Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the speeches made during this Part Appropriation debate. I have been sitting here for many years, and I sit and listen to everything which is said. Unavoidably …

[Inaudible.]

Yes, I have just been reading what the hon. member for Houghton said in the newspaper. I saw in a newspaper the other day that she said she was falling in love with me.

Yes, that’s right!

Mr. Speaker, I knew that the hon. member for Houghton would begin to love me in her old age … [Interjections.]

She is just looking for fatherly companionship!

Mr. Speaker, when one has been listening to speeches in this hon. House for a long time, inevitably certain meanings and certain images come to mind. One image which occurs to me, is the image of separate development. Apartheid, separate development, has now reached the stage of achieving a latitude, in which it has the same meaning for some people as religion has in broad terms, it has become meaningless. To some people it has become a supermarket, a supermarket where everyone can take what he wants and interpret it as he likes. The logical consequences of apartheid now have to be responsible for every specious argument, every idea, every speculative thought expressed. The quintessence or the essential purpose of apartheid is now being broadened out into an undefined, aimless wandering about with ideas.

By whom?

By all hon. members of the PRP and by some people in our own ranks. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the emphasis is now being shifted away from the people and towards the State. Is it not true that today more importance is attached to diplomats than to the nation, than to the people who make up the nation, the workers, the teachers, the farmer on his farm, the productive contributor towards the nation’s capital? Some people see our salvation in what the diplomat does for us. I also want to point out that the task of the diplomat is made less effective due to the norms, the rules and the demands made by the seekers for international political power and by their lackeys. This is true in particular in regard to South Africa, because the norms and the demands made are such that the Republic of South Africa as a State will only be popular if it complies with the norms and demands made by those political seekers for power and their lackeys. However, then there will no longer be any nation left; specifically, no White nation. I therefore believe that those things which have to do with the strengthening of our nation and its power structure, needs must be placed on the list of priorities without delay. When we discuss the power structure, we must take note of the fact that we are today reaping the fruits of the difference in the power structures which the colonial powers had here in Africa. There is a difference between our power structure and that which the colonial powers had here. Their power structures were based outside South Africa. They were based outside the colonies. Our power structure is based within the geographic confines of our fatherland.

Today, we speak to people in the outside world who prescribe norms and demands to us, people whose power structure is based elsewhere, people whose power structure, which must supposedly make decisions for us, is situated elsewhere. Is it not outrageous that the EEG said at its latest meeting that South West Africa will only be recognized if a power structure outside South West Africa, the OAU approves? Only then will they, too, agree!

What is happening in Rhodesia at the moment? In spite of the efforts made by Rhodesia to achieve an internal agreement, the outside world says that it cannot recognize this because there are foreign bodies, other power structures, front-line presidents who have to be consulted before a dispensation satisfactory to everyone in Rhodesia can be established. We must shift the emphasis onto the strengthening of our own basis of authority which is situated here in our own country. A power structure does not consist of a group of commercial negotiators or Press philosophers or academic speculators and their ideas. Nor does it consist of people who speculate about our economic position. Our power structure derives from and was created by ourselves. It is anchored in our natural resources and in the use we make of those resources, and in our own creative courage. It is anchored in our own people. It is a matter of urgent and vital importance that we look to our people. I am afraid that the rift between the differences in identifying the threat to our existence in this country is becoming deeper and deeper. There are significant thousands of people who see our salvation and escape from the threats facing us, in a settlement with the outside world, in a partial acceptance of the requirements and norms which are prescribed to us by the outside world. There are also those who see our salvation in arming and strengthening of our own people and our own national character.

What is confronting us in our country? I fully believe with heart and soul that we shall not be able to meet the threats against our country successfully unless we consider a few cardinal points within our nation. By the year 2000 we will have a population of approximately 50 million people in South Africa. If we consider what proportion of our country’s total surface area of 143 million morgen of land is productive arable land from which food can be produced, we find it amounts to approximately 17 million morgen. If 17 million morgen have to feed 50 million people, it means that every person would have to be fed from approximately 0,7 morgen of land. Even if we were to increase our volume of production by means of improved breeding methods and improved production methods and even if we should double it, it would still mean that we shall not be able to feed our people as we should in order to eliminate hardship and poverty, in view of the higher demands we set ourselves, inter alia, a higher standard of living and an ever-increasing national domestic product.

We shall have to take the following fact into account: In 1975, 48 000 Whites, 19 000 Coloured, 8 000 Asians and 207 000 Bantu entered the labour force—a total of 282 000 new workers entering the labour force. The outside world cannot absorb their labour. The outside world is geared for an ever-increasing standard of living and therefore will not be able to help us. We will definitely not be able to fend for ourselves with our present economically active population. In 1976 we had 1 802 000 economically active Whites, 826 000 economically active Coloureds, 229 000 economically active Asians and 7 209 000 economically active Bantu—a total of 10 066 000 economically active people. However, in contrast, there are only 5 million people who are skilled or semi-skilled in the technological, academic, scientific and agricultural spheres.

Let us look at the present position as regards income. At the end of last year the average annual income of our Whites was R2 500; that of the Asians, R600; that of the Coloureds, R500; and that of the Blacks, R270. In terms of the standard of living and income of the First World—that is to say, the developed world—the vast majority of our population belongs to the Third World and some to the Fourth World.

What image does our country create for us when we leave here? It is an image of extravagance in comparison with poverty and want, an image of unjustified ease and luxury in comparison with enormous emotional and hate-generating frustration. If we only look beyond our borders, we must prepare ourselves for the development of a contrast in Africa, something which will be and will form the breeding ground for frustration and rejection of authority in our own power structure for years and decades to come. The colonial powers left Africa in poverty, ignorance and pestilence.

This is largely the basis of the negation, or inability, or instinctive hostility of the Blacks in Africa towards us as Whites. They judge us by the criteria applicable to the old colonial powers. We have to pay the price today. The finest Defence Force and the finest weapons can only afford us up to 40% protection. The capital we need for defence, for training and for an effective and quantitative ethnic policy is being swallowed up by a love of ease, an extravagant community living beyond its means, a false patriotism, a false evaluation which considers achievements in the sporting sphere to be sacrosanct and which causes us to look to our diplomats to save us from the fix we are in. We have prided ourselves on our resources. We have gone from platform to platform saying that we are one of the richest countries in the world—name it and South Africa has it. We prided ourselves on our strategic position as regards the Cape’s strategic situation and in our hour of oppression fixed our hope upon our geographic and strategically situated position. Bristling with pride, we have prided ourselves on our ancestors. We said that if they could surmount these problems; why could we not do so? We went from pulpit to pulpit and from platform to platform and said that we were a Christian nation. We hid behind this and tried to find our salvation in it. If something goes wrong, we say that the liberals and communists are the cause of it. We looked for reasons for everything. If things go wrong with the economy of our country, we say that the petrol price or the gold price is causing it. I think that we have been making a mistake. Our evaluations have been incorrect. We are experiencing a crisis now, and our men are at the border. They are prepared to give their lives, but what are we doing? What is this nation doing, this nation which has been so proud of its Christian forebears, this nation whose sons are now at the border, this nation which tells us day and night that we are experiencing a crisis? What is this nation doing in a crisis? Our holiday resorts are fuller than they have ever been, for a longer period than ever before in our history.

The first sortie of our petrol and speed regulations failed pitifully. We are still struggling with our imports, but just take a look at the unnecessary imported articles which this nation consumes. We have been practising deceit on a large scale. I can mention examples of deceit which are practised today: price offences, profiteering and ignoring the lesson which the crisis through which we are living, should be teaching us. We are hiding behind the clock. We thrust the malodorous finger of our own interests into the eyes of our nation and of our authorities. We as Whites have became entirely dependent upon Black labour. If we had to take the Blacks in the north of our country out of our factories and out of our economic structure, it would collapse entirely. This is a fact which we must face up to. We are rapidly strengthening the grip of agitators who are defying the authority of a country on the basis of the internal weakness of every one of us in this geographically confined country of ours.

I was at primary school 55 years ago and in spite of the new demands which the new world in which we are living makes of us all, the syllabus and what is taught in our primary schools today is identical to what Cas Greyling learned 55 years ago. The subject matter taught has not been correlated and adapted to the new demands being made. We have not bred a man and a child for whom petrol regulations are unnecessary and we have not bred people who will escape the accusation which I am making today, namely that we have a reckless White population and reckless subordinates whose guardians we pride ourselves as being. The subject matter of our education has not succeeded in leading our young people into the arena which the twilight years of the 20th century have brought us to. Meaningless—I say this emphatically and deliberately—ineffectual programmes of education, projected on the acceptance that this luxurious community will exist forever, are being applied in our schools today. We have allowed ourselves to be led into a state of confusion by warped, misplaced humanist and speculative ideas. What was once secondary, now demands to be made primary. It is vital that we should once again, as a matter of urgency and without delay, institute an inquiry into the programme of education of our nation. This is vital. We made a great fuss—I agree—about having to improve the lot of the educator, but we cannot stop there. We shall have to investigate the content of education so that the child of today, who is the father of the nation of tomorrow, can be introduced to the requirements and demands which economic and spiritual preparedness will make of him. Hon. members must please not maintain that economic preparedness implies that one has to save a certain amount of money. The components which we must build into our children in order to guide them towards real and effective economic preparedness, are legion. A nation which acts as our nation does in a moment of crisis, is certainly not an economically resilient nation. The resources which God gave us in South Africa—and I emphasize this—will not be of any advantage and will be of no effective use to us, if we do not have a spiritually and economically resilient nation to exploit these resources. Therefore South Africa cannot deal effectively with the problem of the labour flow to the labour market, intending or hoping that we shall escape social unrest and poverty. We shall not be able to solve the problem of the squatters by physically shifting them to another place.

Hear, hear!

No, I do not agree with those hon. members on that score. We shall only be able to solve the problem by bringing our economic vitality and growth potential into line with out population growth.

It must therefore be stated as a matter of primary importance that a quantitative ethnic policy has become an absolute necessity for us. The logical consequences of separate development are that it gives us the key to the right of self-determination and a sphere of sovereignty which can be accepted and recognized by everyone and in which we will be able to talk about the problem which is not only a South African but a world-wide one, freely and without suspicion or insinuation. This demands a quantitative, purposeful, full-scale action which is clothed in status by the authority. It is an action which will cost a great deal of money and demand a great deal of consultation. Gen. Hertzog began to enunciate the segregation policy 64 years ago. For 64 years we sweated and struggled, until 26 October 1976, when the sovereign independence of the Transkei was recognized for the first time. The realization of what I am asking for is going to be a long process, but it is the only process which will last. It is the only step we can take to deal with the dilemma of the terror of numbers, because the Coloureds and the Blacks in the White areas as well as those from the homelands will always be dependent on us to a greater or lesser degree. I am not afraid of the terrorists on our borders. I cannot think of a single nation in history which was destroyed by military action. Nor do I know of any nation which was brought down by the economic sanctions of another. However, I do know of peoples and kingdoms which disappeared entirely from history and from the face of the earth, due to a lack of preparedness. If we do not make the revaluation of the subject matter of our education a matter of primary importance, so that the demands which this era and this century make of us can be complied with, apartheid alone will not save us.

Hear, hear!

Hon. members may go ahead and shout “Hear, hear” but I repeat that apartheid alone, as a measure to effect political separation, will not save us. It is vital that we should look to the heart of our nation. It is the duty of the authorities to provide guidance and act in a purposeful manner. It is also the duty of the authorities to entrench our youth, because our youth do not get any entrenchment from a nation which acts like this nation of mine does in an hour of crisis. I say this although I really love that nation as much as any of the hon. members. However, the example set and the entrenchment provided by the adults to our young people today, is like a pitiful image or picture of what I ought to see before me. The responsibility rests squarely upon the shoulders of our authorities and of all of us to take the lead so that we may entrench our young people, who are the fathers of the nation of tomorrow, and initials them into the demands made by the new times and new political developments as well as the new political and economic developments and the new social structures which have come to the fore. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Carletonville, after half an hour of haranguing this House about political development, made the following significant statement, that there are peoples who lost their way in the history of the world through a lack of preparedness. I agree with that hon. member, but I wish he would get that message across to the Cabinet, which represents him in this House, because it is that very lack of preparedness which has brought South Africa to the state it is in today. There is not only the fear of the terrorists on our borders, terrorists which the hon. member says he does not fear at all, but there are also the fears of internal unrest, economic fears, etc., all of which have been brought about through that Cabinet failing to create, within South Africa, a preparedness or ability to meet the crisis we are facing.

The hon. member says apartheid cannot save us. Never before have we heard from that hon. member’s lips a saying of such wisdom and foresight, but I wonder when he will be able to get that message across to his colleagues in the Cabinet. I believe that the harm that the philosophy of apartheid has done to South Africa is what has brought South Africa to the position of being virtually on its knees today.

It is that same apartheid which has caused our troubles on our borders by bringing these people to our borders. That is the excuse they are using. It is that apartheid that has caused the unrest that just about tore the heart out of South Africa in the second half of last year and which is still going on; it has not ended yet. It is that apartheid which has brought South Africa to the economic crisis we face today. I therefore think the time has come for us to bring this debate back to where it should be, and that is the realm of economics and the effect of the Government’s policy on the man in the street, particularly as far as that policy affects his pocket and his standard of living. I want to remind the House this afternoon of the amendment that was moved by my friend, the hon. member for Constantia, on Wednesday of last week when he moved—

I hope that the hon. member for Carletonville will learn the lesson inherent in this amendment. I believe the attention of the House should return to that amendment and to a measure which was introduced by the hon. the Minister of Finance as a financial and economic measure.

The hon. the Minister of Finance misled the country on Monday of last week when he introduced this measure. I believe he painted far too rosy a picture.

The facts are there.

The hon. the Minister says that the facts are there. Facts have been presented during this debate, however, to refute many of the facts the hon. the Minister presented, and I hope to produce some more facts a little later to refute those arguments and in some way to bring this matter back onto an even keel. I do not believe the public must be left to live in a fool’s paradise as a result of the enthusiasm of this hon. Minister for what is, in fact, a lost cause. There were headlines reading: “Horwood forecasts economic upswing.” Where is it? No one has seen any signs of it. If we do not have an economic upswing, however, this country is really going to be in trouble. It rests with that hon. Minister and his Cabinet to see to it that we do have an economic upswing. He went on to speak about unemployment, a matter I shall deal with a little later. He also spoke about the fact that the rate of inflation had dropped.

I think, however, he went a long way towards misleading the general public when he spoke about inflation. I have a copy of his speech here, and I quote (Hansard, 7/2, p. C. 1)—

Why does the hon. the Minister compare the increase of one quarter with that of the previous quarter?

Because they are the latest figures.

He says because they are the latest figures. But why does the hon. the Minister not tell us how the latest figures compare with the figures of a year ago?

I did.

No, Sir, he did not. At least, he did not tell us in his Second Reading speech. Why does he talk of 9% when he knows full well that it is in excess of 11½%? The hon. the Minister knows that, compared with last year, it is now in excess of 11½%. What businessman compares the turnover of March with that of February? The hon. the Minister does, but I do not believe that any businessman ever does that.

In a small business one might.

