is regarded by them as home. It is interesting that I have a photograph here of the hon. the Minister taken at the time when he said what I have quoted. What is interesting is that in better days he had far less lines on his face. Indeed, he looked much happier and much more contented because he was then uttering words which morally, I believe, he could justify. Today I believe his heart itself must be sore for what he is a party to and the reasons why he is a party to it.

Sir, this is a financial debate and I should now like to return to financial matters. The Part Appropriation Bill with which we are faced this year asks for some R2 922 million to be voted for the next four months. Last year the figure was R2 343 million and 1975 it was R1 900 million. The increase is R575 million which is 24,71%. The hon. member for Constantia projected what the budget would be and I would venture to suggest that in these times such a high budget is utterly unthinkable. There must be another explanation. I believe the explanation lies in the following: If we look at the exchequer issues for the first four months of the last financial year, we find that, excluding borrowing, interestingly enough they amounted to R2 928 million which compares with the R2 922 million being voted in this appropriation. What has happened is that last year the issues immediately after the beginning of the financial year were abnormally high, while they were lower before that in relative terms. At that stage I indicated to the hon. the Minister that what he was doing was that he was window-dressing the budget. He was in an uproar about that, but when the facts eventually appeared in the Reserve Bank reports, it became quite clear that the window-dressing took place. It is equally clear that exactly the same thing is going to happen this year, viz. that in order to see that the accounts are straight, we are going to find that there will in fact be great drawings after the beginning of the financial year on 1 April.

Attention is in fact drawn to the financial plight of South Africa by nothing less than the additional estimates which were introduced in the Transvaal yesterday or the day before. There the Administrator of the Transvaal, budgeting for a deficit of R20 million, is reported as having said the following—

Who has ever heard of a Government which allows itself to be financed with uncashed cheques? That is a Glen Anil type operation, with due respect.

Or a Wesbank operation.

Yes, the hon. member knows all about Wesbank and what is owed to Wesbank. He knows all about it and he should get up and speak out. No one has ever heard of this kind of financing and if this is the type of thing which is being done in the finances of Government bodies here, there is something very, very wrong with the finances of South Africa because, when a business finances itself with uncashed cheques, I should imagine the hon. the Minister would see that action was taken. However, when a province does it, it is announced publicly as a modern method of financing, presumably in this new South Africa that is now being built for us.

Sir, if I may, I want to deal specifically with a matter that is of consequence in the public domain at the moment. I refer to the Glen Anil liquidation and the appointment of curators to Rondalia Bank and Rand Bank. These are matters which are beyond mere ordinary financial troubles of companies. They are matters of grave concern for South Africa. Even seen in isolation, the misfortunes of these three companies are significant, but seen in the context of the present economic position, they are matters which cannot be ignored by those concerned with the well-being of our country. In every capitalist society there are bankruptcies and in a recession verging on a depression there is an acceleration of the destruction of inefficient, badly managed, under-capitalized enterprises. In the ordinary course of events there is no obligation upon the State to come to the assistance of business concerns, and no case of substance appears to have been made out for State assistance to Glen Anil. However, important issues arise from the Glen Anil case. Firstly, is the state of our law in South Africa adequate to protect the purchaser of stands in townships, whether they are proclaimed or not? I believe that the answer is “no”. Here is a clear case of insufficient and inadequate consumer protection, and immediate attention should be given to the amendment of the Sale of Land on Instalments Act to give the necessary protection.

Secondly, was it desirable for the Government to furnish a R5 million guarantee as an interim measure, which has resulted in an advance of R1,4 million? It is not clear from the hon. the Minister’s speech whether further amounts are to be advanced by the Government. This is a property company, a commercial concern, and not a concern which is under the control of the Registrar of Banks or under any one of the other Government officials. The specific question must be asked whether this guarantee and whether this advance was a secured one or whether the Government is merely a concurrent creditor in a company in liquidation, knowing when it advanced that money that if it did not come to the assistance of Glen Anil, it would in fact become a concurrent creditor. The question must also be asked whether this guarantee and the extension of time did not have the effect of perfecting the security of any particular bank by allowing the periods of time laid down in section 88 of the Insolvency Act to expire, in other words, whether one bank received a preference over other banks as a result of this extension of time. If this is correct, then, if the liquidation was delayed, the effect of the Government action has been to prefer certain creditors above others. Serious consideration should then be given to the restoring of the status quo ante by means of legislation. An urgent answer by the Minister is required on this matter in the public interest.

The state of the township land industry also needs careful examination. At a time when low-cost housing is in demand, when the building industry is gravely depressed, there is an ever increasing surplus of residential land with prices dropping at a time when land in fact should be the true store of value, as it should be in inflationary times. The township developer in South Africa needs to be looked at very carefully. The issue of ever more land being sub-divided and laid out as townships when thousands and thousands of stands have not been built upon, needs to be examined. Can we in South Africa in our economic position afford the services which are installed in land which may not be built upon for years and years?

The delays by the provincial and local authorities and the multiplicity of tasks before proclamation can be obtained need to be looked at. Have the provincial authorities not themselves played a role in escalating costs and in the mounting interest burdens of township developers? The events of Glen Anil have highlighted the problems once more. The Niemann Commission did not provide adequate answers. We ask that there be an inquiry not only into the collapse of Glen Anil, but into the entire future of township development in South Africa. Such an inquiry is urgent and in the public interest.

The episodes of Rand Bank and of Rondalia Bank have, however, even wider repercussions than Glen Anil. There are about 50 banks in South Africa, but most of the financial power lies in the hands of a few big banks. They are in the main the older established banks. The financial world in South Africa has displayed a substantial entrepreneurial skill on the part of our people, and in particular those sections of the community which previously did not play a meaningful role in the banking world in years gone by have produced banking figures of great skill. Small banks have been started and some have grown faster than others. Many are sound and well managed, though relatively small. These institutions play a real part in the economy of South Africa. They have also introduced a real element of competition into a field where monopolies and cartels can readily flourish. What is the effect of the curatorship of the two small banks? Whether depositors eventually get their money or not, is one matter which is serious enough in itself, but even the mere non-payment of money on due date creates real embarrassment and real problems for many people. What is the result? Companies, institutions and private individuals withdraw their money from smaller banks. Liquidity problems result and perfectly sound, well-managed, solvent banks can find themselves in difficulties. Runs on banks can affect even the largest of banks, but in the present state of the economy in South Africa it is the small banks which are losing money and the large banks which are bulging with it today. The withdrawal of funds from banks has a snowball effect. As banks cut down on their customers’ facilities they in turn face liquidity problems, and even though their businesses may be sound, not only are people ruined, not only do businesses go bankrupt, but employment opportunities are also lost.

Sir, any economy needs confidence, and banking rests almost entirely on confidence. In this situation the hon. the Minister and the Reserve Bank must take action and demonstrate their confidence in our banks. I appeal to the hon. the Minister not to wait until illiquidity affects other small banks. Assurances are in themselves not enough.

Cany you go more slowly, please!

Firstly, Sir, the hon. the Minister …

Could you go more slowly, please!

You would not understand it either way …

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark should rather learn to think faster!

The hon. the Minister must, through the Registrar of Banks and the Reserve Bank, satisfy himself that the small banks are well managed and solvent. Secondly, facilities must be extended to the banks that are sound so that they may draw funds to replace moneys which are moved out by nervous investors, or the Government must guarantee advances by the larger banks to the smaller ones. Only in this way can complete confidence in the banking sector as a whole be fully restored.

Thirdly, the time has come for a guarantee scheme for the depositor, where depositors can receive State-backed guarantees for their savings of up to, say, R25 000 with each registered institution, so that the investment is risk-free. This will protect the smaller investor and the smaller saver. There is precedent for both proposals. In the USA there are guaranteed deposits and in Britain, during a difficult time, a lifeboat operation for small banks was launched by the Bank of England. I believe that the small banks are sound and that the bridging will only be temporary. I believe our banking policies in South Africa are sound. Our banks can borrow only sixteen times their capital in reserve while in the USA they can borrow in many cases up to thirty times their capital in reserve. The liquid asset holdings, depending on the mix of deposits, means that between 30% and 40% of public money goes into Government and quasi-Government securities. For the supplementary liquid asset requirements on short-term liability this is up to 75%. These are among the most stringent controls in the world, and I believe that inherently our banking system is sound.

There is one other question on banks which I would like to put to the hon. the Minister: Does he want fewer banks in South Africa? Mr. Speaker, if the whole of this procedure is to encourage a situation where there will be mergers, where the small banks will be eliminated, I believe that this is not in the interests of the banking sector. It would in fact destroy entrepreneurial skills and it would hamper the whole development of banking. I appeal to the hon. the Minister today to back the small banks. I believe that South Africa needs the small banks. I believe that the public will show its confidence in them, but the hon. the Minister must also show his confidence.

I want to turn to another matter which has been the subject of considerable debate and that is the question of private enterprise, the capitalist system and socialism. I want to separate the issue from personality issues, because on Friday we had the situation that the whole matter was diverted to personality and away from the reality of what the problem is. What are the functions of the Government and of the private sector? The function of Government is to govern, while the domain of the private enterprise is to extract, grow, produce, buy, sell and distribute. However, this does not mean that the Government must stand idly by. The Government can lay down the rules and the guide-lines, it must provide assistance and it must do the things which the private sector cannot or will not do. In a modern economy a Government must prevent exploitation and must use fiscal and monetary tools in order to correct adverse economic tendencies. A Government, however, must not assume authoritarian control or seek to own means of production which the private sector should own. If it does it is correctly labelled as socialist.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker …

It is only an endeavour to waste my time, Sir.

It is not a question, it is a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member allowed, in terms of the rules, to read his speech word for word, as he is doing?

The hon. member does look up now and then, but I must say that he is coming very near to transgressing the rule.

