Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned yesterday evening I was dealing with the question of taxation in relation to rising expenditure. I said that in a situation of low growth, or of no growth at all, and in a situation where capital loans have become increasingly difficult to obtain, the Government was in a position where it had to either cut back drastically on its expenditure or drastically increase taxes. Now, one must readily concede, as I did, that it is not easy for a Government to curtail certain forms of expenditure. It is, for example, not easy to curtail defence expenditure in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. It is not easy to cut back on oil expenditure in the circumstances in which we are. It is not easy to cut back on infrastructure or on essential services when in fact the population is rapidly expanding.

I concluded, therefore, that it was necessary to examine our tax structure to see what might be done, and in particular to look at the possible danger of disincentives arising when taxes move too high. Yesterday evening I looked at a few kinds of taxes in this regard.

I briefly want to deal with a few more. Let us look at the position of the individual taxpayer. As far as the individual taxpayer is concerned, we are in a position where the Government is able to increase its taxes without legislation. If one takes, for example, the case of a taxpayer who in 1973 had a taxable income of R8 000, one finds that he was liable for a tax of R1 000. Between 1973 and 1977 there was an increase of 50% in the cost of living. Now, we will assume that the same taxpayer has been fortunate enough to have his salary increased from R8 000 to R12 000 to match this increase in the cost of living. On this R12 000, which is no more in real terms than the R8 000 was in 1973, he is now paying a tax of R1 920, according to the tax tables. This means that while the nominal increase in his income is 50%, the nominal increase in his taxes is nearly 100%. This is the effect of inflation on the tax system. However, in addition to this, the unfortunate taxpayer now pays 10% in surcharge and a further 10% in loan levy. This is indeed a very high rate of tax for an individual of this kind.

Let us briefly examine the loan levy. The loan levy was seen by the Franzsen Commission, in its report of 1970, as a tax—it was described as such—and essentially as a stabilization instrument. The funds raised by the application of this tax, they said, should be put into a special Reserve Bank account and released when a stimulation of the economy was necessary. This was the way in which the Franzsen Commission looked at this tax. It was not considered to be right to treat the loan levy as a form of revenue.

In his 1975 budget the hon. the Minister of Finance in fact, in dealing with the loan levy, said that this was a yield on revenue account of Rx million. It seems to me that the loan levy, if it is to be used as a stimulus to the economy or as a brake on the economy, cannot be allowed to flow back into the economy as soon as the money passes into the Government’s hands. I believe that if one looks at the application of the loan levy system over a long period—for example, a period of seven years—if the hon. the Minister takes 10% every year over the next seven years, he will end up, after seven years, with 70% of the 1977 tax commitment of the unfortunate gentleman I was referring to a little while ago. In other words, the hon. the Minister will have received, by way of loan levy, and spent, something like R1 500 more than the R1 920 which this taxpayer paid in tax in 1977. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is all very well to take money out of the taxpayer’s hands, but this money is being used by the Government and the Government is paying a very low rate of interest on that money.

It is tax-free.

Yes, but that taxpayer is prevented from applying that money, that capital, to investment in South Africa at a time when such investment might be very badly needed.

Sir, I now want to deal with public corporations. We have, as has been discussed in this House and as has been publicized recently, a steady increase in the share of public corporations in the economy of South Africa. Leaving aside the merits and demerits of that for a moment, the fact is that the public corporations are very poor taxpayers. If one looks at a corporation like Iscor, for example, one finds that the capital employed by Iscor is of the order of R3 000 million, but Iscor is making a loss every year and is in no position to pay taxes. In fact, in the accounts of Iscor for the year 1976, it has this to say about taxes—

Sir, the I.D.C. made a profit of about R22 million in 1975, according to the latest accounts I have seen. That was their pre-tax profit. On this they paid only R3,7 million in tax.

As these corporations, therefore, increase their share of the economy and encroach on the private sector, so will the economy and the tax base be occupied by corporations and businesses and enterprises which pay very low tax. In other words, the hon. the Minister will be obliged to impose an ever-increasing burden on the narrow private enterprise sector which remains. This is the situation we now face. If we go on like this, the final stage will be reached when high tax creates a disincentive to hard work and further investment in the private corporations. The State has an inevitable need for revenue and it will then as inevitably be driven towards a capital tax. It will have no option but to do what has been done in the United Kingdom and other countries where a capital tax has been imposed, and this will increasingly eat up the savings, the investments and the capital; in other words, the hoard of wealth of the people themselves. This is the route which will inevitably be followed. What then is the remedy? I put it to you, Sir, that the only remedy is in fact to broaden the tax base. We have nowhere else to go. We cannot curtail expenditure below a certain limit and we cannot push up taxes above a certain limit without producing disincentives. Therefore the tax base must be increased.

Why can the tax base not be increased more rapidly? The basic obstacle is the Government’s own race policies, which restrict growth and virtually paralyse full productivity. A little while ago Mr. Len Abrahamse, a noted financier, examined the effects of the Government’s race policies on the economic growth of the country. In trying to calculate the financial loss caused by the application of such policies, he used two models. One was an American model, in which he applied the income of each race group in relation to a range of educational standards and multiplied this by the number of each race group in the population. He also employed another calculation. He took the per capita GDP per race group and then multiplied it by the size of each race group in order to see what exactly the disparities were and what losses were caused by the uneven development structure as between races. This is not a calculation which can be applied with any certainty. I agree that it is merely an indicator. However, as an indicator it does produce the most alarming results.

It is absolutely hit or miss!

Well, it gives an order of size. What it does show is that if these policies had not been applied, then instead of having a per capita GNP last year of R1 030, South Africa’s per capita GNP would have been R1 545; in other words, about 50% higher. If we look at the GNP as a whole, it means that we would have had a GNP in 1976 of R39 800 million instead of R26 700 million, which means that we suffered a loss on GNP of R13 000 million. The hon. the Minister shakes his head and I concede that he has reason to disagree with the accuracy of these figures. They cannot be accurate figures and they do not take into account a lot of indirect consequences which cannot be quantified. However, they nevertheless indicate the magnitude of the kind of loss which is being suffered by South Africa in consequence of these policies. This is the direct economic loss and is the cause of the increasing burden which is being put on the narrow base of taxpayers in South Africa. As I have said, the indirect loss cannot be calculated. The racial unrest, the high cost of security and defence, the deteriorating political and economic prestige overseas, the difficulty of obtaining loans, are all indirect damages suffered in consequence of these policies. These things also, especially in the context of my speech today, strike at the diminishing ability of a narrow sector of taxpayers to carry this ever-growing burden. It cannot go on. It is already very high, as I have tried to demonstrate by the examples I have given. There is not much of a margin in which the hon. the Minister can operate in order to increase taxes without either running over the top—i.e. 100%—or, at a slightly lower level, producing ever-diminishing returns and positive disincentives against growth and against increased productivity in this country. There is no real financial solution available to the hon. the Minister, unless he accepts that the financial solution must be preceded by a political solution. That is what the country stands in need of now in the financial domain, in the political domain, in the international domain and in the defence domain. The hon. the Minister needs a political solution. It has to be accomplished in this country before he will resolve the enormous dilemma in which he now finds himself, caught as he is between the pincers of increasing costs and diminishing returns in respect of tax revenue.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of my speech I shall return to the speeches of the hon. members for Von Brandis and Constantia and I shall try to prove that they stand very much alone in their grim portrayal of our country’s economic position. Before I do that, I want to ask my hon. friends in the PRP benches why they are being so taciturn in Durbanville. Whenever they send their people out, they tell them not to talk about the PRP idea of integrating the schools in South Africa. Why do they keep quiet in Durbanville instead of telling the people there that their policy of integrated schools will amount to discrimination against the White man in the lower income group? They state quite clearly in their pamphlets that education will be integrated but only in those areas in which the population groups are already integrated to a fair extent. We know that Coloured and Black people also live near those areas in which Whites are living in sub-economic housing schemes. We do not find them in Houghton and Constantia. I charge these people with being dishonest in their political policy and with not telling the people of Durbanville precisely what their policy is. I shall return to this point at the end of my speech.

As the Opposition’s chief spokesman on finance, the hon. member for Constantia said a few things in his speech on which we must take issue with him. Last week we heard from the bench of the hon. the Prime Minister the actual words he used during the Assocom congress. In his speech, the hon. member for Constantia accused the hon. the Prime Minister of equivocation. I think that this is reprehensible and that this is a distasteful remark about someone who—I think we will all agree—enjoys the highest esteem and respect in South Africa. I was not there, but the Prime Minister quoted the words which he had used there. In spite of this, there are people on that side who question his words and are now accusing him of equivocation. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Constantia repeated his old story in saying that “We must have fundamental changes in apartheid”. It seems to me that to his credulous mind, an economic Utopia in South Africa would result if the philosophy or the policy of separate development were to disappear. But the facts will clearly prove that if the Government and its policy were to disappear, the tempest of political instability and bankruptcy would descend upon us. I ask myself, the hon. member for Constantia and the hon. member for Von Brandis the following question: Why the pessimism? Why talk about “mismanagement”? Why the accusations that there is a lack of thorough planning? Why do the hon. members come along today with cheap politicizing in regard to South Africa’s economic and financial condition?

Hon. members need not listen to me, but I am going to quote expert opinions in order to prove that they are wrong. After all, their new hero is Dr. Wassenaar. Do the hon. members know what he said in connection with South Africa’s economic position? Dr. Wassenaar said one very important thing, viz. that the economic situation in which the country found itself at present was not a consequence of internal conditions. In other words, our economic situation is one of many in the world but it is not due to internal conditions.

I want to turn to a standpoint which was adopted by the Bureau for Economic Research at Stellenbosch in their latest publication. I quote from that report as published in an article in The Cape Times of 3 February 1977. The Cape Times quotes the Bureau for Economic Research at Stellenbosch as follows—

I now want those hon. members to tell me: If this is so, then who is responsible for this firm base which has been moulded and created and upon which our healthy economic growth will be based? Is it the numerous experts who write books? Is it the armchair theorists? No. The firm base, the anticipated real growth in the gross national product, was created solely by the financial discipline of the Government as prescribed and implemented in last year’s budget. Hon. members must not think that it is I who maintain this for I have in front of me the latest report of the South African Federated Chamber of Industries and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I want to quote a few extracts from this in order to show the hon. members that the pessimism on their part is unfounded. If we compare what the President of the Federated Chamber of Industries says in his report to the pessimistic sounds issuing from that side of the House, then it will be as well for them to listen to what this man has to say. In his speech, he addressed the State President as follows—

This was the president of the Federated Chamber of Industries; he went on to say

What is the date?

The year 1976. He went on to say—

We would do well to listen to these words. I should also like to quote the following passage for the benefit of the hon. member for Constantia in particular, who is always so pessimistic and makes out to the industrialists that they are on the brink of bankruptcy. The president of the Federated Chamber said the following—

Surely this is a spirit of optimism radiating from an industrialist, one who is not influenced by the prophets of doom in the Opposition benches. I want to go further and quote from Opposition newspapers which commented favourably on the Ministers of Finance and Economic Affairs. I should like to quote from the Sunday Business Times of 14 November 1976. It states—

This was a tribute which this person paid to the Government. I want to quote what the same person said at a later date, only a few weeks ago. I again quote from the Sunday Business Times—

These are surely the real facts which one should look at and listen to because they come from people who do not support the Government. I should like to quote a final extract. In his annual report this year, the president of the Chamber of Mines had the following to say about the Minister of Finance and his department and, by implication, about the Government—

At this point, however, I must interrupt myself. There were people who stated in a certain book that has been published, that the 1976 budget was a fiasco. The Opposition applauded this and confirmed it. However, what did the president of the Chamber of Mines say? He said—

He then said the following—

The president of the Chamber of Mines went on to say—

We should rather listen to what these people tell us. However, accusations are now being hurled at us. South Africa is on the carpet as the black sheep. We have to hear from the ranks of the Opposition that: “The other countries in the world are not as weak as us.” When the hon. the Minister made his second reading speech, he made mention of an IMF mission which was in South Africa. If a country borrows money from the IMF, a mission visits it once every two years to look at how the economy is progressing. The hon. the Minister of Finance told us that the report which the mission sent back to their head office, was a fine, positive report on what is being done and planned in the country. We are nevertheless being accused because we are, according to the Opposition, the only country in the world that is so weak that we are faced with a negative current balance of payments account. It is said that we are in the red and deep in debt. Looking at the balance on current—and it is adjusted seasonally at an annual rate—I see that in 1975 South Africa had a debit balance of R1 782 million. In the same year, Canada had a shortfall of R3 800 million and Italy one of R438 million. That was in 1975, but in the year after that, 1976, Italy’s shortfall was R2 478 million, and therefore suffered a massive increase in its debit balance. It was the same in Britain, and France, which in 1975 had a debit balance of R52 million, had a debit balance of R5 218 million in 1976. I want to point out that it is not only South Africa that has to contend with problems such as these.

Now I turn to the hon. member for Johannesburg North, who, in his wisdom, stated that our problem had arisen as a result of South Africa’s political policy. It was said by this friend, who has come from another country, this man who has struck it rich in South Africa, this man who is living off the fat of the land in South Africa, this man who has a lot to say about a people that has been living here for generations. In his arrogant way, he said that South Africa’s financial and economic problems were a consequence of our policy of separate development.

He is stupid!

Without answering his allegation at length, I just want to ask him what right he, as a newcomer to South Africa has to speak to us in this way, we who have been struggling here and building up South Africa for 300 years. While dealing with him, I want to point out that last year, when the hon. the Minister of Finance spoke about his confidence in the future of gold, the hon. member for Johannesburg North giggled and laughed. He had a sneer on his face.

His typical sneer!

Yes. If he were to take a look at the history of South Africa before making his political utterances, his utterances would be more South African-orientated. He would then have to guard his tongue and keep his profundities to himself. He owes the hon. the Minister of Finance an apology for the reprehensible attitude he adopted last year.

Are you joining the Bolshoi Ballet or Sadlers Wells?

Our inflation rate is being discussed. The accusation is being levelled at us that the Government is doing nothing in an attempt to combat this hostile element. I again want to mention a few figures. The rise in the consumer price index in our country was 11,6 in 1974; in 1975 it was 13,5 and in 1976, 11,4. However, let us take a look at Australia, because Australia is a comparable country. The rise in the consumer price index in Australia was 15,1 in 1974; and also in 1975, and 13,0 in 1976. Let us take a look at Italy. In 1974 the rise there was 19,1; in 1975 and 1976 it was 17,0, and in Britain …

What about Cambodia?

The rise in the consumer price index in Britain was 16,0 in 1974, 23,2 in 1975, and 15,0 in 1976. Now compare this to our own country’s achievements. However, one would never hear from those ranks that their fatherland, too, could achieve something. No, we are criticized. I often form the impression—Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say this and if you rule me out of order I shall accept it—that many of the hon. members sitting there no longer regard South Africa as their fatherland. [Interjections.] They regard South Africa merely as a country where they can make money, from which they will beat a hasty retreat in the event of trouble.

