Mr. Speaker, it is not usual for the Minister of Finance to make a speech in introducing the Third Reading of a Part Appropriation Bill, but I feel that I should reply to the serious charges levelled against me by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. Where is he? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the Whips of the party of the hon. member for Johannesburg North were informed yesterday afternoon that I would be dealing with a matter affecting him this afternoon, and we expressed the wish that he should therefore be here this afternoon. Where is he? [Interjections.] The hon. member has not only taken the rather far-reaching step of attacking the Government and the Minister of Finance in public during the course of a debate in this House, but he launched this attack outside in the form of a Press statement which, of course, was given a good deal of publicity by certain newspapers, as one would expect. This, in itself, I believe, reflects very poorly on the hon. member’s respect for this House. Then, having done that, having made this hit and run attack, he runs away. [Interjections.]

Order!

Why did you change the Order Paper?

But I propose to make my speech exactly as I would have made it had the hon. member been here. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Johannesburg North … [Interjections.]

Order!

Why did you change the Order Paper? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville will probably have an opportunity of speaking this afternoon. Can I have an opportunity now?

In order. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Johannesburg North is reported as having accused me of being, as he said, “grossly misleading” in my statement about the inflow of capital into South Africa last year. He said, and I quote his exact words—

He goes on to say—

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I deliberately singled out the inflow of long-term private capital because of its great importance as an index of overseas investor confidence in South Africa. Secondly, it is quite untrue to say that I made no mention of the outflow of short-term private capital. Let me quote what I in fact, said in my Second Reading speech (Hansard, February 7, col. 868)—

*Those are the figures of the balance of payments on Capital Account last year—

Those were my words, Mr. Speaker.

He does not understand Afrikaans!

I went on to explain that this was in part due to the decline in our imports and a consequent net repayment of trade credits, but I said explicitly that among the other factors involved, were the slow rate of growth in our economy and the relatively low level of private investments, the political problems of Southern Africa and especially the one-sided and exaggerated reports in the overseas news media.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North said further—

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me quote again from my Second Reading Speech (Hansard, 7 February, col. 868)—

*Mr. Speaker, those are the very figures the hon. member quoted on a later occasion as if they came from him personally. I did say (Hansard, 7 February, col. 868)—

I hope you will note that, Mr. Speaker.

†In other words, I mentioned explicitly the figures now quoted by the hon. member and which, significantly, he describes as “the only figures of importance”, although I notice that he made no mention of the more favourable position for the fourth quarter for 1976, to which I had also explicitly referred. Mr. Speaker, is this, or is this not, misleading on his part?

The hon. member says in his statement that the drawings from the IMF should be subtracted. Mr. Speaker, this is incorrect, since these drawings, as I explained at some length, are only granted after a full examination by the IMF of our financial position and our credit-worthiness. Funds received from the IMF obviously form an integral part of our capital inflow. Then the hon. member for Johannesburg North said further—

In other words, the whole world can apparently borrow easily on the international capital market, except only for South Africa. What exactly did I say on this point? In my reply to the Second Reading debate I said (Hansard, 14 February, col. 1402)—

I submit that this is the simple truth, as any international banker will tell us. The international capital market may be relatively easy for first-class borrowers in Europe and North America, but is certainly not easy for a number of countries which, a few years ago, were able to borrow very large amounts in the world market. Once again, as far as that hon. member is concerned, it is the case of the mote in South Africa’s eye and the beam in the eyes of other countries.

In reporting the hon. member’s statement, some newspapers, including The Cape Times and The Argus, made much of the opinion of certain gallant unnamed bankers that South Africa would at present find it difficult to obtain long-term capital. But what did I say in my Second Reading speech? I said (Hansard 7 February, col. 869)—

Furthermore, in my reply to the Second Reading debate I said the following (Hansard, 14 February, col. 1402)—

In other words, I clearly envisaged the possibility that the capital inflow might be insufficient for our requirements and that we might therefore have to make more effective use of our own capital resources. To say that I misled the House or gave an unduly favourable impression of the present position of the capital account of the balance of payments is, in the light of the statements I have quoted, completely untrue.

The House will have noted that the hon. member for Johannesburg North chose to issue his statement to the Press instead of making it in Parliament. As his accusations concern statements which I have made in the House, and as he has adequate opportunity in the present debate to raise this matter in Parliament, I say again that his action reflects extremely poorly on his respect for this House.

Mr. Speaker, if I have been guilty, as the hon. member alleges, of making a grossly misleading statement, then I would agree that I have done the country, to use his words, “a grave disservice”. However, if I have not been guilty of that, then I say that he has been guilty of a most irresponsible, damaging and unpatriotic act in attacking, in public, without justification and in an entirely unfounded manner, the credibility of a Minister of the South African Government.

I now call upon the hon. member for Johannesburg North, on the facts of the matter, to withdraw unconditionally the allegation he has made against me. If he fails to do so, I challenge him to move forthwith that this matter be investigated by the House in the traditional manner.

Finally, after the front-page treatment accorded by certain newspapers to the unfounded allegations made against me by the hon. member for Johannesburg North, the House will, I am sure, be particularly interested to see how they handle this rebuttal on my part.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I do not at this stage propose to enter into the dispute between the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Johannesburg North. Later in my speech I shall come to what I think of the hon. the Minister’s attitude to the inflow of foreign capital, because I believe that this is a vital issue in our economic life at present.

Mr. Speaker, I found the Second Reading debate on this Bill to be one of the most depressing examples I have ever witnessed, since I became a member of this House, of avoidance by that side of the House of the real issues which face our country, the vital issues which affect our lives and will affect those of our children and grandchildren. I realize that that side of the House is woefully lacking in talent when it comes to debating economic issues. I do not expect very much from those old war-horses from Ermelo and Sunnyside, but I did expect much more than we got from the hon. member for Florida, whom I regard as one of the most able speakers on that side of the House on economic issues. All that he gave us during that debate was a dissertation on the effect of PRP franchise proposals, which in any case is a purely academic subject. I would have expected that the hon. the Minister would have raised the level of the debate higher than he did. The argument which he used, that South Africa is better off than some countries, does not impress me in the least. What matters as far as South Africa is concerned, is whether we are doing as well as we are capable of doing. We also had the hon. the Minister’s usual display, of putting words into the mouths of hon. members on this side of the House, words which they did not use. I mention as an example the fact that I spoke on overspending and deficit financing. When I spoke on those two subjects, I specifically referred on every occasion to the period from June 1973 to June 1976, a period during which overspending took place on a large scale, causing much of the trouble which we are experiencing now. The hon. the Minister in reply referred to the current level of spending, which is a completely different period of time. Then we had the usual exhibition by the hon. the Minister using figures to sing the tune which he likes to hear. He did that in particular, I may say, with regard to the capital inflow into this country, which is a subject to which I will come later. Above all, the hon. the Minister continued to give the impression that everything in the garden is lovelier than it is. This, to me, is putting only half of the picture. How can we be happy when we still have a serious balance of payments problem, double-figure inflation, a negative growth rate, rising unemployment and insolvencies increasing at a disturbing rate? Where were the answers from the other side, particularly from the ministerial benches, to the critical problems facing South Africa? Where was the answer to our unemployment question, which together with inflation, is the burning question which is facing the man in the street? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Can we ask the Minister to show the House the courtesy which is due from a Minister and to listen to what is being said, instead of sitting there laughing? [Interjections.] He has complained about the behaviour of other members.

Order!

The hon. the Minister minimized the seriousness of the unemployment situation. He did not even mention it in his reply to the Second Reading debate. We know full well what the position of White, Coloured and Asiatic unemployment is. The figure has doubled during the last year. In the case of Blacks, the hon. the Minister said that the figure had risen by 100 000 between June 1975 and June 1976. We know that the economic development programme projected Black unemployment in 1977 to be 414 000, provided that we had an average growth rate over the period of the EDP of 5½%. That figure would then have represented what I would consider to be a seriously high percentage of unemployed, i.e. 6,4%.

From what source did you get those figures?

I got them from the economic development programme. [Interjections.] The growth rate, however, has not been the 5½% which the economic development programme assumed. Over the period so far the average growth rate has been 3,8%. That means that the rate of unemployment must axiomatically have risen at a higher rate than that envisaged in the programme. I have seen various estimates of unemployment amongst the Blacks, which vary from 600 000, in an estimate by the Central Merchant Bank which I recently saw, to 2 000 000, in an estimate made by the South African Labour and Development Research Unit of the University of Cape Town. I think that is probably too high a figure. I would say that a conservative figure of unemployment amongst the Blacks is probably one million, which would represent an unemployment percentage of about 15%. This is a tremendously serious economic and social problem. It contains all the seeds for unrest, and I find it inconceivable that an hon. Minister should underestimate the gravity of the situation. Yet, we heard absolutely nothing from those benches as to what is to be done about this problem.

I am now going to say what I think should be done about the problem of unemployment. I think the Government should re-examine its spending priorities with an eye on relieving unemployment. We may be a wealthy country, but we are not so wealthy that we can afford all the projects which we would like to have or all the projects which the Government would like to go ahead with. Obviously, as a first priority, we must have adequate defence and adequate security. That is something which we on this side of the House support to the hilt. What criteria should be used after that on deciding priorities? Should they be social criteria such as housing, should they be infrastructure criteria such as communications, or should they be strategic criteria such as the search for oil and nuclear power development? I believe the Government must take far more account than it has up to the present time, of the resources we have available to us in this country—the abundant resources which are primarily unskilled and semi-skilled labour, and the scarce resources, the most notable one of which is capital. Housing falls into a labour-intensive category of venture. I believe it is essential that we should speed up our housing programmes, particularly for Coloureds and Blacks in the urban areas. We should do this even at the expense of back-pedalling on strategic expenditure such as the search for oil. The need for more housing has been brought into very sharp relief in recent days because of the squatter problem, which is not only a problem in the Cape Peninsula but in every city of South Africa. Housing is something that does not use up imports to any extent, and therefore increased housing would not bring about any increased direct pressure on our balance of payments problem. It uses resources and materials which are abundant and mostly produced in South Africa and would therefore do no harm to the inflationary situation. The question may be asked where the money is coming from to finance increased housing.

I would like to suggest two methods of raising money for this purpose. The first method that I should like to suggest is that there should be a new tax-free bond issue. I believe that under today’s oppressively high marginal rates of tax this would be a great spur to saving, particularly to people who can most afford to save. Secondly, I would suggest that the hon. the Minister of Finance gives further consideration, if he has given any consideration to it at all so far, to the issue of an index linked bond. That is a bond, the redemption value of which varies with the cost of living. Under today’s high rate of inflation I believe this would be a very considerable spur to saving to persons of all income levels.

If the Government will only concentrate on what I have advocated, namely labour intensive projects rather than capital intensive projects, it will be providing jobs and it will be helping with the unemployment situation. It will diminish the need for foreign capital because it will be using local resources. It will make available to the private sector more of the scarce capital resources that are available and it will therefore be helping to improve the productivity of the country and, by doing so, will be helping to fight inflation.

Unemployment was not the only problem we raised during the Second Reading debate. The hon. member for Von Brandis raised the pertinent issue of the counter-productive effect of high rates of direct taxation. He received no answer. We heard no information from that side of the House as to what plans they have to fight inflation once the anti-inflation manifesto terminates in March. Does that mean—and I would like to have an answer to this—that the Government is relying entirely on slowing down the economy in order to fight inflation? It may well succeed in lowering the rate of inflation if that is the method that they are going to adopt, but by doing so it is going to bring the economy to its knees. In the meantime the consumer is going to be caught in the pincer movement between unemployment on the one hand and inflation on the other.

Now I would like to come to the question of the capital inflow about which we have heard quite a lot in this debate. I do not propose to enter into the contretemps between the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Johannesburg North, but I would like to say that I believe that there has been a great deal of woolly thinking by the Government on this subject. The hon. the Minister stated during the Second Reading that preliminary figures for the whole of 1976 indicated a total capital inflow of R800 million. Am I right? The question is whether this globular figure of R800 million reflects the current situation. Calculations from the figures given by the hon. the Minister indicate to me that the capital flow in the fourth quarter of the year amounted to R240 million. Could the hon. the Minister tell me how much of that R240 million is made up of drawings from the IMF, because I do not regard drawings from the IMF as reflecting any capital inflow tendency! Drawings from the IMF, in a sense, are drawings from a last resort source. They are drawings from a source that certainly does not reflect the market confidence or the market rating as far as South Africa is concerned. Could the hon. the Minister also tell us how much of the R240 million is short-term and how much is long-term capital? I find very little encouragement in the figures taken quarter by quarter. In the first quarter there was a R483 million inflow; in the second quarter R89 million, and then after the start of the unrest in June there was an outflow of R12 million, despite the fact that during that third quarter there was a drawing from the IMF of R75 million.

In his reply to the Second Reading debate, the hon. the Minister gibly stated that important though a capital inflow may be, it is not a decisive factor. I find that a most irresponsible statement from a Minister, because where would the development of this country be, where would our infrastructure be and where would our balance of payments be if, over the last 10 years, the R6 000 million inflow of foreign capital which we received had not been forthcoming? The hon. the Minister further stated, as he did again today, that if a shortage of foreign capital should occur, he would take steps to mobilize our own capital resources more efficiently. If there is room for more efficient mobilization of our own capital resources, why has that not been done already? Or has the hon. the Minister in mind more interference by the Government in financial institutions, thereby taking a greater part of the savings looked after by those institutions? I believe that the hon. the Minister is being very complacent in regard to the capital inflow situation, and I think this is a dangerous complacency. To me this is the Achilles heel of our economic problems. We need a capital inflow; we need it for our balance of payments, for our development and, above all, for our growth because we have not yet reached the stage of development in South Africa where we can sustain growth without a capital inflow.

This brings me back to the point made by every speaker on this side during the Second Reading debate, i.e. that there can be no economic solution, with our potential anything more than partially used, and no real return of confidence, and therefore of foreign investment, until there have been fundamental political changes. What changes have there been to the political and social status of the urban Blacks and the Coloured people? These people comprise more than half of our non-White population. If there is one lesson which we have learnt from the past eight months, since unrest broke out last June, it is that these people no longer accept their lot as inferior citizens. These are burning questions that must be tackled on a fundamental basis—socially, politically and economically—before we can hope to restore full confidence in our economy or in our country as far as foreign investors are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Constantia reheated the cold food of the Second Reading debate a little so as to be able to serve up something for us. The points raised by him in his speech were all points to which the hon. the Minister of Finance had already answered. There is a saying which goes: “A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.” This is the case with the Opposition. One cannot convince them. One can give them the facts, but it is to no avail. They believe what they want to.