Yes, perhaps in a small business. But if it concerns a small business in terms of the hon. the Minister’s portfolio, that small business affects everyone of us. The people outside are being lulled into a false sense of security by the rosy words that come from the hon. the Minister. He knows it is a false comparison he is making. He knows that in 12 months the cost of living has gone up by more than 11½%. Yet he talks of 9%. He said: “Dit is verblydend.” Even with the figure at 9%, he is satisfied with it. I do not believe that anybody should be satisfied with that.

The hon. the Minister also compared the increases of the last quarter of the year with those of the third quarter of the year. The hon. the Minister must know that in the last quarter of the year the least number of increases in commodity prices occur because in that quarter factories are slowing down, production is at the end of its run and production costs are the lowest of the whole year. He must know that.

Do not talk rubbish.

The hon. the Minister says I am talking rubbish. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Why did he take the unemployment figure as at June 1976 and not as at 31 December 1976? He did so for exactly the same reason. He chooses those figures which he thinks will best suit his case, because he knows he has a weak case when he tries to tell the people of South Africa they are living well. He must go out and meet the housewives. He must go into the supermarkets and talk to them because they have found that the price of almost every commodity they buy has gone up in the last month by another 10% or 12%. He knows full well that the price of foodstuffs has gone up by nearly 15% in the last year. He talked of 9% on the “seisoensaangesuiwerde syfer”—those are the words he used. Yet he knows very well that the price of foodstuffs and also the cost of living for non-White people has gone up by well in excess of 15%. Why has it gone up? It has gone up because of the mismanagement of the economy.

The hon. the Minister of Agriculture, who is present at the moment, has also played a part in this. We are not going to talk about cheese this afternoon—let me put his mind at rest on that score. That is in such a mess that is impossible for me to deal with that in the short time I have at my disposal this afternoon. However, what did the hon. the Minister of Agriculture do in respect of the price of bread? In the last year he has put up the price of bread by 25% for a loaf of white bread. The price has gone up by 4c on a white loaf and 3c on a brown loaf. Why did he put the price of bread up?

He must have had a surplus.

Was it to help the farmer? No, Sir. The hon. the Minister indicates the sign for money and refers to the subsidy. I am sure the hon. the Minister will be prepared to concede that. I hope the people of South Africa know why there was an increase in the price of bread. I hope they know why they have to pay an extra 4c on a white loaf and 3c on a brown loaf. It is to put money in the coffers of the hon. the Minister of Finance. The hon. the Minister shakes his head. I want to ask him: Did the wheat farmer get anything out of that increase?

Yes.

What did he get?

12%.

It is no good telling us he got 12%. How much did he get? [Interjections.] How much does 12% work out to? It works out to less than half a cent. In point of fact less than a quarter of a cent went to the wheat farmer. Did the miller get any increase? No, the miller got nothing. The baker got nothing. The supermarket owner or distributor got nothing either. In other words, 3%c of the 4c increase went into the pocket of the hon. the Minister of Finance because that hon. Minister had to reduce his subsidy from R130 million to a little over R65 million. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister says that that is quite right. I am glad that he acknowledges it. What it amounts to, is that the people of South Africa were taxed an extra 3%c on a loaf of white bread to fill the coffers of the hon. the Minister of Finance. R65 million went towards helping to balance the budget.

There is another figure we have to look at. How much money has the hon. the Minister of Finance taken away from the importers in South Africa with his import deposit scheme?

Taken away?

R200 million? R300 million?

What am I paying back now?

Has he paid it all back?

Do you understand this matter?

Yes, I understand it quite well. Did the hon. the Minister get R400 million or how much did he get?

I shall reply to you.

I believe he has R400 million of the importer’s money, money on which the importer is paying interest, which is today pushing up the cost of living because importers are paying more for their imports as a result of the money the hon. the Minister of Finance has taken away. He has now cancelled that scheme, but I ask him again: Has he repaid that money? When is he going to repay it, or is he going to keep it for another six months, interest free? He has had R400 million out of the pockets of business in South Africa for the last six months, interest free, simply so that the Government can have some money to balance its books because, as I have said before, the Government was insolvent. It needed the R65 million out of the pockets of the housewives for the bread and it needed the R400 million from the import deposit scheme simply to balance its budget.

Then we come to the question of unemployment. It is hard enough for people to have to battle to live and to battle to get money to pay for food. When they are unemployed as well, then the situation becomes much worse. But what does the hon. the Minister say? He said that there were 22 581 persons unemployed in December 1976 as compared with 11 492 in 1975, an increase of nearly 100% in one year. He went on and said that as a percentage this figure was very small and that it was nothing really to worry about. Has the hon. the Minister taken into consideration the number of unemployed people who are not registered with the Unemployment Insurance Commissioner? I do not believe that the hon. the Minister has because if he had taken the trouble to get out of this House, to come away from his ivory tower, and to meet with the man in the street, he would have found that there are thousands and thousands of unemployed people today who are not part of the figures which he has given. The hon. the Minister must know that last year in excess of 65 000 pupils wrote matric.

I wonder how many of those 65 000 people are unemployed today. Those members who, like me, have contact with the young people in South Africa today, will know that this is a terribly worrying aspect. There are numbers of people who matriculated last year and who graduated from university, who are unable to get employment, and they do not appear in the figures which the hon. the Minister gave. Under the system which is applied in this country, until such time as they have worked and have been registered as workers and have contributed to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, they do not appear in the unemployment figures. So when the hon. the Minister talks about 22 000 people unemployed, which represents only 1,2%, as he puts it, I believe that the true figures of unemployed Whites, Indians and Coloureds is more than double that because of the young people today who are walking the streets trying to get jobs, jobs which are not available to them because of the economic policy which the Government has followed. I do not believe that even the hon. the Minister of Finance can refute that statement.

When we come to the African people, the hon. the Minister says he does not accept the figures which have been given by various authorities. The survey unit of the University of Pretoria has given a figure of 700 000 unemployed Africans. The hon. the Minister says he is prepared to accept that in the year from June 1975 to June 1976 there were 38 000 in the urban areas and 62 000 additional unemployed Africans in the rural areas, which makes a total increase of 100 000. Referring to these figures in his speech the hon. the Minister said—

Not exceptional, Sir! It is only another 100 000 people out of employment, that is all. The hon. the Minister says that it is not exceptional. When one looks at this figure as a percentage, accepting that the hon. the Minister will abide by the figures given by the University of Pretoria, this represents something like an increase of 20% over the unemployment figures of 1975. Furthermore, that figure was as at June 1976. What about the end-of-year laying-off? What about the building industry which did not take its people back at the beginning of January when they restarted the new year? What about those who were paid off when the work ran out at the end of 1976? Those figures are not taken into consideration at all. I believe that the hon. the Minister must be sure and that he must present the full facts when he presents a picture like this.

I believe that South Africa is in trouble. It is not only in trouble from an international economic position, but I believe that internally it is in trouble. The hon. the Minister knows of the unrest that we have had. It has been politically inspired; I am prepared to concede that, but one must bear in mind that that is coupled with the economic problems which the non-White people are facing today, their daily struggle to make ends meet, and that that is coupled in turn with massive unemployment. We are getting to the stage where unemployment amongst the African people is massive. Notwithstanding the fact that the Government does not keep these figures, if we accept the most conservative figures, we are getting close to a million unemployed today amongst the African people. This is a situation that, I believe, South Africa cannot tolerate any longer.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this hon. Minister of Finance and the policy which he is furthering on behalf of the NP Government played a large part in exacerbating the situation, and I therefore support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Constantia.

Mr. Speaker, it is a temptation for any Nationalist today to poke fun at the hon. Opposition a little because of the tremendous confusion which is prevailing in their ranks. But that is not what I am going to do today. I would prefer to address myself to hon. Opposition members who feel as we do about matters relating to our fatherland, hon. members who have an honest and sympathetic approach to the problems of South Africa. South Africa, in exactly the same way as other Christian democratic countries in the world, is waging a struggle for survival, particularly because Russia, in its desire for world domination, has its eye on South Africa and on Africa. If it cannot gain control of these territories, it cannot succeed in its efforts to achieve world domination. That is why our struggle is a struggle for survival. That is why I say that these are such serious times that we cannot waste our time on jokes, but should instead, talk to those hon. members of the Opposition who think as we think and feel as we feel.

Mr. Speaker, we have had an unfortunate betrothal of political views and of political parties in this House. It was unfortunate for South Africa as well as this House. I am pleased to hear that that unfortunate political betrothal was broken off over the weekend for we …

They were engaged “on appro”!

Yes, it is as the hon. member for Omaruru says: It was merely an engagement “on appro”. [Interjections.] I am very pleased it did not succeed and that that engagement has been broken off.

Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes at my disposal I should like to confine myself today to those people who feel about South Africa as I and other Nationalists do. Today I am not going to be unparliamentary by accusing any hon. member or group of acting in a deliberately unpatriotic way towards South Africa. Patriotism is a concept which is interpreted in various ways by various people. Sitting in those benches opposite are many people of whom I have come to realize over the years I have known them that they feel exactly as I do about South Africa and that they have the same love for South Africa as I have. Politically we do differ. In many respects we differ widely from one another, but I want to say at once that our conception of what patriotism is is identical. Today I want to address myself to them and tell them that I am pleased that they have disengaged themselves from a political betrothal which definitely had a very unfavourable effect on them. I want to mention a few examples. On Wednesday, when we were listening to the hon. the Minister of Finance introducing the little budget, and the hon. the Minister said very soberly that South Africa was being affected by certain financial tendencies in the world and that South Africa was having a hard time of it, jeers and cat-calls went up from those benches which were like a slap in the face. I expected this of certain people, but from certain other people in those benches I found it shocking.

The second example to which I want to refer was when the hon. the Minister of Community Development was speaking about squatters, people who are squatting illegally and have become a danger to themselves and to the community around them. There were cat-calls, and irresponsible noises went up from those benches. I am thinking for example of the hon. member for Wynberg who asked what laws were being broken by those people and who had made those laws. Surely that is irresponsible language. Now that the betrothal has been broken off, I trust that we are going to be rid of that type of language in this House, in particular on the part of that party. I am not talking about the other people. It is not going to help them simply to break off the betrothal. My advice to them is: Get rid of your Japies, of certain professors in your ranks, of your “butterbulls” and your “bittermouths” and then there will be hope again for the UP in the years to come and they can again become a worthy Opposition in South Africa.

I want to say in all earnest, Sir, that we find ourselves involved in a war of propaganda in the world. Communist countries, with Russia and China in the lead, are waging a war of propaganda, and all of us in South Africa should be very careful what we say in these times. Every word spoken in this House and outside this House and written in the newspapers is seized upon with the utmost eagerness to help in that propaganda campaign against South Africa. The communists are propagating incitement against South Africa and they are propagating terror. Every movement, every step we take in South Africa is used by those people against us. Therefore I want to make an appeal to the responsible members in the UP today to return to the days of a responsible Opposition. They must say nothing and do nothing which is conducive to pernicious propaganda. They should rather do something to oppose it, in this House and outside. It is their task as well, and we ask them to support us in this. Internal violence is being stirred up and every word spoken here is being used for that purpose. We are engaged in a serious economic struggle. A sound economy can contribute a great deal to saving South Africa. We need that sound economy in order to arm ourselves, and in order to carry out our policy for the development of separate, independent peoples in South Africa. That policy is succeeding and is the only policy which can save South Africa in these difficult times. For that reason I address myself to the responsible Opposition and ask them to support the Government in its attempt to give the peoples in South Africa their freedom, to give the Bantu population groups their own freedom in their own Bantu homelands, as we have now done in the Transkei. In addition I want to ask them to help us with that great attempt to bring about peaceful co-existence in South Africa for those population groups which traditionally have no homelands but have to live with us in South Africa. We are engaged in forming healthy communities. That is why I turn to the Opposition today and ask them to help us in this task. There is a collective task for us. We are not asking the Opposition to join us in these benches, for, believe me, we have no more sitting room here on this side, but we are asking them to be a responsible Opposition in the interests of South Africa. Forget about those people and help us to combat them; then you will once more be that old Opposition from the days of General Smuts and General Botha.

You must not forget those old traditions of yours and sink into the mud and quagmire with which you are being threatened by these people. Opposition is always welcomed by the Government and a responsible Opposition is necessary in a democratic country. I want to tell you that you have a very, very important task to perform as an Opposition in South Africa. Then, one day, if you were to become strong enough—which might be a little far-fetched—to take over the Government, then you have that opportunity.

Help us, too, with the second structure we are working on, viz., the establishment of a pattern in South Africa with which the human dignity of each individual will be recognized, whether in his homeland or in his ethnic context within the borders of the Republic of South Africa. Help us to establish those population communities so that they may occupy the position worthy of them in politics, in society and in the economy. This Government is trying to make this possible for each population group and race. If the Opposition wants to co-operate with us honestly, do they think we would be so petty as to object to their having their own party context and preserving their own party? On the contrary. I think that a very good spirit could prevail between the Official Opposition and the Government. For this reason I want to address myself to them today and ask them to leave the things with which they are busying themselves now, and to co-operate with us. This is one of our major tasks, and I believe that by now they should be quite firmly convinced that the creation of separate peoples will succeed. We have already proved this in the Transkei. I believe that within the next two or three years it will have been proved to such an extent that no one will argue about it any more. I appreciate that it is difficult for the Opposition, but they should admit their mistakes and support the Government in this.

We have another policy as well, an internal policy for those population groups which do not have a homeland of their own. We are developing those groups. We state only one condition, i.e. the preservation of a distinctive identity. After we have assured each one of his identity and his right to be able to have a share in the politics of South Africa, there is another tremendous task awaiting us. Our policy is not that of integration. Surely a part of the Opposition have also come to realize this, for they do not believe in integration either, or in surrendering their identity. Recently I have heard hon. members on that side of the House discussing this matter very openly and constructively. We know that some of our friends in the Opposition are not trying to integrate with the non-White peoples, nor are they trying to do so in the political sphere, or am I wrong? Some members of our Official Opposition do not believe in these things and that is why they cannot continue their negotiations with the PRP. The PRP is looking for a short cut to integration, to political power-sharing and to Black majority rule in South Africa, The Official Opposition is aware of this, after all, and therefore I am now asking them to support us in our broad, sound policy, for surely they agree with us. I am asking them to remain a healthy Opposition. They have the right to level criticism, but I want to ask them to come forward and be honest with themselves in this regard. Expel those hon. members who are intractable from the party; take back the hon. members sitting here and become once again a fine, great and strong Opposition.

I have respect for the IUP, apart from the fact that they can sometimes kick up quite a fuss, as the hon. member for King William’s Town is inclined to do. However, that makes no difference; he remains a splendid fellow for all that. Sometimes he gives us something to laugh at, but surely that is also necessary here in Parliament. However, the hon. member does nothing which is irresponsible in the extreme. That is why I am making an appeal to those people to join us in creating economic opportunities for the other peoples and population groups in South Africa. Let us also create cultural opportunities for them. Hon. members may criticize us freely in respect of the implementation of our policy but they must in heaven’s name stop trying to criticize a policy which people have for the past 28 years now regarded as the policy of this country. This is the road along which we are seeking the salvation of South Africa, and it is ridiculous of those hon. members to keep on wanting to kick against the pricks. Let us rather seek a solution to our problems within the policy of the NP, for we are prepared to make certain concessions.