Mr. Speaker, I have quoted various figures and adduced testimony of prominent industrialists and men in industry who have stated that the Government has been moving in the right direction with its fiscal and monetary measures and last year’s budget. I want to ask: Is it not an achievement on the part of the Government to be able to do this under the most difficult circumstances imaginable? Is it not an achievement to have brought down the rate of inflation, under extremely difficult conditions, from 18,2 in 1974 to less than 10%, which, it is hoped is what it will be this year? Is it not an achievement and proof of the Government’s determination that it succeeded in keeping its promise to curtail state expenditure? It was cut by R800 million in the present fiscal year in spite of the fact that there were many urgent schemes which we should have liked to have put into effect. One thinks, for example, of the many irrigation schemes in the Western Cape which are very urgent but in respect of which the hon. the Minister said: “You will have to wait for those. We have to curtail the expenditure of the Department of Water Affairs as well.” Consequently, I say that this is quite an achievement on the part of the hon. the Minister and his Department. I greatly appreciate it.

I am sorry to have to say this, but I think that there are some hon. members on the opposite side, with their fellows in the Press gallery and certain experts as well, who want to make us believe that South Africa is no longer a safe country. They maintain that South Africa has so many problems that it would be better to leave. I want to put a question to the PRP and, in fact, to all the parties opposite—except perhaps the group of the hon. member for Newton Park which, if I am not mistaken, is more patriotic than the other groups on that side. I want to ask them: If they are so sure that they are fighting in the interests of South Africa, if they are so sure that it is worthwhile to live in South Africa; are they then prepared to join me, my party and my Government in telling the world that what is said about South Africa abroad, is untrue? Are they prepared to back us up in saying that what is published in official documents in other countries is untrue? Let me quote a few examples. Is the hon. member for Pinelands, who at times adopts such a holier-than-thou attitude, prepared to stand up and say: “I agree that what is being said about this country is wrong?” The UNO is distributing a document in the schools of Western Europe and America. In the document concerned they state, inter alia, the following in connection with the homelands—

When I call the hon. members on the opposite side unpatriotic or accuse them of telling the world at large that it is not worthwhile for South Africa to continue to exist as a country, they say that this is not so. I want to ask whether members of the PRP are prepared to say here in the House or outside that what UNESCO is telling the children of the world in this document, is incorrect. One also reads, amongst other things, in this document—

Are the hon. members opposite prepared to state in public, and in the circles in which they move: “I, as a South African, want to tell the world that these things are untrue?”

Yes. We have said it hundreds of times before.

This UNESCO document goes on to say … [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order! If I call for order, I expect the hon. members to comply. The hon. member for Bryanston must restrain himself.

Sir, he is a political nonentity. I take no notice of him. This UNESCO publication said, inter alia, the following about the riots—

Will the hon. members on the opposite side stand up and say that this is false, that these are untruths and, for the first time in their lives, champion the cause of their fatherland?

I want to close by saying a few words about thrift among our people. I am worried because there is no positive spirit of thrift among our people. When I look at the reports of the large business undertakings over the Christmas period—and I have the figures with me—at how the owners of the business undertakings attest to their large turnover, then it seems to me that the man in the street does in fact have money to spend. I should now like to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance: Can you not formulate a plan to motivate the people to become more savings-conscious? We could muster millions of rands every year if we were more thrifty. We could muster millions and buy defence bonds, among other things. I should like to say to our people: Instead of spending R50 on a new chair or on another item, let us rather invest that money in defence bonds and say that we too should like to play our part in building up our Defence Force and in safeguarding our country for all time.

I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister of Finance in this regard, to inspire greater thrift among our people and to motivate them to set about this aspect, too, more vigorously and in greater numbers.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Worcester devoted most of his time to an attack on the PRP, and I want to say quite frankly that we are not going to defend them because we do not have a working arrangement or a “loose liaison” with them. [Interjections.] Therefore they will just have to defend themselves.

Do you have a working arrangement with the Nats?

We support the principles of the UP … [Interjections.] … while you accepted the compromises that were suggested in order to work with the PRP.

The hon. member for Worcester did also mention the economy in passing and said: Is it not a wonderful achievement for the Government to have decreased the cost of living from 18,2% to less than 10%? But who pushed it up to 18,2% in the first place? Then the hon. member also asked: Is it not a great achievement for State expenditure to have been reduced by such and such an amount? But who pushed up State expenditure? We in these benches are deeply concerned about the fact that we are being confronted by a part appropriation in which the hon. the Minister seeks to spend 25% more than he spent last year without giving a word of explanation as to what he wants to spend it on. We are also particularly concerned about the fact that the hon. the Minister has not presented plans or lists of priorities for expanding the economy of South Africa.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I want to move as an amendment—

1. (1) effectively to combat the ever-increasing cost of living and inflationary trends;
2. (2) to counteract the distressing increase in unemployment;
3. (3) to keep the increasing expenditure by the State within reasonable limits; and
4. (4) so to stimulate the growth potential of the private sector that it will be possible to meet the security and other needs of the country.”.

Mr. Speaker, I think that this is a fair and reasonable amendment, because the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs himself said in the no-confidence debate that present circumstances require the Government and all of us to reconsider our goals and revalue the means at our disposal.

I agree!

But, Mr. Speaker, where is the revaluation? Where are the lists of priorities? Where are the plans? We did not hear a single word about them in this budget speech. All we heard was that the hon. the Minister of Finance wanted to spend 25% more than he did last year.

At him, Boet!

Boet is good!

Mr. Speaker, I should like to know whether it is a good thing, whether it is fair of the hon. the Minister to come along and say that he wants to spend 25% more than last year, when every responsible person in South Africa is being told to tighten his belt and to reconsider his position? Mr. Speaker, every responsible man in South Africa realizes this, and he acts accordingly. He makes great sacrifices for South Africa. I can mention one example. I should like to refer to the civil servant in South Africa. Last year civil servants were promised that they would receive a 5% salary increase in January this year.

No, it was not promised! [Interjections.]

It was very close to a promise anyway! [Interjections.]

No, it was nowhere near one! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is so funny at all! The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs may think it is very funny. We shall see who is laughing when I have finished with him. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, those people were promised that they would receive a salary increase of 5% in January this year, but then the …

No, that is not true!

… but then the economic circumstances were not sufficiently favourable. Then the hon. the Minister told those people: “Look, the economic situation is not sufficiently favourable.” And they agreed. They agreed willingly. They made that sacrifice for South Africa, because they are responsible people. Then all the other people made the sacrifice. They did their bit for South Africa!

Hear, hear!

They acted in a responsible manner, but did the Government do its bit? [Interjections.] Did the Government act responsibly by saying at this stage that it wanted to increase its expenditure by 25%; that it wanted to spend 25% more than last year? [Interjections.] Of course, we are not given a single word of explanation as to why this should be so. The only indication the hon. the Minister gave us was his statement that he stood surety for Glen Anil for R5 million. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, there have been bank credit limits in this country since 1966. Guide-lines were laid down in accordance with which the banks could lend money. There sits the hon. the Minister of Agriculture! He knows that a producer cannot negotiate a long-term loan with a bank. There is no money for producers, but here the banks lend more than R100 million for property speculation to a company like Glen Anil. Is this not being irresponsible?

When Glen Anil gets into hot water with its property speculations, the hon. the Minister of Finance stands surety for R5 million. He stands surety for R5 million with the money of the taxpayers of South Africa. The money of the man who has lived carefully and frugally, who has acted responsibly and paid his tax conscientiously, is now being used to stand surety for a property speculator in South Africa. Now I ask whether it was not irresponsible of the banks to lend that money in the first instance? After all, today we must use the available capital to encourage the industries, the producers and the mining industry to earn foreign currency, but here it is being wasted on property speculation in South Africa. The banks were extremely irresponsible, but the fact that the hon. the Minister stood surety for those property speculators is the height of irresponsibility.

You have the wrong end of the stick. [Interjections.]

I now want to deal with the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs who was laughing and cheerful a moment ago. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of Finance said that our balance of payments, our shortage of foreign currency, was still one of our greatest problems. How does the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs use our foreign currency in South Africa? Here we see that—

It is a disgrace.

These are sports cars in the R25 000 price bracket. Is this how the hon. the Minister carries on with our foreign currency?

What do you drive?

I just drive an old Chev and that suits me very well. [Interjections.] Is it fair for the hon. the Minister to squander our foreign currency by importing sports cars at a time when we in South Africa urgently need money for defence? What is more, the hon. the Minister is laughing about it; to him it is a big joke. We also read—

There is the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs; he allows himself to be cheated of R20 million in tax. From whom must this be recovered? It must be recovered from the ordinary taxpayer of South Africa, but despite that the hon. the Minister sits there with a big smile; to him it is a big joke.

Last year the Government spent a vast amount of money on Iscor and now we see—

Now Mr. L. J. Nel, a senior official in the buying department of Iscor, says: “Nobody will ever find out why they got the contract. It will never be allowed to be known.” This is how the affairs of the country are being run! This is how they are carrying on with the taxpayers’ money which is allotted to Iscor. All the hon. the Minister does is laugh about it. To him it is a big joke. The following is also said—

Surely you do not believe everything you read in the Sunday Times?

I read it in The Citizen. How much money have I mentioned so far: Approximately R800 million. This is the amount the hon. the Minister has lost for this country through his incompetence, money which South Africa needs urgently at this stage. However, I am not finished with the hon. the Minister yet. Last week he made the shocking announcement that he has increased the price of fertilizer by a further 13,5%. The price of a ton of fertilizer has been increased from R85,75 to R97,30; in other words an increase of R11,55 per ton. This is without taking into account the railage, which is almost as much as the price of fertilizer. If this had been the only increase, it would have been a mere nothing. There have been increases of no less than 75% in the price of fertilizer between January 1974 and February 1975. This has cost the South African producer R100 million. What is so ironical about this whole matter is that after the price of fertilizer had been increased by 75%, the balance sheets of the two major manufacturers of fertilizer in South Africa were published.

Who are they?

I would rather not say; I do not want to be personal. Mr. Speaker, do you know what those balance sheets indicated? They indicated that their profits rose by 63% and 55% respectively. However, the hon. the Minister allocated an increase of 75% in one year.

What is the percentage profit on their investment?

Mr. Speaker, is that hon. member incapable of understanding that if in the course of one year, profits rose by 63% in comparison with the previous year, it was unnecessary for the hon. the Minister to push up the price? I will however grant the hon. the Minister this: When he woke up and realized this, he did reduce the price of fertilizer by 8%. What is the use of reducing it by 8% after having pushed it up by 75%? It was not six months later, in January 1976, when he pushed it up by 6% once again. Now he is pushing up the price yet again by 13,5%. [Interjections.] That hon. Minister is laughing now, but does he not realize that fertilizer is the source of nutrition for the soil, that no one in South Africa can produce food without fertilizer, and that food is a strategic factor? By providing hungry Africa with food we can win the heart of Africa. However, all the hon. the Minister can do is laugh! He can destroy the means of production of South Africa and impoverish her soil by his action. Is the hon. the Minister of Agriculture going to allow these things to happen? There sits the hon. member for Bethal, a leading farmer of calibre and there sits the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet, a leading farmer of the Cape. Are the two of them also just going to sit right and join on the laughter of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs as regards this matter?

While I am dealing with the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, I should like to refer to the surplus of butter and cheese and the fact that the hon. the Minister increased prices of these commodities. Strangely enough, I have a great deal of sympathy for him, because I know something about agricultural marketing. However, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture was then elbowed aside by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and a week later he had to reduce the price of butter and cheese. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister of Agriculture: When was he right—when he increased the price or when he reduced it? [Interjections.] Not long after that, the exact same thing happened in respect of sugar. The price of sugar abroad dropped, but then the hon. the Minister increased the price of sugar—this falls under his department—surely he wants to be the only one to put up prices. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister has the monopoly on putting up prices. I now want to go further and refer to the price of cement. In 1970, before I came to Parliament, I bought cement at 66 cents a sack, which was expensive even then. Today it costs R2 per sack. The price of cement is controlled by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. Strangely enough, the hon. the Minister increased the price by R3,05 per ton last year. As a result the balance sheet of one of the major companies showed that that company’s profits had increased by 39,4% to R18 million in comparison with that of the previous year. How high must one’s profit be for the hon. the Minister not to increase prices.

What about their capital investment?

That does not matter; I am speaking of the profit. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister must not feign stupidity now. [Interjections.] If the company made a good profit last year, and this year the Minister increases the prices so that the profit of the same company can increase by 39% in one year, is this something to laugh about? The hon. member next to me tells me that I have to conclude my speech now.

In conclusion I should just like to say the following: The men in these benches have made their profession of faith. We said that as far as internal security was concerned, we would be on the side of law and order and that as far as the defence of South Africa was concerned, we would be on the side of South Africa. We also undertook to be a responsible Opposition, but then we ask for responsible government from that side of the House. We have achieved consensus as far as defence and internal security are concerned and I now want to make an appeal to reasonable members like the hon. member for Bethal, the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet and the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, and ask them whether we cannot achieve consensus in order to eradicate incompetence in this country, because we cannot afford it. I make that appeal.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for King William’s Town on his appointment as the shadow Minister of Finance of the Independent UP. After I listened to the sporadic fits of laughter which burst out here, it became clear to me that the UP lost a great expert. I should like to agree with the hon. member that we ought to stamp out inefficiency, and I see that the UP started with him, because he is no longer with them.

I want to refer to the expected birth of a new party. In this process the former judge, Kowie Marais, finds himself in the position of a political midwife. He has rolled up his shirt-sleeves to deliver a baby and when he entered the maternity ward, he found that the expectant mother had fled.

Was it a wind then? [Interjections.]

The question now is why the expectant mother has fled. The nature of the answer is two-fold. In the first instance the UP allowed the PRP to outwit them with a political trick. It has never been the intention of these people to amalgamate with the UP. Their intention was to destroy the UP with a trick, and in that they have almost succeeded by now; the proof of that is sitting here with us in the House.

In the second place the UP has now begun to develop a mortal fear for the “perilous politics” being practised by the PRP and which emerges in political slogans. The Minister of the Interior said in the no-confidence debate that there had been a shift of emphasis in the political slogans of the Opposition. First it was “Away with discrimination”! Then it was “Away with petty apartheid”! And now it is: “Political participation and power sharing which must lead to a Black majority government.” I agree with the hon. Minister about this shift of emphasis as far as political slogans are concerned, but I want to take it further and say that the signs are already there that the next slogan will be: “Away with the Whites in South Africa!” I say that that will be the next slogan and the signs which point to it, already exist. I shall demonstrate this in the course of my speech.

†Mr. Speaker, in the Sunday Times of 2 January this year a certain Marcel Robertson of Durban wrote the following letter—

In the leading article of the Sunday Times of the same date it is stated that—

May I point out that there will be nothing left for our so-called friends in the West to defend after Black majority rule has taken over in South Africa. Black majority rule will destroy Western civilization in this country and there will be nothing left for our so-called friends in the West to defend. No, Mr. Speaker, we will defend ourselves by preserving our civilization and by keeping the Government of this country in responsible White hands. It is utterly irresponsible to advocate Black majority rule for a country which has for more than 300 years been the fatherland of a White nation which has lived in this country for a longer period than the Black nations themselves, and nearly as long as the Americans have been living in America. The fact that Black majority rule has left no room for White participation in Africa is of little importance to those Whites who identify themselves with Black majority rule for South Africa. It has destroyed democratic governments and the capitalistic system in Africa. Or do they not know the history of Africa? The fact that communism has thrived under Black majority rule and that Black Government has not prevented communism from establishing itself in the heart of Africa is also of little importance to the editor of the Sunday Times who asks for the abolishment of White government to combat communism. Or does he not know the position of communism in Africa?