Sir, I will bear that in mind, particularly also when other people are speaking. There are in South Africa two socialisms which threaten the private enterprise system. The first threat of socialism is State socialism, national socialism, if I could use that term. A second, which is so overlooked, is the socialism from the mass of the underprivileged people. Politics and economics go hand in hand, particularly in South Africa. We spend much of our time debating politics and constitutions, but very little is said on the question of conflicting economic ideologies. We speak of the dangers of communism as a political force, but avoid debating it as an economic threat. We debate State socialism, but not proletarian socialism. The hon. the Prime Minister ventured into this field in October 1976 at Ladybrand when he attacked those who spoke about the redistribution of wealth, and I want to debate this for a moment today, because there can be no greater redistributor of wealth in South Africa than the hon. the Minister of Finance and his colleagues in the Cabinet. They do it by taxation and by encouraging inflation and there are no greater redistributors of wealth in the world than those two things.

What do you mean when you use that term?

I use the term “redistribution of wealth” in the sense that you must use your social services in a non-discriminatory manner; in other words you must not just take privilege to yourself. For generations the Whites in South Africa have had most of the benefits—just look at the educational figures and matters of that sort—but if you want to be non-discriminatory, if you mean that you do not want to discriminate, you must now look at all those figures again. This is really what it is about. The tragedy of South Africa is that this Government does not actually realize the threat that there is to the free enterprise system from proletarian socialism. The Black man, every so-called Black “liberation movement”, talks about Black socialism, talks about redistribution of wealth, not in the sense that we do, but talks about physically taking wealth away from people and redistributing it. This is what is being taught and goes out to all the Black people of South Africa from these movements and the Government sits idly by and does nothing in order to meet this challenge of the socialism that really threatens free enterprise. That is what is required from the Government; look at the real socialism that threatens us, look at the movement of Black socialism. Allow the Black man to participate in the free enterprise system. Do not discriminate against him, but allow him to participate so that you can save that system, because without it the Black people of South Africa will, under the motivation of those movements, seek to destroy not only political control, but also the entire economic system that exists here.

Mr. Speaker, before coming to the hon. member for Yeoville I think it is fitting for me just to say that we are very grateful that the hon. the Minister of Finance has recovered so well after his illness and the operation that he had to undergo last year. We are pleased and grateful that he has been spared to continue to render good service to South Africa.

The hon. member for Yeoville—he read his speech so quickly that one had difficulty in keeping up with him—in my opinion contradicted himself to a large extend here this afternoon. In one breath he said that the Government was taking money away from some people and in the next he spoke of a redistribution of wealth. The hon. member then went on to say that far too little was being done and that the Government should interfere in the private sector in one respect. In pursuance of what the hon. member said, I just want to tell him that South Africa has the very best rules and regulations to control banks. There is no country in the world which has better, more effective and more suitable regulations than South Africa. The hon. member knows that. As far as younger and smaller banks are concerned, should the Government have interfered and stopped them? The hon. member said that the Government should back the small banks. He did not tell us precisely what he meant by that. Did he mean by that that the small banks should be privileged over the large banks? Is that what the hon. member meant? He is now as deaf as a post.

You were not listening. You do not understand that matter.

I must say that two banks have found themselves in trouble. There was nothing strange about this because there was no proper management. These people acted rather wildly in trying to obtain deposits. They competed with other investors and offered rates of interest that were too high. The hon. member knows that this was what happened. When there was a recession in the economy these people were not able to keep this up. This was one of the main causes. Another problem was that there was probably a shortage of properly trained and capable managers here and there. This one finds throughout the private sector and throughout the world, not only in South Africa. This happened decades ago in all the countries of the world. It is happening now in Europe. Large banks in Europe went bankrupt but there is no danger of that sort of thing happening here at all.

The hon. member did say one thing that I cannot allow to go unreplied to. He said that it was a crime that the Government did not provide everyone with homes. If that is a crime then he is completely communistic and there is no free enterprise in this country. If the Government had to ensure that every person had a home that would be communism in its strongest sense. Where is the free enterprise? The Government will not give me a home; I will work for it and pay for it myself.

You do not know what communism is.

Then it is socialism in its worst sense.

The hon. member for Green Point also spoke about the mismanagement of our economy. As the alternative Government, the hon. Opposition neglected this afternoon to tell us what they had in mind. The Part Appropriation we have before us this afternoon is as a result of the Budget we had last year. At the time the hon. the Minister presented a Budget under difficult circumstances which caused The Financial Mail to say on 2 February last year—

This the hon. the Minister has continued to prove to us over the past year. In connection with this Part Appropriation as well the hon. the Minister spelt out very clearly to us what our problems are and what we shall have to take note of in the future.

The Opposition are the alternative Government. They even went so far as to split and they even went so far as to get an ex-judge at the head of affairs to give them a new policy. Notwithstanding this the hon. member for Constantia says that if the NP amends its policy and makes certain changes things will go well with South Africa. Just see how many changes they have made. Are things going well with South Africa now? With all their changes they have never been able to win an election since 1948. I want to tell the hon. members of the Opposition that it would be better for them to argue positively in regard to financial matters. Let us look at this legislation before us. The Part Appropriation offers the official Opposition the opportunity to say what direction we should take, what we should budget for, what their objections have been over the past year, what ill-effects the budget has had and what is envisaged for the future.

We now have a Part Appropriation and the question comes to mind: Why do we need money? The Budget will be presented on 30 March, and the hon. the Minister is awaiting certain answers and recommendations on the part of the alternative Government. The alternative Government has to tell South Africa how well things would have gone if it had taken control. Money is required for the administration of a country and, furthermore, certain amounts of money are required for the financing of capital and other projects, for the establishment of the infrastructure that we want and also for the obtaining of strategic minerals and to meet other needs that exist!

Money is also required for food production, for providing cheap food, and for certain social and health services. These are a few of the main items that I want to mention. Why do hon. members of the Opposition not make certain recommendations? Because of the Budget of last year, in the light of the knowledge that they have gained and with a view to certain circumstances in which we live, they can tell us how we should budget and where certain funds have to come from. We have to face a budget on 30 March against the background of prevailing world conditions. Recessions prevail throughout the world. Unemployment is the order of the day in America, England and in West Germany where up to 8% of their economically active people are unemployed. We also have to draw up the budget in the light of the terrorism that prevails throughout the world, and we have to make provision for the fact that terrorists and communists are also active here on our borders and in Africa. Against this background and against the background of what South Africa can afford and what its people want, the hon. Opposition, as the alternative Government, have to tell us what direction we should take. What has this Opposition achieved up to the present? We have only had those 14 principles from them. If we apply ourselves to economic and financial affairs in the way they envisage, we shall in my opinion have the utmost confusion in this country and not only in their own ranks as is at present the case. I happened to notice this afternoon that they have two small points, one of which is the Bill of Rights, they are coming to light with. They want the rights of every minority group in this country to be safeguarded irrespective of whether they are political rights, financial, economic rights or whatever the case may be. I think that apart from a person’s political rights there are also other rights such as his right of ownership and so forth that have to be safeguarded. Those hon. members say that they are a democratic party but I want to put a question to them. Let us imagine that all the ethnic groups in South Africa, namely, the Whites, the Bantu, the Indians and the Coloureds, were represented in this Parliament, and that the rights of each group were safeguarded. What language would they use in this Parliament? What languages would be the official languages, all 10 or all 12? However, I leave the matter at that.

The hon. the Minister gave us a great deal of information in his speech on the Part Appropriation, and I think we should be very grateful to him for having spelt out these matters so clearly for us. The aim of the coming Budget is threefold. The first and most important is the balance of payments position. Hon. members must tell us where they differ from the suggestions that I am making, and at the same time they must recommend what must be done in South Africa. The second important aspect is inflation. I do not wish to weary the House with figures, but our inflation rate is still one of the lowest in the world. We have the Government and the hon. the Ministers of Finance and of Economic Affairs largely to thank for this. The third important aspect is the growth rate. Besides those three aspects to which we have to give attention, we shall also have to consider the question of defence because it is quite possible that a great deal more will have to be budgeted for defence than was the case last year.

We shall have to think of long term projects like Iscor for which about R1 800 million is required, the Sishen/Saldanha project for which R700 million is required, Sasol II for which slightly more than R1 000 million is required, Escom for which R2 600 million is required, and the S.A. Railways containerization scheme. These undertakings need a great deal of capital and, come what may, the Government cannot summarily shelve these projects. It is of minor importance if the Opposition, Dr. Wassenaar or whoever it might be, contends that the Government is intruding upon the sphere of the private sector, because this has to be done. If Iscor does not continue, who in the private sector will render the services normally rendered by Iscor? Mr. Harry Oppenheimer entered this market but he only tackled the most profitable part of it because he is only interested in making a fortune. The rest that was less profitable, he left alone. The people who criticize the Government for entering the sphere of the private sector must remember one thing. By the way, where a subsidiary offends in one or the other sphere, the mistake can be easily rectified, but we are not dealing with that at the moment. I want hon. members to tell me who has any objection to the main idea of Iscor, namely, to make steel in South Africa and to make it available for everyone here and also for export? Who could have undertaken the Sishen/Saldanha Bay project if the Government had not intervened? No private company could have done it and the same thing holds good for Sasol II. The position is simply that we in South Africa are absolutely dependent upon the outside world as far as fuel is concerned, and the person who is opposed to Sasol II is the greatest enemy of South Africa. Escom has to be there in order to provide adequate power and energy so that the private sector can also obtain the necessary basic services, namely, power and energy, in order to be able to produce for South Africa. As far as food production in the country is concerned I think it is the primary task of the Government to ensure that the agricultural sector will be looked after, and for that reason the Government has over the past number of years done a great deal to encourage food production. In the coming Budget the hon. the Minister has again to look after the agricultural sector by way of subsidies or whatever the case may be so that we in South Africa will be able to produce sufficient and cheap food. I want to quote an excerpt from the UNO Charter: “Food is the first requirement of every person, a fundamental human right.” However, we notice that in many countries famine prevails. There is no country in Africa except South Africa whose population increase is not very much larger than its food production. We in South Africa have been very fortunate up to the present thanks to a good Government.