[Inaudible.]

No, I am not talking to you, for if I am not careful I shall tell you what you are, and then Mr. Speaker will call me to order. I am not going to yield to the temptation today of discussing patriotism with that hon. member, for it could get me into trouble. I want to ask the official Opposition to co-operate with us to create a healthy South Africa, for then we shall once again have the earlier status quo, i.e. that there will be two respectable parties in the House of Assembly which can debate matters with one another, an Opposition and a Government. If the Opposition, at the next election, acts patriotically and in terms of the recipe we all know, we shall be better off than before the last election. There will not again be an Opposition, a Government and a one-woman party in South Africa. There will be a Government and there will be a Parliament consisting of a strong and healthy Government, a Government which will inevitably be a little stronger than it is at present. However, there will also be an Opposition consisting of patriotic members who think and feel as we do about patriotism.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Namaqualand appealed to the Opposition—and I think he was referring specifically to this group when he spoke of a responsible Opposition—to exercise caution, since South Africa was involved in a propaganda war, in what it said and for everyone to set a watch before his mouth. The hon. member also asked us to support the Government in its attempt to give peoples their independence. Surely it is not necessary for me to repeat for the hon. member what we have been doing since we have been sitting here as a group, which is to act as responsibly as possible under the circumstances in which South Africa finds itself today.

Are you returning to Graaff now?

The hon. member will see in the course of my speech in what direction this side of the House will move. However, the hon. member need not be so inquisitive. Usually a Chief Whip should only be curious about what is happening to members of his own party and not with members of the opposite side.

The words of the hon. member for Namaqualand came across to us as being very sincere and we can tell the hon. member that we shall act in that spirit in South Africa, because we realize that the situation is serious and we also know that the economy as well as the security of this country today leaves much to be desired and that it is essential for that reason for everyone in South Africa to stand together to put the economy into order and to keep national security at such a level that no other country will have any chance of gaining any foothold whatsoever within our borders.

Since Thursday I have had the opportunity to move around outside this House for some time and especially to note what the public outside is saying about the economic situation in the country. I should like to tell the hon. the Minister of Finance, if he is not aware of this already, that a spirit of pessimism prevails amongst members of the public about the economic position of the country. People are shocked because of the collapse of certain top companies. This came as a considerable shock to the public. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that it surprised me to observe even in the rural areas, even in the smallest towns, a high level of unemployment amongst the people, especially amongst the non-White groups. This is a major source of anxiety to people who think and reason about these matters. The feeling is that this matter should be submitted to the Government for attention. Moreover, I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Finance that the people outside are in no mood to absorb any major increase in taxation in the near future. The public is in fact prepared to accept that our economy is strongly influenced by what is happening outside our borders. Most of the people who are informed, realize that Europe is still experiencing a major recession and that unemployment figures in Europe are high. Even in a country like West Germany there are many graduates who are unemployed, and in America there are approximately 8 million unemployed. That is why South Africa cannot derive any benefit today from the expectation that the recession abroad will be converted into a time of prosperity. Consequently we do not find it strange either that there is a lack of capital coming to South Africa today. Apparently there is a shortage of essential, badly needed capital everywhere in the world. For that reason one will also find that merely a small stream of foreign capital is flowing to South Africa under the present circumstances. It is also very clear that the foreign investor has a lack of confidence in Southern Africa. That lack of confidence can be attributed to the fact that the foreign investor is sceptical about the ability of the White man in South Africa to maintain civilized standards. He is sceptical because he believes that we and Rhodesia will go the same way in Southern Africa as Mozambique and Angola and will get Black majority Governments. It is not so much a question of a failure to effect changes which are necessary in South Africa. They think that we shall probably not be able to maintain our standards here. That is why there is a lack of confidence in the future of Southern Africa. South Africa—the State and the Government—will have to make a definite attempt in this regard to cause the foreign investor to regain his confidence in South Africa. That is why all changes that have to be made, for example, essential changes to improve race relations, should take place at all times against the background of orderly progress—with the preservation of law and order as a very important priority—if we want to restore confidence in Southern Africa. Co-operation and progress cannot be created on a basis of licentiousness and lawlessness. If those aspects were to be removed, I am sure that confidence in South Africa would be restored. For that reason we must endeavour at all times to absorb the Black man who is on the side of development and progress into a broad spirit of South Africanism. The advanced and civilized Black man should be the partner in building a better South Africa. We do not believe that they are the people who are seeking confrontation. Nor are they seeking polarization. However, it is a duty we have, we as the leaders in this country, to make those people our partners in building a better country.

The hon. member for Namaqualand asked us to support the Government in certain things. I am going to submit certain matters to the Government now, and I hope they will receive attention from the Government in due course. The Government is dealing with plans to move away from discrimination on grounds of colour alone, a development which we welcome. However, we are entitled to know what progress has been made on that road and what progress has been made with the committee that is doing this work. For that reason I accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Namaqualand that we must help, especially now that the Government knows that this group in Parliament does not want to turn South Africa upside down. So has the time not arrived for the Cabinet committee concerned to listen also to what we have to say in this regard? We could possibly make a valuable contribution in this regard. So far it is a creation of the Cabinet itself. There should be the largest degree of unanimity possible in South Africa about these matters. Unless they are attempted on the broadest possible basis, one should be careful that there is no reaction from the left or the right which might possibly harm such an initiative. For the sake of sound race relations such a state of affairs should be avoided at all costs. I do not want to claim that we on this side have all the answers, because that is impossible, but we may have a point of view which affects an aspect of this matter and ought to be heard, and if it is at all possible for the Government or the Cabinet Committee to hear our viewpoint in this regard, I believe they should do so.

A Cabinet Committee has also been appointed to investigate the question of the way in which the Coloureds and Indians may be given an effective voice, over and above that which they have in the joint Cabinet Council. This is the committee which is to make recommendations on possible ways of moving away from and substituting something better for the Westminster system. It is in the national interest that this should be done, but here, too, we have an area in respect of which there should be the largest degree of co-operation possible in South Africa, because it can have far-reaching consequences for South Africa. Our group is also prepared to make its contribution in this regard. I think the hon. the Minister of Defence is the chairman of the committee concerned and if he is prepared to hear us in this regard, too, we are prepared to make our contribution.

After the events of the weekend, there are a few trends which are definitely emerging. Instead of a joint Opposition of the UP and the PRP, there are once more two, each with the same set of principles under its arm. At least the one came away with the marriage officer. So apparently they expect another marriage in future, because the extra marital affair, with some at least, cannot be prolonged for too long a period.

They have to get married.

The Marais Committee with its 14 principles has brought no direction or certainty to Opposition politics. The confusion in South Africa is now greater than ever before. It is against this very thing that we in this group have been sounding warnings over the past few months. We pleaded with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and we warned him not to ride a tiger with the hon. member for Sea Point. There is just no way in which the irreconcilable can be reconciled. Therefore it was an absolutely futile venture on his part. For months those two Opposition parties sat around the same conference table—I believe that they were sincere in what they did—to find common ground for forming a new political party. Indeed, the hon. member for Sea Point was telling us continuously that he was seeking a re-grouping of the Opposition forces in South Africa. He never said that he was looking for a political party which could become a real altçmative Government in South Africa. To date the hon. member for Sea Point has gained only ex-Judge Kowie Marais. I want to address a word of warning to the hon. member for Sea Point. Mr. Justice Kowie Marais said the following in the Sunday Express of 2 January—

Then the question was put to him: “But Mr. Marais, what about yourself?” Not one fits the bill, that is neither Mr. Japie Basson nor the hon. member who is smiling so broadly behind me. His reply was reported as follows—

Now he has joined the hon. member for Sea Point, and the hon. member for Sea Point is a man who might also have political aspirations to become the leader of the party.

Exactly what has this hon. gentleman achieved in South African politics? He could hand out a document to everyone, principles with which everyone agrees, but principles which everyone can interpret in his own way. Then surely those principles are ambiguous and vague, as we said. Why then must the UP principles of 1973 be rewritten simply to satisfy the PRP? Everyone knows that they follow a completely different line, a line which has always been known as the “integrated common society”. That is their alternative for separate freedom and as long as it remains the alternative for South Africa, separate freedom will always win. Now the PRP continues in its direction on the basis of the 14 Marais principles. But it does not deviate from its policy. The Official Opposition also adheres to the 14 principles, because another interpretation can be given to them, but the UP will take steps to formulate a policy which will fit in with the 14 principles. In addition to this the official statement mentions that the Marais committee did in fact lay down a basis for a new party and that “We must not miss this chance.” How can this happen when Mr. Kowie Marais has failed? What individual will join such a new party? Now the public of South Africa will only have more doubts about such a plan and will know that it will lead to a fiasco, to the detriment of a sound parliamentary government. Opposition politics in South Africa cannot be allowed to remain suspended in a vacuum. If we want to save South Africa, surely the mechanism with which we want to save it cannot take longer to design than the malaise may last. For that reason we believe that only one other alternative remains. That is that the Government lends us its ear. We know the country and its problems as well as they do and we have a willingness to help. We want to help South Africa. We know that the country is under enormous economic pressure. We know there is an economic recession, with a high inflation rate. The private sector of South Africa has become paralysed; there is no doubt about that. Productivity in South Africa is low and there is a spirit of pessimism. Powers outside South Africa want to exploit the situation by putting greater pressure on South Africa. That is why we say that the private sector must be activated. And what is the best: A recession or strong growth in which we might have inflation to a certain extent, but not social evils like unemployment? The security requirements of this country make it necessary for us to stimulate the private sector more and more, because it is only the private sector in South Africa that can earn what is required to employ more people who can earn money and enable us to have more taxpayers in South Africa. We are prepared to assist the wagon to cross the hill. We must prove to the outside world and the UNO that we can show those people who believe that armed assistance should be given to Swapo only and who want to deprive us of our arms and deny us arms, those people, for example, who do not want to recognize the independence of Transkei, that we here in South Africa are a community that can work out our own salvation. The time will come again when we shall be able to prove that our communities in South Africa can act in unison. When we have reached that situation, when South Africa is once more on the road of progress and of unity, when South Africa is once more on the road of co-operation, then, we can resume the political fight if it is necessary to fight in South Africa at that time.

Mr. Speaker, we have really witnessed an interesting spectacle here this afternoon in that the hon. member for Newton Park has had to take his old political father to task. This makes one think that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition embarked upon this courtship of his like an ardent old widower. All it has brought him is that six of his children have left home and that now, after the weekend, he is left with a rather slender little bride. [Interjections.] When one observes the joy of the hon. member for Sea Point, it appears that the midwife who was supposed to be in charge of the whole story eventually decided that she wanted to be a bride herself. There the hon. member for Sea Point has now ended up with ex-Judge Kowie Marais. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, this debate is characterized by the fact that it began on a very excited note with a most irresponsible attack made by the Opposition on the Government when the Government announced its intention of removing the concentration of squatters in Modderdam Road and at the University of the Western Cape. One has had great appreciation for the hon. member for Green Point over the years. Unfortunately it is clear, from the speech he made earlier in this debate, that his political frustration has also begun to cloud his political judgment completely. Now one only hopes that this thing between the UP and the PRP will soon come to an end, because it appears that at the moment there is such a competition between those two parties to see who can make the most bitter and harmful statements, not only against the Government, but against South Africa as a whole. Mr. Speaker, one regarded the Opposition with great compassion earlier this year, fearing that it was about to expire. Looking at it today, however, one really gets the impression that it is going out of its way, like a drowning person, to drag under the one who is trying to save it. I shall refer to the speech of the hon. member for Green Point again in the course of my speech. However, I am sure that if he were to read his speech again, it would give him a hangover. Of course, the hon. member for Yeovillç—it is a pity that he is absent today—could not allow the hon. member for Green Point to say these ugly things about the NP without trying to surpass him, without trying to put it in even uglier terms.

Mr. Speaker, I wish I were able to strip the hon. member for Yeoville of some of his haughty arrogance, for I think it is high time someone did this. As far as I am concerned, his so-called patriotism and his striped shirts are gimmicks of the same order, especially if one notes what he said in this debate. If I may quote it word for word, the hon. member for Yeoville said (Hansard, col. 1093)—

The hon. member says this with very great calculation, because the hon. member never says anything that is not calculated. He says this to the Black people, a very large percentage of whom are not only squatting illegally, but are also illegally present in the Western Cape. They have recently entered this area without being entitled to do so. What is he saying to the Black people, if one listens carefully? He is saying that this Government consists of criminals; that they pull the purse strings, but are not prepared to provide housing to the Black people. He is saying to the Black people that they may flock to this area without control and may squat wherever they want to, because their crime is nothing compared to that of the Government, which is able to provide the housing to which they are entitled, but fails to do so. This is the patriotic South African we always have here. I am not allowed to say, of course—I know you will not allow me, Sir—that the hon. member is an agitator. I promise you, Sir, that I will not say so. But no agitator could do better than the hon. member did in his statement.

Order! The hon. member may not insinuate indirectly that that may, in fact, be the case.

If that is your inference, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. [Interjections.] Listening to this hon. member’s stories about the redistribution of wealth, and noting the organized and often militant nature of the concentrations of squatters, one asks oneself whether the PRP is really so far removed from it all as they would like us to believe. I shall not answer that question, for as a patriotic South African, the hon. member should be better acquainted with what the Government is doing in the field of housing. Because this hon. member has acted in this way, the hon. member for Wynberg, in his over-keenness to make himself acceptable to the PRP, believes that he should go a little further still. The hon. member came here through the good offices of the hon. member for Newton Park, survived and thinks he will survive again. Let us examine carefully what the hon. member said. He said (Hansard, col. 1114)—

Exactly.

It is enough to chill one’s blood. Imagine a member of this House telling people that they are not transgressing any law and that the law which the Minister says they are transgressing is just a law of Parliament, and that, as such, they had no part in it. [Interjections.] In other words, the hon. member is saying that the people need not take any notice of the law because they had no part in it. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, can you imagine a more reckless irresponsibility than this hon. member has shown? He advocates that we on this side of the House should act with greater compassion. Let me ask that hon. member today where his compassion was when the houses of his labourers were declared slums by the Paarl municipality. He took a firm stand, oh yes, and he refused to have those houses demolished, but his compassion was so great that in spite of this, he still allowed those houses, which were not fit for human occupation, to be occupied from time to time. That is where the hon. member’s compassion comes in. The same applies to the PRP. These are people who make a great fuss about compassion, but where was the compassion of those hon. members when their boss had the squatters removed from the grounds of the Marina Da Gama?

May I ask a question?

No. The hon. member had enough time available to him and he did not use it. The hon. member used his time to make the most strident and irresponsible attack. Now he had better swallow his medicine. The practical conduct of these hon. gentlemen differs completely from the verbal attack which is made here. The tragedy is that the words they use here serve to encourage resistance outside, because it has become fashionable to elevate all squatters to the status of a holy cow, of people who are beyond reproach. Among those squatters are a large number of people who have real merit, but who have been driven by necessity into the situation in which they find themselves today.