The point that makes all the difference between us and the rest of Africa, however, is that South Africa is not the country of a Black majority. South Africa is, with the exclusion of the Black homelands, the country of a White nation which is part of Africa. It is therefore the fatherland of a White African nation with a White, responsible Government, and we shall keep it that way. If the world is unwilling to accept this fact, if the Blacks ignore this historic situation and if certain Whites, like the editor of the Sunday Times, the Marcel Robertsons and the PRP, urge the Blacks to create unrest and revolution by constantly calling upon this Government …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is a member allowed to say that a party sitting in this House is working towards unrest and revolution amongst the Blacks?

Mr. Speaker, I did not refer to a single member. I referred to the party. If they are …

Order! Would that hon. member please put his point of order again?

Gladly, Sir. Is it permissible for an hon. member in this House to suggest that a party sitting in this House is working towards unrest and revolution amongst the Black community in this land?

Order! Does the hon. member mean that members sitting in this House identify themselves with that?

Mr. Speaker, I did not refer to a member. I referred to certain Whites and said the PRP, among others. I referred to the PRP as a party.

Did the hon. member mean that their actions could result in that or that they are deliberately promoting it?

Mr. Speaker, I say they are promoting it.

I shall think about the matter. In the meantime the hon. member may continue.

If they constantly call upon this Government to prepare the country for Black majority rule, thereby creating unrest and revolution, I should like to assure the whole world and all those Whites I have mentioned that the Afrikaner Nationalist will fight, literally if necessary, for the survival of White South Africa governed by White, responsible people, thereby perpetuating democratic government and the capitalistic system, as referred to by Marcel Robertson of Durban.

You are living in a dream world.

I shall come to that member in a moment. When I say that the Afrikaner Nationalist is prepared to fight for the survival of South Africa under White rule, then the hon. member for Pinelands—who is now carrying on so rowdily over there— should know that the PRP will become the object of searing White hatred if they persist in stirring up the highly inflammable emotions of the Blacks in this country against the White Government of South Africa. Resolutions and statements at the annual congress of the PRP read, for example—

And further—

These are resolutions they adopted at their congress. The hope is also expressed that we will still see a Black Prime Minister in office in our time.

Surely such resolutions and remarks are fuel on the fire for the consuming hatred towards Whites of a person like Chief Buthelezi. They also strengthen his desire to become the first Black Prime Minister of South Africa one day, by force if possible and with the blessing of the hon. member for Pinelands. No wonder that Chief Buthelezi said during the same weekend as the annual congress of the PRP that the so-called liberation struggle would be continued unconstitutionally. May I now ask this arch-Black racist what he means by a liberation struggle while he denies his people independence? May I ask the PRP whether they can give me an explanation for this? What does Chief Buthelezi mean by a liberation struggle when he denies his people their independence? Surely he need not fight for it. Surely there need be no liberation struggle. May I further ask him what he meant by what he said on 27 August, when he summoned his people to revolt by telling a crowd in Soweto “Die sleutel tot vryheid is eenheid … A1 die Swartes in die land is onderdruk, en as ons vry wil wees, moet ons verenig … Dit is ons land.”

Can you see, Sir, the signs of the next slogan to which I have referred? I repeat: He can have full freedom and independence in his country tomorrow without fighting for it. He has his country. But he should also understand very clearly that I also have my country. However, because he displays hostility towards the Whites, because he is venomous towards the Whites, the PRP applauds him when he says that the events in Angola and Mozambique are the writing on the wall for the Whites in South Africa. On a subsequent occasion he said that time was running out for the Whites in South Africa.

Then the hon. member for Sandton claps his hands and applauds him. He quotes him as so-called proof of the resistance of the Blacks to the policy of the National Party. He knows that it is untrue; surely it is not resistance to a policy. Surely it is total resistance to the presence of Whites in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

Oh, shut up!

Sir, I wish those hon. members would keep their mouths shut when I am trying to raise a point of order. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member allowed to say that the hon. member for Sandton told an untruth and knew it?

Order! I am under the impression that the hon. member did say that the hon. member for Sandton told an untruth and that he knew it.

I did not say that he knew it at all. I said that he told a lie. The hon. member may read my Hansard afterwards—I did not say “he knew it”.

Order! If the hon. member said that the hon. member for Sandton told a lie—I did not hear it—he must withdraw it.

Is one no longer allowed to say an hon. member told a lie?

No, no hon. member may say that.

Then I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. I should like to say that Chief Buthelezi might impress the editor of the Sunday Times and the Marcel Robertsons with these remarks of his …

Who is this Marcel Robertson or whatever his name is?

… but if, with the support of some people, he preaches revolt and revolution with the object of driving the Whites out of this country, as was the case in Angola and Mozambique, I want to tell him at this early stage that the time will come of which the Bible speaks: “and blood came … even unto the horse bridles”. When he says, to the delight of the PRP—because they applaud it—that the bloodshed we saw during the recent riots will be child’s play compared to what will happen if the Whites do not prepare themselves now to transfer power to a Black majority, then I want to tell him that I feel extremely sorry for his people—not him—if it should ever happen that he is the person who leads his people into such a situation. I should like to express the hope that he would be spared that. With Chief Buthelezi trying to dominate the political scene and the PRP causing some people to become obsessed with the idea of confrontation between Whites and non-Whites, an element of militancy has now entered South African politics. It cannot be otherwise, because White Opposition members and Black activists are outbidding one another in their statements to create confrontation, rather than to seek peace, ensure stability and a happy continued existence. No. Open confrontation between Whites and non-Whites is being sought. Therefore it was astounding to read in Die Volksblad of 11 November 1976 that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout displayed this shocking lack of patriotism towards his fatherland by saying that a Black person of South Africa might as well have been living in communist Russia as far as freedom of movement and freedom of enterprise were concerned. And with regard to the so-called oppression of Black people he said—

May I now ask that hon. member whether the words he speaks in public are calculated to create sound human relations in South Africa, whether they are calculated to present a good image of South Africa to the outside world— for he is, after all, the chief spokesman on foreign affairs for that side—or are they calculated to seek a situation of friction, of unhappiness and of absolute confrontation in South Africa and to slander and malign South Africa in the outside world?

We are just trying to wake you up; that is all.

It was just as astounding to read in Die Transvaler of 12 November that Chief Buthelezi had said in London after a visit to America—

Now I should like to ask these two gentlemen: How far can one go to seek the downfall and the total destruction of your people and your country through your actions and your statements? But on the other hand I can say that this inflammatory propaganda of these two gentlemen—for it is nothing else— is fortunately being reduced to absolute, utter rubbish, merely because of the fact that Chief Buthelezi was free to travel to America, free to ask the Carter administration, which he in fact did, to cast the so-called “minority rule” in South Africa overboard and to establish a so-called Black majority government— complete freedom of movement, complete freedom of speech and complete freedom of enterprise for Chief Buthelezi and his people. So where does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout get this absolute, absurd rubbish which he sends abroad to harm South Africa?

South Africa is in a very delicate position; nobody denies that; we all have to realize that. Therefore it is extremely dangerous, perilous for South Africa and its people, if we make this type of statement of which I mentioned half a dozen examples. Since the issue here, and what we are engaged in doing, is to create the greatest, the fullest possible freedom of movement for all the population groups of South Africa, every responsible leader must choose his words judiciously and skilfully so as to ensure peace and stability, and not so as to seek confrontation with the utmost wilfulness. After all these statements by hostile figures of authority against South Africa, it is surprising that these eloquent members sitting in this House, the PRPs, are still persevering in their policy of a joint say, and sharing of power which will lead to Black majority rule in which, according to them, the White man will have a say. They live under a delusion, in an absolute fool’s paradise, if they think that the Whites will have any say in that. Let us listen to what someone like Tsietsi Mashinini had to say according to Die Burger of 19 January.

That is their hero.

Yes, their hero. He said—

That is their protégé. That is the person who lives, under their good care, on the fat of the land in other countries to sputter out his gall and hatred for South Africa from there. Then they think that they, as Whites, would have any say in such a situation of majority rule.

On 7 January 1977 President Kaunda stated in his Parliament that his Government would continue to oppose the peaceful negotiations in Windhoek, and that he would support the so-called armed liberation struggle of Swapo. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? Because consensus is being achieved there between White and Black for a peaceful solution, and, according to Africa, the Whites do not belong there. That is the reason. Swapo is being supported because it is communist inspired and armed.

Mr. Speaker, who are the friends of Swapo in this House of Assembly?

In his New Year message the Secretary-General of the OAU said that Zimbabwe— that is Rhodesia—is undoubtedly on its irrevocable way to liberation. Of Mr. Ian Smith’s endeavours for a peaceful settlement he said—

Of South Africa he said—

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. members of the PRP what they hear in these words? What do they read in these words? Do they read any recognition of the White in that? Do they read an invitation to the White man to participate in a Government? No, Mr. Speaker, I read in those words a striving and a search for the destruction of the White in Southern Africa, by means of force if possible, especially when the Yorkshire Post said, according to a report in Die Volksblad of 7 January this year, the following—

About South Africa they said—

Mr. Speaker, what do the hon. gentlemen read in these words? Surely the issue is not one of a joint political say and a sharing of power. The issue is not one of Black majority rule in which the Whites will have a joint say. The issue is the destruction of the Whites, by means of force if possible. Mr. Speaker, like a Paul Kruger of old we can say once more—

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we should now like to tell all these people, tell them and all their fellow travellers in South Africa, that the South African nation and more specifically the Afrikaner Nationalist, will fight with every ounce of his considerable strength for his self-preservation and survival in his fatherland. Perhaps the time has come for us to tell Africa that, if they want to ignore our repeated offer of peaceful co-existence and of good neighbourliness and of assistance in all spheres, and seek confrontation under communist inspiration, South Africa is ready, prepared and willing to strike back at any military adventure in South Africa with murderous force.

Mr. Speaker, since there is so much talk at present about terrorism and about the training of terrorists, since young schoolchildren are being spirited away to undergo training and then to return to South Africa, the time has also come for us to tell Africa that we shall not tolerate terrorism against us. We must tell Africa that if a single person, White or non-White, is killed on South African soil, we shall aim at the heart of the host country. I believe that South Africa is in a position to raze the capital of such a country to the ground, and I also believe that we must do it in a case like that. I believe that we must tell them this now. Mr. Speaker, I believe that it must be said once more that South Africa’s continuous reassurance to Africa that our sincere intention and our sincere desire is peaceful co-existence and good neighbourliness and assistance in all spheres, is an offer which we will repeat time and again, because it is our sincere desire. Let it be an indication to them of the spirit in which South Africa approaches its position in Africa. I believe that South Africa is militarily powerful enough not to have to prove its strength in a war with Africa.

However, I also believe that Africa is aware of the fact that if we are forced to do so we shall defend ourselves with all the strength at our disposal. That is why the hon. Prime Minister, the hon. Minister of Defence and other Ministers are continuously making the offer that we should live in peace on this beautiful, vast continent, a continent on which there is room for all, also for a White nation that is pact of Africa, a nation whose traditions were born from this soil and which gained a place for itself here. The place we have gained for ourselves, we shall not give up, not even through the instrumentality of the PRP.

Order! Before I call upon the next hon. member to speak, I want to point out that I indicated earlier that I would give further consideration to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Pinelands. The rules of this House protect hon. members against any imputation of their honour, their credibility and, I think, their loyalty to the oath which they made before the Chair. Reference was made to a political party, and perhaps I should illustrate the matter on the basis of an example. It is not permissible to say of an hon. member in this House that he is a traitor. Consequently it would not be permissible either for an hon. member to say for example that the NP consists of traitors and then try to get away with it by saying that he did not mean it to apply to hon. members who are sitting here, for it does apply to them as well. It is therefore my opinion that an hon. member cannot say what he likes about the PRP and afterwards maintain that he was not talking about those members of the PRP who serve in this House.

It was not clear to me precisely what the hon. member for Parys meant. Would the hon. member now like to address me on this point?

Mr. Speaker, I said that certain people, such as the editor of Sunday Times, Marcel Robertson, and the PRP, persist in creating unrest by constantly urging this Government to prepare this country for Black majority rule … Those were my words.

Did the hon. member include the PRP in that?

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Parys did not say that they were deliberately creating unrest. In my humble opinion it is not unparliamentary or wrong if it is said of a member that he is creating unrest. It depends on what degree it was meant. If I tell any hon. member that he is creating unrest, I am not, in my opinion, accusing him in an unparliamentary manner.

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw your attention to the fact that I omitted one word when I repeated a moment ago what I said earlier. I said that through their actions they were creating revolution.

I request the hon. member to withdraw the statement that the members of the PRP are creating unrest and revolution.

I withdraw those words gladly.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the address of the hon. member who has just sat down has contributed in any way to resolving the delicate situation in which he says our country finds itself. I intend to deal purely with the budget and I would like to bring my remarks to the attention of the hon. the Minister of Finance. I want firstly to concentrate on what the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech, when he made the following statement (Hansard, 7/2, p. D. 1)—

A year or two ago, when inflation was getting completely out of hand, the reply of both the hon. the Minister of Économie Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Finance was that inflation was an imported phenomenon and that South Africa had no control over it, and that we should therefore not accuse the Government of having made any contribution, in their policies, towards the aggravation of the inflationary situation in this country.

That is overstating it.

No, that is not overstating it at all. That is what was said by Ministers generally, that it was an imported phenomenon and that we therefore could not control it in any way. However, they woke up in sufficient time to realize that we had quite a lot to do with it and that we had to take certain steps in the matter. Furthermore, the hon. the Minister made comparisons with other countries—he mentioned Australia, New Zealand and Spain and I think the hon. member for Worcester included Italy—in order to illustrate like with like. I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to the adage that comparisons are odious. I think that in this case the comparison is very well applied. We have a country well endowed with great material wealth. We have a virile and thriving community of all races, most of whom are ready, willing and able to play their part to the full in the economy of our country. There is no shortage of labour available, yet by a series of laws and regulations we have tied ourselves into a strait-jacket and have flouted some of the most conventional laws of economics, for instance the right of everyone to sell his labour in the best market, to freely give of his best, to receive the necessary training and to receive fair and reasonable compensation for his labour. In failing to acknowledge these important laws we have created artificial conditions of supply and demand of labour, irrational distribution of manpower, inadequate use of manpower and, by and large, abuse of this vital pool of labour which is the country’s greatest asset.

I would like to refer the hon. the Minister to a memorandum submitted by the Transvaal Chamber of Industries to the hon. the Prime Minister towards the end of last year. The Chamber of Industries says in its introduction that it is the largest regional body in the country and the largest representative of organized industry on the Witwatersrand.