One cannot give them the intelligence necessary for understanding those facts.

For example, they believe in the Press what they like to believe. In The Argus of 16 February—that was yesterday afternoon—the following was written under the heading “Bankers criticize Horwood”—

They believe that report. Why do they not believe another report which I have here under the heading “Investment boost for South Africa,” which reads as follows …

Where is that form?

This report appeared in The Citizen of the same date. The Opposition believes what it wants to believe. Why does it not believe the contents of this report? I quote—

Why do they not believe this?

Are the bankers telling lies?

They believe what they want to believe. For this reason, it serves no purpose to attempt to answer the arguments of the hon. member for Constantia. However, in the course of my speech I shall, in fact, return to some of the arguments advanced by him.

It is a fact that the Western World is in a difficult situation. If one reads foreign publications, one sees the following for example—

This is written in an edition of 16 January 1977. The publication is the Tage Spiegel of Germany. I quote further—

This is the situation we are faced with. It has become extremely difficult in these times to hazard any predictions in the economic field. In the same publication one reads—

This is not our problem—it is the West’s problem, it is the world’s problem. I quote further—

This is the problem we are faced with. It is a world-wide problem. Surely it is absurd for the hon. member to come here and say that we cannot draw comparisons with other countries. We are, after all, part of a great Western economic system. Surely we have to compare ourselves to the West. After all, we are not living in isolation. I want to say that although we are living in unfavourable conditions, one must always be positive. Unfortunately, we have to contend with a negative Opposition.

I say to you, Sir, that there are many positive things which we may derive from the present situation. When things were going well for us, we all had the feeling at some stage that it couldn’t last. We had to apply the brakes.

What is the positive side of this? The positive side of this is that the Government took steps and that those steps and measures have had a positive effect, so much so that the hon. the Minister could tell us of an improvement in the deficit on the current balance of payments account from R487 million in the second quarter to R1 11 million. Surely this is something positive. I simply cannot understand why there is no appreciation for it. Imports have in fact decreased, and this is something which we were striving for. Imports decreased as a result of a drop in domestic demand. This is true, and it is a positive step. It is a positive thing that our exports have increased. Consequently, there are, in fact, many fine things in these difficult circumstances in which we are living today. There has also been an improvement in our rate of inflation. There has been a levelling off of the rise in consumer and wholesale prices. Because of the trough of the economic cycle, we are faced with a certain amount of unemployment. In that regard, I now return to the speech of the hon. member for Constantia, who made so much of the unemployment situation. It is true, we do have a certain amount of unemployment. We may argue and speculate about the extent of the unemployment we have. It is very difficult to determine its exact extent. But unemployment does exist. Since people do not always register, it is difficult to determine a figure. When we talk about unemployment, it is most certainly a very serious problem for any nation. Hon. members may read any economic periodical from any country and they will see that wherever unemployment does exist, people are worried about it. This is a difficult situation, one which has many side effects. But even unemployment has its positive aspects. What happens in practice? Today there are many industrialists and businessmen who are grateful for the fact that they are receiving work of a better quality from their employees. Surely this is a positive thing. People are afraid of losing their jobs and for this reason they are doing better work. People are approaching their work with a greater sense of responsibility. They are more productive, not only as individuals, but also for the concern for which they work. Today the unsatisfactory worker is dismissed. Today a concern will assure that it retains only its best employees.

Moreover, what is also important, is that as a result of the tight employment situation, people have developed a certain adaptability. In other words, people are prepared now to do the less attractive work as well. What is more, our position is not that weak. Let us compare our country to a country such as West Germany; I like to compare us to West Germany, because that country is looked upon as one with a modern economy in which the best economic methods are implemented. We read in a German periodical that—

These people who are unemployed are people with university training in a highly developed economy such as that of West Germany. In addition, Mr. Speaker, unemployment figures for people with diplomas have shown an increase of 10%. This is in the same country. A further positive aspect of the tight situation in which we find ourselves, is that at the moment certain professions, the teaching profession for example, are receiving applications once more, whereas before, we had to appeal: “Please people, take up this profession!” I understand that more applications have been received than the colleges are able to accommodate this year. Our Police Force is being strengthened as a consequence of the tight employment situation. What I find terribly important is that a larger degree of seriousness with regard to their work may be observed among our young people who are having to enter the labour market. The same thing may be said about our students. They are displaying a larger degree of seriousness with regard to their studies these days because they realize that in future the more highly qualified man will obtain and retain a post more easily. These things are good for the spiritual strength of our people. I believe that during the years of prosperity, we bred weak saplings. I am not so sure that our young people, particularly our young businessmen, have the necessary backbone today to meet the demands which this country makes on them.

Mr. Speaker, it is necessary for more employment opportunities to be created in this country. By the year 2000, according to expert estimates, approximately 1 500 new employment opportunities will have to be created in South Africa every day in order to make provision for our growing population. This is a tremendous number. The question is whether it is possible to do so. Can the country afford this to an increasing extent? I cannot say, but the clever people tell us that according to calculations a capital requirement of R1 000 or more exists for each employment opportunity. I am of the opinion that many of our old economic theories still hold. For example, with respect to the capital requirements in labour, an old economist like Marshall says the following:

Mr. Speaker, this is a terribly important matter. It is an old law but it still holds. I see a tremendous potential for South Africa with regard to new employment opportunities, but then hon. members of the Opposition, the hon. members of the PRP to be specific, the hon. member for Johannesburg North, to be more specific—must stop sending reports to the outside world which harm South Africa’s image. How can we expect foreign countries to have confidence in us if reports disparaging our image are continually being sent to the outside world by people from our own ranks?

Mr. Speaker, it is only logical that employment opportunities will exist in a period of economic upswing. But then we need to have capital available. For this reason, those people must cease their negative criticism which discourages foreign investors.

Mr. Speaker, another important thing is labour itself. I foresee the possibility of increased employment in this country, but then labour, and the labour market as a whole, will have to moderate their demands with regard to higher remuneration for their services. This is important. We are living in a century in which labour is easily replaced by mechanical aids. It is very important for us to take note of this. We have numerous examples in practice of an employer, as soon as he starts feeling the pinch, simply saying, “I am laying off my workers; I am going to mechanize.” Mr. Speaker, our labour force will have to bear this in mind. People in the labour market will have to realize that it is better to have ten people in employment at a reasonable wage, than to have five in employment at a higher wage and five unemployed. This is important. We shall be forced by economic circumstances, instead of installing mechanical conveyor belts, perhaps to line up a row of workers to handle the products. Instead of buying mechanical moles for constructing tunnels through mountains, and for digging canals, perhaps we shall have to revert to the pick and shovel. The labour force will have to be prepared, for the sake of employment, good food and clothing, to accept this.

Another important thing is that we shall have to make our labour more adaptable. The Bureau for Economic Research said in its January report that 41% of their co-workers in the manufacturing sector had reported that they had shortages of skilled labour. This is in a time of unemployment. What does this mean? It means that a relocation of labour will have to come about. Strangely enough, it is not only our country that has these problems. The same problem exists in the outside world. I quote from a German periodical—

And this is in a country which is struggling with a considerable unemployment problem—

This is a problem which we, too, have. At present we have unemployment in the building industry. A man is a painter, for example, and because he cannot find work as a painter, we think that he must necessarily be unemployed. But there may be other work for him. We shall have to make a positive attempt to bring home to our people the fact that if one can no longer do the specific job which one did yesterday and the day before, there may be other work for one.

A very important charge laid at the door of the Government, is that of so-called creeping socialism. Ever since I came to this House, I have had to listen many times to charges from the opposite side of this House of the State interfering too much in the private sector. However, it is strange that such charges were not so severe in times of prosperity. Now that we have fallen upon hard times, however, the charges are being laid. In all friendliness, and I am by no means reproaching them for it, I now want to ask the hon. member for Walmer—who is sitting engrossed in his reading—whether he can remember how he criticized the Government in the Provincial Council over the so-called “backlog in capital works”. This is what they did.

Wasteful expenditure …

Yes, the hon. member had a lot of criticism of the Government because it allegedly always had a “backlog” with regard to “capital works”. [Interjections.] I am not reproaching them for having criticized the Government; that is his prerogative. However, the Government was, in many cases, pressed by the private sector and demands were made on the Government to make available more infrastructure, capital works and officials to do the work. It was said that the Government had to think big.

He agrees. [Interjections.]

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

No. I have very little time. [Interjections.] We have been accused, inter alia, of not paying our officials well enough. Many of our best officials were bought by the private sector in those times of prosperity. At that time, things were going very well. Today the Government is accused of being bureaucratic, of interfering in the private sector and of creating inflation. The Government is accused by those hon. members of creating inflation, even more so since “the book” has appeared.

Book?

One Dr. Wassenaar published a book and all the hon. Opposition members ranged themselves on his side and lauded him to the skies. This Dr. Wassenaar said that the State was the sole creator of inflation because it was the body that was the creator of money. However, who asked for more and more credit in recent years? Who criticized the State and the hon. the Minister on his so-called rigid banking policy? Who wanted more bank credit? Was it not the private sector and the hon. the Opposition? Now it is that very same Opposition who is blaming us for inflation. I want to make the statement that it is absolutely senseless to throw stones at each other at this stage of our development. It will not do any good if we and the private sector continue hurling reproofs backwards and forwards at one another, we saying that it is their fault and they that it is ours. The time has arrived for us to hold discussions with one another. In fact we are doing so and had I had the time, I should have liked to point out the access the private sector has to the Government at all times and the discussions it has had with our Ministers on many occasions. I have here a report of the S.A. Federated Chamber of Industries, in which they devoted pages to an expression of their gratitude to this Minister and that Minister for discussions and dialogues they had conducted on different matters relating to our economy. Since I have mentioned the name of Dr. Wassenaar, I should just like to say that he made use of a promotion meeting of the S.A. Foundation to launch his book. Dr. Wassenaar achieved two things. In the first instance, he did South Africa a tremendous amount of harm as a result of the publicity which his book received abroad—and no-one can deny this— and in the second instance, I think he did the Foundation a lot of harm. In support of this, I should like to quote what the president of the Foundation wrote to the New York Supplement in January of this year—

This concerns the South African economy. He is actually asking people to invest in South Africa—

This is the impression which the president of the S.A. Foundation is trying to convey in the USA. Dr. Wassenaar, who is a director of the Foundation, says the exact opposite, however. He owes the S.A. Foundation an apology. I think he has prejudiced the credibility of the Foundation abroad. On the subject of State interference and bureaucracy, I just want to say one thing more; the Government constantly consults with members of the private sector and respects them. I have already referred to this. If one reads the annual report of 1976, there are pages and pages of very favourable testimony from the private sector on co-operation with the State and on discussions with Ministers, including the hon. the Prime Minister. I quote—

The private sector, therefore, has access to the Government up to the highest level.

Mr. Speaker, the debate on the Part Appropriation Bill is moving into its final phase and in essence we remain to be seen to be dealing with the expenditure of some R2 900 million of the money of the people of South Africa during the next three to four months. The general tenor of the speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance was one of considerable optimism. We would have liked to share his optimism with him, but in order that we should not be seen to be living in some dream-world, I think we should place on record the unfortunate and unhappy situation in which we, as South Africans, find ourselves today.

It is an accepted fact that storm-clouds are gathering over Mozambique, Angola, South West Africa and Rhodesia. Botswana is rapidly moving into the sphere of the north. Tensions are building up in our own country and in our economy, which may well erupt to become an uncontrollable volcano. Russia has leap-frogged across the country from the Indian Ocean to the Atlantic. Russia and China are lining up for a move further south. All of us in South Africa are now moving into a situation in which the dangers and tensions that are facing us, are comparable with those in the Middle East and in Korea. White South Africa, together with some 250 000 Rhodesians and 100 000 Whites in South West Africa, are drifting to the brink of a disaster too horrible to contemplate. These are facts of our life as we see them at the moment. We in South Africa are facing immediate short- and long-term political and economic problems. In addition, we seem to be moving into a situation which is no longer within our control. It is because of these facts that the hon. the Minister of Finance has a duty to ensure that he makes quite clear to the country his plans for the future economic and political security of those whose money he is spending.

I believe that there should be some positive contribution from this side of the House, and I therefore wish to propose that action should be called for during the next four months and the eight months that lie beyond them, on four particular fronts. In the first place, we should change our national management pattern. I believe the change of national management leadership is a priority if we are to survive. Secondly—and I am not quoting any book by Dr. Wassenaar—we should mobilize our brain-power, because our very survival demands that we use more of our top brains in the processes related to the management of our national affairs, that we define our political, economic and politico-economic objectives and that we co-ordinate these efforts. Furthermore, I believe—and most of the world believes with me—that we must move away as fast as we can from discrimination on a purely statutory basis. The delay that we are involved in at the moment, is fatal. The Government should make up its mind once and for all that whatever political risks may attach to the removal of statutory discrimination, the dangers of non-removal are much bigger and much more certain. We are only helping those people who are in the communist camp by our delay. We should also be planning, as far as is humanly possible, for as free as possible a free enterprise system. We have an undertaking from the Government and from all responsible Ministers, including the hon. the Prime Minister, that South Africa has accepted this situation. However, it has been accepted more in theory than in practice. If we accept that free enterprise is desirable, it must be seen to be made to work, and it is inevitable that under the present structure, with the civil service being as large as it is and having the bureaucratic power that it has, it must be seen to be made to work as fast as possible.

I want to refer very briefly to the statement of the hon. the Minister of Finance during his Second Reading speech with regard to the reaction of the Opposition. He said in somewhat disconcerting terms that as far as he could see all the Opposition did was to make fitful references to things such as inflation, etc. The hon. the Minister classified very clearly the main and the most vital economic problems facing this country. As far as the man in the street and the voter is concerned, as well as the people in the shadows who have no vote at all, he showed no compassion or humanity whatsoever. As my hon. friend from Constantia has indicated, he showed no compassion with regard to the overriding question of unemployment, which today is recognized even by the hon. the Prime Minister as being critical to our continued prosperity and safety and the future of our race relations. Those who remember the 1929 depression will remember what it is like to be unemployed. We have too many Whites unemployed at the moment and we have many more hundreds of thousands of non-Whites who are unemployed. For them unemployment means the stark reality of starvation and tragedy. It is for the hon. the Minister of Finance to indicate to this country actual and positive plans to ensure that those who are unemployed are given relief of some sort, particularly those who cannot help themselves.