I also want to refer to our homelands. As far as agriculture is concerned, they are in a very fortunate position. Almost 76% of the homelands territory has a rainfall in excess of 500 mm per annum, which is the minimum requirement for successful dry land farming. Although the homelands possess in excess of 20% of South Africa’s agricultural potential, the production of these territories forms only 5% of the total agricultural production of South Africa. With the coming Budget we have not only to assist the White man in South Africa but also the homelands. I want now to put this question to the Opposition: To what extent are they responsible for this poor production in the homelands? I shall come to this point again later.

The question is: How are we going to finance these projects in the coming Budget. I want to ask hon. members of the Opposition who are going to speak after me to come to light with suggestions. We want to help the hon. the Minister, the party and the Government to draw up a Budget which will be beneficial for South Africa. It must not only be beneficial for the NP but also for the whole country and all its citizens. It has to be beneficial for South Africa and for every inhabitant, White or non-White. In the first instance, to combat inflation, to stimulate our economy and to maintain good order, we want to ask the hon. the Minister to maintain his fiscal and monetary measures as he has up to the present. We must not give way as a result of the shouting of the Opposition or the obstinacy of certain people and suspend certain monetary and fiscal measures before it is necessary to do so. It is preferable to bear these measures for a little longer in order to break the neck of inflation and subsequently to experience a sound economic growth than to do the opposite, namely to stimulate the economy too soon or to suspend certain measures too soon and in this way cause galloping inflation.

Another step that we can take—and I want to make this very clear—is to combat all unnecessary imports to South Africa, such as consumer goods that are not required, by persuasive measures, other measures or whatever the case may be. However, we in South Africa have to learn that we cannot just import what we do not need, because those goods have to be paid for. In order to improve our balance of payments position I think that the time has come for us to consider promoting our exports. We know that in South Africa our mineral raw materials comprise some or our most important export articles next to our agricultural products. As far as our agricultural products are concerned we are however greatly dependent upon climatic conditions. We cannot make rain and we cannot stop floods. If Providence wants floods and droughts to take place, we simply have to accept them with respect and gratitude for what we still have. However, we can try to export more of our mineral ore, and so forth. However, I know that it is difficult to export these things because there is a recession abroad and the people who have to buy our raw materials do not have the money. It is not so easy just to say that one has to export more. The man at the other end has to be able to buy those articles. As we have a free economy and because South Africa is an open country, we can, however, in my opinion, do more in this respect. I also think that we can do something to market certain of our agricultural surpluses abroad.

We can also earn a considerable amount of money abroad with South Africa’s knowledge, the know-how that people talk about. There is no country in the world that is as knowledgeable and has as much knowledge of mining as our South African mining authorities. I think that we can also do a great deal more in the sphere of engineering. I know that a great deal is being done but I think that we could do more in this connection. There are some of our large consortiums that are already engaged upon large contracts abroad, but I think that we can still do a great deal in this respect.

South Africa’s invisible imports are very high. These include the interest that we pay, freight charges, insurance and so forth. I think South Africa should also have a look at this aspect. We must import fewer of those invisible services and do more on our part to earn money abroad. We can also earn a great deal more in South Africa and not import so many things from abroad.

I also want to address a special word to our private sector. The private sector must know that in many respects it will have to go it alone. The Government must not simply be called in on every occasion to take certain steps or to exercise certain controls to stimulate the private sector or encourage it. We have a free economy but where there have to be rules and regulations the Government has made them applicable. However, we must also see what we can do in other spheres. In the private sector many of our buildings are demolished unnecessarily, long before those buildings have completely served their purpose. The hon. the Minister of Finance has also spoken of the very luxurious buildings that are being built. We want to thank the hon. the Minister once again for having done so and having emphasized that people must know—and this includes all the control bodies, boards, the authorities and the private sector—that we must not create luxury that we do not need.

We have also to save in other spheres. We in South Africa have inherited two capitals, with Parliament here and other State bodies in Pretoria. Has the time not come to examine this matter pertinently to see whether something cannot be done to provide for only one capital? I do not think we can any longer afford to have these luxuries. I think it would be a good thing for us to give some consideration to this matter. I would not be surprised if in the life of one Parliament we were able to pay for all the buildings that are erected in Pretoria. We shall have to give attention to this matter at some or other stage. One has to ask oneself whether this is not the appropriate time to give attention to this matter.

There is also the greatest possible wastage in another sphere in South Africa. I refer to the question of paper in this country. It takes a tree 20 to 30 years to reach full maturity and growth before it can be cut down. However, there is a terrible wastage of paper in South Africa. One need only look at the quantity of newspapers and other paper that is thrown away in the world each day. Should greater attention not be given to the saving of paper in this country? I think we should consider doing that. The private sector must not expect the Government to give the lead in this regard. We want to ask the private sector please to see whether it cannot do something in this connection.

How much iron is not thrown away in this country? How many old cars does one not see piled up next to the roads? Why cannot those cars be compacted and smelted? One also thinks of bottles. In fact, one can think of whatever one pleases—these things are lying about all over the place.

Mr. Speaker, we must find new sources of taxation. The hon. the Minister is going to present a Budget this year once again and what are his tax sources going to be? I should like to recommend one or two sources to him this afternoon. This is now notwithstanding savings. In the past the horse played a great role in the defence of South Africa, and not only in defence of South Africa but also in our whole economic life. The farmers will know what one is talking about when one says: I shall saddle up my horse quickly and ride off for a while into the veld to look at the cattle. Has the time not come when the horse should once again do something for South Africa and particularly in the sphere of defence? Horse racing takes place throughout South Africa. This is the sphere of the provincial council. The taxes that are levied on horse races are actually used by the provinces. The fact remains that the provinces receive very large subsidies from the Central Government. I ask myself whether this is not a new source that we can investigate. I am told that more than R1 000 million is wagered on horse racing in South Africa annually. I ask myself whether there would be any objection if, besides the levy imposed by the provinces, an additional 10% tax were to be levied on horse racing and that money were to be used only for defence purposes. A levy of this nature would bring in R100 million per annum.

What about a lottery?

At the moment the provinces receive an average of 12% to 12½%. A further 10% could be levied on the man who takes out a ticket. The levy must not only be applied to profits. Each man who bets one cent or R1 would have to pay that 10% levy. A person who summarily wagers his money does after all have money to bum. Why then should he complain if he has to give something towards South Africa’s defence? When the fine racehorses run, they will be opening a path for South Africa and also for the defence of the country. This will help the country.

We can also save in many other spheres. I really want to ask that we should make more use of solar energy this year. We made use of daylight saving or sunlight saving during the war years. Why cannot we do it again? I think that this is still being done in Europe and elsewhere. As far as I am concerned, this was the only good thing the UP did in the war years, but it was also a very good thing. I think that we should again now make more use of sunlight so that we do not have to spend so much on power and energy. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs referred very pertinently to these matters last year. However, I think file time has come for them to be brought to the fore once again, and for us to discuss them.

I do not wish to take up very much more of the time of the House. I just want to say that we in South Africa are involved in a great struggle. The struggle which is being waged is a struggle that affects a person’s heart and mind. An assault is being made upon South Africa. It is being made upon the White man in South Africa. Sir, it is being made upon you and upon me and upon all of us in this country. This assault is being made by communism upon democracy in South Africa.

I want to tell the Opposition parties that although they do not realize it, by their actions they are really playing into the hands of communist Russia. They are playing into the hands of agitators and terrorists without knowing it. They are assisting those people to do things that should not be done. We are experiencing a struggle against the human spirit. It is a struggle of atheism against Christianity, against the believers. Just consider the murder of the priests that took place recently in Rhodesia. This shows us what direction the world is taking. We are grateful that the Western World has in fact objected and that the UNO Secretary-General has also objected in this regard. They did in fact object yesterday, but what are they going to do? Are they going to put a stop to these things, are they going to take action against these people, or are they going to encourage them further? We want to make an appeal to those Western countries also on their part to show what they want to do and what they are able to do.

In conclusion I want to tell the Opposition that their supporters control 85% of South Africa’s economy and finances, not the Nationalists. What are the Opposition doing to promote a free economy in South Africa? What are they doing to orient their own people? What the Government does makes no difference; we have to remember that the Government has created all the facilities and all the opportunities for our large manufacturers to enable them to produce, and for the dealers to enable them to do business. The Government establishes facilities for the employee in every respect. We rule and we regulate. We ensure the safety and the health of every individual in this country, White or non-White. I want to ask the Opposition: What are they doing on their part to orient their people, to implore them and to encourage them to produce and to work for South Africa? The NP Government will continue along the road on which it has come to where it is. We are going to work even though we do not have all those economic forces in our hands that they have. South Africa cannot lose one thing, namely, the NP Government, and the Government has to be kept in power as long as South Africa survives. We can all work and strive towards this end. I think the Opposition have already realized that after all their efforts to form a joint Opposition, efforts that have failed miserably, they should now preferably support the Government in working for South Africa and going forward as one man to do what is good for our country.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sunnyside asked us on this side of the House to tell him and the Government in which direction they should move in the coming year. I should like to tell the hon. member for Sunnyside that I should like to see him and the Government moving away from race discrimination and from apartheid. I think that if he and the Government were to move away from those two concepts, concepts which have been such failures in this country and which have caused so much conflict, we would be able to look forward to a happy and prosperous year and not a year like last year.