It represents every phase of industry and it is also representative of all the industrial organizations of whatever particular political affinity or affiliation. They say the following in their statement to the hon. the Prime Minister—

They go on further to say—

This is a very important statement, made by a completely unbiased body, and it is in addition to the other voices of protest that we have heard, whether written in books, which the hon. the Minister does not approve of, or in any other form of presentation. We cannot take solace for our economic debacle of the past few years by comparing ourselves with countries not nearly so well endowed either in riches or in manpower. I want to give the hon. the Minister a further illustration of that fact. Can the hon. the Minister compare South Africa, with its tremendous potential, with these other Free World countries which he has mentioned, tapering off with Spain and Italy, when South Africa is reputed to have 75% of the Free World’s gold reserves, 85% of the Free World’s diamond reserves, 40% to 50% of the Free World’s uranium reserves, the world’s largest deposits of vanadium, which is a very vital metal, the world’s largest deposits of low-grade chromium, and amongst the world’s largest deposits of antimony and amongst the world’s largest deposits of coal?

The hon. the Minister compares and likens our particular situation with these other countries, regardless of our tremendous potential not only of mineral wealth, but also of manpower wealth. The president of the Federated Chamber of Industries—someone suggested that he might not even be of the same political affiliation as myself, but I could not even care—made a public statement which was printed in the Rand Daily Mail of 7 February and which has never been denied. Dealing with the current financial situation and the current economic situation of the country and the difficulties in which we find ourselves, he said the following—

I think this is a very important factor and the hon. the Minister cannot glibly, in the few aspects he has raised, brush over such an important aspect of Government policy for which he himself, together with his colleagues, is responsible. He solaced us with a growth rate of 1% when, in fact, we know from the economic development programme not only of recent date, but of years past, that we need a growth rate of at least 5,5% to 6,5% per annum. We know that we are suffering from an inflationary rate which was dangerously close to galloping inflation and which was restrained—and then only partially—only at the expense of the growth of the economy, by unemployment and by agreements on wages and prices. Now it has already reached bursting point, because the agreement to restrain wages and prices ends on 31 March. All this has happened in a country which, wisely administered, with a proper balance of both economic and human welfare and relations, should have maintained its true and proper growth with continuously growing prosperity for the nation. The aspects to which the hon. the Minister has drawn attention in presenting his Part Appropriation Bill are nothing more than a defensive charade to smooth over the knobs and excrescences and an endeavour to lull the public desperately concerned not only with the economic future but also with the question of internal human relations, into an almost false sense of relief which has been described by the hon. the Minister in vague and nebulous terms. [Interjections.] I am not exaggerating. I have deliberately put it this way so that the hon. the Minister will realize what I want to convey to him. I am basing it on what he said and I want to quote what he said. I am almost assuming the role of some of the hon. the Minister’s colleagues who have had some church training and know how to preach. Like them I also am using texts for the purpose of my speech, but the texts come from the hon. the Minister’s own speech. These are the vague and nebulous terms the Minister used (Hansard, col. 888, 1977)—

Listen to this very wise statement—

What hope is there in all this for the housewife who relies on her breadwinner, and who finds herself with her breadwinner unemployed or tightly shackled by a restrained salary to assist in the anti-inflation campaign? Surveys are being conducted, and I recently read a newspaper report with this heading: “Northern suburbs food bill rose by up to 19%—advice to housewives on cutting costs.” The report deals with the efforts of the Housewives’ League, with the assistance of the Consumer Council, to try to fight off this unfortunate creeping inflationary erosion of people’s earnings. The report reads—

We know the mean is over 11%, but the hon. the Minister takes comfort in that because Spain has an inflationary situation which is equal to that in South Africa. [Interjections.] I am very pleased about that; Spain is a nice little country!

Let us look further at this. The Consumer Mail, for instance, gives the South African statistics in respect of basic foods such as grain products, meat, fish, fats, oils and margarine, milk products and eggs, vegetables, fruit, sugar, non-alcoholic beverages, fuel and light. It is clear that the prices are rising all the time, but the hon. the Minister takes comfort in this and refers to his critics as myopic. What hope has the housewife who is caught up in the vortex of a Government constantly engaged only in the negative aspects of economy, viz. attempts to stave off growing inflation and declining growth and endeavours to force the forces of ideological paradoxes into the impersonal, objective and, one might even say, to use a famous term, the “unbendable” laws of economics? The eventual sufferer in this morass from which the Minister hopes to extricate the country is the man in the street. He is the first man to lose his job and he is losing his job. We know that one factory, Rennies, which was manufacturing luggage equipment in the Cape, has closed down. It closed down its factory entirely a week ago. It laid off half the workers in the factory at the end of December and the remainder at the end of January. A knitting mill—I cannot recall the name for a moment—closed down its factory as well. Now let me get on a little quicker because I have very little time.

What hope has the man in the street who has to work on short-time, who has to curtail his standard of living and who loses his home? Many of the squatters have lost their homes simply because they have been evicted as a result of their inability to pay rent because they have no jobs. The man in the street is the innocent victim of the Government’s spending spree and of projects delayed—and the hon. the Minister knows of some—with consequent escalating costs.

You are getting carried away now by your own eloquence.

No, I am not. I write this very calmly in order to be able to give the hon. the Minister the facts. An abattoir in Johannesburg which was to have cost R13 million is now costing R34 million. The hospital in Johannesburg, part of the Government’s administration, which was to cost R60 million, is now to cost well over R100 million. So the whole picture carries on endlessly. One can place one’s finger on almost any aspect of Government undertaking. Let me now come to what I consider to be the most important factor of all, and this I feel very hurt about. I know the hon. the Minister does not want to hurt anyone, let alone a citizen of the country. I asked him a question. I rely on what was stated by the State President in his speech. The State President said that steps had been taken to curtail Government expenditure in the country and to curtail certain projects. That is what was said. It was said that attempts were being made to hold back expenditure on certain projects that were already virtually in the pipeline, and that attempts were being made to defer some projects. So I asked the hon. the Minister how many such projects, undertakings or schemes involving capital expenditure have been curtailed, in keeping with the Government’s anti-inflationary campaign and the economic situation, and I asked him for the details. He did not even give me a summary of the projects. He went straight to the second part of my question and said that particulars were not readily available and that to obtain such detailed information, in the form required, would involve an inordinate amount of time and cost.

If I may say so, I think this is the most impertinent and discourteous form of answer for a Minister of Finance to give to Parliament. After all, who is to know, but the hon. the Minister of Finance, what projects are being curtailed? Here one is not curtailing a project involving one or two million rand. I think that the capital expenditure went well over R2 billion or R3 billion last year. Surely, under those circumstances, he could find information about an amount of about R20 million, R40 million, R50 million or R100 million? A building does not cost R1 million or R500 000. However, he is unable to give me the information, while the State President, in his address to Parliament, calls upon the Ministers of State and the representatives of the people to deal wisely with the affairs of the country and deliberately states in the statement that there is a curtailment of expenditure and that certain projects have been curtailed while others have been postponed. Yet the hon. the Minister cannot take the time or trouble to tell one anything.

Now I want to draw attention to another factor, and here I am going to take the hon. the Minister to task because he also sneeringly referred to those economists from outside who try to give the Government advice without really comprehending what is going on when it comes to State expenditure and the way in which a government manages its affairs. The hon. the Minister knows what I am talking about. I do not even want to quote personalities. I want to deal with people who have the same status as many in the civil service, for example a man like Prof. Reynders, the executive director of the South African Federated Chamber of Industries. In the Federated Chamber of Industries’ annual report, on page 13, he talks about the whole question of capitalism and socialism and he talks about the whole question of free enterprise, which is a very important factor in the country’s affairs. He says, for instance—

The principles he refers to are some of the matters we dealt with. The hon. the Minister can read them for himself. He goes on further to say—

That is one of the things often spoken of in the House very glibly.

I want to conclude by saying that the hon. the Minister has a responsibility to discharge, and that is that he must tell Parliament the basic principles he intends to pursue in dealing with the budget which is forthcoming. He has drawn our attention to certain aspects. I must point out that I am talking about principles—I have not asked for specific information. We have raised with the hon. the Minister and the Government side many issues concerning which we think Government policy is frustrating growth, is contributing to the inflation and has led us to the stage where we have a zero growth rate in this country. The hon. the Minister has the responsibility to tell us how he is going to meet the situation if he hopes to put South Africa back on the road to prosperity. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down put quite a number of questions to the hon. the Minister. I am sure that he will be given satisfactory answers to those questions. I just want to tell the hon. member that unfortunately I cannot share his pessimism concerning the man in the street and the housewife. He may safely leave these matters in the hands of this Government, for the Government has always felt a special concern for the underprivileged people of this country.

For the umpteenth time in the history of our country we are faced with a situation which we must approach in a very serious spirit. We are faced with a threat from outside which is reverberating inside the country as well. Let me say at once that we have no crisis in South Africa.

We have.

It is not a crisis, as the hon. members on the other side wish to imply. After all, we know that the only crisis there is in South Africa today is the crisis in which the Opposition parties find themselves. When we look at what is being written and what is being said, it does indeed seem to us that there are people who would like to create a crisis in this country. It seems to us that there are people who want to have a panic psychosis take root here and who want to encourage a spirit of defeatism in this country. It seems to us that there are people abroad as well as in our country who want to undermine the existing order and who want to have chaos and catastrophe in this country, so that the Marxist powers of anarchy may take over as they have taken over in Angola and Mozambique as well. In the almost 30 years of NP rule, this is not the first time that such hysterical cries have been heard in South Africa as we have been listening to in recent times. Nor is it the first time that people have left the country, only to return more rapidly than they crossed the border to begin with. We had these same hysterical cries in the days of the defunct Torch Commando. We had them after Sharpeville, too, and now we are having them again. Just as we did then, we have incitement of the masses in this country again today, and we have a feeling of discouragement and depression among a certain section of the population.

We find this in the English Press and in leftist circles in particular. This is simply part of an assault intended to create a crisis atmoshpere in this country in order to make the White rulers yield under pressure of a guilty conscience. The purpose of the assault upon us is to talk irresolute South Africans into a frame of mind in which they will come to believe that the White rulers are really the tyrants they are made out to be. We must be careful not to be talked and conditioned into an attitude which will eventually cause us to plead guilty to all charges against us, no matter how false and how untrue. The threat we are confronted with, together with the latest riots, have given rise to widespread speculation and suggestions concerning the future of White, Brown and Black in this country. Morning, noon and night we are bombarded with the word “change”, because this is alleged to hold out the only hope of salvation for our people. Let me say at once that the Government is not opposed to adjustments. On the contrary. The NP Government has always been the architect of essential adjustments in South Africa. The NP has always been the party of reform, regeneration and renewal in South Africa. Where could we find a better example of this than the splendid Republic which the National Government has given us and which is now accepted by everyone, as well as the independence of the Transkei, with the possibility that other Black homelands may be led along the same road? Anyone who looks about him knows that South Africa has undergone a whole metamorphosis in the 29 years of National Government, as the NP’s policy of separate development has unfolded. This has involved great change, but has not caused the Government to deviate from its course. There have been many changes in South Africa, but there has been no change of direction on the part of the Government.

The course followed by the NP is still the same as it was under the late Dr. Malan, the late Mr. Strijdom and the late Dr. Verwoerd. Separate development remains the foundation of the NP’s policy. Over the past 16 or 17 years this policy has developed phenomenally up to the point where the basic strategy is now beginning to produce its independent Black states in an orderly and peaceful manner, and where it is beginning to move away from discrimination in a judicious way. Surely we all know that one cannot find any better way of moving away from discrimination than to give a man his own separate freedom. What is important is that where the emphasis of separate development used to fall on separation between White and Black in this country, there is now a growing realization of separate identities among Black peoples as well, and this realization of separate identities among Black peoples is increasing with every speech made in favour of majority government by Chief Buthelezi and his spiritual associates, such as the hon. member for Houghton, who unfortunately is not here at the moment.

Separate national development is building up its own momentum among Black people in this country. This is not happening in the homelands only; it is growing among the Blacks in the White area as well.

The new President of America, Mr. Carter, also referred to the changing times on the occasion of his inauguration recently, and in this connection he said something which is very true. I quote from the official text of his speech—

The NP, too, will not change, water down or give up its principles in the important process of adjustment to new circumstances which is bound to come. Mr. Speaker, it will hold to unchanging principles. As the NP continues to unfold its policy of multi-nationalism, yet more changes will be made. However, these changes will take place in an orderly and calculated fashion, within the framework of the NP’s tried and tested principles. The NP does not intend to introduce unmotivated or precipitate changes in South Africa merely for the sake of change, or because so much pressure is being brought to bear upon it to make changes. The road of the NP is an honest, straightforward road of law and order, a road along which a right of its own must be created for each population group. In recent times in particular, but also through all the years that the NP has been in power, it has in fact been the NP which has taken the initiative in creating better human relations in this country. The recognition of the human dignity of people in South Africa has made good progress under the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister, partly in consequence of the fine example which he himself has set and the fine credo he has upheld, i.e. that we want other people to have the same things that we claim for ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, progress has been made at all levels in regard to the recognition of human dignity and respectful treatment of people of all colours in South Africa. No one can deny this. I want to predict today that as far as human dignity is concerned, we in South Africa will take the initiative one day among the nations of the world. We will set the world an example of how to recognize and to improve the human dignity of people, and we are fast approaching the realization of this ideal. As a Christian people we know that we must grant to other people what we claim for ourselves, and that we must also create opportunities for other people to achieve what we have achieved. However, there are powers at work, powers which are no longer satisfied merely with the elimination of discrimination and the establishment of human dignity for all people in South Africa. They are no longer satisfied with that. They are now demanding a higher price. Their aim is now majority government for all of Southern Africa, including South Africa. Hon. members heard what the hon. member for Parys said here this afternoon. He made it quite clear—and it is true—that the object of these people is majority government for the whole of South Africa. That is how they interpret the demand for change. That is what change means to them: Change to a majority government. This is a completely different concept from the one which the NP has in mind when it speaks of change and adjustment.

Mr. Speaker, on the other side hon. members are sitting who, when the question of majority rule in South Africa is discussed, encourage these people who speak of majority government. We know what the hon. member for Houghton told the BBC. However, we want to say to those hon. members that we are not going to pay that price. That price is too high for South Africa to pay because it would create a dispensation which would not only destroy separate freedoms, but would also lead to bloody confrontation between Black and Black, as well as between Brown and Black in this country.

We on this side of the House are not blind to the fact that there are still shortcomings as far as race relations in South Africa are concerned. We realize that there are things which will have to be rectified. We agree that this will have to be done as quickly as possible, but we must remember that justice and injustice are relative concepts. Absolute justice does not exist in any country in the world. We find the most shocking discrimination in the very countries which are its most vociferous critics. There is no country in the world which does not have some form of discrimination or injustice. The most shocking discrimination against the poor, against classes, religion, colour and even women has continued unimpeded through the centuries in many countries of the world, but we never hear any criticism of that. Certain hon. members of the Opposition who are always pointing a finger at us about discrimination should just remember that in a unitary State, such as the one advocated by some of them, there will be never-ending discrimination which it will never be possible to eliminate.