It is not sufficient to refer to inflation in passing terms. Inflation means the erosion of the security and the savings of the individual. Bearing in mind the present continuing rise in the cost of living, and the inflation of some 10%, we must take a look at the position of the housewife. Almost every purchase she has to make brings her face to face with the inevitable rise in prices which she can no longer afford. As far as the household as such is concerned, we are faced with an increase in rates, and in electricity and water charges. In the field of transport we have increases in the train fares and the inevitable increase in the cost of running a motor-car, for which we do not hold the hon. the Minister fully responsible. But then we go further. It was reported in the paper only yesterday that vegetables in Johannesburg have gone up in price by as much as, in some instances, 285% with common increases in the prices of potatoes, tomatoes and fruit ranging from 60% to 80%. Bread, sugar and meat have also gone up in price. Meat has in fact become a South African luxury and it is no more to be found on the table of every South African. No more do we enjoy the braaivleis as freely as we did in the past. It is therefore incumbent upon the hon. the Minister of Finance to make known his plans to alleviate the position of the man in the street. Inflation is the unseen tax-collector. We hope that we have no reason to believe that because it is the unseen tax-collector and because the Government coffers benefit so much from the effects of inflation in an indirect sense, the Government is dragging its heels.

I want to refer to the existing poverty in this country. It was Chief Gatsha Buthelezi who said that poverty above all is the problem facing his people, even above political rights. People must live and they must be fed. We must not let ourselves be misled into the belief that because we, as a privileged White society, can claim to be amongst the wealthiest in the world, the other 20-odd million people who are with us are not suffering from abject poverty in a large enough sphere to draw our attention and gain our sympathy.

I now want to refer to the question of the squatters. That we in South Africa, for whatever reason, can talk about the existence of some 200 000 to 300 000 squatters over the whole country, is indicative of the fact that all is not well in our politico-economic situation. I believe that the purpose of this budget should not be to spend for the rich but to succour the poor and those that have no homes at all.

In conclusion I want to say very seriously that it caused me deep hurt that the hon. the Minister of Finance should have seen fit to refer, in the closing portion of his Second Reading speech, to the Afrikaner as being slated and attacked by outside influences. It is my opinion that this has broken with the tradition in this House that the hon. the Minister of Finance is first and foremost the Minister of Finance and a South African. He is spending the money of the poorest and the richest and should have detached himself from the political field. The speech he made would, I believe, have come better from the hon. the Minister of Defence before an Oudtshoorn election. However, it does not redound to the dignity of this House, in the times we are living in, to raise, for even a moment, points of difference. We on this side of the House are proud to know that at least 60% of the members in the UP are Afrikaners.

Is that so?

8%.

We are also proud to know that in the last war we fought shoulder to shoulder with other nations and with Afrikaans boys. May I also say that when I was a prisoner of war, no person in my life stood out more proudly than my batman who was an Afrikaner from the platteland. When we had nothing, his moral rectitude and his discipline lifted him head and shoulders above the British, Americans and others. I only want to say in closing that I believe that in a debate of this nature, when the White man is threatened by movements from the north, east and west, we should be standing together as one South African people and that in a debate as serious as this we should endeavour, at all costs, to keep out any recriminations against English-speaking or Afrikaans-speaking people. In the final analysis we shall stand or fall, in the face of any attack against us, as South Africans and South Africans only. I should like to quote from the reprint of Olive Schreiner’s book Thoughts on South Africa, which was written some 80 years ago—

I do not believe that it should be seen that the hon. the Minister of Finance is, in any way, ruffling the wounds which I believe have been healed many moons ago. In our public life we should not be discriminating between, or even talking about, Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking South Africa.

Only “hairybacks”.

Let us all join in our efforts to solve the big problem that lies ahead of us, i.e. how our economy will weather the storms that lie ahead of us.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with the hon. member when he appeals to all the peoples of South Africa to stand together in difficult times. I am going to refer to only one other subject he raised in his speech. I can assure him that this whole question of unemployment is being gone into at the moment, and the Department of Statistics has started preparing a more comprehensive report on what the actual figures will be.

We are very happy to hear that.

I shall not be joining in this whole debate that has been going on around the issue of the united Opposition. I hope I shall be forgiven, though, if I make one suggestion. I believe that the parties on the other side are so busy finding a new party that it is high time they thought of a new name. We know that the hon. member for Yeoville—and I have always respected him in this regard—stands firm that the party to which he belongs should be known as the “Progref Party”.

The PRP.

I should like to suggest that we combine this name with the first letters of the other two parties who are to join this coalition, i.e. the Democratic Party and the United Party. If we compact the first letters of their names we come up with Demunprogref. That is how it will read. I leave it there.

You can do better than that; try again.

I will try again. I can say that what has happened to the UP has caused laughter all over the country, and I say that today, Sir, in the presence of a friend with whom I have the greatest respect: the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I have the greatest respect for him as a person and as a member of the House who has always contributed much to the work performed by the House. Regretfully I shall have to take leave of him today as the Leader of the Opposition.

Sir, I think that what I said on 5 February 1975 needs to be repeated. Even though I said it myself, I think it bears repeating. In the debate held on that date the “Pegasus poll” was discussed, if I am not mistaken.

Yes, that is correct.

There they found all sorts of causes for the disruption within the United party.

*I said that the Pegasus survey was unnecessary. I also said that I did not intend kicking a party which was down. During that debate in 1975, which took place after the survey had been carried out, I voiced my concern about that party and the hon. member for Durban Point then interrupted me and said: “Why are you so worried about us?” At the time I spoke straight from the heart and now again speak straight from the heart: I am concerned about South Africa and the Opposition is also a part of South Africa. What the hon. member who spoke before me said is something I, too, believe: If we in South Africa go under, all of us will go under. It is necessary that we should know this. When stones were thrown at passers-by by anarchists during the riots in Witbank, no-one asked whether the victims were Nationalists or Afrikaans-speaking people. They simply stoned people to death.

We have reached the stage this afternoon at which the Opposition party, the alternative Government of the country, must tell us what they intend doing with South Africa, but first I think it is necessary for us to spell out what it is that can unite those parties. There is only one thing that can unite that party, and because it is not there, they have once again failed in this case. The reason is that their whole philosophy is based, not on what they support, but on what they oppose.

†We have heard that on so many occasions. One day the emphasis is placed on one thing and on the next day it is placed on something else. “Petty apartheid” was at one stage the parrot-cry that went up at all times. Then, suddenly, that cry was stopped and their cry became something else. They are merely against, against and against.

*We find the same thing even in certain newspapers, the great prophets of doom of South Africa, who are always proclaiming tomorrow as the great judgment day. In the latest edition of the Sunday Times, the case of the three people who, contrary to the existing regulations, conspired in a rebellion against the laws of the land, was made front page news. This was made out to be the greatest disaster which could have befallen South Africa. I think it is necessary for the party which puts itself forward as an alternative Government, to state what it stands for, too. Apartheid has been blamed for everything.

†The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North waxed eloquent on all the evils of apartheid two days ago. I want to read something out of the Blackwood Magazine. It is symptomatic of what is going on all over the world and of what is happening in South Africa, and even in this Parliament. The article is headed: “It is a problem.” Sir, you will note from what I am going to read that except for a few words the words used are identical in the two paragraphs. I quote—

Do hon. members agree with that? I put that question to the Opposition. The very next paragraph reads—

The words are exactly the same. It has become a habit in this country to blame everything on apartheid. I would like to put a question to the Opposition, especially the official Opposition and the gentleman for whom I have the greatest regard. Will you do away completely with what is accepted as apartheid, not the distortion that has been added to it in later years? If I ask this of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I am going to give a reply which was given during the no-confidence debate.

*In the first place, now that I have listened to the hon. member who spoke just before me and with whom I agree, I want to say that we shall have to overcome together the problems that beset us in these difficult times. There are various possibilities whereby, so it is said, we may bridge our difficulties. We have various possibilities and it was during that debate in 1975 to which I referred, when the hon. member for Maitland did me the honour of speaking after me, that I said that the UP would split because people were going to break away to the left and to the right. On that occasion I also posed the question: Can you tell us to what extent you are going to yield to the world’s demands? This afternoon, with all the seriousness at my command, I again ask the responsible members of all the parties opposite—I ask this of the hon. member for Yeoville who, during his visit overseas, was also an ambassador for South Africa under difficult circumstances, and I say this with appreciation: What demands do you, who have been overseas, think we ought to yield to in order to satisfy the world so that we would not be the polecat of the world? I maintain that the answer is a simple one. Rhodesia has yielded to many demands, but with what result? Now they are telling Rhodesia: What we are asking from you is not majority rule; we are not asking for equal treatment any more; we are asking for only one thing: We have chosen for you the dictator Mugabe, with his 2% support. Subsequently, they will come to the people of South Africa—English-speaking people, Afrikaans-speaking people and the Black people—and they will say: For you we appoint Mr. Mashanini, a man who has murdered a benefactor like Dr. Edelstein. The hon. member for Houghton can laugh about it, but one thing is as plain as a pikestaff. Whereas people have even fled from this country, I am still waiting for the hon. member for Houghton and her leader to tell the world, unequivocally—there are a few others who have in fact done so—that these people must now stop their nonsense. The hon. member referred to our police, but it was left to the editor of The World to tell these people: “Go back to school. It is your future. Go back and do not destroy books. ” I want to ask the hon. member how much of her speech in Soweto she devoted to telling people to go back and to live in an orderly fashion. [Interjections.]

The demands of the outside world will not be acceptable to us. I ask the Official Opposition the following question: Would it be acceptable to you if a dictatorship was forced on South Africa? Not even an orderly Black South Africa is acceptable to the outside world. Is the Transkei acceptable? No, Sir. There is Lesotho, with that friend of ours who speaks about taking land, not only from the Whites of South Africa, but left, right and centre, from the Blacks as well. I am surprised he has not yet claimed Zambia. This man is regarded as a hero by the outside world. But the Transkei with its orderliness and orderly development is not recognized.

That is why I say this, too, to Black South Africa. Those were happy years when I could live together with the Black people of South Africa, work with them on their projects, and I found responsible leaders among them. Now I want to ask the direct question: Do hon. members think that Mr. Matanzima would be acceptable to the world as a Prime Minister? Do hon. members think that even Mr. Buthelezi would be acceptable to the revolutionary world in which we are living? Do you think so Sir? Is anyone so naïve as to think that? What happened to Ipi Tombi in America, to Black people who went to America from South Africa? Mr. Speaker, if concessions were to be made to the demands of the world, particularly the demands of that world of which Black Africa’s militant wing forms a part, we have already lost.

There is a second thing to which we can yield. We can yield to the demands of the Blacks in South Africa. I repeat that we must listen to what the Blacks are saying. Allow me to say something controversial here this afternoon. I am sorry, but I believe that I sympathize, that I can sympathize, with Blacks who are asking for better consolidation of their land. I am also sympathetic towards people who are asking for more land. I can understand Black leaders asking for better education for their children. I am also grateful that this Government has played its part in raising Bantu education to a level at which the number of Bantu pupils has today reached 4 million—equalling the number of Whites in South Africa. Then we may speak of quality. Then we may speak of many other things. We have come a long way, however, and we are making speedy progress. The provision of facilities, as has already been announced from time to time, will continue. No one is so blind as he who will not see. I cannot convince such people. We have not yet progressed far enough. We must progress even further. We shall have to consult with the Blacks as regards better consolidation. This is right. Mr. Speaker, I was present when the hon. the Prime Minister, despite all his many obligations, consulted with Black leaders for days on end. The necessary infrastructure has already been created for them.

However, there is one point on which we stand fast: We want our part of Africa as well. This is something which we will always tell everyone, be they White or Black, city dwellers or people from the country.

After all, Mr. Speaker, we did not steal this country. I am not using the history of wars as an argument. I do not want to fight old and long-forgotten wars all over again—wars between Black and White. We cannot escape the fact, however, that they were wars fought between civilized and uncivilized people. We cannot get away from this. After all, is Grahamstown not one of those places which attest to what English-speaking South Africa had to endure? Is Grahamstown not also the Blood River of English-speaking South Africa? If it is true that the land we acquired, was acquired in a lawful manner—and the issue here is not one of White or non-White land—I still ask what moral right we have to take land away from people who came into possession of it lawfully, and what right do we have just to give it away.

A great deal of fuss is being made about a certain percentage of land in South Africa to which the Blacks are entitled. Why have people never yet demanded land from Botswana or Lesotho or Swaziland? Why must it be the land which is in the possession of Whites? Borders? Of course there are problems with the borders. However, I am sure that the Republic of South Africa would have preferred not to have had its borders, with the long strips to be defended, if it could have done otherwise. After all, it is historically true that Bantu have lived as separate peoples in certain areas. Is it not true that the Zulus have always been in KwaZulu and that the Xhosas have always lived in Transkei? And, as they asked for those parts of the country for themselves, I ask on behalf of White South Africa that we, too, should have a place in Africa. We also have a share in this country.

Whatever we then do, we do not do in consequence of a feeling of guilt, as those people do who offer other people things “ paternalistically”, as someone wrote in a newspaper recently. We are doing it out of a sense of duty, and not out of guilt because we supposedly stole what was not ours, or because we reaped where we had not sown. A South African White not only has a right in South Africa, he also has a duty in South Africa. We need not be ashamed of this. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition had the following to say in the no-confidence debate. I want to address him personally and draw his attention to a few points.

†I would like an unequivocal reply on behalf of the people of South Africa, especially on behalf of English-speaking South Africans. I am also putting this question to the hon. member who spoke just before me. The hon. Leader of the Opposition gave seven replies to one vital question and said, inter alia—

Sir, I think we need a clear reply now. What means “voile burgerskap”? Qualified vote? Why do we lie to people and try to bluff them? If it is full citizenship, it is full citizenship. Why should we tell the Black people of this country that they will be granted full citizenship if we know that it is not true?

*The National Party has said that it wants to grant them the full citizenship which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has asked for but in their own countries. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South must just listen for a moment. I concede here and now that I personally do not see the final answer to the problems, not only of the urban Bantu but also of the rural Bantu. I also readily concede that as far as the Coloureds are concerned, we do not have the final answer. We need a sensible Opposition to help us find the answers to these problems. Not only do we need an Opposition however, we also need Coloured and Bantu leaders to help us find solutions to those problems. This must take place on completely equal terms, but when I say “completely equal terms”, I say a priori that we remain in charge of our own affairs.