The hon. member also said there were important matters which we should discuss in the course of the debate, inter alia, the growth rate. I agree that the growth rate is a very important matter. I must say, however, that the practising of race discrimination by this Government as well as the implementation of its policy of apartheid has caused the growth rate to drop to nil. Unless the Government moves away from that at this stage, there will be no growth rate in the future.

The hon. member also spoke about buildings which should not be demolished. He spoke about buildings in the private sector which should not be demolished. I agree that there are indeed buildings which should not be demolished, but in my opinion it is public buildings in particular which should not be demolished. I should like to know from the hon. member whether he agrees that the buildings in Modderdam Road should not be demolished. After all, the buildings in Modderdam Road still serves a purpose today. That hon. member and the Government want to demolish those buildings. Although they are not going to do so with a bull-dozer and irrespective of how neatly they do so, those buildings are nevertheless going to be demolished. The point is that those buildings serve a proper purpose today. They provide shelter to people and a roof over their heads. These are places where they can take shelter. The hon. member said buildings ought not to be demolished. I hope he agrees with me when I say that the buildings in Modderdam Road ought not be be demolished either.

They are not buildings; they are merely shelters!

Yes, I hear the hon. member saying they are merely shelters. Even if they are merely shelters, they are shelters nevertheless. Must those poor people who are living in those shelters at the moment, be without any shelter? Is that what the hon. member wants. [Interjections.] That is probably what the hon. member wants. [Interjections.]

I have listened attentively to the speech of the hon. the Minister of Community Development. He said that no bulldozers would be used, although Die Burger claims that that would, in fact, be the case. The hon. the Minister said, however, one should not feel sorry for the people in Modderdam Road, because they were “transgressors against the law, and because they are transgressors against the law we need have no sympathy for them”.

†That is his argument, Mr. Speaker.

He said he had compassion for them.

Yes, he said he had compassion, but he made the point that they are transgressors against the law. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Community Development, though he is not here now, what laws he refers to when he speaks about transgressors against the law. Does he perhaps refer to the law passed in this Parliament last year. If he does, I should like to ask him whether the people who live in those shanties had any representation in this Parliament at the time when that law was passed. [Interjections.] Whose law are they transgressing? Are they transgressing a law in which they had a part … [Interjections.] … or are they transgressing the law of this Parliament, a law in which they had no part? I think the hon. the Minister should offer us some explanation. Then the hon. the Minister said he thought he had to consult someone about this before taking the step. What did he do? He consulted the Press. I think that is rather extraordinary. When he has the people concerned right on his doorstep …

You are so stupid that Lorimer does not even want you! [Interjections.]

When he has the people concerned right on his doorstep … [Interjections.] That hon. Whip can shout as loud as he can. I can assure him that I can shout louder. [Interjections.] The CRC is right on his very doorstep. Why did the hon. the Minister not consult the CRC? Why did he not consult the chairman of the CRC? Why did he not consult the members of the executive committee of the CRC? Surely, that is the way to deal with matters of this kind. Or, if he could not do that, why did he not wait until there was a Cabinet Council meeting? Why could he not wait for a meeting of the Cabinet Council and then put this matter to the Coloured representatives on the Cabinet Council and ask them how they felt this matter could be dealt with? No, he did not want to do that. Not at all, Mr. Speaker. He consulted the Press, and the way in which he consulted the Press, he thought, was supposed to be sufficient consultation. It reminds me very much of the sort of consultation which the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development practises. I believe he was a party to this decision. It looks very much as though the hon. the Minister of Community Development is now being affected by the attitudes of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. Mr. Speaker, you know the way in which that hon. Minister consults.

He writes a letter to a certain part of his domain, to certain people there, and says: “I have decided that on Tuesday, 5 May, I am going to move you from point A to point B.” But he gets no reply. When we asked him whether he consulted he answered that he did consult, but that he got no reply from those people. In his reasoning it is quite sufficient merely to tell people that you are going to do it, and if you tell them and they do not reply, they agree. Silence is consent. So I believe that the hon. the Minister for Community Development has been bitten by the same bug as the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and is now trying to follow the same line of thinking.

There are a number of questions I would like to put to the hon. the Minister, who is not here now. I would like to ask him why he allowed the squatting to develop in that area. It is on State ground and, surely, he has to look after State land. Is it not one of his jobs? Why was the hon. the Minister not there to see that this squatting did not develop? The hon. the Minister also mentioned in his argument that we would have a position somewhat similar to that of Elsies River if we allowed this to continue, an instance of what can happen if you have controlled squatting. However, the hon. the Minister is quite wrong. Elsies River was not a case of controlled squatting, but of uncontrolled squatting. I see the Chief Whip looking at me. He knows all about it.

That was your mess!

The hon. member allowed it to go on uncontrolled for years. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister says that the squatting at Modderdam Road was organized. I would like the hon. the Minister to tell me who organized it.

You are one of them!

How can the hon. Whip say that I am one of them? He knows that he is talking nonsense. He is talking absolute and arrant nonsense, and should be ashamed of himself. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. the Minister went on to say that this squatting problem was a very big problem and that it would take him, the Minister, at least five years to get it under control. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister this: If it is going to take him five years to get squatting under control, why must these unfortunate people get seven days’ notice to move? These people have nowhere to go. The hon. the Minister is only going to solve the problem in five years’ time, but gives them seven days’ notice to move out.

They found a magic theory!

The hon. the Minister, I think, implied that it was a situation which he and the NP had inherited 30 years ago, but if this is so then, surely, in the last 30 years, they could have done something about it. Why must we wait for another five years before the problem is solved? [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister says that he is now experimenting with a shell house. It is also called a “core house”, I believe. If he is going to experiment with a shell house, why not erect the shell house and then gradually put these people of Modderdam into the shell houses? Then there would be no trouble. Why can he not do that? No. They have got to be given seven days’ notice to move. I believe that the hon. the Minister has got quite a lot of explaining to do, and I am very sorry indeed that he is not here.

What I think is very sad of this whole discussion, as epitomized this afternoon by the hon. the Minister of Community Development, is that the Government and the members sitting on that side of the House seem to regard Coloured people as people who are not really human beings.

Oh nonsense!

That is the sad thing. That is also the impression which the Coloured people have. A number of Coloured people recently spoke to me and told me: “We have the impression that if the Government would take the question of the Coloured people, where and how we live, out of the political arena and make the whole matter apolitical and deal with us as human beings, then the problem could be solved very quickly.” That is the impression which the Coloured people have, and I think that it is a very sad impression. The hon. the Minister did not give me any cause for feeling that the impression they have is wrong, because the guffaws of laughter which came from that side of the House when we were pleading the cause of these unfortunate people, made me feel that they thought it was a Lord Mayor’s show and something to laugh at! I think the way the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior went on this afternoon is quite shocking. He seemed to be enjoying a ringside seat at a free-for-all where the Coloured people were involved.

You know that it is not so.

The hon. the Deputy Minister seemed to be delighted.

You know that that is not true.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw the words “you know that that is not true”.

I withdraw the words, Mr. Speaker.

We as a country have a great deal of compassion for refugees. Recently we have dealt with a number of refugees from countries on our borders. We have done whatever we could for them, to house them and to make matters easier for them. Now here in the Cape Peninsula it seems to me that the Government is prepared to create a refugee problem, because what is going to happen to these unfortunate people? According to the hon. the Minister they are going to be refugees too. They will not know where to go to. How are they going to be housed? Why can we not have an emergency camp on that site? If an emergency camp can be declared on that particular site, this matter could be controlled, housing could be provided in a way with which everybody would be satisfied as it would comply with most of the basic requirements.

I remember very clearly that in the year 1950 a similar situation occurred in Paarl. At that time I had something to do with the Paarl town council. I know what we did then: We declared a special area within the area of the Bantu location as an emergency camp and we helped to move the people from most unhygienic and filthy conditions to this camp, which we laid out properly. We rendered them all the services we could provide and in addition to that we gave them material and helped to erect their huts in this emergency camp. Eventually we housed about 1 000 families in this emergency camp. We were able to close down the emergency camp, where we had erected houses for them, about 12 years later, because at that stage the Nationalist Government was not giving the Paarl municipality sufficient money to build houses to house them all within one or two years. We have seen that the Government has money to burn. Why cannot that money be used?

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

No, Mr. Speaker, I have only two minutes to go. Why could this money not be applied to give proper housing to these people? Why could we not have an emergency camp to provide for them in the meantime? I believe that the hon. the Minister of Finance can find the funds. I believe that this is a priority, and I appeal to him that when he draws up his budget to do it in such a way that there will be sufficient funds to house these unfortunate people who, in many cases, are unable to pay even a sub-economic rent. A number of them who cannot pay a sub-economic rent for the housing which has already been erected by the Government for them, are now in this camp at Modderdam Road. I have a random survey here of the people who are living there. There are about 25 cases here with which I should have liked to deal, but I do not have the time. It is quite clear from this survey that a very large proportion of the people living in that area are unable to pay even a sub-economic rent. Therefore I look forward to what the hon. the Minister of Finance is going to do to enable the hon. the Minister of Community Development to build houses at still a lesser cost than has been the case up to now, so that those unfortunate people who are unable to pay sub-economic rentals will be able to pay this lesser rental for the houses which the hon. the Minister hopes to erect.

Mr. Speaker, I thought we were going to discuss the economy today and that is why I prepared myself on this subject a little, but I am sure that this Government, with the hon. the Minister of Finance at the helm, is making a very good job of the country’s economy, in view of the fact that no one has attacked them about it. It seems to me that our Opposition feels like playing politics. If that is the case, we must take a look at what they are doing. The hon. member for Wynberg really reminds me of a bulldozer, but there is just one difference between them, viz. that the engine of a bulldozer begins to move before its lips do, whereas that hon. member’s lips start moving before his brain does. We know about the count of 24/0 in Wynberg, when Koos Yster and the hon. member became involved in a contest in a party he has now left without handing in his resignation. The hon. member for Newton Park, a present member of the Independent United Party— mind you!—placed the hon. member for Wynberg in a position in which he won 24/0. He lost, but nevertheless won in the end, because he was appointed by the hon. member for Newton Park and where are his hands today? Show them to us? You were bulldozed in and Koos Yster, the candidate of the party of the hon. member for Yeoville, was bulldozed out.