We do not want to look for a communist behind every bush, but neither must we fail to see the Marxist spectre in the slogan of change which is heard so often from certain quarters today. Black Power and Black nationalism are very skilfully exploited by outside powers in an attempt to overthrow the existing order in our country. Under the smoke-screen of change and liberation, the communists have incited many people all over the world to revolution. Brown and Black people in this country who take part in riots would do well to take very careful note of this. The NP is willing to go very far to make other population groups in South Africa happy, but we will not be driven to panic by those who cry that a crisis is at hand and who try to solve our problems by putting the White man in the dock for the so-called injustice which we and our ancestors are alleged to have committed. The pious prospects held out by the advocates of change, of revolutionary, equal economic dispensation for all in South Africa, no matter what consequences this may hold for our economy, are simply creating false expectations and frustrations on the part of those people. This is beautifully calculated to promote the real aim of these people, the creation of unrest, revolt and confrontation in South Africa. Those who blindly pursue change in South Africa must take care that in so doing, they do not open the door to terror. Great expectations were created by those who are intent on change in this country, expectations that the hon. the Prime Minister would announce a new deal in the no-confidence debate. However, did they not read what the hon. the Prime Minister had said about this matter in front of 10 000 people at that triumphant congress of the NP in Bloemfontein? On that occasion, the hon. the Prime Minister spelt out the road ahead very clearly to us. At that congress he said—

There was our reply, after all. Can there still be any doubt about where the NP is going with South Africa when one has had such a clear pronouncement? If there is any doubt left, one would do well to look at the amendment which the hon. the Prime Minister moved in the no-confidence debate a few days ago. The Prime Minister’s amendment reads—

What is actually said in this amendment, which is such a masterly summary of the NP’s policy, put in a nutshell? It is nothing less then a manifesto of hope and faith in and promise to the people of South Africa. In this the people of South Africa, no matter what the colour of their skin, may find the solemn assurance that the Government will see to it that full and equal opportunities consistent with human dignity are given to them, without loss of identity or a voice in their own affairs. Can there still be any doubt about where the NP is going with South Africa?

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Bloemfontein North. I think it was a speech to which the Opposition could also have listened, but looking at them I gained the impression that there was only one hon. member, the hon. member for Simonstown, who listened to and in truth understood it. To sum up this speech one can quote the words of a certain Mr. Diamond of Florida, who said—

The hon. member for Jeppe returned to this matter briefly, but his fellow party member, the hon. member for Von Brandis, said yesterday—if I am quoting his words correctly: “It was not our intention to discuss race matters, but what gave rise to this was the report on the squatters.” It astonishes one that, when one is discussing this ban on squatting, and the clearance of slum conditions, one should in fact be discussing race matters. This matter is as applicable to the Whites as to any other race in our country. Slum conditions cannot be allowed here, even in Cape Town. They will not be allowed. The Durban City Council does not allow young men—who come from the Transvaal and elsewhere and find no accommodation in the city—to squat on the beaches. These people are prosecuted, despite the fact that they are Whites. Why should the matter be given a racial slant if we wish to clear up such conditions? Surely there is no reason whatsoever to do so, but a campaign is launched so that the Government, in particular the Afrikaner, may be placed in a position that is opposed to the non-Whites. The other day the hon. member for Stilfontein quoted a letter here to which there has already been reaction. I see in a report in The Citizen of 7 February as well to the effect that a certain Stockboy of Alexandra reacted to this. He made one incidental comment which we find very interesting. He wrote of his cousin—

You must have been absent last week.

Yes, I shall quote further from it. It is insinuated here that there are newspapers which do not want to publish this type of letter because it comes from a Black person and has this specific content. He went on to say—

Mr. Speaker, here you have it, from the mouth of a Black person, the language those people do not want to understand, or which they do not want to bring home to the Coloured people in our country. The hon. members want to place the Afrikaner, pre-eminently, under suspicion among these people. That is precisely why, when the clearance of slum conditions is under discussion, they have to say that they had not wanted to discuss race matters, but the squatters necessitated their doing so. I said it by the way, because it was quoted by a previous speaker.

I want to thank the hon. Minister for having, in this very climate in which we are now living, departed from his normal procedure and given us his view of the economic situation and the economic prospects of our country. This was necessary, for many irresponsible things have been said and even more extremely irresponsible things are being said, particularly when reference is made to creeping socialism in our economy. The initiative which the Government took in respect of the development of our country in the industrial sphere is being compared without more ado to the nationalization of industries in the economically developed countries. It is being compared in particular with the process which has been in progress in England for the past number of years, and one sometimes gains the impression that these people are making their statements more in the interests of their own circumstances in certain sectors of our economy. In the book to which reference has been made so frequently during the past few days there is a very significant statement. Dr. Wassenaar maintained that we should draw people from the private sector to become Ministers of Economic Affairs and of Finance in particular, for they are the people who know how to control these matters. When Dr. Wassenaar refers to the Economic Advisory Council of the hon. the Prime Minister, however, he says the following—

These are the people who, according to him, should be appointed to the position of these so-called unqualified Ministers whom we should take out of politics.

In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister of Finance again emphasized what the priorities in his budget are, i.e. a levelling off of the inflation rate, a satisfactory balance of payments and a moderate growth rate. If I am interpreting this correctly, what forms the foundation of these objectives is the full employment of South African workers, of whatever colour or race. I think this is the most important objective which the hon. the Minister is aiming at. If we consider this we find that as far as the agricultural sector is concerned there are probably no problems, for there is full employment—to tell the truth, there may be a shortage of labour. As far as our mining industry is concerned, I believe that the position is also a favourable one. According to a recent report only 48% of the non-White workers on our mines are South African Bantu, and consequently there are still employment opportunities. When we take a closer look at the industrial sector, I believe that there may possibly be problems at this stage and that existing problems may possibly become worse. For this very reason I cannot understand the argument of people who ask that capital be transferred from the private sector to our State and semi-State undertakings. What would happen if we were to do so? It would be a mere shifting of capital without creating any further work opportunities, without expanding the economy and it may have the effect of necessitating that the enterprises which are at present operating on a non-profit basis will have to have a profit motive, which would in its turn have an effect on our prices.

A very wide field still lays fallow for development and this, I think, has been made possible primarily by the initiative displayed by the Government, particularly since 1927. The Government is frequently blamed of entering the private sector to too great an extent in this regard, but when problems arise and when anyone feels that he is threatened, he runs to the Government. I think the hon. member for Yeoville is such a person, a person who wants to imply that he is a far greater champion of the capitalistic system than members on this side. However, he is the person who asked for more control over the smaller banking institutions yesterday and who asked the Minister at least to ensure that the investments of these people were guaranteed.

Frequent mention has been made of the fact that this Government allegedly acted erroneously when it undertook heavy State investment when high gold prices were being experienced. If the Government had not done so and if the Government had not seized upon those favourable circumstances to tackle projects such as Saldanha and Richards Bay, I wonder when it would have been possible to do so and where the economy of our country >would have stood when the new revival among our trading partner countries occurs.

What profit is being made on the Saldanha project?

I say the infrastructure has been established, that the possibilities have been created to make full use of the revival when it occurs among our trading partner countries. That is what I said, and if the Government had not done so at the time, it would have been absolutely impossible now, and we would have been many years behind.

But I think it is time that our people in the private sector examined their own conscience. It is good to criticize and it is good to point out errors, but we know—and the Minister admitted it—that we are not living in very favourable times. On the contrary. We are living in very difficult economic times. The Opposition which in particular has the greatest interest in our private sector, knows what the value of publicity is, for they spend millions of rands on it annually. But what kind od publicity is our country receiving from those hon. members and the Press at the moment? We have the raw materials, we have the labour, we have the human potential, we have the knowledge …

But we should have trained them.

We are training them. Was the hon. member not here when the laws were made? Surely everyone has a responsibility of helping with this training; it is not the sole responsibility of the Government. That is precisely why I say it is time we realized that the private sector also has a responsibility. But if we train these people more rapidly, can the private sector employ them?

Yes, if the correct climate is created.

It is being done. That climate is being created. I think that our country has the future and the people; all we must do is apply economic discipline.

I want to conclude by thanking the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs in particular for the assistance they rendered to the voters in my constituency during the floods last year. This is the third year running these people have experienced many problems as a result of the abundant rains, but particularly as a result of the control of the water in the Vaal Dam. They have to a great extent been accommodated by this Government. But these people have suffered considerable losses, and not only they, but our country as well, for along the Vaal River one finds some of our best and most highly productive land. I know it does not fall under this Vote, but it is hoped that when the Tugela-Vaal Scheme is in full operation it will be possible to make far more effective use of the regulation of the water from the Vaal Dam. We cannot solve the problem simply by rendering financial and economic assistance to these people. We can only reduce the damage suffered by them. Therefore I think we should try as soon as possible to eliminate this evil as well.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bloemfontein North made much of separate development, and I shall certainly come to that in the course of my speech. The hon. member for Losberg, who has just sat down, said that the Opposition has been a bad advertisement for this country. All I can say to him is that the worst advertisement this country has is the policy of this Government. As we have said before, the immediate economic outlook for South Africa is bleak, but perhaps an even greater cause for worry is that under this Government the situation beyond tomorrow is actually getting worse. It is one thing for us to have to put up with an enforced dose of unpleasant medicine, but it is intolerable when the medicine merely makes the patient—in this case 26½ million South Africans—only weaker and sicker without tackling the underlying disease. Make no mistake, the medium and longer-term economic outlook for this country under this Government has deteriorated. That is not to say that the potential of our country to create continuously rising standards of living for all of us has been permanently impaired. However, this Government appears to be hell-bent on taking this country to the poorhouse, if not on the same road as Glen Anil and Rand Bank. After 28 years of trying to advertise and promote an unsaleable product, they have neither the courage nor the honesty to make anything else. They want, willy-nilly …

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to accuse the Minister of not having sufficient honesty.

I withdraw that. They want, willy-nilly, perhaps because they are incapable of understanding the situation or perhaps because they are obsessed with their own sectional interests, or more likely because of both, to bring us into a vicious cycle. Let those who sit on the Government benches say what they will, there are two crucial issues which must be resolved before people in this country will be able to look to the path ahead with confidence in their future and that of their children. Those two crucial issues are the capital drought and Soweto, taking Soweto as a typical example of the urban problem. Those two issues are, of course, interdependent and one cannot ignore the fact that one cannot, for any length of time, solve one and not the other. They can only be solved together.

In so far as the first is concerned, i.e. the necessity for us to attract capital from overseas—because plainly we do not have enough, nor can we generate it for ourselves—it seems that those who sit on the benches opposite have not taken in the consequences that will inevitably flow if we do not attract or get it. Let me try to enlighten them. For the third quarter of last year, as the hon. the Minister mentioned, we had an outflow of R12 million. Parallel with that, over the last couple of years, our debt has grown enormously in relation to our foreign exchange reserves, including the gold element, and it has shortened dramatically in its term to maturity. Indeed, the point has already been passed where we can regard with equanimity our repayment schedule or assume that all our foreign obligations will automatically be rolled over. The position, however, is actually graver than that because what this Government is doing is this. It is about to get this country caught up into a vicious cycle, and the vicious cycle simply goes like this. We have increased expenditure on defence. We have a strain on the balance of payments. They resort to inflationary financing. We then have restrictive monetary and financial policies which lead to higher taxation, to continued growth below the level of safety and to more unemployment and social unrest. We already have massive unemployment in this country.

We must remember, too, that we have 200 000 new Black South Africans coming onto the labour market every year. Half of them come from the homelands and half from the urban areas. In the last 15 years of this Government’s rule it has managed to create precisely 120 000 new jobs under its decentralization programme. The influx of this new labour on top of the present unemployment, which is still rising, and superimposed on the fact that we are about to have a third year of growth below the safety margin, is hardly the recipe for this country for good race relations.

How do we get out of this vicious cycle? Our potential to create wealth is still with us. How can we move to turn it to account in what I would like to call a virtuous cycle? The answer lies in Soweto. Our economic growth, the success or failure of our foreign policy, of our internal security and of the system of private enterprise all turn on Soweto. If we are to succeed, Soweto must be recognized and treated as part of Johannesburg. Do not let us delude ourselves—we may well have to deal with eight other urban communities of the size of Soweto before the end of this century.

Let us look at the facts, as disclosed by hon. Ministers in this session of Parliament, in relation to Soweto. Let us look at the facts as we have been able to establish them in regard to Soweto, which is the focus of the crisis we are faced with. First of all, Soweto has a population of between 650 000 and 1 million. The figure is probably nearer the latter. The original budget of the West Rand Bantu Administration Board was of the order of R74 million for expenditure and R72 million for income. The Minister has now amended the figures for expenditure and income, bringing the former down to R58,l million and the latter to R49,5 million. That means that, if one takes the inflation of the last five years into account, the expenditure would now be equivalent to R38 million which represents a drop in excess of 30% in real terms from what the Johannesburg City Council used to spend on Soweto five years ago. As we have already pointed out, the anticipated loss of R9 million, as disclosed by the hon. the Minister, amounts to two-thirds of 1% of the defence budget, and the total expenditure of R58,1 million amounts to merely 4% to 5% of the defence budget and one-fifth to one-third of 1% of the GDP in 1975.

In so far as the expenditure is concerned, it is important to note the following—it contains what can only be described as a suicidal provision for the construction of housing despite a considerable official backlog of 17 000 families. For the last three years the West Rand Bantu Administration Board has spent precisely R680 000, R1 196 000 and R1 423 000, or a total of R3,3 million. To cap it all, the budget for this year is merely R750 000 which, at R4 000 per house, amounts to 187 houses. In that expenditure, European salaries amount to R8,9 million or 15,3%. Black employees’ salaries amount to R15,8 million or 27,2%. Therefore, the aggregate of the salaries of those employed by the West Rand Bantu Administration Board is over 40% of the total budgeted expenditure. What is more, if our information is correct, it is extraordinary to note that since the West Rand Bantu Administration Board took over, the number of Whites employed by it has risen from 400 to 1 250 while at the same time the number of Blacks employed has dropped from 12 000 to 9 100. That is to say, the number of White employees has trebled while the number of Black employees has dropped by about 25%. This is the policy of the Government.

In so far as the income is concerned—it must be borne in mind that it is all recovered from the residents of Soweto who live within the area of the board’s jurisdiction—it does not include their substantial spending in Johannesburg which amounts to some 50% of their retail purchases. That is not surprising, because if an article can be bought in Soweto at all, it is cheaper in Johannesburg. Broken down, it would appear that the income from housing, mainly rentals from houses and hostels, amounted to approximately R18 million, or between 36% and 37%. The income from the sale of beer—and we have the latest figures from the hon. the Minister—was R14,7 million, or about 30% and from the sale of liquor about R6,8 million, or 14%. That actually means that if one subtracts both the revenue and the cost associated with liquor operations, one gets back to a budget for Soweto of under R30 million, and, as I say, that is for a community of about 1 million people.

With regard to electrification we know that only 20 000 houses out of 100 000 houses have had electricity installed in them. The roads and the refuse service—indeed all facilities—have not been anything like adequately maintained. As if that is not enough, let us consider the treatment of the residents of Soweto. The inhabitants of Soweto are subjected to endless bureaucracy: the necessity to obtain this or that form for this or for that purpose, endless queues, the now increasing unemployment, and ever living with them the stark contrast with life in the other part of Johannesburg.