In the second place, we can only do those things which are within the bounds of what we know to be possible with the funds at our disposal. We must of course find the funds because these must be priorities. Has the Opposition not yet taken note of the say the non-White peoples already have? Is it news to them that a Coloured and an Indian leader were last year appointed to the Group Areas Board as fully-fledged members? Is it news to the Opposition that more and more land is being made available to those people, albeit still under a permit system? Is it news if I say that the Breë River Development Association is organizing a congress which will allow people to collaborate at a local level in the development of an area without having a seat in this Parliament? The same thing is happening in the case of the Western Transvaal Regional Development Association. Those are spheres and issues in respect of which the different population groups can co-operate.

Perhaps I ought to address myself to my own people, because I am afraid. Perhaps the unrest ought to tell us on this side of the House something as well. It has told me this. Leaving aside whether others agree with me or not, this has led me to ask whether we have performed our duty of informing our Black people of what the situation is. Sir, we have left it to the Progressive Party to go from place to place; we have left it to them. I know we sometimes hold this against them but have we the right to hold it against them if we on this side of the House—many of us—remain aloof as regards consulting with and talking to these people? Do we not have a task in that respect as well? And not in the same way as a book that was published recently, but in an objective way, because there are forces at work here which we cannot escape. If you were to read The World, Sir, you would see that a clear message is conveyed to the Progressives in a leading article. Together with the United Party, they are told: “We have no place for the Progressive Party but at least it is a little better than the United Party.” There are people who say that the death knell has rung for us. I do not believe this, because I believe in this nation, and the country, and its people.

You really are wooing the Nats fervently, not so, Tony?

That hon. member would do well to keep his hate for the Nats to himself.

I want to close by saying—and I am sorry that I have to say this—that there are many advisers amongst the academies, who give advice which I welcome, just as I welcome the advice of the Opposition and of the newspapers. But is it not necessary, in these times of danger, to make doubly sure of when we ought to keep quiet and when we ought to speak out? Is it not people on that side of the House in particular who ought to be aware of what they are saying? Their words can be used to make mischief. The speech of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North could just as well have been made in the inner chambers of the UNO, the way he was fulminating about apartheid.

If the cry of “Afrikaner” is raised, I say that I am proud of Dr. Wassenaar, as I am of all the economists of Afrikanerdom, not simply because they are Afrikaners, but because they were able to excel as Afrikaners. However, people must not take it amiss of us on this side of the House, the Afrikaner and the conservative English-speaking people, when we say the following about what Dr. Wassenaar wrote at the end of his book: “So far and no further.” Dr. Wassenaar says—

†It is not Afrikanerdom which is at the cross-roads, but all South Africa. I quote further—

It is not the Afrikanerdom which rules the RSA, because we have Mr. Horwood and thousands and thousands of English-speaking South Africans. Dr. Wassenaar is doing a disservice to the country which has done so much for him when he says—

I conclude by saying that Durbanville will soon have a by-election with three parties involved. The winner is known, i.e. the NP. It will, however, be very interesting to see who comes second.

*I take my hat off to an English-speaking person like the hon. member for Simonstown, as well as to all English-speaking people who are not afraid to bear the consequences and perhaps be kicked out in the next election.

On 5 February 1975 I said that the policy—not the people—of the PRP was ringing the death knell of Christianity and civilization in South Africa. It is written in Hansard. The policy of that party is going to lead to anarchy and to the total disintegration of a civilization for which White and non-White have given their lives, as they are still doing on our borders.

†The hon. member for Durban Point asked why we were so worried about them. My reply is that I am worried about the Opposition, because I am worried about South Africa. We need English-speaking South Africans and the Blacks in South Africa together with their responsible leaders. We need them, because they need South Africa. South Africa deserves the best of all of them. The challenge which is facing English-speaking South Africans today is not to join or merge with the PRP and to become buried in their ideologies, but to stand up for what their people have fought for and once again to fight side by side with all the Afrikaners and the Black people who love civilization and South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions has on various occasions already made stimulating speeches in this House, and he did so once again today. What I find very interesting in his speeches, is that he has the moral courage and honesty to be able to stand up in this House and say for all the world to hear that he is doubtful about the answers to the key questions of South Africa. There are not many politicians, no matter to which party they belong, who have the courage to say: “I, as a member of this party, do not have the final answer either.” The mere fact that there is doubt in the voice of that man, means this encouraging fact for me: Here I am dealing with an honest politician. This in itself is something to be proud of. The hon. the Deputy Minister concluded his speech by making a very interesting appeal.

I should have liked to have spoken about the economy, about bread and butter issues. I believe that it is high time that we in South Africa, in this House in particular, departed from what I call “high finance”—the lofty heights of finance in South Africa—and came down to the people below who sometimes find themselves in straitened circumstances. I shall return to this if time allows.

I should now like to say something, with reference to what the hon. the Deputy Minister said, about the co-operation between English and Afrikaans-speaking people in South Africa. The hon. the Deputy Minister addressed a plea to English-speaking people in South Africa, and I agree with him in that connection. Years ago I joined the UP because it has always been my urgent desire—this was also the urgent desire of each one of my colleagues in these benches—that South Africa must not be governed by one race group, but that South Africa must be governed by Afrikaans and English-speaking people together.

This is why we say that we want to build a united nation, not because we want to form a laager out of fear, but so that we can move out as a mighty nation to do our duty not only to ourselves, but also to the other races in South Africa. This is why my hon. friends here and I have spent a lifetime in pleading the cause bilingualism, because it is one of the mightiest instruments in achieving mutual understanding among the population groups. This is why we have advocated that the children of our nation to be brought together and that those things which divide the nation, should be eradicated. Therefore, together with the hon. the Deputy Minister, we believe that South Africa must be governed by Afrikaans and English-speaking South Africans.

But if that ideal has not been achieved, who must I blame for it? Would there be any justification in me accusing the hon. the Deputy Minister this afternoon of it being the fault of the Afrikaner for our nation not being united? Would there be any justification in the hon. the Deputy Minister accusing me this afternoon of our having made the mistake? We in South Africa do not have time to quarrel among ourselves, for in South Africa the times are pregnant with the destiny of a nation, and therefore I say to my English and Afrikaans-speaking friends: Yesterday is past, tomorrow does not wait for you or I, let us decide today to stand together in the knowledge that the Afrikaans-speaking people or Afrikaner nation in South Africa has achieved the wonderful position of not having to be afraid of anyone and of not having to take second place to any other White population group. If it comes to the question of give and take, then the Afrikaans-speaking people—I am one of them—need not be afraid of sometimes even giving a little more than they want to take. Their position is unassailable and they do not have to be afraid. If the Afrikaans-speaking people adopt the attitude that they want to give and take and that they want to stand together with others in order to govern South Africa, they will find that none of us would stand in their way—indeed, we will actively help to ensure that South Africa is governed in this way. This is the spirit we want in South Africa. However, the hon. the Deputy Minister did not stop there …

You really are wooing them fervently.

That hon. gentleman is just like the audience who attended last night’s performance of Othello. When they should have cried, they laughed—the hon. member is exactly the same. The hon. the Deputy Minister also referred to Dr. Wassenaar’s book and said that in the life of a nation it is important to know when to keep quiet and when to speak out. I have just said that in South Africa the times are pregnant with the destiny of our nation. No one knows this better or knew it better than Dr. Wassenaar did. Why did he choose the present time to publish that book? Even if every fact were correct, and even if I did not dispute a single fact, I still ask: “Dr. Wassenaar, why did you and the businessmen in South Africa use the scores of platforms which they have at their disposal in South Africa, to speak out against the political misdeeds of the Government, two, three or five years ago?” Where was he then? Now that our destiny is in the balance, I have to read this book. With all due respect to that hon. gentleman—I do not know him—I think that he should perhaps have remained silent now. He should have spoken earlier, but he should definitely have remained silent now.

The hon. the Deputy Minister said that we want to demolish apartheid. However, I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that if the NP could call back the days of 1948 now, it would never have chosen the word “apartheid”.

I agree.

Everyone agrees and I am pleased that the hon. gentleman says so. It is a negative concept. Why did they not rather refer to a pluralistic system of Government in South Africa? If one speaks of pluralism and the hon. gentleman says that I want to demolish it, I shall tell him: “No, I am not prepared to break down a system which means decentralization of power in the hands of each group so that it may control its own specific interests.” I am not prepared to demolish such a system.

The hon. gentleman also asked which concessions are being referred to. I am not speaking of concessions and I am not prepared to make concessions, especially not if people threaten me. However, I can say that I am led by my conscience and my conscience tells me that certain things are definitely necessary in South Africa, in fact very necessary. I shall give the hon. gentleman a few examples and I think that he will agree with me. For years—and I am speaking of myself as a private individual—I have been telling the Government: “You do not need job reservation because you know that, just like the word ‘apartheid’, it is a blot on the good name of your fatherland. Why do you not remove it?” Its abolition is not a concession; it is a dictate of our conscience. We have been telling these people for years: “Build up a responsible middle class in the urban Bantu areas. Give the people the privilege of owning their own homes so that they will have to have something to protect.” After all, these are not concessions; it is my duty that requires this of me. Recently we have regularly been making this appeal to the Government: “You agree and we agree that we must move away from discrimination. There is no doubt about this and it is not an issue. We want to help you, friends, but please let us get a move on so that something can be done.” This hon. Deputy Minister says that he wants to co-operate. But, does he want to co-operate? Can we help, and can we help South Africa? Does the hon. the Deputy Minister want to help us help South Africa? Who is the NP afraid of? After all, they cannot be afraid of their own duty to our fatherland. So I can continue to comment on the remarks made by the hon. the Deputy Minister.

However, I want to say that things in South Africa are not easy. It means very little to me—for I am not an economist—when people speak to me about “high finance”. However, I am concerned about the thousands of Whites in South Africa and I could talk about my voters who are going through extremely difficult circumstances. I cannot even talk about the non-Whites, because their circumstances must necessarily be much more difficult. When things are going well with a nation, it never looks for help from the Government, but when one is experiencing times like the present, one looks to the Government for guidance. I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Finance that I was disappointed, because we had been waiting for months for the Government to seize upon an opportunity to tell South Africa: “This is what we shall do to combat the problems of our country.” Unfortunately, in my modest opinion, we heard far too little. In difficult times the people expect the Government to take them into its confidence. The Government must be brought to the people. There are too many things hanging in the air, things of which the causes are quite obscure. Let us consider the recent squatter situation. How can we explain to any rational person how the Government can allow 10 000, 12 000 or 15 000 people to congregate together to the point of explosion and only then want to move them away? No matter what one says, one cannot explain it to anyone. Someone made a mistake—a ghastly mistake. That person must be found, and for the good of South Africa, if he is found, he must resign.

All of them.

Let us take the eruption in Soweto a few months ago. How did that situation develop? The Government cannot tell me that it did not know. Of course it must have known.

They have been told often enough.

Now that the damage has been done, only after the crisis has developed, does the Government appear on the scene. However, it is too late now. Surely we do not want a crisis Government. We want a sound Government for the people of South Africa. Let us take the question of fuel. Every day we have to read in the newspapers that here and there millions of rands of profit are being made, but nowhere do we find the facts. What are the facts about the fuel position in South Africa? We do not want to know any State secrets; we do not want to know any strategic secrets, but we know that there are leaks through which the money is escaping. I can take hon. members to my own constituency, or to my own residential area, Bellville. Over a distance of half a mile we have ten filling stations, all important sites, expensive sites with buildings, etc. Someone is paying for this, and I have an idea it is the consumer. How is it possible for something like this to happen? Let us take the question of television. What are the facts about television? Why does the Government not inform the people? Why does it not take the people into its confidence?

†We must take the Government back to the people in times of crises, now more than ever before.

*We expect this of the Government in all respects. Let us take the recent great Glen Anil crisis. Does the Government really want to tell us that it did not know that this situation was going to develop? A total of 4 000 people are involved in it, not only the purchasers, but also their families, wives and children. Action is only being taken now. This is crisis action. This is crisis government. No, in South Africa we expect sober government.

†We expect preventive government, not always crisis government.

*Therefore the Government must tell the people as soon as possible, in the months which lie ahead, where they want to take the people and what they want to do to avoid crises on the economic, foreign and domestic fronts in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I have always found the hon. member for Maitland a very compelling speaker. However, since he has been sitting in these benches, he is more compelling than ever. He seems to me like a bird which has escaped from a cage and is enjoying his new-found freedom. He made a very good speech. It is just a pity that towards the end, when he came to the fuel question, he gave a little too much petrol and possibly spoiled the speech a little.

The hon. member spoke about the relationship between Afrikaans and English-speaking people. We have no fault to find with this. The National Party settled this issue a long time ago. It is our policy that Afrikaans and English-speaking people in this country must and will live side by side, that they must and can co-exist, but that everyone will nevertheless have the right to retain those things which are his own. I think that the hon. member for Maitland succeeded in writing a very striking concluding paragraph to the discussion of Dr. Wassenaar’s book when he said that the book appeared at the wrong time altogether. I believe that that concluding paragraph dismisses the book as far as we are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the recovery of our economy will indicate quite unequivocally that South Africa still has people of sufficient calibre to overcome setbacks. Earlier this week, during the Second Reading debate, certain remarks were made about the South African, remarks with which I cannot agree. The hon. member for Newton Park said, inter alia, that he had encountered a spirit of pessimism among the South African public. My experience has been that our people are feeling the economic recession very deeply. Not only are they deeply away of it, but they feel it every day. However, my experience has also been that our people have confidence in the ability of South Africa to surmount these economic problems. Secondly they also have a strong confidence in the leaders of the day. There is also confidence in the Government which has given the people of South Africa the most prosperous years which this country has ever experienced. I am referring to the ’fifties and ’sixties. Therefore, there is also the confidence that the Government which gave them this prosperity, will also be able to overcome the present economic recession. Apart from the South African’s confidence, there is also a willingness to co-operate. In my experience one can go far with a South African if one is straightforward with him, if one is honest with him. I believe that, as far as our economic problems are concerned, the Government has always been honest with the public to date. We were honest in regard to the position of our balance of payments. We were also honest in regard to our fuel position. Therefore, the South African is not completely in the dark.

This afternoon I want to emphasize reliable economic information and not distorted economic information, not that type of information which economists make public from time to time because the present position does not suit them. I want to emphasize reliable economic information on the part of the Government and accommodation where necessary. I also believe that the economic recession is bringing out the best in our people. This does not apply only to our people, but to our companies and industries as well. The best is being brought out in regard to planning, productivity, utilization of manpower and time and also in respect of the correct use of credit. However, prosperity also has its drawbacks. The prosperity which South Africa experienced, also had its disadvantages for us. It is, however, just as true that setbacks also constitute potential advantages. I believe that the times we are now experiencing, will bring us great benefits.