I do think there will be any argument if I say that on the part of a large percentage of them, it is not a question of being unable to find accommodation. Squatting is an integral part of their philosophy of life. A large percentage of them are unable to comply with socially acceptable norms. The image of them which is usually projected is that of an unhappy group of people who have never had a chance in life. The hon. member for Green Point has made surveys in this connection and from these it appears that, according to him, the majority of the squatters come from the Greater Cape Town area. I cannot dispute that survey. However, if the facts are correct, I say to the hon. member today that it appears from further surveys that 33% of the squatters come from the Bellville area and that 20% of those who come from the Cape Divisional Council area have already had houses in housing schemes available to them in the past.

That is an estimation.

It is no estimation, but an actual survey that has been made, just as representative of the facts as the survey made by the hon. member. The hon. member for Green Point now wants this basic concentration to be provided with services and to be turned into emergency camps. Now I want to ask the hon. member: Is it because the CRC and the University of the Western Cape are situated on these grounds, two institutions which the Opposition has always tried to discredit in the eyes of the world? Is it because these two institutions have now acquired some prestige that he wants to harm them with the presence of squatters? Is that the reason why the hon. member wants emergency camps at that specific spot?

But we also have a responsibility to protect the interests of the established Coloured communities. A Coloured man whom I recently helped to acquire a house in the adjoining Belhar, which is a good residential area, came to complain to me during the weekend that his water account had become impossibly high because he did not dare forbid the squatters to use his taps. There are good, decent and civilized Coloured people in the Cape Peninsula today who have to live in over-populated circumstances. For them there is little chance of accommodation, because there are those people among them who are always moving about and who must receive priority as far as accommodation is concerned.

A senior member of the CRC recently came to consult me about accommodation. He is a member of the Labour Party. We in our turn went to see the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs about this matter. This Coloured person requested us to give less attention to the squatters in order to give more attention to those people who are living in over-populated areas, because they were able to accept the responsibility of tenancy. Unfortunately one can never persuade these people to make such statement in public. Now people demand to know why we do not consult the squatters’ committee. The hon. members for Wynberg and Green Point are making a great fuss about this. Hon. members may imagine what the situation would be if a large group of people were to establish themselves illegally in an area, to form a committee authorized to make regulations …

What did Die Burger say about that?

That hon. member reads into Die Burger whatever he likes.

Deal with the article which appeared in Die Burger.

That hon. member ought to confine himself to the comics in Die Burger, he would understand them better. The squatters’ committee even takes upon itself the right to give permission concerning who may enter the area and who may not. The squatters are there illegally, and now hon. members of that side of the House expect us to consult them. Hon. members want to know why we did not consult Lofty Adams, the CRC member for that area. However, this poor man has become addicted to publicity. Why should he be consulted about the illegal presence of certain people in an area? I could also lay claim to this, because the whole area is situated within the boundaries of my constituency. Do not the people of my constituency and I myself have any rights to be protected in this connection? The people in my constituency and I live about 2 km from this settlement of squatters, as the crow flies, and on top of that, we get the south-easter blowing from that direction. It is all very well to be far removed from these things and then to preach compassion. But where do the hon. members for Green Point and Yeoville live? The hon. member for Green Point ought to support his city councillor, Mr. Tom Walters. There is a man with great compassion, someone who wants to line up caravans on the Green Point commonage.

Over the years the Government has transformed slum communities into orderly and proud communities. In the meanwhile, the Coloured population in the Cape metropolitan area increased by 44% during the period between 1960 and 1970, and there has been an uncontrolled and incessant influx to this area, in spite of the fact that there are fewer job opportunities and a lack of housing in the area. No Government can accommodate such a constant drain on its means and its capacities. Similarly, no Government can allow slum conditions, whether uncontrolled or controlled, as in the so-called site and service scheme. If dramatic measures are not taken soon to serve as a deterrent, it is unlikely that this uncontrolled influx could ever be halted. No Government would ever be able to place housing on a sound footing in the direction in which we are already making progress. Measures have been announced in this connection, but time does not allow me to deal with them at any length now. However, the Government will not deviate from the course it has adopted; it cannot do so. This is not just a display of strength on the part of the Government. The fact is that if it does not do this, conditions in the Cape Peninsula will become absolutely chaotic. In this respect employers have a special duty. But still more than this, the whole Opposition has a very serious duty. Let there be a common will to resistance among us so that we may create order in this field. It is no use trying to dissociate ourselves from the problem as the hon. member for Green Point has done. He cries out to the world, “Be my witness that I am not the one who wants these things.” He says (Hansard, col. 1082)—

He went on to say (Hansard, col. 1083)—

This is the cry of a man who has lost the will to survive. It is the cry of a party which has lost its struggle for existence.

Mr. Speaker, the speech of the hon. member for Tygervallei was typical of the speeches of all the members on the opposite side of this House, with the exception of the hon. member for Carletonville and perhaps the hon. member for Florida as well. The members on the opposite side of the House have made no attempt to reply in a positive manner to the criticism which has been expressed from this side of the House. The hon. member for Tygervallei, who has just resumed his seat, represents an electoral division in an area in which real and fundamental problems are being experienced today. Although he had the opportunity of doing so, he did not avail himself of the opportunity to give positive answers to the criticism expressed from this side of the House. Why not? After all, he had an opportunity to tell this House what positive and effective action the Government was going to take in order to solve those problems in such a way that race relations would be improved and not further disrupted. What is the reason for the state of affairs in which, after the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister in the no-confidence debate, none of the speakers of the NP, with a few exceptions, had either the courage or the ability to give South Africa and this House positive leadership or to supply information or answers which could have instilled confidence that the Government was in a position to deal with South Africa’s problems? I just want to refer briefly to what another hon. member from that side of the House, the hon. member for Parys, said. I am not going to refer to all the snide remarks and rude humiliations which he directed towards members on this side of the House. However, I want to draw the attention of this House to something which that hon. member said because I believe that it can do South Africa a lot of harm. He said the following (Hansard, col. 1176)—

What is the complete quotation?

It is as complete as needs be. I now want to appeal to the members of the Government and the Cabinet who are responsible, to see to it that other members of the Government, even if they are not senior M.P.s, even if they are, in reality, representatives of the HNP in this House, exercise caution in what they say. Can you imagine the effect an utterance of this nature has on South Africa’s delicate international position? Can you imagine the effect such an utterance will have on a country such as France, which is reconsidering at the present time whether or not to supply South Africa with arms? In my opinion this was gross irresponsibility. Therefore, I want to appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs …

What about me?

… to take steps against members of the Government in this House who act so irresponsibly and unthinkingly and who, by so doing, endanger South Africa’s position. This is something we cannot afford, considering the problems we are experiencing and the difficult situation in which we are at the present time.

The hon. member for Florida was one of the Nationalist Party members who made an honest attempt—unfortunately an exclusively technical attempt—to analyse and investigate the policy of the PRP. I am sorry that he never arrived at the realities. I am sorry that he never arrived at the philosophy of the party. He might have arrived at the realities in regard to the technical aspects of that policy but he never gave attention to the philosophy of the party and consequently he never arrived at the truth of that aspect. That member, together with the National Party, is obsessed with the colour aspects of policy in South Africa. In other words, everything is seen and measured in terms of colour. The consideration is how many Black people there will be on the voters’ roll, when there will be a Black majority on the voters roll and when there will be a Black majority in the government. This is not the yardstick by which the success of the philosophy and the approach of our party should or can be measured. Our philosophy is to create a State in South Africa which will give equal civil rights to each South African citizen.

What does that mean?

Our philosophy is to give every South African the opportunity to experience the privileges, the rights and the advantages of South African citizenship so that he, as a result of that experience, will develop a common patriotism towards South Africa. [Interjections.] The yardstick by which the success of a policy in South Africa should be measured, is whether that policy will avoid confrontation between the races, whether it is a policy aimed at negotiation and reconciliation between the races.

Qualify the word “negotiation”.

It is important to determine whether that policy will completely remove discrimination on the grounds of colour, whether that policy will create equal opportunities for all South Africans. It is no good talking about the removal of or moving away from discrimination as a concept if the Government does not have the honest intention of carrying it out in practice. When we speak of the removal of discrimination, it is important—and there are others in this House who ought to take cognizance of this as well—to realize that one cannot remove discrimination in parts only. One cannot remove discrimination up to a certain point only. Once one has begun with the process of removing discrimination, that process must be carried through to its logical conclusion and it is better for the process to be carried through under control instead of getting out of hand like a forest fire.

Do you have Kowie Marais’ control in mind?

The policy must be sized up. Is it going to remove the resentment towards the White people which exists on the part of the Black people in South Africa and replace it with co-operation, goodwill and harmony? To summarize: The test or yardstick by which our policy or any other policy must be measured, can be stated by way of a few important questions: Will it avert a race war in South Africa? Will it bring peace? Will it give rise to a community in which discrimination does not exist? Will it give rise to a community in which equal opportunities for all South Africans will exist? Will it give rise to a community in which South Africans in general, irrespective of their colour, enjoy South African citizenship and see South Africa as their fatherland, a fatherland with a system which is worthwhile defending?

Those are nice words, but give us the figures.

As regards discrimination, thousands of examples could be quoted to show that the Government is not availing itself of the opportunity to move away from discrimination and which show that the Government, through its actions, or through the actions of its members, is ignoring the intention of what Advocate Pik Botha said in the UNO, thus destroying South Africa’s reputation. This is the result of the actions and utterances of the Government and its members.

Thousands of examples could be quoted but I shall confine myself to one. The example to which I want to refer concerns the hon. member for Worcester. In Worcester there is a ballet school at which children who are not White have been receiving and enjoying training in ballet for the past 10 years.

Your information is totally incorrect.

They attended those classes peaceably and quietly. It did not bother anyone nor did it harm anyone. But in these difficult and dangerous tines for South Africa and in direct opposition to the policy and intentions of the Government, the hon. member for Worcester found it necessary and useful to intervene and to forbid that school to admit non-Whites.

He is an old busy-body.

There are a few questions I want to put to the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I want to ask the hon. member whether, when he used the word “forbid”, he was talking about newspaper stories. [Interjections.]

Is the hon. member prepared to reply to a question?

No, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to reply to that hon. member’s questions but I want to put a few to him. The Government said recently—the newspapers are full of it—that a Transkeian citizen may share all the rights and privileges within South Africa which a White man who is a citizen of a foreign country enjoys here. In other words, after those people who had or have a relationship with the Transkei on some basis, have been forced to relinquish their South African citizenship, the Government says that they will shortly be able to enjoy the same rights and privileges that White citizens of other countries enjoy in South Africa. Now I want to ask the hon. member: If Black children of Transkeian citizens apply for admission to that school, may they be admitted to it?

Are you speaking the truth or twisting it?

Where is a Coloured person who considers himself a South African citizen to apply for citizenship in order to gain admission to facilities of this nature within his own country? This is a question which the Government will have to answer shortly. The position is that anyone in South Africa who is not a White person can obtain equal rights and opportunities in South Africa only by relinquishing his South African citizenship. But until such time as he relinquishes his South African citizenship, he is subject to harsh and cruel discrimination at the hands of the White Government in this country. I have quoted only one example but there are thousands of examples which show that every South African who is not White is humiliated and hurt every minute of every day as a consequence of the apartheid legislation of the Government.

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

No, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to reply to the hon. member’s question. All this has resulted in South Africa finding herself in a dangerous and difficult situation today. It has resulted in South Africa standing alone in the world today. It has resulted in the hon. the Prime Minister having to admit in his message on television a few months ago that South Africa is isolated and alone and that we cannot appeal to any country in the world for assistance or support if an onslaught on South Africa materializes. Do you know what this means, Mr. Speaker? It means that the 4 million Whites in South Africa today are faced with a very great decision. The 4 million Whites of South Africa find themselves in a country of 22 million people, on a continent of between 200 and 300 million people, in a world in which they no longer have any friends, in a country within Southern Africa where increasing race problems are being experienced, where internal disorder has arisen in recent times and may well arise again in the future—we hope it will not. They find themselves in a position where the economy of South Africa is weakening and where the resentment of the non-White groups in South Africa towards the Government is mounting daily. Under those circumstances the Whites of South Africa are faced with a choice today, a choice between two alternatives. One alternative is that of confrontation and the other is that of reconciliation between the races. If a confrontation were to come, if a race war or revolution in South Africa were to come—and all the signs point to the fact that we are moving rapidly in that direction—we must accept that, as a result of such a confrontation, everything in which we believe in South Africa, all our standards, all our norms, would be destroyed. It would mean the destruction of the democratic process. It would mean the destruction of free enterprise. It would mean the destruction of individual liberties, of the freedom of speech, of the freedom of religion. It would mean the destruction of the judicial system as we know it in South Africa today. It would mean the destruction of all trust and co-operation between the groups in South Africa. In other words, a race confrontation in South Africa would lead to an intolerable, hostile community.

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

No, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to reply to questions.

You asked me a question; now I want to ask you a question.

No. I shall reply to the hon. member’s questions later.

You are a coward.

Order! The hon. member knows he may not say that.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

It would lead to a situation in which there would be no viable or meaningful future for the White man in South Africa anymore and it would be the implementation by the Government of a policy of apartheid, discrimination and White domination which would lead to those circumstances. This is something that none of us would want to happen. There is only one alternative; there is only one way in which such a state of affairs can be avoided. This is by way of a process of reconciliation of the races in South Africa. What are the requirements for reconciliation? What are the basic requirements which we shall have to accept? In the first place, there is the removal of all forms of discrimination: Communal discrimination, political discrimination and economic discrimination. In the second place, we have to design a system, a system which makes provision for the participation by all South Africans, regardless of their race or colour, in the political power system of South Africa. In other words, there must be power sharing in which all South Africans will be able to participate in the political systems of South Africa at all levels. Most important is that this will have to take place on a basis of negotiation between Black, White, Coloured and Indian in South Africa. The most important consideration is that negotiation will have to take place, effective negotiation, between South Africans to create a new future for South Africa. What will be the first test to which such a process will be subjected? Mr. Speaker, the first test is whether, by way of a process of negotiation, we are able to avoid a revolution in South Africa. The second test is whether we shall be able to create a community and a system in South Africa in which White and non-White—Black man, Coloured and Indian—will be trained to accept responsibility in the positions of leadership in our community, in which they will gain experience and accept the responsibilities of leadership, in which they will benefit from free enterprise, experience the stimulation of individual freedom, in which they will experience the protection of the rule of law, and in which they will develop a respect and esteem for the democratic system and for free enterprise, and consequently will be prepared to defend that system against any other alien system. In South West Africa the Government has an example of what can be accomplished through negotiation. At the Turnhalle the Government has an example of what can be accomplished when Black and Coloured and White man seat themselves around the same conference table in order to investigate problems and to formulate answers.

Mr. Speaker, what is happening in South Africa today is that Black politicians and White politicians are shouting at each other from positions far removed from each other. As a result of this, those positions are hardening. Polarization sets in and it becomes more difficult to bring about reconciliation. On the other hand, once a process of negotiation has been initiated the immediate consequence is that the alienation between the groups concerned is replaced by a process in which common objectives are pursued …

You cannot even pursue the 14 points!