Today let us investigate the problem we are faced with, viz. that of the squatter. One thing that makes me heartsore is seeing people living in the conditions that these squatters live. I was at Sacks Circle yesterday to see how the business enterprises are growing and to see where the labour comes from, because I believe that as far as our exports are concerned, Cape Town must become the industrial heart—there is no other word for it—in the future, because we are 7 000 miles from the destination of our export products and because the components have to be conveyed 2 000 miles from Cape Town to Johannesburg and back before they can be exported. I saw many houses which had not been in that squatters’ camp before, and I now ask myself whether it is right for the Coloured community or for the White community to allow this disorderliness to continue. The house one lives in is of vital importance, but it is the leaders of the community that bring out the soul of those people. It is very convenient for hon. members, because they want their workers and because they want women who live in Philippi and other places and who can easily walk to Wynberg to work as lesser privileged people. This is not what we on this side of the House want. We want to get the Coloured to the point where he can realize himself and where the child can live. Read this report and hon. members will find that after three or four generations of squatters they still do not have a higher standard of living or a higher level of school education than the person who came a few years ago. The father left school in Std. 2 and this squatter, too, leaves school in Std. 2 or 3. What are we doing? Then an attorney comes along …

He is a sea lawyer.

… and asks: “Whose laws are they breaking?” Does the hon. member, then, not obey the law, the South African laws made by this Parliament of which the hon. member is a member?

He is now laughing at himself.

I do not think it is a joke. I think the hon. member should be reported to the Law Commission, that hon. member who sits in this House and states that there are laws certain people do not have to recognize.

They had no part in them.

They had no part in them! Tell me: What part did the White public at large have in legislation being piloted through this Parliament? Must all of them now tell us: “We do not take heed of this Parliament.” May a person commit murder because he does not sit in this Parliament or is not represented here? I wonder whether we in this House do not go too far as far as protection is concerned. Recently I have heard a number of hon. members, both within and outside this House, speaking about not obeying a law. I think that this is something which we in this House, and the public at large, must take cognizance of. We cannot propagate lawlessness from the highest Council Chamber in South Africa. When one sees these people as squatters, one sees past the weakness of the father, one sees past the weakness of the mother and one sees the child, the child of tomorrow, and one sees people who had a part in bringing about his downfall. It is being said today that these are orderly communities. I am pleased to hear that this one is orderly. In most cases, throughout the world—and I have visited a few squatter camps, inter alia, in Hong Kong and Tigerbaum Gardens—the primary characteristic is licentiousness, the fact that there is no ordered social life and that the people do not live according to the norms of others in the community. Over the years we have been too weak to implement our laws immediately, because feelings have been worked up whenever the first hut has been demolished. However, this has to be done. We cannot allow one, two, three or four and then be saddled with a problem at a later stage. These people are approached in a friendly fashion and told that there are houses for them in Bishop Lavis and other places. However, where does the name “Bishop Lavis” come from? I am sure the hon. member for Green Point will not take it amiss of me if I say that as a comparatively young man, he was a child when the old Bishop Lavis …

No, I knew him well.

Did you know him well? He was one of the doughtiest opponents of squatting. They even called a town after him, and that town is already an old town. Now, however, the hon. member comes along and attacks us. He is now putting us in the witness-box. Why does he not reread the reports of the commission appointed in 1939 by the Smuts/Hertzog Government of those times? Why did he not read those reports about the Coloureds and about all the problems they were faced with then? However, he comes and lays the problem at our door. I concede: We are responsible for many of these things. But why? Because we are perhaps too fair as regards the influx of people. Perhaps we failed to stress sufficiently the fact that a man cannot work unless there is housing for him. All these things must be stipulated in legislation.

Do you apply that to the Whites?

Yes, certainly. If a problem occurs, this is also done in respect of the Whites. That hon. member is very busy making interjections. He reminds me of the days when I was a young man. There was a young Coloured man called “Tiekies”. He asked his father whether he could marry Lettie. His father refused because Lettie happened to be his half-sister. Later, when he asked whether he could marry Katrina, his father replied that she, too, was his half-sister. Then he went to his mother. He told his mother that he wanted to marry Lettie, but that his father had told him she was his half-sister. Then, he said, he wanted to marry Katrina, but his father had said that she was his half-sister too. Then his mother told him: “Don’t worry, Tiekies. Your father is not related to you. ” That is how it goes with that hon. member. He cannot marry the Progs, and he cannot marry the Independents, nor is the UP related to him.

Let us now adopt a much fairer approach as regards the Coloureds. If there are Coloureds today who adopt the standpoint adopted by that hon. member, then perhaps one cannot take it amiss of them because they do not have all the information. However that hon. member does have the information. That is the difference. A bare-footed person is far quicker to feel the pain if one draws his attention to a thorn. At this moment we in South Africa are all trying to improve relations.

With seven days’ notice!

That hon. member belongs to a law society. One usually gives seven days’ notice. How many days notice did he give when there were squatters on his farm? Seven days too? Or was it 21 days, perhaps? Have those squatters left already?

How many more does he have on the farm?

You are talking nonsense! I have never had squatters on my farm.

I know that he requested a week’s postponement, and then the period became 21 days. However, a date has to be stipulated, and those people were informed of this date. I am in no doubt as to the fairness and conduct of the Department of Community Development. I believe that all our officials are fair towards our people, White and non-White. I have seen this so many times already. I believe that in South Africa we have a particularly soft spot for the problem of the Coloureds. I believe that compassion is felt for the people in the Transvaal who were recently afflicted by the floods. Many of the people there came, in the process of urbanization, to a city they did not know. Many years ago the process of urbanization was the lot of the Whites. We therefore experienced the same problems. This is something one cannot avoid. Each of us had to experience those problems. It is true that we did not have squatting, but in many cases there was more than one family in a single house. Many people want to create the impression that the White population of South Africa have no problems. I want to maintain that if an Erica Theron Commission to investigate the problems of Whites in South Africa were to be appointed, the hon. members opposite would also be shocked. Many of our people no longer perceive the problems. Let me say that in these times we cannot carry on with these word games. We are hurting the country and its people. Even if the hon. member opposite were 20 times as eloquent as I, nevertheless he has not built a single house. He could rather have reached into his pocket and done something for those people. Let me say that with the language he uses he is hurting and offending people and attacking South Africa abroad. However, by doing so he does not add a single nail to the roof of a new house.

Reference has been made to the problems being experienced at the moment by two banks. There are large building societies, too, that are experiencing problems. In this connection I want to say that it is very easy to stand on the sidelines and say what the real problems are. However, we are faced here with a problem which has existed for ten years. South Africa is a developing country traversed by great highways. Planning can delay the development of towns. For example, the development of a town cannot be continued with if the planning has not been completed. Let us consider a further problem. Over the years, municipalities have introduced many services in towns and financed those services out of the revenue derived from the rates one pays over a period of 22 to 30 years. In the boom period of 1960 to 1964, all municipalities suddenly had the idea that all services should be introduced simultaneously. That is why it is not only the land price of erven which has become a problem, but the cost of the services as well. Whereas the normal cost of an erf was perhaps R500 to R700, the services amounted to R3 000 to R4 000 per erf. This immediately went to the municipalities. Was there anyone who did not pay tax at that time because the township developer had already paid for full services? Was there anyone who did not pay for the provision of his water and sanitation? No, they all still paid for everything although it had already been paid in full. Why did the problem cause difficulties for these township developers at a later stage? The reason it caused them difficulty at a later stage, is a simple one. Let me say that I am certainly not trying to defend Glen Anil. I am stating the problem as a whole. Why did this cause them difficulties at a later stage? Guarantees had to be provided. I want to quote a few figures. Let us say that in 1973 the guarantee in a certain town amounted to R2 000 per erf. That guarantee was underwritten by banks and other bodies. In other words, people cannot lose money as easily as it would appear. The company must simply go on. However, what has happened now? The services are now laid on and the escalation has increased to 33% in comparison with 1973. These are the requirements which are being set now. I do not know why it is so, but the conditions for township development read as follows: “You must immediately do kerbing and channelling.” Now we are asking the people in South Africa to build their houses smaller, e.g. by building only one bathroom, and two instead of three bedrooms. But as far as streets are concerned, it is stipulated by the municipalities that the tarmac layer has to be three inches thick. Every municipality can ask a township developer what it likes. If a certain number of cars per day do not use that road, as in the case of a main road, the tar surface cracks. Then that road looks like nothing in any event. If it is built next to a big erf, kerbing and channelling costs R2 000 extra on that erf. Hon. members may as well go and look, and they will find that this is in fact so in the case of a large erf. I now maintain that there is no kerbing and channelling in Houghton. Houghton is one of our important suburbs. The last time I was there, there was no kerbing and channelling in a place like Hermanus. We in South Africa ought to build ordinary gravel roads at the moment. It is therefore unnecessary to lay such thick layers of tar—and is it necessary to make ordinary streets 34 feet wide?