This is the picture of Soweto as a whole, a Black ghetto of rising frustration. It is a catastrophe. The absence of any announcement—let alone movement—to bring about changes to completely recast the whole environment of Soweto, is crucial to the virtuous cycle and to the economy of this country. It is crucial to our ability to attract long-term capital from overseas as it is crucial to investment and to growth. If the Government would only be prepared to announce a programme over three to five years, then not only would we not stand alone, but we would have broken out of the vicious economic cycle in which we presently find ourselves.

All that programme has to have as basic essentials is the abolition of the pass laws, the standard of education rising to equality with that of the Whites, freehold ownership of property and land, improved transport facilities, the abolition of all restrictions which prevent Black South Africans from competing equally with White South Africans in business, and a real participation in decision-making. That is all that those who sit in those benches have to do to change the future of South Africa. It is in the treatment of Soweto where the question of peaceful coexistence will be determined. The battle to enforce apartheid has already been lost. The Government have lost the first ditch, and if it is not to become the graveyard for all that White South Africans might otherwise hope for, then the Government must act now.

May I close by quoting the hon. member for Pretoria Central. He said, and I assume all those who sit in those benches agree with this—

How does that stack up against those facts? Then he continued by saying—

No resident in Soweto can answer that question in the affirmative. Furthermore, he said—

The residents of Soweto have no property in the normal accepted sense. Allow me to say that if the people and the residents of Soweto do not have peace of mind, then we certainly cannot afford to either.

Mr. Speaker, if only it were as easy to solve South Africa’s problems as suggested by the hon. member for Johannesburg North, Does he really live in such a fool’s paradise as to think that if the Government should abolish all pass laws, grant freehold ownership and the other things he mentioned, it would solve all our problems? Does he really think that if those taps were opened, that any Government on earth would for instance be able to supply the demands for services, which those people would have in the urban areas? I may ask him: Is he in favour of urbanization on the scale on which it can take place if we were to abolish the pass laws? Is he prepared to face up to all the problems which accompany urbanization, e.g. the escalating costs of providing those services which he talked so glibly about? I shall make only one further remark regarding the speech of the hon. member.

In regard to decentralization, he accused this Government of having created only 120 000 jobs over a period of 15 years with its decentralization programme. Does he, as a person connected with industry, not realize that this Government, largely on account of the political connotation attached to it by people in those Opposition benches and their comrades outside, that the decentralization programme was sabotaged to such an extent that the Government literally had to buy each industrialist’s goodwill to go out and decentralize his factory?

Mr. Speaker, why do hon. members in those benches never rise in this House and tell us about the practical advantages of decentralization and the retardation of the urbanization process?

However, I would like to focus the attention of hon. members on other aspects, and I am glad that the hon. member for Johannesburg North preceded me, because he is a man for figures. I would like him and his fellow PRP members to answer a few questions that I have to put to them about the quantification of their policies. Whenever one comes into contact with the PRP, be it in this House, be it in election campaigns, be it in the Press, be it through its pamphlets, etc.—one is struck— and this may now be regarded as a compliment—by the very high class of marketing employed by them. They create for themselves an image, Mr. Speaker, which I would like to indicate …

We have a good product!

… today to this hon. House, is totally, but totally, in conflict with the realities of their policies. This image which they create for themselves they do along ordinary, and very modem, marketing lines, so simple in technique that one is really astounded when one examines it in depth.

We have a good product!

Mr. Speaker, I would like that hon. member to give me a chance and then to take the opportunity of answering my questions. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, they call themselves “the effective Opposition”. They claim that they have the alternative to apartheid. They say that they offer new hope to South Africa. They claim to have in their fold all the thinking and intelligent people … [Interjections.] … or many of them. They make a massive onslaught on the campusses of universities in South Africa, where they claim they are being supported by thinking young people who want to create a new future dispensation for South Africa. They claim that they have the formula for an equitable sharing of power. They talk about a “Bill of Rights”, of which we heard a lot in this House last Friday. They talk about “rule of law”, about entrenching this and entrenching that. They talk about a powerful and independent judiciary, and all this, Mr. Speaker, regardless of race, colour and creed. And then, having painted this picture for us, they claim that they are maintaining a continuous and very fruitful dialogue with Black, Coloured and Asian leaders in this country. They claim that they are the people who do not talk about people of colour, but that they talk to people of colour, and …

With!

With!

With!

All right! With them! And then, Mr. Speaker, they go as far as to enter into pacts with some of these leaders, and they give those pacts tremendous publicity. They also make all kinds of deals. This is their image. They are the people who have a fair deal to offer to South Africa. [Interjections.] They are a party … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, if they should come into power tomorrow, they are a party who will be able to satisfy the political aspirations of all people of colour in South Africa. This is their image, and as recently as last week, in this hon. House, the hon. member for Yeoville said—

All the wonderful, marketable buzz-words, Mr. Speaker.

And also—

I can prove today … They are so vociferous now and I would like them, after they have heard what I have to say, to be as vociferous in answering the claims that I am going to make against them this afternoon … they are excellent salesmen, but one cannot only be a salesman, one cannot only advertise; one must also be able to deliver the goods. What are the goods that these hon. members have to deliver? We find those goods in the policies which they propound. For some time now I have been trying to make out exactly what is going on in this policy, because this official policy, in spite of the fact that it is only a policy speech by the hon. leader, in spite of the fact that they claim that the real dispensation will be decided upon around a conference table once they come into power, despite this, the fact is that this policy is the ticket on which they came into this House and which gives them a platform inside South Africa and outside South Africa. That is what they are accountable for, because, however confusing at times, this is the policies which they presented to the voters and with which they even managed to take away the seat in Durban North from the United Party. This policy is based on statements which, as I shall prove, are blatantly fraudulent. They are accountable not only to their voters; in the final instance they are accountable …

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Is it parliamentary to allege that the statements which are made by the hon. member for Sea Point, statements to which the hon. member is referring, are “blatantly fraudulent”? [Interjections.]

Order! All I can say is that, as far as I was able to follow the hon. member had finished with the hon. member for Sea Point and went on with his argument.

I would like the hon. member to refrain from interrupting me, because I am going to say what I have to say.

Only if it is parliamentary, old chap! [Interjections.]

The technique which this party has been using, is a very simple technique. Firstly, there are some vicious attacks on certain practical aspects of Government policy. This is the easiest thing to find.

So bad is it!

Because we have been in power so long, it is the easiest thing to find something to exaggerate. Secondly, they come to light with all these pious statements and words to which I have already referred and leave their supporters sufficiently indignant and excited to allow them to get away with it. For how many years have they got away with a vague policy, a policy so vague that one can really read anything in it? I shall attempt in a moment to look into the question of the extent to which it is reduceable to practical implementation factors [Interjections.] I based my investigations into this policy on what I would regard—and they shall have to concede this—as reasonable and justifiable assumptions and results.

Come to a point now. You do not have all day!

It rests on their dual voting system: a Std. 8 vote and a Std. 2 vote, the Std. 2 vote for basic literacy and the Std. 8 vote as the level for compulsory education. Surely if they should come into power, they will not lower the compulsory educational standard for people of colour to below a level which is today compulsory for Whites. Moreover, in their system they base the number of constituencies on the number of Std. 8 votes. The Std. 8 people will vote on a constituency basis along party lines for specific candidates. Suppose that on this basis there are 150 consituencies. In that case they lump together all the Std. 2 votes into one mass of people who will be able to vote only for a party.

I examined the facts and made certain population projections, based on the prevailing educational standards and providing for the expansion in education which, according to them, they will implement immediately once they get into power. Allowing for this increase in the educational level of the various race groups, I arrived at certain conclusions. In all fairness to the PRP, I did not trust my own calculations …

I do not blame you.

That is why, during the past recess, I went to three scientists, people who had majored in demography and statistics. I presented these figures to them and asked them to make the projections and do the allocations for me. Their results did not change the conclusions to which I came at the beginning of last year, but confirmed them. I have the figures here. Hon. members will not be able to question the scientific validity of these projections. They may perhaps find fault with my interpretation of their policy, if it is still the same as the one published under their leader’s name. They may further try to ridicule what I have to say about it But regardless of this, this policy is still the ticket on which they came into this House and for which, they are accountable. I have three sets of figures: for 1970, 1980 and 1990. If they had come into power in 1970, the Std. 8 vote would have been divided as follows: out of a total of 2,8 million votes, 2,4 million Std. 8 votes—and that is the significant vote—would have been in the hands of the Whites. That represents 84,7% of the total Std. 8 votes. In 1990 the total number of Std. 8 votes will have grown to 5,3 million, of which the Whites will hold 3,7 million and the Blacks only 980 000. That means that in spite of the fact that by 1990 the Whites will only comprise 15,2% of the total population, they will still have 69,3% of the Std. 8 votes. The total percentage held by all people of colour will therefore only be 30,7%. Let us translate this into a number of seats. This means that in 1970 the Whites would have held 184 seats out of an assumed total of 300, in comparison with 116 of the non-Whites. If in 1990 all the people of colour—the Coloureds, the Asians and the Bantu—voted together—which is highly unlikely in a system like this—the Whites would hold 145 seats and the people of colour 155; in other words, under circumstances where all the non-Whites vote together, they will be able to gain a majority of an extremely small margin. I can go on quoting these figures—the results are however already clear.

These figures have been compiled under extremely favourable educational conditions for people of colour. If I compare the image of the PRP against these facts, as having the true and ultimate dispensation of South Africa and the communication and agreements which they claim to have in their pacts, then I find serious discrepancies and that is why I say they are taking the Black leaders for a ride. If it should happen that in 1990 Whites, Asians and Coloureds should vote together, they would constitute 27,8% of the total population, and yet they would have 81,7% of the total Std. 8 vote and 41,3% of the Std. 2 vote. Is that equitable sharing of power? I find that, according to the system, in 1970 the White vote had a weight factor 7½ times that of the combined non-White vote. In 1990 this weight factor, which is heavily to the advantage of the White voter, reduces to only 5,3 times that of the non-White voter. We all know that, since the Std. 8 vote determines the number of constituencies, it is quite feasible and very possible to juggle the number of constituencies in favour of a certain group of people who are not even percentage-wise in the majority. Therefore, I cannot but draw one very important conclusion, i.e. that their system heavily favours the White people of South Africa. [Interjections.] That is correct. In other words, for Mr. Buthelezi and for all the other Black leaders of this country there is no hope, of what the PRP claim in their pamphlets to be an equitable sharing of power if the PRP should come into power in this country. There is not a hope for the equitable sharing of power under PRP rule and this is a very important factor to understand. [Interjections.]

Order! I think hon. members have now had enough opportunity of making interjections.

Furthermore, the PRP chose the educational standard as the determining factor. What can be more open to friction than an element as emotional as education? If this should be the Parliament where the people of colour are also to be represented, it will be an endless squabble over every rand spent on education. One cannot build a factory to produce teachers and facilities for educational purposes. These things take time. How is it possible to take an emotionally-laden subject such as education, particularly as it is riddled with the problems we have in South Africa, namely the shortage of teachers and facilities, and make it the determining factor for a party political set-up? Can a system based on education qualify as a fair system if, according to the 1970 census, only 4,6% of all Blacks in this country had attained the Std. 8 educational level? Can this be regarded as a fair dispensation and as a meaningful sharing of power for Black leaders? It is obvious that under the PRP system Black rule is eventually inevitable. That is clear, but what about the immediate future and what about the phasing in of Black leadership? Do the PRP not regard that as paternalistic? That, to my way of thinking, is the epitome of paternalism when people are forced to wait for years before they can take their equitable share of power in a specific political system. What about the expectations they have created among the people of colour of this country? How will they possibly be able to deal with these expectations if they should come into power? Therefore, I think it is high time that we in this House take very particular notice of the absolute truth, and that the Black people of this country take note of the truth of interjections such as the one which the hon. member for Houghton made last week when the hon. the Minister of Justice was speaking. The hon. the Minister of Justice said the following—

*She repeated that on the next page when she said, “Not necessarily”. Our Black people should start understanding what the PRP mean when they speak of a sharing of power. To the PRP it is not a question of the sharing of power; it is a question of the most blatant White supremacy one has ever seen in one’s life. The time has arrived for them to tell us exactly what they envisage with their policy.

†Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether Mr. Buthelezi understands what is the meaning and the content of the PRP policy. If he has not done this little quantification exercise, then he is pathetically naïve. If he has, in fact, done this exercise and he accepts the consequence of the policy, then he is selling out his people. But I regard neither of these possibilities even as remotely possible. He has done this little exercise and he does not accept it. Those hon. members should tell this House and the voters outside once and for all on what basis they negotiate with Mr. Buthelezi and other Black leaders in this country. They should once and for all spell out what the real contents were of the pacts being entered into by certain members of that party and certain Black leaders in South Africa. I make bold to say if any Black leader accepts this policy on its face value, he is selling out his people and he does not deserve a position of responsible leadership. That is why I pose this question to them today: How is it possible that they maintain this dialogue, which they claim to have, and on what basis have they achieved a measure of peace with Black leaders and a new hope for South Africa which they claim to have? I think they owe us an explanation. On what basis do they explain what would happen to South Africa if ever they should come into power on these trips of theirs into the heart of Africa? What do they say to those leaders, on what basis will they govern this country? The voters of South Africa put them into this House on the basis of their policy. In these negotiations of theirs, are they completely disregarding that mandate? I find it completely irreconcilable in my mind to try to achieve a position of common cause with any person of colour on the basis of the PRP policy. With this system of theirs they are merely playing a game of numbers. They are scared of the numbers of the Black people and that is why, in an artificial manner, they wish to reduce the impact and the effect of the majorities of Black people in this country by limiting their political power at ballot-box level, by taking away a meaningful vote from them. This is what they are doing. They are artificially reducing the effect of the larger numbers of people of colour in this country. One can say this as a compliment to the UP: They were even more subtle; they did not do it at ballot-box level, but said that in their federal Parliament they would also reduce the effect of the numbers but on a basis of the contribution of each race group to the welfare of the economy. This is a more subtle way, but it is still a game of numbers. The people of colour in South Africa should know what kind of people they are dealing with when they enter into pacts and when they enter into deals with members of the PRP.

Our policy on this side of the House is not a game of numbers. We do not play with numbers. We know we are dealing with people, people with individual desires, people with certain group desires. We take account of these things, because these phenomena are real in South African politics. By parallelizing the political and other aspirations of our various peoples, we minimize the rivalry which may exist. By parallelization we confine the rivalry to within a particular group because with inter-group rivalry, which the PRP are inevitably heading for, there will be bloodshed, frustration and disillusionment. They have been taking people of colour for a ride for so long that we ask them, in this House today, to come forward and tell us exactly what their policy is. If that policy, with its basis of negotiation with Mr. Buthelezi and other people, is not the same as the mandate they have received from their voters, they owe it to us to tell us exactly what that basis then is. It is my submission that they have been negotiating along lines other than those presented in their official policy statements, and we and the electorate have a right to know what it was.