… in other words, the parties involved gather around a table to discuss common objectives and to strive for the attainment of them. In the process they move closer together.

You are moving further apart!

Mr. Speaker, for South Africa to avoid confrontation, only one possibility exists and that is to initiate a process of negotiation. This can happen by way of a national convention, or whatever name may be attached to it. However, it must be a process in which Black and White and Coloured leaders gather around a conference table. It does not matter how long it takes, or how many problems are experienced; what is important is that they come together to analyse South Africa’s problems and move together in the direction of answers to the problems.

It is true that the question may be asked what can be negotiated, in the light of the existing policy of the NP Government. What are the things that can be negotiated within the very confined space offered by the present Government policy? There are quite a few aspects which I should like to point out. In the first place, I want to refer to the Coloureds. As far as the position and the aspirations of the Coloureds are concerned and as far as the recommendations of the Erika Theron Commission are concerned, I put the question: Is the Government not prepared to announce in the course of 1977, on the strength of the recommendations of the Theron Commission, within the confined space which its own policy offers it, that it is going to do everything in its power to implement said recommendations on a basis of negotiation with the Coloureds and to heed the legitimate and justified aspirations of the Coloureds?

In the second place, there is the urban Black man. The Government has already started moving away from the position it adopted a few years ago in relation to the urban Black man. Is it not possible, on the strength of the Government’s own policy, immediately to enter into negotiations with the leaders of the urban Black people, with a view to creating better living conditions in their residential areas? Is it not possible, by way of negotiations to give the urban Black man a more meaningful role in politics in his own area? This can be done without deviating at this stage from the spirit of NP policy.

What about the removal of discrimination? Indeed, it is Government policy—i.e. if one is to take any notice of what its spokesmen say—to move away from race discrimination. It is difficult indeed to believe that this is really so. In any event, the Government says that it wants to move away from discrimination, but it is no good just saying so. The Government must not leave it at words only, if it wants to create a good impression, if it wants to bring about a change of attitude, it must put its words into action. The Government must move away from discrimination in a dramatic fashion. Is it not so that even within the confines of NP policy, the Government can now open negotiations with the Black people, the Coloureds and the Indians of South Africa at all levels to investigate all forms of discrimination in order to move away from them? This cannot be left until the year 2000. Can the Government not announce a timetable for the removal of discrimination? Can the Government not hold out the prospect that by the year 1980 it will have done away with all forms of discrimination? Can the Government not put forward for South Africa a programme and a timetable with regard to the abolition of discrimination and offer new hope to the Coloured, the Indian and the Black?

Now I come to my final point, something which I touched on last Friday, but to which I received no reply. We do not accept the policy of independent sovereign Black states as expounded by the Government. We will not accept it because we do not believe that it will make any notable contribution to the solution of South Africa’s problems.

Are you going to undo it?

We say to the Government that if they want to cherish any hope of their policy making a contribution to the solution of our race problems, there are many steps which must be taken in order to improve the policy and make it more realistic and acceptable. In the first place, the question arises as to whether the Government is prepared to negotiate now with the Black leaders of the urban areas, as well as of the homelands regarding the future of the homelands. Is the Government prepared to deal with its policy not as a product of the White man which is offered to the Black man whether he accepts it or not? Is the Government prepared, at this late stage, to abandon the approach and to replace it with a dramatic new approach, in terms of which negotiations will be conducted with both homeland and urban Black leaders, with a view to establishing a new homeland concept based in the first place on a realistic consolidation of the homelands? Does the Government not think that if it were to make the announcement during 1977 that it was prepared to do this, it would most likely bring about a dramatic change in the image of its policy? The most important aspect is to bear in mind the fact that the Government will be unable to succeed, on the one hand, in buying land quickly enough, and, on the other hand, in buying sufficient land from White landowners for handing over to Black farmers in the homelands. Can the Government not change its approach in order to draw new boundaries in agreement with and after negotiation with the Black leaders and to offer White landowners, businessmen, farmers, industrialists, and so on, who live within the new boundaries of the homelands, the opportunity of deciding whether they will remain there or not. If they decide to move away, the Government will compensate them, but if they decide to remain there, their skill, leadership and capital will also remain in the homelands and will give the homelands the opportunity to develop realistically, effectively and with greater success and therefore, to create a better future, not only for the inhabitants of the homelands, but for the population of South Africa as a whole. The question is simple: Is the Government prepared, in view of the problems we are experiencing and because answers must be found, to abandon in 1977 the approach it had in the past and replace it with an approach which is founded on negotiation and reconciliation in order to avoid in this way the dangerous consequences of confrontation?

Mr. Speaker, I have never heard such blatant and naked temerity as that of the hon. member for Bryanston in this House before. How that hon. member can dare to rise to his feet and address a request to hon. members on this side of the House to reply to arguments in a positive manner is beyond me, for the hon. member excells in his method of acting negatively and not positively in everything he says and deals with. He has just been attacking the hon. member for Parys by saying that the hon. member did South Africa tremendous harm with his speech last week. He also dared to make an appeal to the Government to take action against the hon. member because of his irresponsibility. I think that, if that had been done, the hon. member for Bryanston would very soon do an about turn himself. Of course I do not know where he will return to from here, for I do not know whom he represents. If this hon. member lets the word “patriotism” fall from his lips and in the meantime uses the word “revolution” repeatedly I cannot, unfortunately, take him seriously, for then all he is really doing is to play with words. I shall leave it at that and return to the hon. member for Bryanston afterwards when I indicate the irresponsible way in which the Opposition frequently makes statements.

Before doing so I should like to put a question to the hon. member for Pinelands. I want to do so because I went on a drive through Rondebosch over the weekend. There I noticed a large piece of vacant land and subsequently discovered that it was called the Rondebosch common. Because we heard frequent references in this debate last week to the problem of the squatters and because we heard the sympathy expressed by hon. members on that side of the House in regard to where the squatters would go if they were to be moved, the idea occurred to me that if we were able to move the squatters to such a large piece of vacant land as the Rondebosch common, it might be a solution. I established that the Rondebosch common is situated in the constituency of the hon. member for Pinelands. If the hon. member for Pinelands is honest in his intentions, if he is serious about this matter, and because he discusses the Coloureds so sympathetically in this House, I want to tell him that if he has the courage of his convictions he should rise to his feet and invite the hon. the Minister of Community Development to allow those squatters to move to the Rondebosch common. [Interjections.] In that event he would surely have performed a positive deed. We want to ask him whether he is prepared to issue that invitation I should like to hear [Interjections.] I am simply asking that an invitation be issued.

What about Groote Schuur?

I am putting a question to the hon. member for Pinelands. I shall leave it at that. If the hon. member for Pinelands does not want to reply, I leave it to his conscience.

It sounds like a commonplace when I say we are living in a dangerous world. It is also true that the Republic of South Africa cannot escape the dangerous times in which we are living. We have heard from various hon. speakers, inter alia, this afternoon from the hon. member for Newton Park, that we are experiencing difficult problems in the economy. In the first place, we have already heard from the hon. the Minister of Finance that we are experiencing economic pressure in the Republic of South Africa, not necessarily as a result of the policy of the Government, but as a result of certain factors which have an effect on us, and about which we can do absolutely nothing. Among the factors mentioned were the gold price, the oil price, the recession which afflicted the entire world and the ripple effect of which we are still experiencing in South Africa today. The present state of inflation and all the problems in regard to the economy fit in with the world-wide communist plan very well indeed, as far as South Africa is concerned as well. We also heard from the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs that we have become the scapegoat in the world and that double standards were being applied when it came to the Republic of South Africa. We know that racism and discrimination are in fact the pernicious factors when the Republic of South Africa is being discussed. In the meantime, however, there are many countries in the world where precisely the same things are happening, without their being taken to task for it. We know that our policy of self-determination is not accepted, despite the fact that the UNO itself subscribes to such a policy of self-determination.

In the third place we have to contend with internal disorder. No one can deny this, but I want to contend this afternoon that the internal disorder is not the work of the masses either. We have to content with this as a result of the incitement and militant actions of only a small number, percentage-wise of Black and coloured people who have fallen prey to Black as well as White agitators. I want to suggest that these agitators do not mean well with South Africa and all its inhabitants, regardless of whatever colour they may be. The agitators are, in a subtle way, by means of statements and false distortions, inciting the people of colour.

Unfortunately we also have to contend with statements by hon. members on that side of the House which border on the unpatriotic. If I reflect on this, I ask myself why it is so that people who are also South Africans, make statements which are to the detriment of the Republic of South Africa. I answer my own question by saying that these people are trying to score petty political points and that in the process they are doing incalculable harm to South Africa. In this way these people find an ally in the greatest enemy of the Republic of South Africa and the world, i.e. communism. I know that hon. members on that side of the House try to dismiss the danger of communism by saying that the Government, according to them, only mentions it to cover up its own incompetence in respect of its policy. I want to discuss this and briefly sketch a picture of the most important strategy and tactics of communism. Finally I shall compare this with statement made by hon. members on that side of the House, in order to prove the statement I have just made.

I want to refer to what Lenin said in 1922, i.e. that the road to Paris and London run through Peking and Africa. In addition he formulated the policy to achieve this by saying that to encircle, isolate and destroy Europe it had to be done through the loss of Africa. If this is one of the objectives, what is the strategy? I want to refer to what Stalin said in 1924, i.e. that the strengthening of the dictatorship of the proletariate in a country should be used as a fulcrum for the rejection of imperialism. That is indeed the strategy. He elaborated on this when he said the following in 1948—

Put another way, it means the following—

If this is the strategy, I have to ask myself—if we know what the objective is and if we know the strategy—of what tactics these people will make use. I find that Stalin wrote that, as far as tactics are concerned, they involve the forms of struggle and the organizations with which the non-communists massas may be drawn into the revolution so that they may see that the overthrow of the existing order is the best alternative. What forms of struggle was he referring to? Stalin himself mentioned the following forms of struggle: Making demands, protests, demonstrations, parliamentary and extra-parliamentary action against the existing order. When he refers to organizations which may be employed for these tactics, he mentions trade unions, youth movements, factory organizations, women’s associations and study circles. If he had thought far enough, I think he would have included some Opposition parties in this list.

If this is true, what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said last week is true, i.e. that communism ranges itself alongside a political movement and subsequently provides that movement with military assistance. My question in return, however, is this: If that is true—and it is true—does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout not see the danger in an organization such as Swapo, and in organizations with very fine-sounding names of which we also have a certain number in the Republic of South Africa?

When we think of these forms of struggle and organizations, the hon. member for Sea Point is to my mind making an absurd statement when he says that apartheid is the breeding ground for communism. In the same way I do not want to accept what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said either, and I shall quote from Die Burger of 6 December 1976. What I find interesting, however, is that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made the statement in the home of none other than the hon. member for Newton Park. I wonder whether the hon. member for Newton Park will still give ear today, especially in his own home, to such a statement when it is made. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said—

I think this statement is devoid of all truth. It is absurd on the basis of the facts I have just mentioned, i.e. that Stalin and Lenin had already worked out the programme. The policy of apartheid is making no provision for it whatsoever, because this policy is already seeking, in the concept of separate development, to afford all the various population groups the right and to offer them the opportunity to develop in such a way that there is no need for them to be reduced to poverty. Therefore this is an absurd argument which one may simply reject.

If this is what has been planned on a world-wide scale, what does the communist plan for Africa as such? They asked Prof. Potekhin to work out a master plan for Africa. This master plan was published in 1960. In this master plan Prof. Potekhin proposed four phases. The first phase which Prof. Potekhin mentioned was the independence of all states within Africa should be encouraged. This sounds very commendable, but then comes the second phase. The economic ties between these nascent independent states and capitalistic countries must be broken. In addition they must not accept the economic aid of these capitalistic states. This is so-called neo-colonialism. As for the third phase Prof. Potekhin says that the leaders who withstand the communist pressure or resist neo-colonialism, should be deposed. We have sufficient examples in Africa of this standpoint, and how it has already been applied. The last step of Prof. Potekhin’s master plan is that, wherever a government is found in any country which withstands all the various methods, chaos has to be created, and because chaos has to be created, there has to be a take-over of the trade unions.

Coming closer to home we find in the programme of the South African Communist Party that the immediate objective is to destroy the existing state and to create in its place so-called new “peoples’ institutions”, and in these new “peoples’ institutions” the non-Whites must be rapidly promoted, so that, according to them, all “State institutions” may be fully representative of South Africa.

The Progs also say so.

The hon. member is correct. What is more, the land should be returned to the people and—we should take note of this—separation in residential areas and in education must be eliminated. When I say this, my mind goes back to the PRP congress in Pretoria at the beginning of October 1976, when a virtually unanimous resolution was passed in favour of compulsory race integration in schools and in universities. I then ask myself how it is possible that there is such a close link between the idea of the South African Communist Party programme and the statements and resolutions of the PRP. Let us now consider the statement of a person far closer to our own time than the year 1960. I am now quoting what was said by Selznick, an American, on the communist threat. He said inter alia, the following—

With that strategy and those tactics of communism in mind, I ask myself to what extent we are in this process helping, by means of statements from that side of the House, to achieve the communist objective.

In the first place I want to refer to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I should like to quote from Die Oosterlig of 11 November 1976. There it was stated—

When such statements are made, there is no doubt in my mind that we are playing directly into the hands of the communist onslaught. I quote further from the same report—

I think this borders on the unpatriotic. To my mind it is also interesting, in the same context, to read in a report that Winnie Mandela said, inter alia, the following in her evidence before the Cillié commission—

Do hon. members find a specific similarity between these two statements? I prefer to leave the matter at that.

But let us consider the hon. member for Sea Point for a moment. I want to quote from Die Burger of 7 April 1976. The hon. member praised Gatsha Buthelezi of KwaZulu among others as “a great South African”. Let us now consider Gatsha Buthelezi as the “great South African”. This same Gatsha Buthelezi gave the Black Power salute at the PRP meeting last year at Jan Smuts, where the hon. Leader of the PRP was present with some of his people. What did they do, however? Absolutely nothing! I quote—

It was also said—

If this is so, I maintain this afternoon that these people are, through word and deed, becoming the allies of an enemy which presents a serious threat to us. I go further. This same Gatsha Buthelezi said, inter alia, the following to Dr. Kissinger—

I ask myself this question: Why do they not agree as far as this is concerned? Why do they not believe this? Is it perhaps because Buthelezi himself is in favour of communism and, if that is the case, is the hon. the leader of the PRP still prepared to say: “This is one of the great South Africans?”

Jaap Marais is probably a communist too!

Let us consider for a moment what the hon. member for Pinelands said. I want to quote from The Argus of 24 September last year—

He went on to say—

Who said that? Who are you quoting?

You!

When a person says that it is a danger to the country when the Afrikaner fights for his own identity, I cannot understand such a person. It is clear to me then that he is not in earnest when it concerns the Whites as such in the Republic of South Africa. According to the report he went on to say—

Yes, he is a Baster!

I quote further—

I want to put it specifically to the hon. member for Pinelands that the statement which I have quoted is an absolutely inflammable idea which he is putting into the mouths of the Coloured people.

Complete the quotation. It is very good.