As an example I should like to refer to the Witwatersrand, where a contractor asks R75 000 nowadays for the construction of one kilometre of road in an ordinary town. Surely there is something wrong with such standards. In some towns I have seen the streets being built 34 ft. wide, whereas Uncle Charlie’s road, in those days, was only 18 ft. to 20 ft. wide. Do hon. members know what the difference is? 17 000 cars use the main road today, but there are only nine houses in the street. If the municipality itself has to do the work, it reduces the width to 12 ft. In South Africa it is maintained that private entrepreneurs simply want to make money. This is not right. This was the position in 1973. At the moment they are asking R145 000 to build one kilometre of tarred road in Mulbarton (ext. 1). Surely we are quite crazy to think that we can maintain these standards, which do not signify an improvement. The ordinary “chip and spray”, as it is called, lasts for 20 years in ordinary towns. Why, then, should we incur this vast expenditure? Why should we pay these vast amounts? I am not saying that people who have paid for a tarred road should not have a tarred road. At a certain stage of my life I developed a township in Durbanville. There is no gravel in South Africa which compares with that of Durbanville. I wanted to remove the top 18 inches of that gravel and use it on the roads, because nothing binds better than this does in conjunction with the ordinary clay. The mixture does not move at all. I was forbidden to do this; I was told: “You must put in crusher sand,”

It is your Government.

Since he has been mixed up with the Progs, the hon. member for Yeoville is also mixed up. I am now referring to the conditions stipulated by municipalities. The point I want to stress here is that municipality engineers often prescribe standards which are no longer at all appropriate. We are no longer living in times when one can just skim off the cream; we have to provide for houses for Whites and non-Whites, and we have to keep an eye on the standards we prescribe. There are places here in Cape Town, at Chapman’s Peak, for example, where the digging of ditches presents special problems. For example, workers start digging a ditch, and when they return the next day, it has collapsed. Earthenware pipes 18 inches long have to be laid in those ditches. The pipes have to be grouted. Nevertheless, it still occurs that the ditches cave in, sometimes after only 20 feet of the ditch has been dug. Consequently they have to dig them all over again. The only solution for this is to dig a wide ditch of about 6 ft. Consequently this is what is expected, but in my opinion this is ridiculous, because if one lays the ordinary strong kind of pipe, it can be laid in lengths of 100 ft. A simple inspection hatch in the pipe can be provided every 100 ft, an inspection hatch which any artisan will be able to construct, One need then only shine a torch along the pipe to determine whether everything inside it is in order. If we avail ourselves of this method, we shall not be lowering standards, in fact we shall be improving them.

Forget about your standards. We are not discussing them now!

Mr. Speaker, every time someone wants to speak, the hon. member for Pinetown also wants to say something. He reminds me of the story of the child who was dreaming in the night. His mother told him: “My child, do not cry. Did you get a fright? Just close your mouth and sleep.” [Interjections.]

Chris, help him please! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, all my argument really amounts to is that the standards we set are really far too high. Take as an example a very ordinary dwelling house in South Africa. As soon as the house if 30, 40 or 50 years old, it is simply accepted that it has served its purpose and can be demolished. This ought simply not to be the case. The fact is that the building materials I am referring to are tested and guaranteed to last for 50 years. I cannot understand why we cling to old habits and institutions which simply do not work any more. However, these are matters to which the ordinary local authorities can give attention. It is unnecessary for the Government to fly at everyone’s throats … [Interjections.] … but at one time or another the Government will simply have to say to local authorities: “If you yourselves do not act, then we shall have to set you an example.” The Government will have to set the example, and I think that the time for this is already long overdue. For example, if we look at some towns, when they were established and when they were fully developed …

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville must please give me a chance. I do not want to talk politics with him, because I think I will hurt him. [Interjections.] I feel quite sorry for him, because he has a very troublesome time ahead of him.

He will be minus his skins!

Yes, he will be minus his skins! [Interjections.] What I really want to say is that at the moment, municipalities are engaged in revaluing stands. They realize that the property market is inactive, but I can almost guarantee, Mr. Speaker, that a stand of which the municipal valuation is R8 500, will be valued at least 20% higher this year. This, of course, is only a way to increase rates. For example, there are the smaller municipalities, municipalities with a town clerk, two engineers and a health inspector. In my opinion, the possibility of using those municipal staff for service in more than one, possibly two, municipal areas, ought to be investigated. In this instance, I could mention the example of Richards Bay. One engineer was employed there, and that same engineer was also in charge of the Sishen/Salhanda project. The question which arises, therefore, is whether it would not be possible for a good municipal engineer to serve two or three different municipalities. This is another way in which expenditure could be pruned. As far as I am concerned, this is a matter to which we in South Africa ought to give attention. We have all been experiencing difficult times; perhaps not to so great an extent in South Africa, but certainly overseas. Let us take Britain as an example. See how much capital Britain has borrowed from the IMF. Germany is another example. There are other countries, too. However, what do we find in South Africa? Here things are still moving. This is a people that is progressing, and the NP Government keeps us on the path of progress year after year. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, we certainly have much to be grateful for, but we shall really have to see to it that unnecessary expenditure and unnecessary work methods, things which occur in many spheres today, are eliminated.

Mr. Speaker, I always find it a rather depressing experience to listen to the hon. member for Langlaagte. When one listens to the profundity of his argument, one can only wonder how anybody can make quite so much of absolute trivia. At the beginning of his speech he said that he had done a considerable amount of preparation for a debate on the economy of the country. We listened to him and we waited for those golden words that were going to flow from his lips about the economy of the country. What did he talk about? He talked about nothing but trivia. He talked about 18-inch pipes and I could perhaps make a suggestion where he might put one of those.

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal today with another matter and would like to talk specifically through you to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. I would like to congratulate the hon. the Minister, because he has finally decided to request the State President, I have been told, to appoint a commission of inquiry into the excessive and extraordinary cost escalations incurred in the building of the new abattoirs at City Deep in Johannesburg and at Cato Ridge near Durban. The hon. the Minister has done the right thing. I am grateful that he at last has taken courage in both hands and has decided that an inquiry is necessary. I am certain that he must have been under considerable pressure not to take this action, but he has done it and I am grateful. However, I have one question for the hon. the Minister. Why did he take so long? It is more than six months ago that the Financial Mail first suggested that cost escalations, which at that stage had gone over the budget by a mere R30 million, should be urgently investigated. At the same time they pointed too to certain anomalies that had become apparent in the organization behind the building operations. This suggestion by the Financial Mail was repeated again and again and, I believe, should have been acted upon immediately. However, it has taken us six months and another R20 million to bring about the necessary action. I venture to guess, but I believe this is an educated guess, that when the final accounts on both abattoirs are submitted, the total bill will not be very far short of R100 million. I would just remind the House that the original estimate was somewhere in the region of R28 million.

How many squatter houses could have been built with that?

Weeks ago I privately urged the hon. the Minister that it would be in the public interest to appoint a commission of inquiry and at the same time submitted certain pertinent questions to the hon. the Minister’s department. Finally, on 25 January this year, when I placed a question on the Order Paper, the hon. the Minister told me that he did not consider a commission of inquiry to be necessary. That was a fortnight ago. In addition I also received a letter from the hon. the Minister’s department in reply to my questions. I must say that this letter contained a tissue of misinformation and half-truths, and to me it appeared to be misleading and totally unsatisfactory. This letter was compiled from information supplied to the hon. the Minister’s department by the Abattoir Commission. In fact, this information was passed on to me, dressed up a little, but the substance of that information was apparently unchecked. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that he would find it very illuminating to investigate who actually drafted that misleading letter. I think he would be very surprised. I have information that this reply was not even drafted by the Abattoir Commission. Let alone the fact that the hon. the Minister’s department was not in possession of all the facts, not even the Abattoir Commission was able to supply these facts. It was left to one of the consultants, about whom I asked these very questions, to draft a reply which finally came through to me. If the hon. the Minister wants a little more information on this, I am quite prepared to give him the factual information and, if necessary, the documents.

You can give it to the commission; you can give evidence before them.

I shall be very happy to do so. At that stage I immediately wrote to the hon. the Minister, urging him to change his mind. I started to write my answer in detail to this misleading letter from the hon. the Minister’s department. Then something else intervened which changed the hon. the Minister’s mind in a hurry. The Sunday Express produced its revelations, which finally resulted in action. The Sunday Express, putting together information supplied by myself and others, appears to have been the catalyst which made the hon. the Minister act. I must say that in his own interests I am glad that he has done so. To be fair to him—and I have a high personal regard for him—I think he has been grossly misled. I can appreciate that in a huge department such as the Department of Agriculture it must have been very difficult for a Minister who was worried about other things such as cheese and butter prices, to be worrying about other things as well.

The last few months have driven home to me forcefully that perhaps members in these benches made a serious mistake when we did not oppose the Act passed last session, which set up the new Abattoir Corporation, because the moment the new corporation takes over the running of the abattoirs, their operations will become a closed book to the public. As with all other State corporations, their activities will no longer be subject to any real parliamentary or public scrutiny. Time and again we have had Ministers in the Government refusing to answer questions put to them concerning activities of State corporations, sometimes very questionable activities. The public are after all the shareholders in these ventures and as such have a right to know what is going on with the activities of Iscor, Sasol, Escom, Armscor and a host of others.

And the Progs.

Not the Progs. They are none of the hon. member’s concern. What we do is our concern but what you do as the Government is very much the concern of South Africa. [Interjections.] The activities of the State corporations are a closed book. Parliamentary and public scrutiny might at the very least have some restraining effect on the tremendous bureaucratic empire-building which is at present sapping our economy. I believe that as long as we have a situation where State corporations answer to no one, except to a sometimes over-trusting Minister, the economy will be prejudiced, because these activities are not always in the public interest. On top of the State corporations there is a proliferation of bureaucratic empires that have been allowed to flourish. Throughout the city of Pretoria one finds splendid building after splendid building which houses this insidious creeping bureaucracy in considerable comfort. I understand, for example, that the Abattoir Commission has built or is building a R1½ million headquarters, despite the fact that there are at present hundreds of empty offices throughout Pretoria, including offices in the Meat Board building.