Mr. Speaker, the way in which the hon. member for Florida used the scalpel to dissect the policy of the PRP here, was a revelation not only to us on this side of the House; I believe it was most definitely a revelation to them too. It was important to have listened to that speech and then to have dissected it properly later, because it was definitely significant. I believe that they will be able to use it to good effect. The present state of our financial and economic position has been debated repeatedly in this House. It has been argued and elucidated from all angles. There was a great deal of criticism on this policy, both from within this House and from outside. Most probably it was justifiable criticism in certain respects. We must accept positive and constructive criticism. However, criticism without alternatives is not constructive criticism. I am convinced that, as far as this is concerned, the Opposition has failed up to this point. No alternative for the weaknesses in the economy has yet been pointed out to us, nor have we been given any alternative for improving the balance of payments. We have not been given any alternatives for stimulating our growth rate, nor have they yet been able to come up with measures for decreasing the rate of inflation. Criticism and the casting of suspicion are the order of the day. The hon. member for Sunnyside referred to this yesterday already. However, the Opposition is also committed to and associated with this country. What is more, for most of them it is probably the only country or home they have. The downfall of South Africa will definitely be their downfall too and the prosperity of South Africa is definitely their prosperity as well. The inter-state dependence is just as necessary for them as it is for us, not only the Afrikaans- or English-speaking people, or the Coloureds and Indians, but also for the Blacks of South Africa. Over the past year the hon. the Minister of Finance and the Hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs took certain measures to put our economic and financial position on a sound, firm basis. However, with few exceptions, not one single speaker on the opposite side of the House has yet expressed his appreciation towards the Ministers concerned. They have not said one word in connection with the measures which were taken last year and announced in the budget. There was not one word of appreciation for the measures to curtail imports or of the success achieved in this matter, nor of the success achieved with the import deposit scheme. Was there any appreciation on that side of the House for the courage displayed by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs when the price of petrol was increased recently, to ask for an additional two cents from the road users, the motorist for the Strategic Oil Fund? On the contrary. All they and their newspapers did, was to attack and criticize this important aspect. I shall refer to this again later. We on this side of the House want to express our thanks towards the two hon. Ministers for the active long and short term measures they took in order to place our economy in South Africa upon a sound basis.

This brings me to what we, as citizens, as inhabitants of this country, should consider our duty and responsibility in future. I am not only referring to our duty as politicians, but to the duty and responsibility of every citizen of the country. The first I want to deal with is the duty and responsibility in regard to peace and stability in South Africa. It is definitely not only the task of the police and our Defence Force to bring about peace in South Africa. Everyone is in a position to do so and it is everyone’s duty to contribute his share in this connection. Peace and stability can definitely not be obtained easily by force of arms. The relations policy, as well as recognizing the right every population group has to its own identity and its own possibilities for existing as a nation, will play an even more important role in the future. Just as a sharp attack has been launched at the Whites and at the Afrikaner in particular in recent times, so a subtle, calculated attack is being launched at the Black peoples of South Africa. Who is launching this attack? This attack is launched by the Whites. There are Whites in South Africa, inside as well as outside this House, who believe that if the Afrikaner is run down and hurt, the NP as such will be hurt. However, the Afrikaner cannot nor will not be trampled into the dust so quickly. The Dreyer Krugers of “doomed Afrikaner” fame and the Van Wyks of Turfloop who say that the Afrikaner prays for the Black man to disappear, as well as their fellow-travellers, will not succeed in bringing about the downfall of the Afrikaner. Nor will they succeed in bringing about the downfall of the NP down in that way. The NP is inherently strong because it is able to bring together and keep together all those who belong together. The recognition of an intrinsic character and identity of the other population groups in South Africa remains of great importance too. However, greater responsibility should be displayed and petty political gain must not be sought by using the word “bulldozers” when it comes to the orderly clearing up of squatters’ camps. Then the hon. member for Wynberg should not get up here with a pious face and criticize the Government, saying that we “regard Coloured people as people who are not really human beings”. In spite of everything, confidence in South Africa will be restored again to such an extent that foreign investments will flow into South Africa once more. We shall also have to ward off the attack from outside. We shall have to be prepared in the military sphere. Therefore I believe that the coming budget will definitely make demands of us so that our military preparedness will not suffer if we have to accept our duty and responsibility in this connection.

I am grateful that there was such a favourable reaction to the defence bond issues and that we are in all probability going to reach the R120 million notch. I trust that, in his budget, the hon. the Minister of Finance is once again going to afford every South African the opportunity to make his contribution to the safety of our country in this way.

Our second duty—the hon. member for Worcester has already referred to this—is definitely our duty in regard to savings. We shall have to take upon ourselves the responsibility of more purposeful and more effective saving. We shall have to be more selective in respect of our purchases. We have already accepted that luxuries have become necessities in our homes. A distinction between necessities and unnecessary purchases will definitely have to be made. If this does not help, we should be made to economize and, as a result, to save. Therefore I take my hat off to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs because, in good time and without causing any friction, he included an additional two cents per litre on fuel in the recent price increase. The necessity of that two cents levy to strengthen our Strategic Oil Fund, is probably accepted by all of us as a necessity and an effective measure to economize. If we take the other austerity methods into consideration and apply them effectively, I believe that we are going to succeed in putting our country on the right road as far as saving foreign currency is concerned.

I want to conclude by pointing out the duty and responsibility which we have towards our young people. This is our country; we are bound to its soil. We cannot detach ourselves from this country. It is our South Africa. But is is not only our country; it is also the country of our children. It is also their South Africa, their country, their soil, and if it is the will of God, it is the country of their children and their children’s children. If we accept this, if we believe this, we must also definitely accept that we must pass this heritage on to our children undamaged and intact. Then we must pass on to them this beautiful country, a developed country, and an economically strong country. But we also want to give them a people capable of defending themselves, and spiritually strong dedicated citizens. Therefore I believe that in future we must not only have economic prosperity: we must also be able to defend ourselves and be militarily prepared and we must see to it that those who come after us, our children and their children, will be able to withstand the demands of time. Our young people must be basically sound. They must be able to move steadfastly along the road ahead. Three things are needed for this, and every one plays a very important role in this process. The first is the parent, the second is the church and the third is the school. These three bodies cannot be separated from one another; we cannot separate them from one another.

I want to confine myself to the school, more specifically to the teacher, who deals with our children for more than 40 hours per week, who has to put the stamp of the community on that child, the teacher whom we expect to bend the tree while it can still be shaped. This we demand of him. This is a task entrusted to him.

Since this is so, I am grateful that the hon. the Minister of National Education has already achieved so much in respect of the salaries and post structure of teachers that the teacher will have a far better future because of this. However, today I should like to make an urgent request to the hon. the Minister not to withhold the particulars of these measures which have been announced from the teachers any longer. It is important to the teaching profession not to have its internal affairs, such as salaries, etc., broadcast. However, on behalf of all teachers, I should now like to request the hon. the Minister to make known to the Departments and those of the teaching profession as soon as possible, the full implications of the proposed measures. We know, and the teachers know too, that it will not be possible for all the various steps to be implemented now. However, if they are informed of the particulars of the proposed adjustments, they will be able to dedicate themselves with greater peace of mind and dedication to the task of educating our children.

Mr. Speaker, suffice it to say that I hope and trust that our teachers will approach their tasks with greater dedication and enthusiasm in future.

Mr. Speaker, in contradistinction to the speech by the hon. member for Florida—while he had much to say with meat in it, it was probably completely out of place in this particular debate—the hon. member for Gezina has made a thoughtful and reasoned contribution to this finance debate. He has made a speech which calls for comment. I believe that he has made a contribution, because, in the final analysis, the South Africa for which we all stand, and which today is in dire straits in more ways than one, does command the support and the loyalty of all sections of the population.

The hon. member for Gezina indicated that he believed that it was the duty and the function of the official Opposition to react positively to the speech by the hon. the Minister of Finance, and even, conceivably, to come forward with alternate suggestions which could help to alleviate our distress. I shall endeavour to do just that during the course of my speech, Sir.

In essence the debate today, and in the day to follow, is about the spending of some R2 922 000 000 of the money of those of us who live in this great country. It is a finance debate, not a mere political debate attacking one party vis-à-vis another. The hon. the Minister of Finance has endeavoured to indicate what his problems are. He has identified them as they have been identified by many spokesmen on economic affairs on both sides of this House, for what they are. However, I believe it is only right that I should indicate that today I shall put the stand that is taken by commerce and industry and put some of the problems that commerce and industry find because of the present policies of this Government. I want to indicate that, when I talk about commerce and industry in South Africa, I do not refer only to this side of the House. The wealth of this country, the entrepreneurial skills, have not come only from Anglo-American or only from the bankers. The entrepreneurial skills that we have in South Africa and which have made us the great country which we are, come from all sectors of the community. The entrepreneurial skills in the farming industry, the agricultural sector, the mining industry, and commerce and industry itself, have contributed to our wealth, and each one of these sectors is today concerned about the future of our country.

The hon. member for Gezina made much of the need for us to think of the future of our youth. The hon. member indicated that we should be concerned about the influence on the youth of the Church, their parents and schools. I want to say, with Mr. Wimpie de Klerk, that as a South African it is my hope and wish that we will have a South Africa in the future in which our youth can grow up. Tragically, because of world pressures today, there are signs that perhaps no member in this House can even indicate that he sees the end of the road for our country in our own time. We all hope that we have a future and we hope that our country’s economic wealth will be sufficient to guarantee the arms necessary to withstand the present onslaughts on our national integrity, but when we see the face of change, when we see the effective onslaughts that have been made in Mozambique and in Angola, then it is with some trepidation that we look at the position of our young people and more particularly of our grandchildren.

Let me quote what the hon. the Minister of Planning said as recently as in 1974 to indicate how far from our practical ambitions and the ambitions of the Government we have fallen short, because of the policies of the Government in many respects—

We all know that the unemployment figure of some 1 million persons, which looms over our statistical field today, is affected vitally by our growth rate. The hon. the Minister of Finance has indicated that, while we may have a real growth rate at the moment of some 1%, it was negative last year and it could well be negative in the future. This indicates, if we take the cumulative backlog of growth, that we are in no sense able to meet the target set by the Economic Advisory Council to the hon. the Prime Minister and it also shows that our economic future is, in fact, brought into doubt. I say this because if we accept the statistics that we will double our population during the next 25 years and if we have regard for the statements made by spokesmen in the Government benches that in the next 25 years we will have to make more progress than we made in the last 300 years, then it is evident that, unless we can accord to the capital sector of South Africa, i.e. commerce and industry, an open climate in which they can thrive and prosper and in which they can make the most of the economic resources of the country, we will not in any sense be able to maintain the racial security and racial harmony that is necessary for our purpose.

For this reason I want to suggest that when the hon. the Minister of Finance plans the spending of the money for which he asks, he should bear in mind that in our mixed economy we have intrusion by the Government into the private enterprise sector. In planning the spending of the money he should also try to recognize the contention that it is the private enterprise sector of the economy which shows the greater efficiency. I believe that this is not a misstatement of the facts, because the profit motive ensures that we expend every cent in private enterprise to the maximum economy of all concerned.

It is also a fact that it is no use offering any hope that we can stimulate growth under the present circumstances, until such time as the hon. the Minister of Finance has been able to solve the equation of bringing about a more satisfactory situation with regard to our balance of payments and, what is more important, with regard to our foreign reserves. It is well known, and regrettable, that in the eyes of the civilized world we have almost no friends whatsoever. However, we are dependent on foreign investment if we are to make the most of our own human resources. It has been said by a previous speaker that we are one of the richest countries in the world in terms of natural resources and that we have an ample labour force which we have not yet used. Neither natural resources, without the ability to use them, nor labour unused can accord us the progress that we need in order to maintain the future of our country. It is also a fact that the Government has, perhaps understandably but injudiciously, been overambitious in its capital projects over recent years. I quote as my authority none other than the hon. the Minister of Transport. His words were reported in The Argus of 8 October and I quote—

In previous no-confidence debates my hon. leader has made it clear that while we can justify economically every project undertaken by the Government, it has not always been able to be justified financially. However much we like to have the larger share of the cake, it is quite clear to anyone who gives the matter any thought that we cannot have expenditure over the next five years of the order of R2 000 million on Sasol II, R2 100 million on Post Office telecommunications, R2 000 million on containerization, R1 300 million on the Malta power station, R1 250 million on the Saldanha Bay semis factory—if it is proceeded with—R1 100 million on Iscor expansions, R1 100 million on railway capital works, R1 000 million on the uranium enrichment plant and R600 million on the Richards Bay development scheme. There are many others, namely the Drakensberg pump station, the North-West Cape power line, the Sasol gasification plant, the Transkei hydroelectric scheme, the Cape Town storage plant, the Pretoria Opera House and Foscor plant expansion. These are wonderful and worthwhile projects, but we do hold the Government responsible for the fact that because they were dazzled by the lustre of gold when it was the be-all and the end-all of our economy, they injudiciously ran before they could walk. Today Government expenditure is the cause of many of our country’s troubles. The hon. the Minister of Finance, in his assessment of our situation and the trends, has been optimistic. I want to recall that in 1974, when this country devalued the rand by some 17,9%, the hon. the Minister of Finance was also over-optimistic.

It was in 1975.

I thank the hon. the Minister for correcting me. He was also over-optimistic when he indicated that the country would not suffer in any real sense and that people would not get any poorer. We know that with the inflation which is taking place, because of and since the devaluation of the rand, the people in South Africa are getting progressively poorer. They have to accept progressively lower standards of living and they will have to do so for many years to come.

How can we overcome the situation which we find facing us today? First of all, we need a restoration of overseas confidence in our country’s economic and political policies. We do not differ on the economic policies, but as regards the political policies we believe—and there are many serious Afrikaner academies who believe with us—that the Government’s present political policies are leading this country to the brink of disaster. One can talk glibly of firing the last rifle round and offering the last drop of blood in the laager of South Africa, but I do not regard that as a solution for my children or my grandchildren in this country. I see a future, because of the greatness of our people and because of our natural resources, that could be optimistic. We are the world’s largest gold producing country, we have diamonds, we have base minerals, we have uranium and we have the integrity and the steadfastness of our people. This gives me hope for the future.

If those hon. members in the Government benches will talk to their younger generation at the universities in this country—I am thinking of the Universities of Stellenbosch, of Potchefstroom and of the Witwatersrand—and question with them the direction in which this Government is taking us, I believe that with a minimum change of heart and a recognition of the fact that the whole world is not probably completely wrong when they take us to task for our apartheid ideology and when they take us to task for our lack of recognition of the fact that we are living in a country of 24 million people and not only 4 million White people, we have time for the necessary adaptations to ensure that the future which our country needs can be achieved. This can be done through the efforts of private enterprise.

We should pay tribute to those sectors which the Government has stimulated and which have created an infrastructure which has made much of our present development possible. I believe that in the Saldanha Bay project, expensive as it is, we have the hope of a future export facility which may contribute materially to our country’s wealth. As far as Richards Bay is concerned, I think the Government can justly claim that they have triumphantly created a facility which has not been created one moment too soon. Considering the present stage of our coal exports, the availability of Richards Bay as a modem harbour with its plant, is certainly an asset to South Africa. It is one of the priorities that has paid off.

It cost a lot of money.