Let us consider for a moment what the hon. member for Rondebosch said. On 26 September 1976 a report appeared in which he was quoted as follows—

What does the hon. member mean by that? What does he mean when he says that these people are not prepared just to talk and talk and talk? Is he prepared to tell us what these people are planning, what they want to do? Is he prepared to say how far they want to go and what his standpoint is in that respect? [Interjections.]

But what is going on with you?

I want to conclude by quoting a statement by the hon. member for Yeoville. Last week he said in this House in regard to the removal of squatters: “Who is committing the greatest offence? Those people who are living there unlawfully or those people who do not want to establish residential areas, in other words, the Government?” I want to ask the hon. members on the opposite side of this House—and with this I conclude: Who is committing the greatest offence against South Africa and all its people? He who opposes communism by combating disorder, even by force if nothing else helps, or he who furthers communism by stirring up feelings with words and by committing genocide?

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member for Virginia to pardon me if I do not reply to his speech because I have very little time at my disposal since I am the last speaker on this side in this debate. I should like to say at the outset that I believe that the members in these benches have clearly shown to the hon. members in the Government benches the seriousness of the economic situation in South Africa today. I think the members on this side have clearly highlighted the problems with unemployment and the problems with insolvencies, which are reaching an all-time record, and also the problems the housewife is experiencing with inflation. However, I would like to commend the hon. the Minister for acknowledging the basic reasons for our present economic plight. He said we are suffering with a balance of payments problem, a low growth-rate problem and also a problem of extreme inflation. However, Sir, I do believe that it is extremely regrettable that, if I am not mistaken, not a single speaker on the other side of the House has clearly identified the real causes of these problems. They have also not given this House any clear-cut objectives as to how the hon. the Minister intends to cure these problems. Rather, as was said by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, the debate on that side of the House has been a purely defensive debate, an attempt to minimize the seriousness of our present situation, an attempt to reassure the public. I believe, as the hon. member has said, that the hon. the Minister has painted a picture of optimism which I believe has given this country a false impression and has inculcated in a lot of people a sense of false security. However, we on this side of the House have accepted the hon. the Minister’s identification of the basic problems, viz. a balance of payments problem, a low growth-rate and inflation. We accept these as the basic reasons for the mess in which the country is today. But what are the causes of these problems? I should like to summarize what I believe has been put forward by hon. members in these benches.

Firstly, there is the balance of payments problem. Why do we have a balance of payments problem? I think that the reason is primarily that there is a lack of confidence in the South African economy at the present time, a lack of confidence which has led to a flight of capital from South Africa and a great reluctance on the part of overseas investors to come to South Africa to provide us with essential capital which is absolutely necessary to fuel our economy. Why is there a lack of confidence in South Africa at the present time? First of all, we have political unrest within South Africa because of the internal policies of apartheid and of discrimination based on colour. These are the policies of this Government in South Africa at the present time. Secondly, we have a lack of confidence because of external political pressures which are being brought to bear on South Africa in order to try to get South Africa to change these policies. In the face of all this we find that this Government has adopted an intransigent attitude towards these problems and is not prepared, as far as I can see from this debate, to come up with any permanent political solution to the problems which are very basic to the South African economy. Another factor which is contributing towards our balance of payments problem is the unprecedented rate of Government spending. This has involved a considerable amount of money being spent on the importation of goods, which this Government has budgeted to pay for through the earnings of our gold sales, at very high world prices. This has not materialized. We warned the hon. the Minister over two years ago that his budget was unrealistic in this respect. They laughed at us and now South Africa and the taxpayer is carrying the baby.

Secondly, the South African economy is suffering from a low growth rate, a growth rate which in the light of present circumstances is far too low to sustain first of all our growing population, secondly, the rising aspirations of our people and, thirdly, this Government’s extravagant spending programmes to which I have already referred. These programmes are consuming an ever-increasing proportion of our available investment capital which we on these benches believe should be invested in the more productive area, the more economic area, the more wealth-generating area that one finds within the private sector here in South Africa.

Thirdly, our economy is in a mess because of the consumption expenditure of this Government, consumption expenditure which is biting deeper and deeper into our gross domestic product. This excessive Government consumption expenditure has put our economy into an inflationary spiral which is leading to an erosion of the standards of living of all our people.

Fourthly, and finally, our economy is in the critical state in which it is today because this Government is following a socialist plan of spending, very similar to what one finds in Great Britain. Those of us who see what is happening in Great Britain today, realize that such spending must lead eventually to bankruptcy.

So far this is a brief summary of the charges which have been made from this side of the House. But what has been the reaction from the Government benches? So far not one speaker on that side of the House has effectively countered these charges, and I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will attempt to do so. I sincerely hope that he will not try to reject these charges. After all, Mr. Speaker, how can any hon. member on those benches deny these charges which have been made during this debate? After all, this is the charge which has been laid by Dr. Wassenaar. He has now been supported by many influential people in the business sector, such as Mr. Cronje, chairman of the Federated Chamber of Industries, and Dr. Reynders, a director of the Federated Chamber of Industries. This is the greatest charge which, I believe, faces this Government at the present time, at a time when our economy is in extremely dire straits. Yet, hon. members on those benches persist in saying that these charges are not true. What must our people be thinking today? How do they feel about the whole situation when they hear the charges which are being laid against this Government and the rebuttal of those charges by hon. members on the Government side? Who is really facing up to the truth of these matters? At the present time South Africa, our nation, is facing probably the most critical situation in its history. We have our young men on our borders. Internally we have unrest and we have a tremendous amount of poverty. Internationally, the pressure is beginning to increase, and economically we are in dire straits. Yet, the Government stubbornly refuses to face up to the truth and to the realities of our present economic situation.

Mr. Speaker, what are the facts in this regard? Here I would like to refer to the Reserve Bank’s Quarterly Bulletin of December 1976. I have it here. It is the same document from which the hon. the Minister quoted figures during his opening speech. The December report of the Reserve Bank shows that the gross domestic fixed investment for all sectors increased at an average annual rate of 18,67% during the past eight years. During the same period the public authorities’ fixed investment increased at a marginally lower rate of 18,5%, while that of public corporations increased at a whopping average annual rate of 26,3% The private sector, that sector which generates most of our new wealth, on the other hand, ran a poor last at 17,6%, 1% lower than that of the nation as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, if one studies these figures for the last four years, rather than for the past eight years, one finds that public corporations have increased their investments by an average annual rate of a massive 36,58%, while the private sector is running at half that rate, namely 17,38%, which is 2,2 percentage points below that for the nation as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, the figures from the Reserve Bank Bulletin which, I believe, are the most reputable figures we have, also show that the private sector’s share of the net domestic investment over the past four years—that is from 1972 to 1976—has on average been 6,72% lower than the average level it enjoyed during the previous four years, the period from 1968 to 1971. This drop of 6,72% of its share of the available new investment funds, when related to the net domestic investment for the four-year period 1972 to 1976, represents a loss of investment capital to the private sector of a total of R1 177,6 million, which, related to the gross domestic fixed investment for the same four-year period, represents 5,08% of the total.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Finance to imagine what effect this sum of money would have had on our growth rate had it been fed into the private sector instead of being spent in the public sector. This is the very charge which has been laid by us in these benches, by Dr. Wassenaar and by other leading industrialists in South Africa.

I would like to take a closer look at the consumption expenditure to which the hon. the Minister referred in his opening speech when he related expenditure to the national account. I take issue with him when he says that the figures quoted “scarcely seem to justify the charge of profligate Government spending”. The facts are that during the past eight years the expenditure on the GDP has increased by an average annual rate of 14,12%, consumption expenditure by the general Government has increased by a massive average annual rate of 18,26%, while the consumption expenditure of the private sector has lagged on behind with 13,26% per annum. The facts of the matter are that the private sector is falling behind in the economy of South Africa. It cannot keep pace with Government spending, which has to be paid for, after all, out of the earnings of the private sector or with the money of the taxpayer or from foreign borrowing. It is no wonder that at the present time we have a massive problem with inflation and that our economy is in the mess that it is. I believe that these figures clearly indicate that the charges laid against the Government are valid and that the Government should take heed of them at this time.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 73.

Mr. Speaker, after all the jumping around there has been in Opposition ranks recently, especially over the past weekend, I am sure you will not blame me for saying that it is becoming more and more difficult to know exactly whom to address if one wants to debate with the Opposition. [Interjections.] As the hon. the Prime Minister said, we are witnessing the divorce before the wedding has taken place. It is a strange phenomenon.

Can’t you be original?

Tell us about your jumping around!

Order!

The Opposition need not get excited; I have not even started on them yet. I just want to say that matters will become worse and worse in the future. I just want to know whether the eventual official Opposition is going to consist of a Gerdener-Graaff brew. I do not think so, because that would be too much of a “one chicken, one horse” partnership. Or will it be an Eglin/Basson partnership, or perhaps an Eglin/Kowie Marais partnership, or perhaps a triumvirate of an Eglin/Basson/Kowie Marais partnership? I sincerely hope not, for it would be an evil day for South Africa if that were to happen. [Interjections.] In the long run, however, I would not exclude the possibility of the Myburgh Streicher party emerging as the official Opposition. At this stage, they seem to me to be the most stable of all the parties over there. [Interjections.] If the present hon. Leader of the official Opposition, Sir De Villiers Graaff, still seeks to make overtures to the Progressives or to merge with them, or whatever he wants to do, I want to give him a piece of friendly advice. I want to tell him: “He who sups with the devil must use a long spoon.” Then he will have to contend with the Helen Suzmans, the Eglins, the Waddells and the Zac de Beers, to mention just a few. Was it not the hon. member for Houghton who said that if her party were to come into power, they would allow the Communist Party to operate here as long as it did not transgress the law? That was what she said, after all. To go into this a little further, I want to refer to the latest edition of Business Week, a magazine which is very well known to hon. members of this House. In it, a great deal is said about Southern Africa and South Africa. Quite a number of pages are devoted to this. This is the edition of 14 February 1977. When they try to ascertain the position of South Africa as a country in which foreign capital may be invested, the opinions of several people are quoted. Dr. Zac de Beer allegedly said—

My hon. friend, the hon. member for Ermelo, asked the hon. member for Johannesburg North in this debate what he had to say about this remark made by his fellow director of Anglo American, but he was silent because he had nothing to say about it. In a moment I shall refer to what he had to say, which is also quoted here. In this edition of Business Week they also quote Mr. Eglin as follows—

Here the American corporations are invited to bring pressure to bear upon us, because, it is alleged, our own companies cannot disinvest the investments which have been made here. I think this is a scandalous statement. Let us just look for a moment at what the hon. member for Johannesburg North says. This is quoted here and is used against us—

Then he goes on—

This refers to us, the Government in South Africa—

Mr. Speaker, it will be an evil day if these people ever come into power in South Africa.

†Mr. Speaker, in my Second Reading introductory speech to this debate last Monday, I summed up the economic position of the Republic in a few words. I said that we were definitely on the right track, because the current account of the balance of payments was improving, inflation was diminishing and that if we persevered with our present policies, the rest would follow in good time. I went out of my way to quote facts and figures to show that at this moment South Africa compared very favourably with a whole list of countries that could normally and reasonably be compared with us today. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti, who has just sat down, talks about the economy being in a mess. Every second phrase he used was “a critical state of affairs”. Of course, when faced with the facts, the Opposition simply comes forward in the old style and their general line of attack is that there is practically nothing right with this country and anything which is not right, is in any case the fault of the Government. I shall deal with that. That is the sort of thing that is put across the floor of this House in a responsible debate. In my speech I also gave a frank exposition of South Africa’s economic problems. For the benefit of hon. members it is printed in Hansard. I pointed out that other comparable countries even without our special economic problems today, e.g. the low gold price, which does not hit other countries as it hits us, because it is our biggest export …

We are lucky to have it.

The big fall in the gold price is a special problem we have to live with. The political uncertainties of Southern Africa as a whole is not our doing, but we have to live with it. The vastly increased defence spending in order to make this country militarily prepared and the vast increases in expenditure which we had to find, have all come at once. Yet despite that, other countries are in worse shape than we are. The facts bear that out. If we on this side of the House are so hopeless because of the fact that we have had some problems, does it not then follow—if logic means anything— that all the Governments of all those other countries must be much worse than we are? Another implicit assumption of the Opposition is that if their financial, economic and political policies—whatever they are, do not ask me what they are—had appertained it would have placed South Africa in a much better situation than she is today. That is the sort of thing which arises from this sort of argument. I hope the House does not expect me to comment on that situation.

If we look at the more immediate financial position, we find that the Opposition’s criticism boils down, very substantially, to two or three things. They say that we have severe problems in obtaining foreign capital, that there is a lack of confidence on the part of overseas investors in South Africa, that the Government has spent too much and they then make fitful reference to things like inflation, and so on. I shall come back to these points later on.

*First I want to refer very briefly to several remarks made by hon. members on this side of the House, remarks which I found striking. The hon. member for Langlaagte—if I may say so—spoke very sensibly about the money spent on luxuries by some township developers and certain local authorities. The hon. member gave examples of this, and I want to assure him that, unlike the hon. member for Orange Grove—who said they were just trivia—I consider these matters to be of the greatest importance. I want to point out to this House that quite some time ago I appointed two inter-departmental committees. One of these committees, the one under the chairmanship of the Secretary to the Treasury—which is doing an excellent job— had to inquire into the building norms applied by various bodies in respect of the projects for which they are responsible. It has a bearing on hospitals, universities, roads, public buildings and many other things. I think that during the next few years we shall save hundreds of millions of rand in this way. The other inter-departmental committee is under the chairmanship of the Secretary for Finance and is investigating municipal finances in South Africa. I want to assure the hon. member for Langlaagte that the arguments he advanced and the examples he furnished will be thoroughly investigated by that committee. The hon. member for Sunnyside … [Interjections.] … made an interesting suggestion.

†The hon. Opposition should not try to monopolize this debate. They can wait, because we have had some very constructive suggestions from this side of the House. I shall deal with hon. members opposite one by one in a moment.

*The hon. member for Sunnyside suggested that we consider levying taxes on horse-racing, seen from a national point of view, and that we use the funds for defence purposes. I want to assure the hon. member that we shall give close consideration to that proposal. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Worcester was strongly of the opinion that we should encourage and motivate people to save more, and he expressed the hope that the Government would give thorough consideration to this matter. I want to emphasize here that the Government and the Treasury are giving constant consideration to the question of how we can encourage people to save. We are still working on this and we shall have further discussions with him on the subject. [Interjections.]

Order!

Turning to this rather loud-mouthed and over-enthusiastic Opposition, let me come to the hon. member for Constantia. The hon. member for Constantia had a lot to say … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Umhlanga must contain himself.

I think the hon. member for Umhlanga might remember for a moment where he is. He is not on the beach at Umhlanga Rocks now.

Order!