Statesmanship, economics and politics go hand in hand, and for South Africa, as for any other country in the world, it is not only of the utmost importance that we should be economically strong, but also that there should be political order. Today there is political chaos not very far from our borders. That political chaos plunged a once prosperous country into famine and poverty. Where there is not political order and stability, there is also a total economic recession. In order to obtain and maintain local order, it is essential to take certain factors in South Africa’s set-up into account.

If I were to make a diagnosis of the sickly condition of the UP today—I almost feel like saying the moribund condition—one symptom emerges very clearly, viz. that that party did not take into account those factors which are present in South Africa. After almost three decades in Opposition, a policy should have crystallized. From their own ranks—they have experienced politicians at their disposal—from their own experience of South African politics and from every verdict at the polls, a policy should have emerged which should have made the UP a strong and worthy Opposition party. What went wrong? I believe that in South African politics there is a factor which one cannot ignore. Once one has recognized that factor, one can determine one’s policy and lay down one’s guidelines for the future according to it. One thinks of the forties when the NP was still in the Opposition benches. Then the names of Malan, Strijdom, Swart and Dönges come to mind. Those men came from the Opposition and put the NP into power so that it is still in power today, after 30 years. How did those men succeed in doing this? They succeeded in doing this because they recognized this factor in the South African set-up. South Africa does not merely have 20 million people, but a score of separate peoples, and therefore the 20 million people cannot under any circumstances be mixed together in one pot. In South Africa, provision must not merely be made for 20 million people; provision must be made in the first place for peoples. The population cannot be mixed in the political, cultural, social or any sphere. They are separated by boundaries which are not the result of legislation or of Government policy. They are boundaries which existed centuries ago, boundaries of culture, language, tradition, customs, practices etc.

In other words, factor number one in the South African politics is the unique structure of our population, and it is according to this factor that the NP determined its political guide-lines.

There are people who believe that one can ignore these natural dividing lines and come up with an ideal product with a policy of intermingling, an ideal product which will satisfy the whole world, satisfy the enemies of South Africa and result in heaven on earth in South Africa. Who are these people? Firstly there is the cry of the liberalist who simply wants to eliminate, who wants to eradicate boundaries completely, who does not want the existing world social order, as embodied in the diversity of peoples, any longer. In other words, he wants eradication and an elimination. There are the Whites in South Africa itself. There is the hon. member for Bryanston who was responsible for an emotional outburst here last Friday. He said he would welcome the day when Chief Buthelezi sits in this House. But it will not stop at Chief Buthelezi. He will not be able to give representation to only one leader of one nation. He will have to draw the line all the way through and in this way will obtain political intermingling. He was supported by the hon. sen. Bamford when certain questions were put to him in Durban North. It is these people who want us to have political mixing, political integration, in South Africa. Then there are those who are wilful. There are enemies who encourage a White hatred in South Africa. There are churches and church leaders, people who go about under the cloak of religion in South Africa and want to change South African society, who are today coming forward and claiming that the Church should come first and then the State. They want the churches to venture into in the sphere of the State and in this way overthrow South African society and our existing order. What do these people want to achieve? These people want to remove the boundaries between the peoples in order to create a permanently mixed community. They want to eliminate the existence of peoples and want peoples to disappear. They want to scrap the pattern of separateness in favour of a kind of amalgamation. This is impossible. Peoples do not amalgamate. Nowhere in the world has one found peoples which have amalgamated. They want a mingled existence as a way of life in all spheres, a mingled existence with all its dangers. What is the answer from the NP?

Oh, do tell us!

Yes, I shall tell that hon. member what the answer is. Perhaps he may learn something then, and might come right politically in the process. This idea of integration, of fusion, of intermingling, is not present in any policy of the NP in any respect. But what is present, is a separate political independence with which we have come a long way and which will take us further. Present in our policy is the say, the management, the control which every nation has over the things which are its own, for after all, every nation has those things which are its own. In our policy there is a social pattern of separateness founded on the natural boundaries, one which must be carried out honestly, fairly and justly. Present in our policy there is the removal of measures which hinder or prevent the natural co-existence of peoples in South Africa. The NP Government sees each nation as a nation, each with its own identity. This also means the recognition of the White nation. This is what the PRP does not want to do. They do not want to admit that various peoples co-exist here. I am afraid that in their plan there is no longer any place for the White in South Africa. This is also what the UP has always been shying away from. They are ashamed to admit it, and that is why the White voters reject them. The White nation of South Africa asks for security and a guarantee. This finds in the policy of the NP. The Zulus, the Venda and the other peoples also find their security and guarantee in the policy of the NP. The White nation asks for recognition of its initiative, of its spirit of enterprise, of its creations and its institutions. It asks for security and a guarantee for its own possessions and to use and retain what is its own. However, it does not demand everything for itself. It has already done a great deal for the other peoples in this country. Now the hon. member for Rondebosch sees fit to play the role of prophet or visionary. When he appears in Durbanville he says that there is a disintegration in the ranks of the NP and that he gives the party only two years to exist.

Mr. Speaker, I do not really want to use the word, but I want to tell the hon. member for Rondebosch this afternoon that this vulture-like idea of his does not suit an academic of his calibre. He is right in one respect. Nationalists differ; we differ a great deal, but we do not differ on the principle. We do not differ on integration. We have already rejected it. His party has not passed judgement against it, but in favour of it. The NP does not differ on the principle of a social pattern of regregation. The NP has accepted it. This is its policy, and it will carry it out. Nationalists do differ on its feasibility. However, this is the source of strength of the NP, and that is why it grows and goes from strength to strength. It is because Nationalists can talk and talk matters out and can also do things. This is why the voters follow the NP and this is why we have this scurry in the ranks of the Opposition parties. That is why there are already three Opposition parties here and might even be more in future. This is because they did not thrash out these matters and obtain clarity on them.

Mr. Speaker, the Opposition parties are now trying to create the impression that the NP wants to escape from its official word, i.e. that it is moving away from discrimination. They often quote Afrikaans-speaking people and quote Afrikaans-language newspapers in particular. Now I, too, want to quote this afternoon. I want to quote a person whom they have often quoted against us, Dr. Willem de Klerk. In the book “Perspektief op ons Partypolitiek en ons Politieke Partye” he says the following on page 39—

Then, Mr. Speaker, he goes on to say—

When was that book published?

Mr. Speaker, this book was published recently. At the end of last year. Now the hon. member for Maitland says, and I quote from one of his speeches in this House (Hansard, 1977, col. 264)—

I believe, as he does, that this is a wonderful ideal for South Africa, but after all we have the basis, as I have already said, in the policy of the NP. We in South Africa must accept that factor No. 1 is the structure of our population and that guide-line No. 1 is separateness from which discrimination has been removed. Only then will we be able to co-exist. We must co-operate in implementing this. The UP will have to accept it and then they will not have to call in people from outside in order to save them. The PRP must accept it and they must not make promises to other population groups which they cannot keep. Every nation with its leaders must accept this. Every nation in our country must do its share and every leader must do his share, because leaders of nations in South Africa have a responsibility towards their nations which they cannot escape. That responsibility can only be carried out along the road of separate development and coexistence, but not along the road of integration. The leader of a nation in South Africa who is under the impression that he can serve his nation along the road of integration, look after the interests of his nation and develop his nation, will also be the leader who will ultimately sell his nation.

Mr. Speaker, the one point made by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn to which I should like to react is the contention that is so often advanced that we who sit in these benches—in other words, the members of the PRP—do not recognize the reality of the existence of different groups, different peoples of different colour and different nationalities in South Africa. That, of course, is utterly untrue. We recognize these differences, but what we do not accept is that, there should be a concept of domination by one group over any other. It is for that reason that we reject Black domination and do not accept Black domination in South Africa.

I want to come to the address of the hon. the Minister of Finance, in the first place his attack on the hon. member for Johannesburg North for not being present in the House. I want to say, so that there is no misunderstanding about it, that the hon. member for Johannesburg North was not aware of the intention of the hon. the Minister to speak on this subject. I am informed by my party’s Whip that he was not aware of that, since the message was not communicated to him. However, even if he would have been informed, he would not have been able to come to the House.

But we told you yesterday.

I do not dispute that a Government Whip has told our Whip. I want to make it quite clear that a Government Whip asked our Whip whether the hon. member would be here. However, I am saying that the hon. member was not aware of the fact and even had he been aware, he would not have been able to come. These allegations of cowardice are therefore nonsense and I throw them back, with respect, Sir, with the contempt they deserve.

I want to deal with the merit of the hon. the Minister’s case. I want there to be no misunderstanding that we in these benches believe that it is the job of all of us to see to it that the economy of South Africa is as sound as it can possibly be. It is in our interest, in everybody’s interest that our economy is sound. It is essential for a sound economy that under the present circumstances in South Africa, in our existing state of development, there should be an inflow of capital. There is no question about it. To that extent it is our job and we do not dispute it—on the contrary, we try to carry it out—to see to it that people are encourage to invest in South Africa.

I want to take the hon. the Minister up almost immediately on the kind of misquotation in which he indulges. During his reply to the Second Reading debate he referred to a statement made or alleged to have been made by Dr. Zac de Beer. The hon. the Minister knows that there were members of his department present when that speech was made. Is that not right? He knows it! He also knows that at that very occasion I got up and asked Dr. De Beer, so that there should be no misunderstanding, whether he was reflecting the view as he saw certain foreigners have it or whether it was his view. He said: “No, it is not my view; on the contrary, I encourage investment in South Africa.” Either the hon. the Minister’s officials did not tell him that, or the hon. the Minister, having full knowledge of it, quoted only one part of that address.

[Inaudible.]

The simple issue is that he referred to the attitude of certain foreigners. The hon. the Minister knows as well as I do …

Rubbish!

How can you say it is rubbish? He knows as well as I do that there are certain foreigners who do not want to invest in South Africa and who do not regard us as being a secure investment. We disapprove of it and try to persuade them to the contrary. The hon. the Minister puts into the mouths of other people words which are not a true reflection of what they want to convey.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Yes, you may ask me a question.

I quoted word for word out of Business Week. Does the hon. member want to say that Business Week misquoted Dr. Zac de Beer? He must just say if that was a wrong quotation I gave.

Mr. Speaker, I have not read Business Week, so I do not know whether the hon. the Minister was quoting from it or not. [Interjections.] The hon. members must not say “oo” and “ah” like a lot of little doggies. I challenge the hon. the Minister to say that his office is not in possession of a copy of the complete speech of Dr. de Beer. I challenge him to deny that there were officials from his department who were present at that conference and who heard what was going on.

It has nothing to do with it.

Of course it has! If one knows the true facts and one takes a report in a magazine in order to demonstrate that it is wrong, it is legitimate, but if one does it in order to show that the person one quotes said something else, it is not right to raise pious protestations as the hon. the Minister has been doing this afternoon. With great respect, I want to challenge the hon. the Minister to answer those two questions in his reply, because they need an answer. The trouble with the hon. the Minister is that he seeks to create a state of unjustified euphoria in South Africa, as a result of which our people are not conscious of the seriousness which we face and as a result of which there are many people who are not prepared to make the sacrifices which, so I believe, the present economic situation requires us to make. The hon. the Minister is inducing that euphoria in South Africa. What he did the other day is another example. When the hon. the Minister quoted from his speech, I had a copy of his speech in Hansard, which I made a point of obtaining, before me. I looked at his reply to the Second Reading to try to find the quotations. I went through his reply to the Second Reading debate to find the passages which he was quoting from his speech, but I could not find them. I sent for his introductory speech to the Second Reading and found that what the hon. the Minister was doing, was that he was not quoting fo from his reply, which the hon. member for Johannesburg North was referring to, but was confusing the two speeches. He was relying on what he had said on another occasion, in order to extricate himself from the mess in which he landed himself. That is almost worse than what he did the other day. He is now—and he asked the Press to publish it, which I hope they will—committing something which is even worse. He is now confusing people by trying to convey the impression that he said one thing in one speech when he did not say it in that speech at all.

If one looks at his reply to the Second Reading in Hansard, one sees that he has not used one of the words which he quoted today in exculpation of what he had said. He must look at it again. He has made matters worse, because the truth is that there is not one single word which the hon. member for Johannesburg North has said which is not accurate; in fact, it comes out of the very mouth of the hon. the Minister himself that every word there is accurate. I want to quote from what he said on this occasion. I want to quote from the figures which indicate the volume of foreign capital we received during the last nine or ten years. I would like to place this on record, because it is high time it was done—

And then he goes on to quote the figures. Then he goes on to say (Hansard, 14 February, col. 1400)—

Nowhere in the figures which he quoted did the hon. the Minister say that he was telling us what came in, but that he was not telling us what went out. That is the truth of what the hon. the Minister did and now he is unable to take his medicine, because he has now been exposed. The selection of facts to serve a particular purpose is almost as bad as telling an untruth. That is the tragedy of this hon. Minister.

Order! Will the hon. member repeat what he said?

I said that the selection of facts in order to create an impression is almost as bad as telling an untruth. Is anything wrong with that? I am prepared to withdraw the word “almost” if you like, Sir.

Order! I must inform the hon. member that when it was said in this House that a particular statement was coming near to a lie, it was ruled to be out of order. What the hon. member is saying, in effect, is very much the same. I feel that he is not entitled to do so.

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that the hon. the Minister has selected facts in a particular way, and the impression which he has created both in this House and outside, is an impression which is, in my submission, utterly incorrect. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: That is not what the hon. member said. He has already repeated what he said, and that was in effect, that he accused the hon. the Minister of having told a lie. I ask that the hon. member should withdraw it.

Order! I feel that the hon. member should withdraw the last part of the sentence, viz. the words “is almost as bad as telling an untruth”.

I withdraw it, Sir. In his address, the hon. the Minister spoke about the fact that money was short overseas. Another hon. member spoke about this earlier on an quoted from The Citizen of 16 February and again we have a piece of selective quotation, because in that same article it says—

Amongst other things he quotes why there are these large amounts of money overseas. The tragedy is that because of the actions of the hon. the Minister and others of his ilk, we are not getting our share of this money.