I see the hon. the Minister is growing greyer by the day, but perhaps those worries are now behind him. On the other hand, if we give private enterprise the opportunity, in an open climate, to achieve all that can be achieved, overnight we shall be able—realizing that our market is one of 24 million people who are basically consumers—to take out of stagnation the motor industry and the building industry, to offer new hope to the television industry, to solve the agricultural industry’s problems of an excess of butter and cheese, and to build a stronger, healthier nation with an integrated economy in which all sectors of the population, Black, European, Coloured and Indian, will play a part towards creating a greater South Africa. This was the essence of my hon. leader’s appeal when he talked about a new orientation in political thought, that we cross the old party line, that we put South Africa first, that we put our children first and that we secure their future for all time.

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing the Part Appropriation Bill and we have to bear in mind the fact, as certain speakers have already indicated, that we are experiencing difficult times, that the outside world is also experiencing difficult times and that we have tackled capital works costing a great deal of money. It is surprising therefore that there have been so many speakers on that side of the House who have gone out of their way to enlarge the difficulty in which South Africa finds itself in respect of the outside world. Many of them have gone out of their way to aggravate the work of the hon. the Ministers of Finance and of Economic Affairs. We have had politicking here to the detriment of South Africa, and the sympathy that one would have expected for squatters without homes has been used flagrantly against South Africa for political purposes. If this were an isolated case of politicking, one could perhaps still understand it. However, I want to suggest that we are dealing here with co-ordinated politicking against the interests of South Africa. As proof of this we have the fuss that is made by the newspapers and by the Opposition as though it were an orchestra playing to the beat of a conductor, because the volume increases when necessary. One asks oneself this: What aim do these people have as far as this co-ordinated effort against South Africa is concerned? One also wishes to ask oneself: Is the effort aimed at bringing about peace and quiet in South Africa; is it aimed at promoting harmony among all the inhabitants of South Africa; or is it aimed at expanding the image of South Africa abroad? These are questions that one asks oneself when politicians of South Africa discuss South Africa in this House, because if this were the aim, as would appear from certain remarks that have come from the other side, we could conduct this debate sensibly and sincerely in dealing with the finances of South Africa.

However, we know that everything that is said here is not said with the best of intentions towards South Africa. We know that there are members in the UP whose hatred of the Afrikaner has once again been revealed, and the hon. member over there looking at me is one of the culprits. These people are blind in seeking to strike blows at the party. They become blind in their oratory against the Afrikaner. It is also a fact that the PRP are so obsessed with their efforts to equalize everyone in South Africa and to do away with the differentiation between nations in South Africa that they are also blind. They are blind and they hit out recklessly and hurt South Africa. However, these people who make so much fuss do not always know that they are being used. Our enemies have an overall strategy, they have a grand strategy against South Africa, and these poor, misguided people do not always realize that they are being misused.

They are too stupid to realize it.

I agree, and I could not agree more. In any case, the position is that we have here an orchestra with a conductor who is outside the country, a conductor who tries to direct at the UNO, a conductor who has even tried to direct here in Soweto, a conductor who makes misuse of those people while they do not even realize it. This is international communism, and it does not help to try to get away from this fact. It is not by chance that we in South Africa hear demands such as those of other countries which claim certain parts of Africa. It is not by chance that the occurrences at Soweto, Guguletu and Langa took place. It is not by chance that we are vilified at the UNO. I want however to say one thing in favour of the communists and that is that one can rely on the word of a communist. If he tells one that he is going to conquer the world for communism, one can believe what he says.

I want now to ask myself: What is the slogan or the hidden slogan or the modus operandi against South Africa that has been decided upon? I believe that our enemies are not stupid and that they are throwing in everything they have against us. That is why I am trying to answer the question in my own mind—and I also wish to answer it here in respect of the House if I can—as to where we are being driven and what the action against us is. One need not go far to seek the answer because the slogan that has been echoed by that side of the House is precisely the same slogan that is echoed by international communism and that is “unjust laws need not be obeyed”. That was the theme of the speeches of many members on that side of the House, namely, “unjust laws need not be obeyed”. Let us look for a moment at what has been said by hon. members on the other side of the House, and I want to give a few examples. However, I do not wish to infer that all the hon. members on that side of the House know that they are being used because the tragedy is that many of them do not know that they are being used. I want to quote something that was said during the no-confidence debate (Hansard, 24 January, 1977, col. 19)—

And here we have the crux of the matter—

This was said by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. This is the accusation that is made: “Whether our system is just or unjust is not in question today.” In other words, it no longer makes any difference whether the system is fair and just; it depends upon the facts of the circumstances. If the facts compel one in a certain direction, one has to go in that direction. One must not maintain one’s principles. One must not uphold one’s principles at any cost and say that one believes in something and stand by it. No.

†Whether it is just or unjust is no longer the issue today.

That was said in a specific context.

Does the hon. member agree that I am quoting correctly? Well, if I am quoting correctly, that is all I have to say. I draw my own conclusions.

You are quoting out of context.

Well, I will not allow that hon. member to prescribe to me what conclusions I must draw.

*The fact is that we have a living example on that side of the House in the person of that leader that double standards make no difference. It is contended that opportunism is correct. One can co-operate with the devil, as that hon. member said, if it comes to that. That is also the position that we have in South Africa today. Even though we are firmly convinced of the moral rectitude of our policy, if at some stage we have to give in because it no longer matters it will be the end of this country of South Africa. However, those hon. gentlemen can sleep peacefully because the NP will not deviate from its principles. We believe in our principles. We are not opportunistically pragmatic. No, people can be sure of one thing and that is that our principles remain the same. Let us see what those members’ principles are. Those hon. members do not know what principles are. I do not know whether they have 14 or 12 or perhaps only 13, but one thing is certain and that is that every now and again there is another principle. If it is not a Mahlabatini agreement with a number of points of agreement then it is these 14 principles. All they are doing is adding new principles, one after the other.

I also want to mention another aspect, and this brings me to what was said by the hon. member for Yeoville. Unfortunately, he is not here, but it is his loss if he cannot listen to me.

He is drawing up even more points.

He said the following—

That is his first principle and we agree with it. However, he went on to say—

He says that it is a crime, a criminal offence, that there are people who do not have homes. However, I want to ask myself whether one can use the word “crime” simultaneously in these two connotations; if one breaks the law, then it is a criminal offence, But since when have we had such a sickly approach to law in this country that something is called a crime which is not really a crime? All he wants to do is once again to belittle the importance of law and order here. The implication of what the hon. member said is, after all, very clear. The implication is that those people are breaking laws but that it does not actually make much difference because a greater injustice is being perpetrated upon them. I ask myself whether words of this nature are not of an inflammatory nature. Are such words in the interests of South Africa in the time in which we live.?

They do not care.

That hon. member has a great deal to say about the rule of law. He is the man who ostensibly wants to maintain order, a man who ostensibly respects the rule of law. In actual fact, however, he says by implication in this House, without batting an eyelid, that those people may just as well break the law because a greater injustice is being done them. I want to say this because I believe that the credibility of that hon. member and that party in respect of their honesty and the rule of law no longer exists. I no longer have any faith in them because one is judged by one’s actions and by one’s words, and judgment has already been passed in regard to these words.

There are moral laws.

There are moral laws! Just listen to that! Who determines the moral laws? That is the old point at issue. However, we cannot permit those hon. members to determine morals because then we will get nowhere. [Interjections.] It is precisely necessary for that reason that not only should there be ethical and moral norms but also laws placed on the Statute Book so that everyone can understand them.

You are now talking a language that they do not understand.

Yes, I know that he does not understand it.

Why do you not want to make it statutory?

That hon. member always talks from the gallery, but I am now talking to the House. I want now to mention a third aspect and I should like to quote a certain statement by the PRP from The Argus of yesterday which was issued in regard to the squatters. Inter alia, it reads as follows—

Listen well to the words “the squatter townships are unauthorized”. It is not said that they are illegal. It is said “they are unauthorized”. Why? One has to ask oneself why this is said.

You do not even understand the meaning of the word. What does “unauthorized” mean?

Sir, …

He is an attorney.

Is he an attorney? I can’t believe it!

But he is a very stupid attorney.

Oh! I think that is probable. I also want to consider the question of nuances. What does it mean if we find written the words “it is unauthorized”? It implies that this Government can actually authorize it if it wants to. But that is not the position. After all, the Government cannot watch laws being broken and itself act at will. If we were to act as they want us to act we would in fact be acting at will. We could then rightly be accused and condemned because of our capricious behaviour. That is the first point that I want to make. Once again the accusation is hurled at the Government that if it only wanted to do something it could do it. The Government is accused of being inflexible and of not wanting to do anything.

The other point is that those hon. members simply do not want to give these people the correct information. They do not want to tell them straightforwardly: You are here illegally. Leave, and once you have left we shall do our best for you. This is what the Government is doing.

Where must they go to?

If the hon. member had only listened to what the hon. the Minister of Community Development said yesterday he would not ask such a stupid question. I am not going to reply to that question either because I think that the hon. the Minister of Community Development made a wonderful speech. I cannot improve upon it. If the hon. member did not understand him he will not understand me either.

One has to ask oneself who the people are who have issued this statement. On whose behalf do they speak?

[Inaudible.]

Sir, that hon. member with his big mouth was not elected by people to sit on the platform on which he is sitting now. In actual fact he does not represent his voters at all, but he has a great deal to say while I am trying to make my speech here. There are only eight PRP members who can talk. I have no argument with them. How many can talk in the UP? Only six! In my opinion the others ought to be ashamed of themselves if they say that they, are speaking on behalf of somebody. One thing is certain: They are very definitely not speaking on behalf of the Whites of South Africa. We find ourselves in the fantastic position that those hon. members who in the first place do not even speak on behalf of their constituencies and, in the second place, do not speak on behalf of the Whites, are the ones who wish to conclude agreements with other nations in South Africa on behalf of the Whites. Can you believe it, Sir? They want to conclude agreements with groups of a different colour in South Africa and yet they represent nobody. That is the height of nonsensicality.

They represent everyone only for Harry Oppenheimer.

Sir, I did not say that but I shall not dispute it—one cannot quarrel with one’s bread and butter. That is why the PRP in the so-called united Opposition, if it ever comes into being, will never succeed in their negotiations with other nations in South Africa. They cannot succeed because they do not represent the White people. If something of this nature were to come into being the NP would be compelled to participate in it if it was to have any hope of success.

But we have been asking you for ages to participate.

We have a better plan than theirs. We do not wish to pull the wool over people’s eyes. We do not wish to trick people. We want to give them freedom, complete freedom, so that they will not have to come to me for anything and need not even have a Standard II certificate in order to be able to vote. They will be able to vote if they are citizens of that country and qualify under the laws of that country. What more can one give than this? My theme remains the same: The call that goes out from the Opposition is that the laws of South Africa must be ignored. That is the assault upon South Africa. It is said: Bring our laws into discredit.

They are discreditable laws.

Sir, just listen to what that hon. member has to say. That hon. member has taken an oath to the Republic of South Africa in terms of our Constitution and now he says that the laws of South Africa are “discreditable laws”.

The laws of the National Party are.

To elaborate on this theme I should like to read what the hon. member for Wynberg said. He said—

This is contempt for the laws of Parliament.

The laws of this Government.

That is not so. The Government does not make the laws. It is Parliament that makes the laws. If he does not know that, he should not be here.

But it is not their Parliament; it is our Parliament.

Sir, that is the theme throughout. I want to say that in actual fact the Opposition are the biggest discriminators in the racial sphere that one could find. Just listen for a moment to what these 14 principles of theirs have to say. I just want to quote the 11th principle because it is very interesting. Do they mind if I quote the 11th principle? It reads—

Listen well: The word is “inequitable”—

In other words, if it is an “equitable form of discrimination” it is quite permissible.

What is the meaning of “inequitable”?

If, however, it is an “inequitable form”, then it is a terrible thing.

What does “inequitable” mean?

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must not conduct a running commentary.

I want to make it clear that the greatest measure of racial discrimination is embodied in these 14 principles because in them we find that as long as it is an “equitable form” of discrimination, it is permissible, otherwise not.

I think I have indicated that we are dealing here with an assault on law and order. We need only listen to the hon. member for Houghton to see how a start is made with the police and the attacks that the police have to endure, unjust, untimely and unnecessary at tacks. We see therefore that the first attack is made upon the police. The second attack is made upon the laws of this Parliament, and the third attack is made on our courts. This is a total assault to give people the impression that they are oppressed by the laws so that they should become disorderly, so that they should try to incite revolution; and when these people are successful they, the Opposition, are very surprised and they blame the Government for it. Just as soon as their actions bear fruit, they blame the Government. This is a wonderful state of affairs for one to find oneself in. However, I want to put the matter this way: Do those hon. members who spoke about squatting believe that the squatters should stay here? Do they not believe that the Western Province is the cradle of the Coloured people? Do they not believe that the Coloured people should be favoured somewhat in respect of employment and housing? I cannot believe that the CRC could ever agree to the Blacks staying in those squatters’ townships. I cannot believe that because it would mean that the housing for their own people would suffer because housing would then have to be provided for other people. It also means something more, namely, that the Coloureds in the Western Province have to share their employment opportunities with people who do not live here.

In other words, I believe that if the CRC has to pass judgment in regard to this matter they will agree with the Government in what we aim to do. I want to ask the Opposition today to weigh their words, to set a high premium upon law and order in the country. I should like, with respect, to alter the words of the hon. the Prime Minister somewhat and to say that hon. members will be surprised to see where we will stand economically and financially next year if the Opposition do their duty towards South Africa. We are discussing an appropriation at the moment. We can go a long way in a year provided the Opposition do their duty, do their share, and not allow communism to soften us up in one respect, namely, in respect of the maintenance of law and order. Criticize laws but do not ridicule them. Why should we ridicule them? Keep the arms of the police strong; they have a difficult task to perform and they are, after all, only people like you and I. We are their brothers. If the Opposition co-operate with us we shall get through easily, but if they do not co-operate with us we shall win through in any event. They are being given the opportunity to co-operate with us in the sphere of law and order. If they do not co-operate we shall go ahead in any case. The idiom that will then apply to them is that the dogs may bark but the caravan moves onwards.

Mr. Speaker, during the past week I have heard a few things that have rather disturbed me. I want to mention one of those things before the debate is adjourned in a few minutes and that is, namely, that it has been said here by speakers that the Liquor Amendment Bill is legislation that can only be understood and interpreted by a few experts. But that is not the truth. I want in just a few sentences to smother this cult that has developed here and is still developing to the effect that certain legislation can only be interpreted by a few lawyers. The Bill contains 151 clauses. As it is written at the moment, I can still understand it thoroughly. In any case I must understand it, because how else am I to explain it to my voters? In the Afrikaans version of clause 82 of the Bill I see that the word “ouderdom” is being substituted for the word “leeftyd”. I want the hon. member for Durban Point to understand—according to him this Bill was amended on advice, or so I deduced from his speech—that I do not judge him according to his “leeftyd”; I judge him according to his “ouderdom”.

His weight!

It would be an evil day for this Parliament if the impression were to be created here that laws are made in this Parliament that can only be understood by a few people. I wish to record my strongest objection to that contention.

In the second instance I just want to give an indication of what I am talking about by quoting one paragraph and then I shall move the adjournment of the debate. I want to quote what Toynbee, the great historian, wrote in his résumé of the history of our civilization over the past 5 000 years. In his chapter on “Western Christendom” he writes as follows—