The hon. member for Constantia had a great deal to say about the scarcity of foreign capital, and said that it was showing signs of drying up. He further said that it was becoming subject to shorter terms of repayment. The hon. member for Von Brandis, who explained to me that he could not be here, went further and said that the Government had overspent and that it was unable to meet many of the commitments it would like to meet. I am sorry that he is not here so that I can ask him what all these commitments are. However, we can come back to that question when he is here. I would like to come to the question of foreign capital, or the lack of it, as hon. members opposite would like to say, and the question which they are so anxious to tie up with it, namely the question of business confidence in South Africa from abroad. Let me quote some figures which indicate the volume of foreign capital we have received during the last nine or ten years. I would like to place this on record because I think it is high time this was done. The receipts of foreign capital were as follows—

As far as 1976 is concerned, we have a very preliminary figure for the last quarter, but I would say that it looks as if the net figure for the year could be somewhere in the vicinity of perhaps R800 million. This is the position now, at a time when we are told that all the capital has dried up and when everybody knows that the conditions in the international capital market have generally become much more difficult. This is the position, and if one looks at a very interesting component of this capital, one finds that a very sizable amount is in the form of long-term private capital, which is a very good index of overseas confidence in South Africa. During the first three quarters of last years long-term private capital amounting to R630 million was received and I quoted it in my speech last Monday. If one looks at the figures for the latest year, 1976, one finds that the foreign capital inflow is in fact above the average, and I want to stress again that this is at a time when we are told that overseas capital is drying up or rather has dried up. At such a time the 1976 figure is significantly above the average for the years since 1968, which I have quoted.

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

No, the hon. member must please give me an opportunity to speak. I have had great patience in listening to a very large number of speakers on that side. I also have to watch the time factor.

[Inaudible.]

If the hon. member behind would interrupt less, perhaps there would be time to answer some questions. The average inflow over all these years has been about R630 million, so the figure for last year is, in fact, above the average. The facts are therefore against all these doubts and fears and airy imaginings that one hears from the other side every time an hon. member gets up to speak.

I want to take as a further example the recent period 1970-’74. I am leaving 1975 out of the picture because that was a very special year when nearly R1 900 million was received. In that period the foreign capital amounted to 10% or 11% of gross domestic fixed investment. In other words, foreign capital coming in was roughly 10% of all our fixed investments. I am not saying it is not important; we have always welcomed foreign capital and we use it very productively. I want to state, however, that it is not a decisive factor. If a shortage of capital should emerge for any reason, this country can be absolutely certain that we will take steps to mobilize our own capital resources more efficiently every day. [Interjections.] We are certainly not depressed about the situation and we are not pessimistic. We have enormous confidence in this country’s future. At this moment we are, in fact, pushing forward with a whole series of extremely important capital development projects and the provision of basic infrastructure for this country, and we shall continue to do so in the future. We will give that assurance.

I say again that conditions have become tighter. This is something I said in my speech last week, but this applies, of course, to a very large number of other countries as well. I would like to stress again that we on this side wish to view the situation in perspective. We have in the past had times when it has been just as difficult, if not more so, to obtain foreign capital. Only three years ago we had a net outflow of nearly R100 million, which was infinitely worse than last year, and I think hon. members will agree that we came through rather well, and even at that time we were pursuing a very large number of basically important infrastructure projects.

One begins to wonder, when looking at this whole issue of foreign capital investment in South Africa, how the question of confidence is, in fact, determined and how the assessment is made of South Africa as an investment outlet today in certain quarters. I want to refer once more to Business Week. It is stated in this periodical that investors overseas are wary today, and mention is made of the big Sasol 2 project in South Africa, and the Fluor Corporation, a Los Angeles engineering and building company. It is stated that the Fluor Corporation was reminded of this difficulty last year when the Export-Import Bank of the United States turned down its request for a 15-year $375 million loan guarantee to help finance an oil-from-coal plant—i.e. Sasol 2—that Fluor is building for the South African Government. The article goes on to state that the Export-Import Bank of the United States “was unable to find reasonable assurance of repayment of the loan”. This was said by Mr. Stephen M. Minikes, the bank’s senior vice president, to a congressional committee in the United States. I think that is pretty shocking.

What magazine is that?

This is the magazine Business Week of 14 February 1977. This is the kind of thing one has to read. I do not think it is necessary for me to remind this House, or anybody else who is interested, that never in its history with all the borrowing it has done abroad and all the commitments of every kind it has entered into, including trade and investment, has any South African Government ever once defaulted on a single obligation.

I should hope not!

I can assure the House, and also this Export-Import Bank of the United States, that we have no intention of doing so in the future.

I hope not.

That is the position in regard to this issue about which the Opposition has had so much to say, an issue affecting overseas investment in South Africa.

The other point of criticism we have had to listen to ad nauseam is that the Government has overspent, or is overspent—as someone said—and that it apparently is unable to meet many of the commitments it should like to meet, as an hon. member opposite said. I gave the facts about Government spending as a proportion of aggregate spending in South Africa in my speech a few days ago. Those facts have not been doubted or queried by a single member opposite. I want to ask again: Do those facts indicate any excessive spending by the Government, if one compares those figures with the figures relating to any number of countries? Of course they do not.

Why always compare with the position in other countries?

Because it is a very good yardstick. We do not live in a vacuum.

A lot of them are going broke. Must we go broke with them?

Order!

Let me say first of all that, in the last budget, expenditure increased by 10½% compared with the preceding year. At that time the inflation rate was almost exactly 10½%.

Until you came with your additional estimates.

Sir, if that hon. member can understand it, he is entitled to comment on it, but that sort of comment is really rather puerile.

Then it ended up at 13,8%.

Order! The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South cannot monopolize interjections.

The budget deliberately saw to it that Government spending in South Africa, in real terms, remained virtually constant. What better could we have done? Since then we have had to provide a certain amount for a 10% increase in Public Service salaries and certain other increases which were quite inevitable, as will appear later. However, even with those increases, if one takes out defence spending—which, after all, is an enormous burden on the Exchequer, although rightly so; we have done it deliberately—the increase in Government spending at this moment is appreciably below the increase in the rate of inflation. In other words, except for defence, we have not increased Government spending in real terms. In fact, in real terms there has been a decrease. That is the position. Sir, when I show that we have reduced Government spending, the Opposition, parrot-wise, simply keep on screaming that we have in fact increased it. It is easy to say that, but let them give me the figures.

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

No, Sir.

He wants to give you the figures.

I should like to stress that the question of Government spending is being exaggerated out of all proportion by the Opposition. I stand by the figures when I make that statement. We are in fact watching Government spending like hawks the whole time. The Treasury is doing that the whole time, as all my hon. colleagues can quite easily confirm.

You are flying very high when you should walk.

The hon. member for Constantia criticized us for raising capital by big price increases to finance State enterprises. He said we were raising prices very substantially in respect of Escom, Iscor and so on. He said we were using those increases to finance our enterprises. He then spoke of using deficit financing, whereupon I immediately asked him what he meant by deficit financing. In reply he said he could not give me the answer off-hand. Perhaps the hon. member when he speaks again, will give me the facts about this deficit financing. But I want to ask the hon. member: How else should this essential expenditure on the production of steel, on the production of power in South Africa, on the building up of Sasol and all these other big projects be financed? Must it be financed from taxation? The hon. member is on record several times in this hon. House as having objected to that method of financing. The hon. member objects to the use of current revenue to finance capital projects. The hon. member will remember that he said that several times.

In the past the hon. member has also had a good deal to say about the rapid increase in bank credit and in the quantity of money, but I noticed that on this occasion he was very quiet. In fact, we have deliberately through our monetary policy very substantially reduced the increase in the quantity of money and the issue of credit. As the hon. member knows, it has been down to an absolute minimal percentage during the last several months. That is the policy we are deliberately applying, together with fiscal policies, in order to correct the balance of payments deficit and to handle the inflation problem.

With regard to the balance of payments problem I can perhaps be forgiven if I just remind the House again that we have in fact over the last five or six months seen a very substantial improvement in the current account of the balance of payments, directly as a result of these measures. That is freely conceded. Of course, there also was the import deposit scheme, which we introduced at the beginning of August. We said that that was to be a temporary scheme. It amounted to a 20% deposit on imports, and that has helped very substantially to improve the current account. Now, after six months, we have announced that we are ceasing that operation. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South had a lot to say about this. Does the hon. member not read the newspapers or look at the TV programmes? It was all set out.

It does not help; it is all your propaganda anyway.

It was not propaganda; it was fact. The hon. member asked how we were paying it out. Over what period would it be paid out? It was all set out in a very careful statement; it was not propaganda. The hon. member can be forgiven for being completely confused when one sees what is happening to his party, but he must not start talking about propaganda when we are dealing with facts. I said that the import deposit scheme would cease on 2 February and that the successive deposits would be repaid, each one after six months. In other words, if an importer made a deposit on 1 September he will be repaid six months later.

Can you justify keeping that money longer?

That money is there, is clearly provided for and is being repaid exactly as we said it would be repaid.

And in the meantime you are using it interest-free.

Order!

I do not want to go into lesser issues, but the hon. member for Constantia—and I think it is not the first time he has used this argument—said that the correct measure of the growth in the economy was the gross national product—I quoted the gross domestic product—the measure of what is available to sustain standards of living in the country. I would like to remind the hon. member that the real gross national product is affected by the terms of trade and the terms of trade, which are very substantially outside our control, have moved against us since 1974 by something like 25%. It is a very big move against us. Over a longer period there is of course little difference between the growth rate of the GNP and the GDP. I submit that as a measure of economic activity the GDP is superior to the GNP, and I am prepared to argue that point.

So am I.

Coming to the Part Appropriation Bill itself, the hon. member drew some rather far-reaching conclusions from the fact that the figure we are seeking approval for is R2 922 million. He pointed out that this was 25% higher than the previous year and said it indicated a budget of R10 000 million. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. member. I can assure him that the budget will not be anything near R10 000 million.

I am very pleased to hear that.

Yes, of course you should be pleased. The hon. member should surely know by now that, first of all, in the part appropriation we do not give a whole lot of details. He deplores the fact that we have not given him details. Secondly, he should realize that the figure we give there bears virtually no relation to the final figure in the budget. So if the hon. member will practise just a little patience we shall in a matter of weeks know what the figure is that we will provide for in the budget. This is a figure for four months. The hon. member should be very careful not to draw far-reaching conclusions from it.

The hon. member for Yeoville is not here at present. He did inform me that he could not be here. But I wish to deal rather briefly with some of the points he made. First of all, Sir, he once again accused me of window dressing in the budget. When he first said that, previously, I objected to that, and I object again now. If I am window dressing, as he has explained it, I am acting contrary to the standing instructions of the Treasury, and the Auditor-General will very soon be on my back and on the back of the Treasury. Nothing of the kind has, of course, happened. The hon. member for Yeoville also had a good deal to say about, what he called, the heavy Exchequer spending during the first few months of the current financial year, the financial year which started in April last year. I would like to explain very carefully, once and for all, why that expenditure was heavy. It was heavy during the first few months. The test, however, is after a year. The test comes on March 31 whether expenditure was in fact unreasonable, and I suggest, with respect to my hon. friends opposite, that they should be a little bit more careful with these easy criticisms that have been thrown about about excessive Government spending. Let us look at the figure on March 31, the figure for the full year.

During the first few months of the current financial year we had to spend at a rapid rate on defence. The Special Defence Account usually starts the financial year by drawing on its balance with the Public Debt Commissioners. But in April 1976, this balance had already been drawn because of our commitments in Angola and in South West Africa. Secondly, the Railways had planned borrowing to finance their capital requirements during the first quarter of the financial year, but in the event they found it necessary to draw on the Treasury somewhat earlier than planned. This also meant the Exchequer had to spend. Thirdly, there was a change in the procedure regarding the payment of interest on Railway debt.

This meant that an amount of R70 million had to be drawn from the Exchequer, an amount which in previous years would have been paid directly by the Railways. Fourthly, Mr. Speaker, the provincial administrations also drew earlier than usual, because their balances had also been drawn upon. Fifthly, Iscor, because of the very substantial costs escalation which all these big corporations are experiencing, drew R50 million to meet urgent requirements early in this financial year. Lastly, Community Development drew a substantial amount to reimburse local authorities which had temporarily financed certain housing schemes which happened with our full knowledge and which we regarded as very important.

These factors account for something like five-sixths of the amount by which Exchequer issues in the first-quarter of 1976-’77 exceeded the corresponding figure for the previous year, and I am glad to have had the opportunity of putting the record straight on that.

Then, of course, the hon. member for Yeoville, and also the hon. member for King William’s Town, spoke about Glen Anil, and more specifically asked why the Government had furnished a guarantee of R5 million in respect of Glen Anil. Mr. Speaker, I would say that it was the Government’s clear duty, in view of the approach of the consortium of banks and the wide repercussions of the Glen Anil case, to investigate the banks’ proposals very thoroughly. As I have mentioned earlier, it was an extremely complicated exercise. This could only have been done through a Government guarantee in order to keep Glen Anil alive while the matter was being investigated. Glen Anil desperately needed funds, but the banks said that they were not prepared to give them another cent unless they could get a Government guarantee for that amount to keep Glen Anil going for a matter of a few weeks so that we could complete our investigation.

Was the guarantee therefore merely for a few weeks?

I can perhaps come back to that, but I should be able to give the House more details in a moment. I want to continue with my explanation, because the hon. member for Yeoville also raised the question whether this extension of time resulted in one bank receiving, as he put it, a preference over other banks. I believe this is the position, but I should like to add that it was realized by all the banks, who nevertheless agreed to it. The value of security varies from day to day, and it will be almost impossible to restore the status quo ante by legislation as was suggested. The Reserve Bank—I agree with it—is very much against that sort of suggestion. I should like to remind the House that the guarantee of R5 million was in fact restricted to an amount of R1,4 million and was, I believe, absolutely unavoidable to make that investigation from our side.

The hon. member also says that a township developer needs to be looked at carefully. I can just remind him and the House that the Fouché Commission, which is sitting at present, is doing precisely that.

The hon. member for Yeoville also had something to say about smaller banks. He talked about guarantees being made available and suggested that a guarantee scheme for deposits up to a certain maximum should be instituted. I can assure the House that, as far as we are concerned, we have been giving careful attention to the position of the banks from the very start of this whole operation. The Reserve Bank is looking very closely at these and other suggestions in order to bring about, perhaps, a more effective rationalization of the whole banking system and, indeed, to strengthen the banking system in South Africa. Having said that, I want to reiterate what I said in a speech the other day, that despite the unfortunate experience which Rondalia had earlier for quite other reasons and which Rand Bank had directly as a result of Glen Anil, the position is most definitely under control and there is no reason whatsoever at this moment for any undue concern about the safety or security of banks in South Africa.

The hon. member for Jeppe seemed to be unduly crusty when he spoke the other day. Usually he gets up in a good frame of mind and seems to be very friendly, but there was something bothering him this time. I discovered what it was. He was very cross with me because I had not replied, as he said, satisfactorily to a question he put on the Order Paper. He wanted full details of the curtailment by us of capital projects. [Interjections.] Yes, he said he wanted details. I think the hon. member, should he think about this carefully, would appreciate at once that there are literally hundreds and hundreds of items. There are how many dozens of departments concerned with the various projects and if one put together all the items, one would have an extremely detailed list. However, the hon. member expects us, first of all, to co-ordinate all that into one place and then to look at all these details, some of which are extremely important and others less important. The Treasury would have had to go into every one in order to discover, firstly, precisely what was originally asked for; secondly, what was allowed as escalations in the interval—in the case of some of them over many years—and, thirdly, what we said at some point should be the final figure for each specific one. He should realize that in some cases there cannot be a final figure. I can assure the hon. member that the Treasury spent a lot of time on this and came to the conclusion that it was quite impracticable. If the hon. member should like to discuss this with us, I am sure we would be able to convince him of that within a matter of a few minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out to the hon. the Minister that since the State President actually mentioned that in a specific paragraph of his address when he opened this session of Parliament, it struck me as having significance. That is why I put the question on the Order Paper.