In the short while that is left to me, I should like to deal with a little bit of politics. I believe that we in South Africa have very delicate race relations at the moment. When we fight elections, we should bear in mind the consequences of what we say in those elections in so far as they affect not only the White electorate, but in so far as they affect the Black people of South Africa and the outside world. I want to issue a challenge to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition today, not to put some other right wing gentleman into the debate to reply to me, but to come into the debate to tell us whether he approves of the campaign which is being conducted by his deputy chairman in the Transvaal, his leader of the provincial council in the Transvaal, Mr. Oberholzer. A racist campaign is being conducted in that election. It is a campaign which has been rejected by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, and he is on record as having done so, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has sat like a sphinx so far and has not said whether he approves or whether he disapproves of the racist propaganda which is being conducted in that campaign. We have the situation in Johannesburg at the moment that a campaign is being conducted by a political party which has given notice of its intention to go out of existence and which, through the mouth of its Transvaal leader, has in fact said that it is a party which has been destroyed. He subsequently said it was not the hon. the Leader of the Opposition he intended, but he kept to the fact that the party had been destroyed. The party is going out of existence and the leader in the Transvaal, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, has said that when it has been dissolved, everybody must decide where they are going. It is not clear where they are going. That party is fighting an election and, with great respect, how can one fight an election and say to the people: “Vote for me” when one is going out of existence? It is like asking people to buy a stand from Glen Anil when one knows that the company is going into liquidation. This is a Glen Anil election, with the greatest of respect. In the death throes of this political party, it is like a wounded animal. They fight with what they can, they sting at what they can regardless of the consequences and they do not care whether as a result of this … [Interjections.

Order!

This is not the whole of the United Party, this is the right wing of the United Party because there are many people in that party—including some who are sitting here and whom I could point out if I chose—who disapprove of these right wing tactics. It will be interesting to see where each one chooses to go. Let me give hon. members an example …

It is Avbob I.

Avbob I, yes, but what about Avbob II? Where is he going? Let me give hon. members an example. I quote again Mr. Oberholzer. Talking about the PRP policy, he said—

“Die Blankes sal oorrompel word!” That is the way an election is fought in a delicate race-relation situation. It is fascinating, and I want the hon. Leader of the Opposition to tell us where he stands on this racist platform. He must tell us whether he stands with Mr. André Fourie, because Mr. André Fourie has just gone on record as saying that as far as he is concerned, he rejects the concept of an open society. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is on record as saying that he supports the concept of an open society. Where does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stand? [Interjections.] If hon. members look at our policy they will see what we stand for.

What is your policy?

Let him tell us … [Interjections.]

Order!

Oh, what a noise! It is hurting them, is it not? He must tell us whether he agrees with Mr. Oberholzer. Does he say that we can have mixed buses in the Cape, whereas in the Transvaal we cannot have completely mixed buses and that one can only have certain race groups in these buses? Can he tell us that? Mr. Oberholzer has also said that he is fighting this election on the basis of no integration in residential areas. However, Mr. Gorshel, an ex-member of this House, said that he believed that if a man could afford to live in a better area, he should be permitted to do so. Prof. Geyser, one of the blue-eyed boys on that side—I do not know whether he still is after this—said that if the owners of a block of flats or the developers of a new township wanted their properties to be open to all races, then their wish should be respected. Now tell us …

That is not what Oberholzer said.

That is not what Oberholzer said? Oberholzer said that there would be no residential integration.

You are misleading the House.

Do not tell me that I am misleading, my friend. You do not know what your own M.P.C.s are saying. Let the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tell us whether he agrees with Mr. Oberholzer when he says there will be open toilets in Johannesburg over his dead body. Does he mean his political dead body or his actual dead body? Because his political dead body is going to come very quickly. I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the days of keeping quiet and of being a sphinx are over. He now has to choose sides. Is he on the side of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who rejects the racist platform that the Johannesburg municipal election has been fought on, or is he on the side of Mr. André Fourie and Mr. Oberholzer and their racist concept? Where do they stand?

Tell us where you stand.

Do they accept that in the death-throes of their party, a party they have announced they are dissolving, they are entitled to be reckless with race relations in South Africa, and that they are entitled to harm race relations in South Africa because they will be able to say there will be no more UP and they are not responsible for what the UP has done? That is one question that needs to be put. [Interjections.]

Order!

One can compare the situation with a hard-cover book and a soft-cover book. The hard-cover book of apartheid in South African politics is the NP. The soft-cover edition—the cheap one, the one that is not quite so good—is the right wing of the UP, but the contents are identical.

Mr. Speaker, the emotional outburst of the hon. member for Yeoville is rather strange music to the ears of most people. These pontifical moral sermons are totally ill-suited to a man with his political record. It is very interesting to note that he and his party themselves chose the platform upon which they wanted to fight during the municipal election in Johannesburg, and this was the platform of integration. Now, when other people want to oppose him and take the opportunity to criticize him on this, he tries to find the answers here in Parliament which he should have professed in Johannesburg. When I think that he is an ex-lawyer, I realize that we are actually dealing with a very strange experience here. It seems to me to be similar to a “breach of promise to marry”. I think that the hon. member’s indignation is probably due to the fact that he is now trying to obtain compensation. My impression is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has the 14 points while the hon. member for Yeoville has Kowie Marais. [Interjections.]

And a toilet as well.

Yes, and a toilet as well. Now I do not know who got the best of this bargaining. However, I do not think that it is relevant in this debate. I think it is particularly not relevant in regard to the point raised here by the hon. the Minister of Finance. The fact that he got up and tried to defend the hon. member for Johannesburg North, does not only do away with what the hon. member for Johannesburg North did. Nor does it do away with a general pattern of behaviour of hon. members of that group. I shall deal with that. What are the facts of the matter?

On 7 February, in his Second Reading speech, the hon. the Minister of Finance discussed the question of the capital flow. I am not going to go into the details of this at all at this stage. However, I immediately want to say that the hon. member for Johannesburg North is not able to follow the hon. the Minister of Finance when he speaks Afrikaans for various reasons. However, he had three days to go and read the translation of that speech because he only spoke on 10 February. I have his Hansard speech here by me. The only reference which he made at all to the question of capital flow, in or out, was merely a reference to the point which the hon. the Minister of Finance raised, i.e. that in the third quarter of last year there was a net outflow of R12 million.

This he will emphasize.

The rest of his speech, however, was devoted entirely to other aspects of policy. But what does he do now? The hon. member knew that the Third Reading would offer an opportunity for studying the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech and his reply to the Second Reading debate, and discussing it in the House, but he does not consider this good enough. On 14 February he issued a statement, a statement which I too reject. It implies two things. Firstly it implies that he is not prepared to become involved in a debate on this particular subject in the forum where it is proper to do so. The second implication, an important implication, is that after he had issued this statement, he found it difficult to keep to the truth. Thirdly it is synonymous with and symptomatic of that group never to accept or profess anything which is positive in regard to South Africa.

That is rubbish!

It may be rubbish but then the hon. member must put it in his pipe and smoke it because that is what he deserves. Sir, that group, individually and collectively, represents all the un-South African elements in South Africa. I shall return to the facts, because I want to prove my statement. Furthermore, those hon. members represent a new element in the political life of South Africa and that element consists of a group which realizes that they have no political alternatives for South Africa.

That is also untrue!

What is their policy after all? They want to ask a national convention what their policy should be.

What is your policy for South West Africa?

Let us not confuse the issue now.

†Let me simply say that I shall not rig the position in South West Africa as things are being rigged by members of that party in other spheres.

*1 think the hon. member knows exactly what I mean.

You are very childish!

The hon. members in that group have already decided that there is no viable possibility for them of producing a political philosophy as an alternative for the NP.

You are in for a big surprise!

Secondly I want to say that it is well-known that the strategy against South Africa from outside is assuming a totally new accent. I want to emphasize that on the road ahead the struggle against our country will be increasingly waged in the financial and economic spheres. However, this is not done for economic or financial reasons or considerations, but for the purposes of international politics. Instead of those hon. members revolting against the threat to our country in this sphere, they join in the communal choir which reconciles the foreign attack with the domestic economic struggle.

That is untrue as well!

I am accusing the hon. members of that, and I shall furnish the proofs of it.

These are untruths!

Sir, I shall furnish the proofs. The hon. member for Johannesburg North is an immigrant. Let me say immediately that South Africa is greatly indebted to immigrants for a great deal of its progress and development.

Decent immigrants!

Indeed, most of us are descendants of immigrants.

I hope so!

The fact remains that South Africa treated them well. I want to accuse the hon. member for Johannesburg North of having no loyalty towards his adopted country.

That is rubbish!

I want to accuse him of having no loyalty towards the country which enabled him to amass material wealth. I shall prove this.

That is rubbish!

Sir, I did not interrupt that member while he was speaking …

You did!

… although he spoke a great deal of nonsense. What is one of the prerequisites for the confidence of the outside world in any country? One of the cardinal requirements is confidence in oneself, confidence in one’s own people and in one’s country. If we enter the financial sphere, whose word is important when we have to create a situation of confidence: The people who invested a great deal of capital in the country, the people represented by those hon. members? Let us now put their behaviour to the test, and let us test my statements against the determined facts, against those things which we can determine. In this statement the hon. member for Johannesburg North—and this is important—says that the hon. the Minister of Finance was guilty of gross deception. Who deceived the hon. the Minister? I say it must have been the people in the forum where he spoke i.e. this House. Implicit in this is that you, Sir, allowed him to deceive the House. With all due respect, it is therefore not only an accusation against the hon. the Minister of Finance; it is also a further accusation—and I say this in all seriousness—because I think that the time has come for us to use the privilege of the House and not abuse it.

Just remember that.

Yes, I always remember it. Who else would have been deceived by the hon. the Minister of Finance? He apparently deceived the people outside and deceived future or prospective investors in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, do you know what the implication of an accusation of this nature means in the light of the sensitive position of an hon. the Minister of Finance’s? This is broadcast to the world. It is broadcast to the world that the hon. the Minister of Finance is somebody who creates misimpressions through gross deceit. Let me concede immediately, that should the accusation be true, I would have condemned the hon. the Minister myself. But the accusation is not true. Let us consider the substantive grounds for an allegation like this, an allegation which, I say, borders on a deliberate lie. Let us consider it in all fairness.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Is it parliamentary to say that a statement “grens aan ’n opsetlike leuen”? [Interjections.] I submit that in terms of your earlier ruling it is unparliamentary.

Order! Is the hon. the Minister referring to the hon. member for Johannesburg North?

To his statement.

Order! The rules of this House are applicable in this case as well.

I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Withdraw it.

Order! On the basis of my ruling I have to ask the hon. the Minister to withdraw the allegation.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker, and say that an allegation to the effect that there was gross deception on the part of the Minister of Finance, no matter by whom the allegation was made, is untrue. And I say that it is deliberately untrue.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permissible to say that a statement made by an hon. member is “opsetlik onwaar”?

Order! The previous aspect has been disposed of. The hon. the Minister is now speaking in general.

The hon. member for Yeoville behaves in a calculated way; he does not want me to finish my speech. Now what are the grounds for the accusation? That the Minister of Finance apparently kept silent about the fact (a) that there was a capital outflow. He said that the disappointing aspect of this is the fact that there was indeed an outflow of capital.

In a different speech.

He did not say that …

In a different speech.

Please! He said it during the Second Reading debate.

In a different speech.

Please, give me a chance.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville knows that there is a time limit. He used up all his time, and now he is trying to prevent the hon. the Minister from finishing his speech.

Have I not been interrupted too? [Interjections.]

Order! I request hon. members to give the hon. the Minister a fair chance to finish his speech.

Mr. Speaker, I repeat that it will be no use the hon. member for Yeoville keep on howling. The fact is that the hon. the Minister of Finance made both statements in the same debate, both the statement on the capital inflow and the one on the capital outflow. It was during the Second Reading debate of this Bill. In the second instance all the facts were known when the hon. member for Johannesburg North issued his statement on 14 February. This is the case, and it is therefore no use trying to patch up the matter with fine sounding words. What amazes me, is that the hon. member for Yeoville had to get up over there and ask Dr. Zac de Beer: “Exactly what do you mean now? Are you the ones who have no confidence, or is it the other people who do not have confidence?”

After all, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville and Dr. Zac de Beer are intelligent people; they have the ability of formulating things in such a way that they are not necessarily susceptible to doubt. However, if the hon. member for Yeoville doubts what Dr. De Beer said, what should other people do? What should those people do who do not know Dr. De Beer as well as the hon. member for Yeoville knows him? Or must I simply accept that they both meant the same thing?

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I want to tell those hon. members that it is no use saying pious things, things which come down to the fact that we must strengthen our economy. It does not help to say that that economic strength must be made possible through our political set-up. It is no use saying that our economic strength should enable us to ensure the development of our country in every sphere. It does not help to say that we must strengthen the economy in order to make our country militarily and otherwise prepared. It does not help to say all these things, while everything we do and everything we say belies the philosophy which we profess. The time has come for those hon. members on the other side to decide for themselves who are their kindred spirits in and outside South Africa.

Last but not least, I want to point out that what they do in the economic sphere, they also do in the political sphere. What are they doing in the political sphere? They are creating a revolution of expectations which cannot be fulfilled. [Interjections.] They are—consciously or unconsciously—leading the people of this country along the road of disruption, of tension and of conflict. They are weakening this country economically. I want to allege in all seriousness that they are doing this because they found that their activities in the economic sphere may possibly enable them to achieve that which they are unable to achieve in the political sphere. In summary, I believe that it is fatal to them. They will not make us in South Africa any poorer, but it is indeed to the disadvantage of South Africa, and I believe that they ought to orientate themselves in regard to this country.

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to …

Graaff is afraid?

He is not afraid of a rat like you! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Durban Point entitled to call an hon. member “a rat like you”? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Durban Point must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that Graaff was afraid, and I said: “He is not afraid of a rat like you.” [Interjections.] I withdraw the word “rat”.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that the greater part of the time allocated to me was taken up by a feud between the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Yeoville. [Interjections.] To use the simile of the hon. member for Yeoville, that the hon. gentlemen opposite me are like a hard-covered book and that we are like a similar book with a soft cover, I think that it is fair to say that both are preferable to a comic strip. [Interjections.]

You have chosen sides, Cad!

The hon. member for Yeoville has made an attack on my colleagues in the Johannesburg municipal council in regard to the elections which are taking place there. When a capable man, a man who is trained to use language precisely as the hon. member for Yeoville is, a capable trained lawyer, has to resort to emotive words like “right-wing”, “verkramp”, “racist”, “enlightened” and this sort of expression which are capable of no precise meaning at all, but are merely indicative of opinion, and one makes no reference at all during such an attack to the real policies which he condemns, then you realize that, not only is he on the defensive, but also that his armoury is empty.

Why did Japie reject it? [Interjections.]

Let us see precisely what we are talking about. One of the policies being advocated by Mr. Oberholzer in the elections in Johannesburg—I have it here in front of me, but I cannot quote everything verbatim because there is no time—is that there should be two types of residential areas for the various races: exclusive areas for those who want it and mixed residential areas to be established for those who want it. [Interjections.] The trouble that I have had for so long with those gentlemen is their doubletalk. I have spoken about it before.