This sort of thing is part of the root cause of our high level of inflation and the reason why we are in deep trouble with regard to the repayment of loan capital, because this loan capital has been wastefully and unnecessarily used. Back to abattoirs, what does all this overspending on abattoirs mean to the consumer and the producer? I have not yet started on other abattoirs like Krugersdorp, Kimberley and Port Elizabeth, where things are also not very happy. What does this mean to the consumer and to the producer? It has very serious implications indeed for the farmer. I should like to read to the House a report from the Natal Daily News of yesterday concerning the Cato Ridge abattoir near Durban. It is headed “Bid to scrap R46 million abattoir”. I may say that the hon. the Minister will be very lucky if it turns out to be as little as R46 million. The report reads as follows—

Yet, we have spent all this money. The report continues—

It would be wasted as far as we in South Africa, the consumer and the housewife, are concerned. On a previous occasion the hon. the Minister told us that capital expenditure of this nature would have a very minimal effect on the price of meat. I think he mentioned in previous debates that it would be a few cents per kilogram. I am sure that the hon. the Minister is aware of the quantity of meat handled daily at any of our larger abattoirs, so that a few cents a kilogram amounts to hundreds and thousands of rands over a period of time, and this all comes from the housewife and the consumer. A question that should be asked is why the Newtown abattoir was closed down completely before the authorities were 100% certain that the City Deep abattoir could cope. It was done because the hon. the Minister wanted to hand it over to the new Abattoir Corporation on due date, and the mistake is there for all to see. The absolute chaos that took place at the City Deep abattoir during the first 10 days of its operation, was absolutely scandalous. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister one question of detail. What is happening about the slaughter of pigs? The original plans for the City Deep abattoir allowed for the slaughtering of something like 1 200 pigs a day. The new abattoir has no facilities for slaughtering pigs at all. The idea was that it would be rationalized and that other abattoirs could deal with that. I am perfectly sure that at the moment the facilities at Krugersdorp, Springs and Benoni would be sufficient for the slaughtering of only 400 pigs— Vereeniging might also be able to assist—but what happens to the rest? Pig-farmers do not know and people who like to eat pork do not know. There is nowhere to slaughter these pigs. Housewives in Johannesburg who are paying inflated prices for meat at the present time have good reason to be dissatisfied, because the whole thing is a monstrous mess. I feel sorry for the hon. the Minister, because things have got out of his control, but much of the fault lies with the system. As long as we have uncontrolled State corporations and dozens of semi-autonomous bureaucratic bodies, the blood of South Africa’s economic life will be drained and our economy will be hard put to recover. I should like to move the following amendment—

1. (1) has grossly mismanaged the financial affairs of the country to the detriment of all our people;
2. (2) has failed to take appropriate steps to eliminate discrimination on the grounds of race or colour in the social, economic and political fields; and
3. (3) has attempted to enforce policies which have increased threats to the security and peace of our country.”.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Orange Grove is not making it very pleasant for me to do this work because he is making extremely wild allegations. I cannot say that they are untruths, but the things he is saying are contradictory. The hon. member asked me why I was waiting for six months. It was the Financial Mail which started with this in the first place, and I think it began because there was a kind of dispute among the consultants. Under such circumstances there is always someone who is prepared to give certain information, but who is not prepared to furnish proof. The hon. member wrote to me from time to time. I received his latest letter on 24 January. In it he stated:

In each letter there was an indication that the hon. member would come forward with other interesting things, or whatever one can call them. However, I simply cannot get to the stage where I can say that there is something that is wrong. I appointed a committee consisting of interested parties from the Meat Board, the producers and the Department. They brought out a report very rapidly after they had investigated all the allegations, but it was only a committee and not a judicial commission of inquiry.

It was only a departmental committee.

No, it was not really a departmental committee because the Meat Board, the meat trade and the producers were also represented on the committee. However, the hon. member gave the impression that he still held certain cards and that he did not want to show his hand. So I asked the State President yesterday to appoint a commission of inquiry with the following terms of reference—

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with the price of foodstuffs, and the hon. member has said that the housewife is going to pay. But I say that the farmers are going to pay. We have a floor price for meat and deducted from that are the transportation costs, slaughtering fees, abattoir costs—the whole lot. The farmer does not pay the housewife, and that is why I am so concerned about this kind of thing, for I have to report back to the farmers from time to time and furnish them with reasons as to why their cheques are shrinking and why the earnings, after deduction of all their costs, are diminishing all the time. So who would be more concerned about this matter than I?

It beats me how the hon. member can make certain allegations and not have any qualms, since the City Deep abattoir is the biggest abattoir in the southern hemisphere. It has to be seen to be believed. Has the hon. member ever been there? I should like to refute the figures which the hon. member mentioned and give hon. members an idea of the size of this abattoir. At the present Newtown abattoir 1 200 animals are slaughtered every day, while this one building is for the slaughter of 1 650 animals per day, of which 250 are kosher. In addition, 7 250 sheep per day are being slaughtered there, as against the 5 500 slaughtered at the old abattoir. However, these animals must have pens, for one must allow them to stand for at least 24 hours. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine what it is like having to provide pens for 15 000 sheep and 5 000 head of cattle, with feeding facilities? It is an enormous undertaking. The old abattoir is 50, almost 60 years old and is situated in the middle of Johannesburg. Have hon. members ever counted how many loads of sheep and cattle arrive daily at the abattoir? The hon. Minister of Transport wrote a letter and said that he was going to close the abattoir in Durban in 1975 because the trains were no longer able to cope with the freight. For Newtown we have been given until the end of this year, for after that the Railways will simply be unable to cope with the congestion in the city, where scores of cattle and sheep are being slaughtered. When we began planning abattoirs—I could easily say that it was before my time, but I am also part of this “game” and therefore I am not going to say that it was planned before my time because there is no question of a mistake here either—there was pressure on marketing, for at that time we had the stock withdrawal scheme and on one day 400 sheep died in a wagon. We were simply unable to slaughter all the animals. Then everyone cried: “Build abattoirs!”

The Johannesburg municipality said that they would build abattoirs. They began to calculate what the abattoirs would cost. Hon. members are talking of an R13 million abattoir, but what was the capacity of that R13 million abattoir? In 1973 the Johannesburg municipality calculated that the abattoir would cost R26,l million and the municipality was not prepared to build it. What were we to do? We had to have an Abattoir Commission to take the initiative and build the abattoirs for R33 million. Is there anything wrong with that? I wonder whether I should become so excited about something in respect of which I am innocent! The hon. member said the initial construction cost of the City Deep abattoir was estimated at R17,5 million, with an escalation of R8,96 over this period. Hon. members are aware of how everything has gone up in price, for example cement, steel, labour, electricity and building costs. When the City Council saw that the costs had risen to R26,4 million, it said it was not going any further. We then built the abattoir for R32,4 million so far. The abattoir has been completed and is in operation. Animals have been slaughtered there for 9 days now. This commission of inquiry will also check up on the final account and the chairman will also be able to call upon the hon. member to give evidence because we want clarity on this matter. What worries me is that one is powerless if people with certain information which they do not want to disclose, nevertheless go about and gossip with it. The hon. member made a big mistake by saying that he knew “why it is taking so long; there was pressure not to take this action”. The Abattoir Commission and the consultants—everyone involved in this matter—asked me please to appoint a judicial commission so that they could clear their names. What pressure was put on me not to appoint a judicial commission? After all, one cannot appoint a commission of inquiry every time as a result of one hon. member’s letter. This kind of thing costs money. People are also taken away from their normal work, and this causes delays.

The hon. member referred to pigs. Since that marketing pressure, we have had several additional abattoirs, for example the one at Stege, the old Bull Brand abattoir, and those at Krugersdorp and Balfour. All these were additional. There are also the abattoirs at Brakpan and Benoni, which are both unhygienic. The Opposition kicks up a fuss when it is reported in the newspapers that meat was contaminated with salmonella, and insist that we should be more hygienic. However, most existing abattoirs can if necessary be equipped, at a minimal cost, for the slaughtering of pigs. In the meantime additional facilities have been added at Heidelberg for the slaughtering of pigs, etc. Would we then be so stupid as to say that although 800 pigs were slaughtered, we were not going to establish new facilities? I think the hon. member should rather be a little less concerned about matters of this kind. He said there was a delegation—I do not know who it is; I cannot believe it is the Agricultural Union—of farmers from Natal who were coming to see me to ask me not to build the Cato Ridge abattoir. With escalation the Cato Ridge abattoir is going to cost R46 million. We have decided, and instructed this committee, not to look into export possibilities. We must remember that even if we do not build an export abattoir we still cannot build unhygienically, for we are building an abattoir which will have to provide a service for 60 or 70 years. It is the farmers who are going to pay off the project. That hon. member and others went about saying that the slaughtering fees were going to soar so that it would eventually cost R20 or R30 to slaughter an animal. He should make a few calculations himself. City Deep’s slaughtering capacity is 1 600 cattle and 3 000 sheep per day and to pay off that project over 30 years, therefore, will not cost more than R8 per animal. If that hon. member has a piece of paper and a pencil, or a slate-pencil and a slate, he can work it out for himself. In the Republic, according to hygienic standards, we must have facilities to allow a carcass to be hung below 10°C, for 24 hours and if necessary for 48 hours. Consequently we must have hanging sheds in which we can allow 3 300 beef carcasses and 9 060 sheep to hang under almost frozen conditions. This is an enormous project. No similar project has ever been tackled in South Africa. This is something with which a start was made when we were still riding the crest of the wave economically and when there was marketing pressure. Now that financial problems have begun to develop we should not reproach one another along the way and say that we are building incorrectly. A few million rands have already been spent on the Cato Ridge project, and if we do not proceed with the construction work, in other words if we postpone the project, we shall simply find that the Pietermaritzburg and Durban abattoirs are just not able to continue. With the escalation which I foresee, if we only begin building that project in 10 years’ time, the total of the two projects could perhaps be as high as R80 million. That hon. member spoke of R100 million. Unfortunately he will only be here for another two years; after that he will no longer be with us! However, if he had been able to remain as long as I am going to remain on this side, I could have asked him in 10 years’ time what had become of his R100 million figure. It is easy to make such allegations and to try to make political gain out of something which is creating alarm among the farmers of this country. They become alarmed, wonder what is wrong and ask: Why should it always be necessary to talk about efficiency when such a project is under way?