It is perfectly true. I did not say we did not have to look very critically at some part of that, but I am saying that, as we interpreted the hon. member’s question, it certainly would have been a major operation.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South—he seems to have disappeared for the moment—informed this House in a very confident tone that I had apparently misled the House on inflation matters. I stand by what I said, namely that in the fourth quarter of last year the seasonally adjusted rate of inflation was 9% above the previous quarter. We have been using these quarterly figures for a very long time. It is not my fault if the hon. member does not understand what a “seisoensaangesuiwerde syfer” is. The hon. member said that I misled the House because I quoted the correct figure. The trouble is that every time one quotes a figure which shows an improvement in the economy, it is completely unpalatable to some hon. members on the other side. That was the hon. member who in a speech in Pietermaritzburg in September said that South Africa was in fact insolvent. I do not propose wasting the time of the House in replying to that except to put it to the House here.

A great deal has lately been said about the legitimate place of the Government in the economy and of the relation of the Government to private enterprise. Quite a number of people came into the act on this, among them the FCI, who came into the picture in a matter of hours after Dr. Wassenaar’s onslaught on private enterprise hit the headlines. One of the things the FCI said—which was surprising—was that the South African economy had shown signs of distress ever since 1969. I have taken the trouble to look at the gross domestic product figures from 1969 to 1975—including the low growth rate of 214% in 1975—the gross domestic product, in real terms, has on average increased by more than 5% per annum, one of the most rapid rates in the world. This happened in a period during which the South African economy is said to have shown signs of distress. If one looks at the aggregate of investment, which is another very good indicator of activity, the gross domestic investment, one will find that the position is even better. The gross domestic investment has in real terms since 1969 to the end of 1975 risen by at least 814% per annum. One can go on like this. It is so easy to throw these criticisms around and use them in public, but it is less easy to substantiate them. What is being overlooked, of course, is that the South African economy is not only basically sound, but also remarkably versatile. I happen to have some figures here with me. If one looks at the composition of the gross domestic product, i.e. the value of all our goods and services—our whole production—one finds that we are not simply dependent, like some countries, on copper, cocoa or any one single crop. What is the position in South Africa? Agriculture, for instance, is contributing at least 9% of the total value of all our production at this moment. Mining contributes 15% to the gross domestic product. This means, of course, the increasing use of our mineral resources, which is going to be a great feature of this country’s development as we go forward. Manufacturing contributes 22%; construction, 4½%; transport 8½%; commerce, or the wholesale and retail trade, 13½%; financing, insurance and real estate business, nearly 10½%; and general government not even 10%. We must bear in mind that this is an extraordinarily versatile economy and if things become strained in one direction, we have eight or nine other major directions which can be used in order to absorb that strain.

I know hon. members become a little irked when we refer to what is said in other quarters, especially if they think these are quarters which ought to support them, but I want to refer now to The Star of 8 February. It said—

So much for Dr. Wassenaar’s talks of a “tragic budget” in 1976. They say further—

They go on to swing the argument to the political side by saying—

They then say more about the political side. But I am now dealing with the financial-economic policy. The Financial Mail of 11 February says that we are on target with our financial policy. I quote—

I am not saying it, and I am sure I can be forgiven for reading it in this House, because I have been listening to some very strange criticism for 12 hours. They went on to quote what I had said and added—

They then talk of good news in different directions and add—

In conclusion I want to say that I am aware of a recent phenomenon in South Africa, a phenomenon which, to my mind, is a serious one. Up to now there has been a tendency for those who do not like us, who disagree with us, perhaps on many other grounds, to include in their attacks on us various criticisms of our economic and financial policy. That is all right. If certain people want to do it, they may, if only they would stick to the facts. We can defend ourselves. I am not on the defensive here when I talk of the financial economic policy of this country. Until now it has been an attack on the Government, but now, all of a sudden, it has become a very much broader based attack. There is now an attempt, both inside and outside the country, to discredit not simply the Government and hopefully to destroy it, but also to attack the Afrikaner. I happen to be an English-speaking South African, but I regard myself as an English-speaking Afrikaner. I have Afrikaner blood in my veins and I am very proud of the fact. If there is one group in this country that deserves well of the country, it is the Afrikaner. If one looks at history, who has brought this country to where it is in terms of basic security and safety? If all the frills are cut out, who has—especially lately—stood in the breach if it has not been the Afrikaner? I believe that it is a tragedy that the English-speaking South African has not bestirred himself and taken a much more active role in our political affairs. That is one of this country’s really great tragedies. [Interjections.]

When I read about the attempt to draw on these overseas media—I have read Business Week, which has a circulation of millions—I want to say, and I am speaking for thousands and thousands of English-speaking people in this country, that we thank a great and kindly Providence every day that we have an Afrikaner Government in power. I should like to know where this country would have been as a result of this last onslaught … [Interjections.] This hooliganism will not deter me and those thousands of other English-speaking people in South Africa who are coming to support the Government every day …

Come and fight a seat in Natal.

I want to give the hon. member who is so loud-mouthed over there, an interesting piece of information. I want to see where he and other hon. members who sit with him now will be during the next election in Natal. [Interjections.] My object is not to win the odd single seat—my object is to win Natal for this Government. [Interjections.]

Order!

That is exactly what we propose to do, starting with the next election. [Interjections.]

Order!

I come back to my basic argument, namely that we are going to witness an increasing attempt to cast, as it were, a sort of shadow over the contribution of the Afrikaner in this country. Nothing that has happened over how many years has been able to touch … [Interjections.]

Order!

… the position of the Government. I do not wish to rub it in too much. Hon. members are already so discomfitted. But I stand by what I have said. Finally, I want to come back to my basic argument throughout this debate and that is that in terms of economic and financial policy, this country is basically sound. The basic economic and financial policies of this country are correct and sound and we are seeing the results of that every day in a difficult world.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Question affirmed and amendments dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, regrettably I was away from the House during the Second Reading debate on this Bill. However, I did spend much of the weekend reading the Hansard speeches of those members who took part in the debate on this Bill. After consideration of the speeches in Hansard, I have come to the conclusion that I personally consider this to be a bad Bill. I say this because, in examining this Bill, I find that there are many inconsistencies in it. The main inconsistency I take issue with is that the Eill is designed to prevent the showing of films on Sundays because it is said that this will lead to the commercialization of the Sabbath, and yet we all know that there are many, many other activities which commercialize the Sabbath. For this reason I believe that this inconsistency is going to create a tremendous number of problems for those who are going to have to administer the legislation. It was suggested that one of the reasons for introducing this Bill was that the showing of films on Sunday is a recent development in South Africa, that the showing of films will change the traditional pattern of Sundays as we know them and that it is therefore necessary to prohibit the showing of films for gain. It was quite clear from the evidence led by various members, however, that in the case of Margate on the South Coast film shows for gain have been going on for 20 years and that this has, in fact, become the way of life of the people in that area, so I cannot see why this hon. Minister feels he is now justified in changing something that has been accepted as the normal way of life by people for over 20 years.

I found that in the course of the debate there were a number of members on the Government side who appealed to the hon. the Minister to extend the powers of this Bill to include Sunday sport, and yet I should like to ask on what grounds they make such an appeal because Sunday sport as I know it, and I am now 45 years of age, has been the way of life of people in Natal ever since I can remember. Are those hon. members now intending to request legislation which will change the way of life of the people whom I believe I represent?

I also believe that this is a bad Bill because there are a number of bad principles involved in its implementation. The first one I should like to mention is that of exemption. The very fact that this Bill, in terms of clause 2(1), allows the hon. the Minister to grant exemptions to people for the showing of films is discriminatory in its very essence. It discriminates against some people and not against others. In fact, one hon. member went as far as to say that he had no doubt that the hon: the Minister would grant exemptions to various other language groups or race groups but that he would grant no exemptions to the Whites. It is my belief that this discriminates against certain White people here in South Africa. I do not like the way the hon. the Minister intends to grant exemptions either because I feel that the granting of exemptions involves an arbitrary action on the part of those who have these powers, and these exemptions are going to be granted by either the hon. the Minister or various officials. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the officials, to whom he is going to give these powers, really understand the sentiments and feelings of the people who are going to have to apply to them for exemptions. I do not intend going into this matter any further because much has already been said about it, but for the reasons I have mentioned, I consider this a bad Bill.

Having read Hansard it was very clear to me that in the main hon. members on the other side gave cognizance primarily to one Christian point of view. I think they must agree with me that evidence was led that there are other Christian points of view which disagree with the very principle of the method of controlling the commercialization of Sundays provided for in this Bill. I studied carefully what a lot of hon. members had to say and found that many hon. members on the other side were guilty, I believe, of a purely personal approach to this Bill. They took a very parochial point of view. If I may go so far, I believe that in fact they took a rather selfish point of view in this connection. There were many, many members, such as the hon. members for Stilfontein and Pretoria East, who referred to “my Sunday”, “my constituency” and “my voters”. I should like to ask the hon. members on the other side: What about my constituency, my voters and my Sunday? It is because of this attitude that I believe that, in addition to this being a bad Bill, it is also a sad Bill. After all, cinema viewing is not in itself a crime; it is not in itself a sin. After all, the hon. the Minister himself has consented to grant exemptions to allow people to show films on Sundays. This, surely, must indicate that the showing of films on Sundays is not in itself a crime.

After having read the Second Reading debate on this measure in Hansard, I found that there were things said during that debate which I personally would rather had not been said. This is an extremely sensitive subject. It concerns differing views and, as the hon. member for Algoa said, it concerns religious norms and, I believe, differing norms. I agree with the hon. member for Algoa that this is so, but at this juncture I want to say that the subject of religious norms and of Christian norms is a very touchy subject. Wars have been fought over this particular subject. I am sure that many hon. members on that side will agree with me in this respect. It is because of this that I should like to say to the hon. member for Pretoria East that I was rather upset at what he had to say in his speech on 2 February. Referring to the speech made by my colleague, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, he said (Hansard, 2 February 1977, col. 676)—

He went on to say—

Sir, these are very, very strong words and I for my own part—and I believe that in this I also speak for the members in these benches, who incidentally include a lot of Afrikaners—believe he is wrong to assume such things and to say such things about members on this side who are opposing this Bill. He is also wrong to presume that we adopted this attitude when we opposed this Bill. Speaking for myself for a moment, I want to say that I denounce the term “boerehaat” and all it stands for, especially at this time when English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking boys and men are on our borders defending our country. I believe that terms such as this should be struck from the mouths of those people who represent South Africa in this House. [Interjections.]

We oppose this Bill because we represent our voters’ points of view. We represent our constituencies and we represent the attitudes of the people who have elected us to this House. We, especially those of us from Natal, possibly view things quite differently from members on that side of the House. I should like to say to hon. members opposite that we like to have a say in those matters which we term as being close to hearth and home. We like to have a say in what we can and cannot do on Sundays. We like to have a say in those things which we should or should not do on Sundays. This is part of our English-speaking South African tradition. The fact that, as one hon. member pointed out, there is no legislation in Natal prohibiting the viewing of films on Sundays—decisions of this nature are left to the local community—is surely part of the tradition and the heritage of the people who live in Natal, a tradition which incidentally, may I say, includes a great respect for the Christian way of life.

What about the Durban municipality?

Well, Sir, that is up to the Durban municipality. I do not believe there are fewer churches in my constituency, in terms of the number of people there, than there are in the constituencies of the members opposite.

I should like to remind the hon. members on that side that South Africa is not a homogeneous society, but a plural one. As such, there are differing viewpoints, differing traditions and differing attitudes towards religious points of view and Christian points of view. I believe it is essential for peace and harmony in this plural South Africa of ours for all of us to have mutual respect for each other. There should not only be such mutual respect between Black and White, but also between English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people. I do not believe that you can have mutual respect between people if in the first place you deny one group or section of the population its own self-respect. I believe that this Bill imposes itself upon the self-respect of the people of Natal. We are not the type of people who take kindly to this kind of imposition. We believe that we as English-speaking South Africans from Natal, especially, are true South Africans and that we are loyal South Africans. I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that we will be seen to be defending South Africa should that occasion unfortunately arise. We believe most definitely in defending our fatherland and we also believe in obeying the laws of our land. We also believe that the lawmakers of this land of ours must take cognizance of our attitudes and beliefs in these matters and especially our norms in matters as sensitive as this one, just as much I believe as those hon. members on that side of the House who have appealed to us during the Second Reading debate to respect their points of view and norms. It is this disrespect for one another’s tradition, one another’s beliefs, that breaks down the mutual respect of people. That is why we in these benches believe in the federal system of Government. It is only through a federal system of Government that the traditions of individual groups can be preserved for that group. That is why we believe that the powers which are inherent in this Bill should be given to the local authorities and not to the central Government because the local authorities are far more in touch with sensitive matters such as those that are contained within this Bill. I should therefore like to move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti is still approaching this legislation as if it is really aimed against Natal and does so in spite of the fact that the hon. the Minister has denied this allegation on more than one occasion. The hon. member keeps on harping on one string, namely that these things did not exist in Natal and that there was no interference by the authorities in the way in which Natal spent its Sundays. Even that premise is wrong, and we are still waiting for an answer from the official Opposition as regards that very premise. Apart from anything else, I should like to refer the hon. member to Act No. 24 of 1878 of Natal which is similar to Act No. 28 of 1896.

That is just “racehorsing”.

No, it concerned all shops, “save those excepted shall be closed on Sundays”. Apart from that, I should like to point out that the Public Holidays Act was passed by this Parliament in 1950. Hon. members of the Opposition will find it very interesting to take another look at the debates which took place when that legislation was being adopted. Four additional days were elevated to the status of Sunday by that Act. There was no argument, and no question of us, as a central Government, telling Natal or any local community how to spend their Sundays. That legislation was introduced and accepted by all the members of the Opposition with universal acclamation. It interfered with the private affairs of every citizen of the country. It added four public holidays to the Sundays which already existed.

If we look at the debate on this legislation, a debate which is almost at an end, listen to the arguments of the Opposition and study them again in Hansard, it is clear that what the basis of their argument amounts to is the fact that the passing of the Bill is not the responsibility of Parliament, but that it actually falls within the scope, within the framework, of local communities. A matter of this nature must be left to local communities. When the hon. member for Umhlatuzana was confronted with the position of drive-in theatres which do not fall within the jurisdiction of local authorities, he replied that the local authority which has to decide on this, is the provincial council. Why? He himself quoted the examples of community A which would decide in one way and community B which would decide in another. I think that one can safely say that the communities which send Nationalists to this House, will vote in favour of the Bill. In contrast, the communities who send UP or PRP members to this House, will vote against the Bill. I am not quite sure whether this is the case, but for the purposes of my argument I shall accept that this is in fact the case.