I have got here the manifesto of the Reform Party which was valid until about a year ago, when the marriage took place between those gentlemen. [Interjections.] Sir, that was not a slip of the tongue. The pamphlet, which I have got in front of me, of the Reform Party of which the hon. member for Yeoville was the chairman deals in item No. 2 with the question “Freedom of choice”—

Then we come to residential areas—

In other words, what Mr. Oberholzer is advocating in the municipal elections in Johannesburg at this moment, is precisely the standpoint of the hon. member for Yeoville a year ago and, as far as I know, is still his policy at the present time. Or has the hon. member abandoned that for a new policy?

[Inaudible.]

No, I am asking you. [Interjections.]

Answer! [Interjections.]

Order!

The other thing I want to deal with, is the question of schools. Mr. Oberholzer said in Johannesburg that as far as Church schools were concerned, they could be multi-racial if they preferred it. Yesterday he seconded a motion in the provincial council recommending that Church schools should be free to be multi-racial if they wish. As far as State schools are concerned, he advocates that they be for single races, each race to have its own. If one looks at last year’s policy of the Reform Party, of which the hon. member for Yeoville was chairman, one finds precisely the same thing set out. What was the Progressive Party’s policy statement in respect of schools before their marriage? I read from the policy statement—

What a year ago was the best policy in the world, a policy of the highest morality and of the greatest intellectual purity for both those two hon. members, the hon. members for Sea Point and Yeoville, is now regarded by them as wicked, racist and “Swart gevaar” propaganda by the UP. [Interjections.] Let us have a little realism in this debate. When we make accusations against each other, let us make them on the policies as they are and not as we fancy them to be. Let us, furthermore, use language which is suited to the occasion. I enjoy a fight as much as anybody else does—probably even more than many in this House—but let us at least be adults when we do it and keep to reality and facts.

I can say a great deal more about the alleged Black manifesto which was referred to by the hon. member for Yeoville, but I have quoted two specific examples where the allegation of racialism and “Swart gevaar” is totally invalid, unless it applied equally to the policies of the whole of that party only 12 months ago. The reality about discrimination and separate facilities is that one sets up an ideal to do away with it. I think I made a public statement to the Press about a year ago in which I said that some things one could do today while some things took a little longer.

I want to deal with the other attacks which have been made on me recently, particularly by the hon. member for Yeoville and by a certain Max Borkhum, of whom the House has heard. The attack was in the first place that I had deliberately tried to wreck the weekend talks, that I went there just to wreck the talks. I want to analyse those allegations to see what amount of sense lies behind them. What is the position in my province, in which I have the privilege of being the leader of my party? Shortly after the announcement of the initiative by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, we had in that province the largest congress we ever had of the UP, as far as I can remember, because of the enthusiasm generated by that initiative. Immediately after that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a tour of my province in my company, a tour which was organized by me, to preach the cause of his initiative. At every function—and there were eight or ten of them—throughout the province we had better and more enthusiastic attendances, not only of the UP people, but also of people who support the PRP and the Government. [Interjections.] The whole Nat council of Newcastle came to a function given by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Let us as ordinary sensible people analyse this allegation which has been made against me. Would any man in his senses, a man who has taken upon him the duty personally to work up enthusiasm for a cause—and it has gone through the province like wild-fire and has had the unanimous support of the biggest congress of his own party that has been held—be likely to cut his throat by going into a function of this kind in order deliberately to break it? It only has to be stated for the absurdity thereof to be seen.

I now want to deal with that pillar of rectitude, The Cape Times. I love The Cape Times, because they always expose themselves to attack. They say—

Let us take a look at the substance of that allegation. What has been the position in Natal during the last five years … [Interjections.] … during the time I have had the privilege of being the leader of the UP in that province? I do not only lead the UP in that province, I also lead the party that governs it. I can state categorically that during that time the UP-controlled provincial administration in Natal did more to ease race relations and to do away with petty restrictions in that respect that any other governmental body in South Africa, and I propose to demonstrate it. We have set up at two levels of administration multi-racial consultative councils at which we have represented not merely prominent Black, Brown and Indian people, but also Ministers of the various councils of those racial groups. People holding ministerial office are prepared and do accept office on our consultative council, and these work. Another example is that we were the first in South Africa to give our non-White traffic policemen exactly the same powers as their White counterparts, including the power to arrest persons from any racial group. It is the UP that has brought in the innovation in private hospitals that where no White staff is available, White patients can be nursed by Black staff. It is the UP provincial council that has given full backing to the Church schools, should they wish to admit pupils of races other than White. It is the UP that has pioneered multi-racial canteens in South Africa for the staff in those hospitals for a variety of races. It is the UP in Natal who for years, under my administration, has had mixed regional water corporation boards and mixed hospital boards. It is the UP administration under my leadership that has consistently opposed the “afbakening” of beaches under the control of the province. I issue this challenge to the hon. gentlemen sitting on my left, to name one sphere of provincial administration in my province where the PRP has come out openly and criticized us for not going far enough quickly enough in the field of race relations. I have yet to hear it. As far as I know it does not exist. I can say a great deal more about the weekend talks, but I have two minutes left.

What is the object of this campaign? It is the old, old campaign; it has been there for the last four years, and the object of the campaign is to divide and rule, as it has always been. The object of the campaign is to split the UP, so that there will be—so it is believed—an accretion of strength to the PRP, not so that they can become an alternative Government, because that horizon they will never see, but so that they can constitute the official Opposition on this side of the House. That is the limit of the horizon of these hon. gentlemen.

Let me say one other thing. The object of the initiative is to provide a group of people together, principally from the ranks on the other side, so that the newly-formed party can constitute a greater threat to the Government. If that is the intention—I say this perhaps in a lighter note—I wonder who is likely to provide the greater draw for dissatisfied Nationalists: the hon. member for Sea Point or myself.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 73.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to this debate, and in my opinion, very little has been said regarding financial and economic matters and the policy of this Government to which there is any need for me to reply. As my hon. friend, the member for Malmesbury, said in a well-considered speech, the Opposition produced a rehash of stale arguments.

The hon. member for Constantia did, however, raise certain issues. He put certain questions, and I would like briefly to comment on a few of them. He talked again of overspending between 1973 and 1976. I quoted figures in my Second Reading speech in some detail to refute the argument that there had been any gross overspending. I would just like to add these figures, although I do not want to labour the point with a lot of statistics. If one takes consumption expenditure by general Government—that is all levels of Government—and one expresses it as a percentage of gross domestic expenditure, i.e. the aggregate of all expenditure, the figure was 13,1% in 1972, 12,3% in 1973 and in 1974, and 13,8% in 1975. If one takes defence expenditure out, because this expenditure has of course by design been escalating very rapidly, the percentage of all Government expenditure, excluding defence, as a percentage of gross expenditure was 10,8% in 1972, 10,3% in 1973, 10,1% in 1974 and 10,3% in 1975. This is a remarkably constant rate of Government spending. One can judge it by comparing it with the position in any number of those countries where it might be conceded that there is not excessive spending. None of these figures can accordingly be said to denote overspending.

Overspending is spending more than one can afford. It is as simple as that.

Certainly not. The great test is after all that this budget, even including supplementary or later figures, only gives an expenditure increase amounting to possibly 13% over the previous year, which is only very little over the rate of inflation. Despite all that, the test is whether we are balancing the budget. [Interjections.]

Order!

If there is over-expenditure there must be a deficit on the budget. I levelled a friendly warning at the Opposition the other day not to talk too soon. Let us look at the budget and see whether there is a deficit.

We will come back to it.

We will certainly come back to it. I cannot escape it.

The hon. member also talked about housing schemes and said that housing schemes, to relieve unemployment, could be financed from tax-free bonds and index-linked bonds. Housing is of course one of the great priorities of this Government and it has been for many years. I venture to say again today that probably in no field of all the Government’s achievements has the Government achieved greater success than in regard to the provision of housing over the last few years. It is in fact a most remarkable achievement. In regard to the question of financing, the hon. members knows that tax-free bonds are already available on a quite substantial scale. As far as the index-linked bond is concerned, we took the trouble to have that idea examined very closely by an expert committee. Amongst the members were Dr. Franzsen and Mr. Wynand Louw, the Registrar of Financial Institutions.

They brought out what I regard as a very useful report. On balance, they advise very positively against index-linked bonds, for reasons which they stated very clearly. I must say I find their report an impressive one.

The hon. member for Constantia asked what we are going to do about fighting inflation once the inflation manifesto comes to an end at the end of March. We are going to go right on fighting it. The fact that this voluntary campaign—if one might call it that—is officially brought to an end does not mean that we are not going to continue our monetary and fiscal policies and the various other restraints we have, for example, our restraints in the field of salaries and wages, which has been a very important factor. As far as we are concerned, these will continue. We hope that the private enterprise economy will evidence that same type of restraint. It is, in fact, only in regard to prices and wages that this campaign will really come to an end. All the other measures continue.

The hon. member again spoke about deficit financing. I must say that I still find it very difficult to follow him, but perhaps I could just quote him a few figures. He spoke about the fact that we were engaged in deficit financing, and he mentioned, in particular, the period from June 1973 to June 1976, if I understood him correctly. I might just mention that the current surplus of general government, i.e. all government levels and all activities under those levels of government, was as follows: 1972, R418 million; 1973, R965 million; 1974, R1 230 million; and 1975, R867 million. Taking the whole field of Government activity at all levels into consideration, if those surpluses have, in fact, eventuated, I cannot see how one can talk of deficit financing by this Government. The hon. member, of course, repeated the statement that I had painted too rosy a picture. My speeches are recorded in Hansard and I stand by everything I have said, but I do think that it is regrettable that every time a point is made, backed by figures and facts showing that there has been a favourable development in our economy, that there has been an improvement in some directions or that a strain on an aspect of our economy is less than it was, there is a howl of objection from the Opposition, and that goes for the whole Opposition. I think that this is a most remarkable phenonemon. What precisely does the hon. Opposition think they are doing? What do they think they are going to achieve by this? When have I, in putting the facts and the figures, overstated the case? In a moment I shall touch very briefly on what was said by the hon. member for Johannesburg North.

As far as the economy and the financial position are concerned, conditions are tight. I have said this time and again. We do have problems, but we certainly do not have a negative growth rate, as the hon. member for Constantia said. I do not know what came over him to say that. We have a positive growth rate. As far as I can judge on the basis of preliminary statistics, I put the growth rate at a real rate of about 1% last year, though I am told it could perhaps be 1½%.

That means it is negative on a per capita basis.

In relation to the condition in which the world economy finds itself, this is an achievement. I am not overstating the position now. How many important economies today are not still labouring under negative growth rates? How is it that South Africa, in the course of this depression which is now entering its third year, has nevertheless throughout managed to achieve a positive growth rate?

Not per capita.

This is not something one can simply talk away by saying that I am painting a rosy picture. The facts are there. I am quoting the official figures.

Not per capita.

He did not say what the per capita figure is.

The hon. member spoke about the capital inflow. I should like to reply to him. He asked how much money came in from the IMF in the fourth quarter. It was R160 million. That was the compensatory financing we received. The figure I quoted for that last quarter was a very preliminary figure. It looks in fact as if the total capital inflow might have been somewhat nearer to R300 million than to the R240 million he has deduced from these figures. However, as I say, the figure is still very preliminary. Nevertheless, it is somewhat better than R240 million. I think that, considering the conditions we found ourselves in and considering the condition the world capital market found itself in, this is a very fine achievement. Why should I not say that? I have Morgan Guarantee Trust Company’s well-known publication World Financial Markets here. One has only to read this to see the tremendous demand that exists on available capital funds throughout the world. Countries, corporations and others are standing in a queue for the pool of money that is available. We are one of them. So, to say that the conditions are not tight, is something we cannot possibly accept.

The hon. member also criticized me for something else I said. I said that overseas capital was important to us and always had been. I said that we welcomed it and certainly could make productive use of it. However, I said that it was not decisive. I used that word very deliberately because if one takes out the very exceptional figure of almost R1 900 million inflow in 1975, the average over the last 10 years is approximately 10% or 11% of our total capital requirements. I am not saying it is not important. Indeed, I have always said it is important. However, as I have said, it is not decisive. We simply have to adjust our whole scheme of things ahead if conditions get tighter.

Sir, I do not propose to say very much about the attempt—I think I can say in all fairness that it was a completely abortive attempt—which the hon. member for Yeoville made today in an endeavour in some way to defend his absent colleague, the hon. member for Johannesburg North. I think the hon. member might possibly agree with me that if there is one speech he must regret ever having made in the House, it is this speech he made today. What did he in fact do? Apart from trying to draw a few red herrings across the trail, he achieved absolutely nothing. In fact, he actually descended to querying what Zac de Beer said. I have Business Week here. The hon. member had better get in touch with this magazine if he queries this, because it quotes Dr. Zac de Beer as follows—

That, Sir, together with the statements made by the hon. member for Sea Point which I quoted the other day and the statement made by the hon. member for Johannesburg North and others from that party, are successively quoted in this magazine against us. That he cannot get away from. No matter what he says, that is what Zac de Beer is quoted as having said. What has it got to do with it whether an official of mine was at a conference or whether I know or do not know whether the hon. member for Yeoville questioned Dr. Zac de Beer as to what he meant? He meant what he is quoted as having said in this magazine.

You are quoting selectively.

There is another very remarkable thing I want to refer to. I really think that my hon. friend, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, absolutely annihilated the case the hon. member for Yeoville somehow tried to make out on this issue. There is very little I can add. What strikes me as being most remarkable is that the hon. member for Yeoville should tell the House that the hon. member for Johannesburg North knew nothing of the fact that this was going to be dealt with in the House today. After all, his Whips were informed late yesterday afternoon that I was going to deal with the attack on me by the hon. member for Johannesburg North and that we should like him to be present in the House at this time.

He was not informed.

That simply means that his party’s Whips are not carrying out their work.

The man simply could not come.

Sir, I leave that for the House to judge. Another point I should like to make concerns the fact that my introductory speech to the Third Reading was deliberately on this issue. I examined the facts I gave to the House very carefully. Let us not be confused by the nonsensical reference to my Second Reading speech and my reply to the Second Reading debate on this Bill. Anybody in this House or elsewhere who knows anything about parliamentary procedure knows what a Second Reading speech is and what a reply to the Second Reading debate comprises.

You do not.