I promised the hon. member that he would be afforded another opportunity to speak, but I should also like to talk politics for once.

I should like to ask the hon. member for Wynberg about what he said a moment ago when he alleged that we “regard Coloured people not as human beings”. We are all part of South Africa and I cannot understand why the Opposition cannot get this one thing into their heads, which is that the De Villiers’, the Schoemans and the Lorimers have no other homeland. We must fight our last battle here, and we must do so together. Why must the colour problem always be dragged into our politics, as was done today? Have these people ever asked themselves: Remove the White man from this country—with all their talk about minority groups—and what will happen between the Zulu and the Xhosa and what will become of the Coloureds who are a minority group? What are those people going to eat and what are hey going to live on? Look what happened in Mozambique with talk of this kind. There the Whites left and the Blacks remained, and there is terrible famine. Every night thousands of people go to bed hungry. Their agriculture is in ruins and nothing remains of it. But what has this Government achieved during the past 28 years? We are part of Africa, and although we have the poorest agricultural section of Africa, we are today nevertheless producing more than 60% of all the food produced in Africa. Take away the initiative of the Whites with this type of gossip-mongering and what will happen? Sixty-five per cent of the tractors operating in Africa, operate in South Africa—254 000. Are these things one can simply throw overboard lightly? We are scoring trivial debating points off one another, and then it is said that we do not consider Coloureds to be human beings.

Your argument also applies to Rhodesia.

The same thing happened in Rhodesia. There was talk of concessions. Many people say that I am rather broad-minded about certain things; however, I simply cannot waste my time by arguing that whether the words “Whites” or “Non-Whites” should appear on lifts. I simply do not like that kind of “jazz” any more. But when there is talk of making concessions, the hon. Opposition must ask itself how far we must go once we begin making concessions. I am pleased the hon. member for Simonstown referred to Rhodesia. In Rhodesia the Blacks have representation in Parliament together with the Whites. In Rhodesia the Blacks are in Parliament. Rhodesians can go as far as the proposals which Kissinger made at the time, but they are not acceptable. One can go as far as one likes; it is of no avail. In this case what is wanted is a majority vote, “majority rule”. What will happen in this country if this were ultimately to come? The hon. members opposite must ask themselves this question. The hon. member for Houghton, among others, said: “Eventually the majority, viz. the Blacks, will rule this country.” Those were her words. That is where their policy is heading. They must sit down for a moment and consider what the consequences of such a policy are going to be. They must accept that we are not colonialists. They must accept that my great-grandfather’s grandfather was born in this country, and that I have no other homeland. They must simply accept that. I have nothing against the Black man, believe me. I grew up with the Blacks. I work with them every week.

As I have said before in this House, the relationship between my workers and me is such that they speak of “our farm”. It is not a question of oppression! It is a question of working out a salvation together. The Government has now stated that it wants to clear a Coloured area. We can argue about the principle of the matter or about whether this was the right time to take such steps, but when an hon. member comes here and says: “Coloured people are not regarded by the Government side as human beings” I want to ask hon. members to compare the position in South Africa with the rest of Africa. Let them consider the slum conditions and the hovels in which people in the rest of Africa are living. Let them consider what has happened in countries where there are Black majority Governments. There is no longer such a thing as a democracy. One finds oppression and subjugation; one finds famine, and chaos because there is no orderliness. The Black man has not yet reached the level of development at which he can understand this kind of game. I want to conclude. I just want to say that if one removes the White man and his initiative …

But we do not want to remove them.

Sir, the policy of those hon. members is inclining more and more to that side. It leads ultimately in that direction; that is what I am concerned about. I say: Give me my homeland and I shall give the other man his homeland. Then leave me alone after that.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister must pardon me if I do not participate in the debate on abattoirs, because I really have nothing to contribute on that subject. As far as the second part of his speech is concerned, we shall have an opportunity to discuss these very matters on Friday. He accused us on this side of the House of always dragging racial matters into debates. He accused the hon. member for Wynberg in particular of doing so. Let me just say that it was not our intention to discuss race matters in this debate, because we have more than enough to say about the Part Appropriation of the hon. the Minister of Finance. What led to the discussion of race matters, was the reports published in the Press on Monday concerning the squatters’ camp in Modderdam Road. Because of that we felt the need to discuss this matter during this debate. That is the reason.

However, time marches on and there are still quite a number of matters we want to discuss with the hon. the Minister of Finance. I shall therefore proceed to do so.

f Sir, I think it must be common cause that the Government is disastrously, or at least very seriously, overspent. It is common cause that the Government is out of cash and is unable to meet many of the commitments it would like to meet.

Where do you get that idea from?

Sir, one of the clearest pieces of evidence that the Government is overspent is the amount of money it is asking for in this part appropriation. Earlier in the debate the hon. member for Yeoville mentioned a figure of some R2 900 million. He referred to it in relation to Exchequer issues. It is an interesting figure. In 1972 an economic development programme was published and this programme set out a five-year-plan of economic growth for South Africa. It also made certain forecasts as to the amount of Government expenditure that would be required over the five years, from 1972 to 1977. In forecasting the total of general Government expenditure for the year 1977 it came up with the magic figure of R2 910 million. That was a forecast for total Government expenditure for the year 1977. The figure again came up on Monday. The figure of R2 900 million odd is in fact the amount of money the hon. the Minister requires to meet the part appropriation requirements of this Government over the next four months. That indicates what has happened to our economy since 1972. The hon. the Minister says the Government is not overspent. In view of the extremely poor prospects at present on Capital Account—this is another matter we shall go into in the course of this debate—it is quite clear that two things are going to have to happen: Firstly, there will have to be a drastic curtailment of Government expenditure and, secondly, there will have to be higher taxes.

In the course of my contribution I want to deal essentially with the question of higher taxes, but first allow me to deal briefly with the question of Government expenditure. It has been said to have been ruthlessly pruned. We have heard a great deal from Prof. McCrystal and many others of the enormous efforts the Government has made to prune its expenditure. The figures which were provided by the hon. the Minister on Monday show that if expenditure on defence is excluded, the growth of expenditure by the Government for the period 1970 to 1975 was of the order of 10% per annum. In other words, the annual increase in Government expenditure was of that order. If defence is included, and I think he referred more particularly to the latter years, the increase per annum has been of the order of 13%. Yet in the Part Appropriation Bill which he submitted to this House on Monday he asked for an increase over last year of no less than 25%. It may well be that one part appropriation cannot be compared with another, and that it would be fairer to compare an entire budget with another, but the indication is that there will be an enormous increase in expenditure by this Government despite its efforts to curtail expenditure. Some of this may be justified, and no doubt can be justified by increased defence expenditure.

What I now want to come to, is how this is going to be done. How are we going to afford it? This is the question before the House. I concede that there are certain services which cannot be curtailed indefinitely; nor can we continue to afford higher taxes based on a narrow tax base. This is the question. With growth, the economy can yield higher revenues, even if lower levels of taxation are applied, because a broad tax base can produce the revenues which the hon. the Minister requires.

Without growth, which is our present situation, higher revenues can only be obtained through higher taxation. But higher taxation reaches a point where it impedes growth. This is the vicious circle. At a certain level taxes become a positive disincentive to greater personal effort and to great private investment. The law of diminishing returns begins to apply. This simply means that you reach a point when higher taxes produce less revenue.

One could look briefly at company tax. Company tax runs at 43%, plus a 6% loan levy, which is really a certain amount of money which is taken away from the hands of the company and applied elsewhere by the Government in return for a low rate of interest. So, effectively, for the duration of the loan levy the company is obliged to find 49% of its profits and make these available to the Commissioner for Inland Revenue. The Commissioner for Inland Revenue is in a very enviable position because he takes 49% of the profits but he does not share any of the risks. He does not risk his own capital in this venture. If the company shows a loss it replaces its losses out of capital. Later it must make good this capital out of profits after tax. The profits, in any event, are largely fictitious because the company, when it deducts wear and tear and when it makes provision for depreciation of plant, must do so at historic cost and is not allowed to do so at replacement cost. So for all these reasons, because of the right of the Commissioner for Inland Revenue to take his share of the profits, but not to participate in the risks or even to allow for the full depreciation of the plant, he is in fact taking a great deal more than the 49% of which I spoke. One must add to this the question of double taxation. In the case of the people who lend money to the company, the people who participate in the company as shareholders, after having suffered this loss by taxation on the money they have invested, their own private incomes are then further taxed to the extent, in the highest tax brackets, of 60% plus 6%, two-thirds of the amount received by way of dividends being further taxed at that marginal rate. When one adds all these together one reaches the point where the investor has to think very seriously whether he wants to put his money into private enterprise for the kind of returns which can now be expected once the profits earned on his money have been taxed by the Commissioner for Inland Revenue. One effect which it does have is to drive him into tax shelters. He feels that the tax burden on him is so great that he will take refuge in a tax shelter. So he buys Government stock. This may be very welcome to the Minister of Finance, who badly needs the cash and cannot raise capital from abroad, but what is actually happening? The investor is taking risk money away from those private enterprise investments which in fact generate the cash which this country needs and which generate the tax base which we use to acquire revenue. That money is being taken away from those generators of capital and being transferred into tax havens, where the money is being less productively used, less profitably used, by the Government. This is a law of diminishing returns. It means that the tax base is slowly diminishing and the Minister, instead of gaining more money to meet his rising expenses, is steadily acquiring less and less money. We are killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.