To say that because I dealt with certain facts in the Second Reading speech and with others in my reply to the Second Reading debate meant that I was confusing the issue, is to my mind the most puerile thing I ever heard. I made these two speeches in the same debate and the facts are there. As my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs said, when the hon. member for Johannesburg North spoke on 10 February, he had no fault to find with my speech; he had no fault to find on this issue at all. In other words, three days after I had spoken and had given a great deal of detail on foreign capital, he had no fault to find. Then, on the 14th, while this debate was still in progress, between the Second Reading and the Third Reading, he runs to the Press outside this House—he could have spoken today; he could have spoken the other day— and makes this statement, which I think reflects extremely seriously on him. I repeat: It shows exactly what a poor respect he has for this House.

He is a South Africa hater.

Yes, he is an alien and has brought an alien philosophy into this House; he has brought an alien philosophy into this country. I shall have more to say about that on another occasion. [Interjections.] After the statements which the hon. member for Johannesburg North has been making over the period of the last few years, I think I am fully entitled to say that. I stated today that if I were guilty of this gross misleading of the House—because I spoke in the House—it would be a very serious matter for me. But I also said if I were not guilty, then it would be an extremely serious matter for the hon. member for Johannesburg North. Then he would be guilty of the most irresponsible, damaging and unpatriotic act of which he possibly could be guilty, because he would then in public, without justification and with no foundation whatsoever, have attacked the credibility of a Minister of the South African Government. It is extraordinary to me that the hon. member for Yeoville, who interceded on behalf of his colleague today, should not have dealt with this at all. I called upon the hon. member for Johannesburg North, on the facts, unconditionally to withdraw this attack on me which he made in public outside this House or to move in this House that this matter be investigated by the House in the traditional manner. How is it that the hon. member for Yeoville completely ignored that? The hon. member for Johannesburg North must not think that because he has run away from this House, that he is going to escape his due; that is not the way this distinguished House operates.

He has not run away.

Of course he has run away!

That is an untrue statement.

He has attacked me; he has attacked me outside the House, and he has not got the courage to stand up here and explain himself.

You are making an untrue statement and you know it.

I now want to return to the Press. The Cape Times had a front page statement of the hon. member for Johannesburg North yesterday morning containing this attack and this allegation on me. They were part of this; they gave it publicity and said this was grossly misleading. They published that. Last night The Argus, not to be outdone, presented this same issue and quoted a whole number of bankers—all of them unnamed, all anonymous—bankers and businessmen who all said that I had misled people on this issue. I want to know who those bankers are. I want to know from The Argus who those bankers are so that I can deal with them.

You think you can.

No, I am not only thinking. [Interjections.]

There is freedom of speech in South Africa.

We have certain standards, and I do not want a nameless, an anonymous attack on my integrity. Let the man stand up and I shall deal with him. I want to see, Sir, what these newspapers are going to make of this issue which has been put in this House today, because my speech is on record and the facts are on record. Mr. Speaker, I will always accept the verdict of this House on a matter of this kind.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. the Minister introduced this legislation at Second Reading he was at pains to say (Hansard, February 15, 1977, col. 1501)—

That is what the hon. the Minister said when he introduced the Bill at Second Reading. When I later asked him whether he had a copy of the report, he said: “Daardie verslag het niks met hierdie saak te doen nie.” I cannot understand that, Mr. Chairman. The hon. the Minister first says that the proposed amendment is in accordance with the recommendations of the interprovincial committee of inquiry and then when I asked him later whether he had a copy of the report, he said: “Daardie verslag het niks met hierdie saak te doen nie.” I think he owes this House an explanation. Why does he say: “Dit het niks met die saak te doen nie,” if he is basing the whole of the legislation on the report? I think the least we should have had, was the recommendations of the report. Later I asked the hon. the Minister whether he had seen the report and whether I could see it. Then the hon. the Minister said: “Ek het nie die interprovinsiale verslag gesien nie en ek stel ook nie daarin belang nie. ” What an extraordinary statement, Mr. Chairman! He does not take any notice at all of this report, and he is not prepared to take any interest in it, although he is basing this very legislation on it.

Later, the hon. the Minister agreed to let me have a copy of the report, and I shall be very glad if he will let me have it as soon as he can. I should particularly like to have it before the Third Reading. The hon. the Minister said that this legislation was in accordance with the recommendations of the report. I cannot understand how he can say that, how he can know that, if he has not read the report.

If we consider what the hon. member for Waterkloof said, what do we find? He berated me at some length for daring to raise this matter, because, as he said, I as a member of the Select Committee, knew all about it. But, Mr. Chairman, that report was never available to the Select Committee. All we had in the Select Committee was a member of that committee saying that they were going into the matter and that they would report in due course, but he could not tell us when. Then, when the hon. member for Waterkloof was asked whether he had seen the report, the hon. member for Waterkloof said: “Ek het nie die verslag gesien nie. ” Later on the hon. member for Waterkloof said (Hansard, February 16, col. 1495)—

He said further—

That I cannot understand either. We had the hon. the Minister, when introducing the legislation, saying that the legislation is based on the report, and the hon. member for Waterkloof saying …

But you are now talking rubbish.

… that “dit het niks met hierdie Raad vir die doeleindes van die wetgewing te doen nie”. I do not know who said “Jy praat twak”, but I suggest that if that hon. member sees the hon. member for Waterkloof, he should tell him “dat in sy toespraak gister hy ’n bietjie twak gepraat het”.

Now we have to deal with this provision in the Committee Stage. We heard a great deal from the hon. member for Walmer and the hon. member for Yeoville as well as from the hon. member for Durban North and I make bold to say that none of those gentlemen knew what it was all about, not one of them.

Rubbish.

The hon. member for Walmer says “rubbish”, but I believe that he is echoing the remarks I made to the hon. member for Yeoville yesterday when I said “rubbish”.

You have been talking rubbish for the last 10 minutes.

The hon. member for Walmer believes that I am against provincial autonomy and he cannot understand why I am attacking this Bill because this Bill is all about provincial autonomy. The same applies to the hon. member for Yeoville. I do not know if they now think alike because they sit so near to each other.

You are again talking rubbish.

The hon. member for Durban North said that this is a wonderful piece of legislation and that he could not understand how anybody could object to it.

I cannot understand how those hon. members can be prepared to accept this legislation just as it is. I should now like to refer to clause 1. This clause does not deal with provincial autonomy. We on this side of the House respect provincial autonomy and are pledged to do all we can for its maintenance and enhancement. That has always been the point of view of this side of the House. In particular, it has been my point of view and it is something that I find very near and dear to my heart. The last thing on earth I would do would be to say that I am not in favour of provincial autonomy or to do anything to break it down. This clause has got nothing whatsoever to do with provincial autonomy. In fact, the clause deals with the right of a local authority to expropriate. That is all the clause deals with: The right of a local authority to expropriate. We on this side of the House support the right of a local authority to expropriate. We have nothing against that. However, this clause seeks to empower a local authority, when expropriating, to pay compensation to a land-owner on a basis other than that provided for in the Act. I think that is a very important matter. When we look again at the conclusion of the speech of the hon. member for Waterkloof yesterday, we see that he, after having berated me for daring to attack the Bill, said—

But that is exactly what that hon. member is now voting for. The hon. member for Waterkloof has voted for “die afbreek van eenvormigheid”. Clause 1 will in fact allow local authorities to pay less compensation than is provided for in the Act for land expropriated for the purposes of construction or maintenance of a public road or any water, electricity, drainage or sewerage works. That is the crux of the matter. That is what the clause is going to do, because the clause now invokes the provisions of section 26(2). Section 26(2) states that in cases where land is expropriated for road purposes certain other provisions are going to apply—in other words, we do not know what they are, but they are not going to be the same as what is in the Act. Section 26(2) is a saving clause. When it invokes section 26(2) it seems that when a local authority expropriates land, it must do it in such a way that section 26(2) comes into operation. When section 26(2) comes into operation, it can mean anything. I quoted a few examples here today of what it could mean. I said that it could mean the sort of compensation which we now find in the Cape’s Road Ordinance of last year, i.e. a lesser amount of compensation than that provided for in the Act. The clause also empowers a local authority to expropriate materials and water from a landowner for the purposes of construction or maintenance of a public road, without payment of any compensation whatsoever. I say that in particular reference to the Cape Road Ordinance which was passed last year, because that ordinance specifically says that when material and water are taken from a landowner no compensation need to be paid unless those materials are being exploited at the time of expropriation or that water is conserved in water works. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, if any confusion still exists about this particular Bill and its clauses, it can only exist in the mind of the hon. member for Wynberg. I can only say that I cannot ascribe to ignorance the hon. member’s unyielding opposition, but rather—and I say it reluctantly—to wilfulness. What is very interesting is that the hon. member has now radically changed the story he dished up to us in the Second Reading debate. Apparently it has dawned on the hon. member in the meantime that Sir John Cradock is dead, and he has now advanced other reasons in the Committee Stage. We have already had the most amazing arguments from the hon. member. If he had taken the trouble to read the Cape Ordinance of last year, he would have noted from it that Sir John Cradock’s proclamation was made null and void, because that proclamation provides, in section 34, that in spite of the fact that there may have been a servitude or whatever in favour of the state in the Deed of Transfer, authorizing the State or the provincial administration to take land or whatever it may be from a farm without paying for it, there is in fact an obligation on the province to pay compensation. In that ordinance the ordinance of Sir John Cradock—I think the hon. member for Wynberg dreams about him at night—is finally put paid to. Apart from that, the hon. the Minister of Justice came to this House with legislation at a later stage, which finally laid Sir John Cradock to rest.

After all, there are very sound reasons for the expropriation of land. It must be noted that the only change made to the Act that was placed on the Statute Book last year, is that relating to expropriation. The position is that the provisions of the Bill effect no change to the case of a local authority taking land or water for the purpose of building roads without expropriation taking place. We know that it is only in exceptional cases that provincial administrations or local authorities expropriate land for the purposes of road building. According to the provisions of the ordinances in question in all the provinces, the provinces have the right to occupy a man’s land for the purposes of building a road, and compensation is paid to such a person, but this is in fact done without the land actually being expropriated. This is common knowledge and I think the hon. member for Wynberg ought to know it. It is only in really exceptional cases that the expropriation procedures will be adopted, because in most cases it is unnecessary for the provinces to make use of them. The hon. member’s chief objection is that he now does not know on what basis the province will have to pay compensation to the landowner if it does in fact expropriate or use land for road-building purposes. I do not know how the hon. member can make a statement of this kind, because if he had taken the trouble to read sections 34 and 35 of the Cape Ordinance—I would like to assume that he has read them—he would have seen that express provision is made for the basis on which compensation will be paid. Provision is made for compensation to be paid at market value. This is expressly provided for there; what more, then, does the hon. member want?

I want you to read it.

I can give the hon. member the assurance that I have in fact read it thoroughly. I infer that the hon. member has read it, but that he did not understand what it said.

Read page 41.

I do not think the hon. member is really stating a case here. Historically we have seen that the hon. member has been conducting an endless vendetta with a certain Sir. This Sir has now finally been laid to rest, but the hon. member for Wynberg is unable to give up his favourite hobby horse.

Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully to the hon. member for Wynberg and I understood him to say that the hon. the Minister promised him a copy of the report of the interprovincial committee. I feel that the hon. the Minister should extend that privilege to me as well. I should like to have a copy of the report of the committee, but I do not need the report in order to participate in this debate. I am going to hand the report to my colleagues in the provincial council. I am going to ask them to debate the matter in the provincial council because if section 34 of Ordinance No. 19 of 1976 is not good enough, they ought to make it good enough. Therefore, I want my copy for a different purpose than the hon. member for Wynberg. The hon. member for Wynberg is a man who takes a keen interest in this matter and I should like to know from him whether, when the ordinance was published in 1976, he made representations to his own member of the provincial council at the time and, if so, whether he asked his member of the provincial council to make those representations on that particular ordinance and, if so, with what results. I think this matter falls under our provincial authorities. No matter what the hon. member for Wynberg says about his respect for the autonomy of the provinces, but I feel that for us to debate this matter shows a lack of respect for the autonomy of the provinces. The proper thing for the hon. member for Wynberg to do, is to brief his member of the provincial council, and those other members who support him. They should be briefed to deal properly with this matter in the session of the provincial council which starts next week.

The hon. the Minister will remember that during the Second Reading debate I said that section 34 did not go far enough with the formula. I felt there were inadequacies. However, I think there is a proper chamber for this matter to be rectified. The hon. member for Wynberg was my leader in the provincial council and I think he is probably missing the provincial council, as I often miss it myself, but as it is no use reminiscing about the old provincial council days, I think we should keep to parliamentary matters here.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Barberton said that Sir John Cradock was dead and buried.

Avbob buried him!

However, I am now going to say what I want to say in English because I think that might improve matters somewhat.

†I want to say that Sir John Cradock may be dead, but I think it is best said this way: “John Cradock’s body lies a-mouldering in the grave, but his spirit marches on.” That is what I believe is happening and the point of my argument is that these things are still going on. I would briefly like to deal with the hon. member for Barberton.

*The hon. member said that I was confusing the taking of land and the expropriation of land. Both are allowed in terms of section 5 which is being amended by clause 1 of the Bill. I use the word “expropriation” to cover not only that concept, but also the taking of land. I am therefore using the word in its wider sense.

The question of the taking of land has been in the Act since last year.

No. They are both there and both were already there last year.

Was that in the Act?

Order!

Yes, of course they were there. Why does the hon. member not read the Bill? The only words now being added, are the words “subject to the provisions of section 26(2)”. That is why I say to the hon. member that the argument he has just advanced, is invalid.

†The hon. member for Walmer said that he would like a copy of the report and that he wants to debate the matter in the provincial council. He also asked me what I did. I was probably a little bit more alert than he last year. When I heard that this matter was before the provincial council, I immediately obtained a copy of the draft ordinance. The hon. the Minister will remember that immediately I received this copy of the draft ordinance, I went to him where he was sitting in his bench and showed it to him in the Chamber. He was aghast and said: “It cannot be; dit kan nie wees nie; dit is onmoontlik.” I said: “But there it is!” He asked me what I had done about it and I told him that I had asked our people in the provincial council not only to make representations against it, but also to vote against it. They later reported to me and said that their efforts were to no avail. For the hon. member for Walmer now to say that is where I should debate the measure, is just arrant nonsense.

I would now like to go back to my argument in regard to clause 1 of the Bill. I was dealing with the question of the clause also empowering a local authority to expropriate or take—for the benefit of the hon. member for Barberton—materials and water from a land-owner for the purposes of the construction of maintenance of a public road without payment of any compensation whatsoever. I now want to prove my point, and I hope that the hon. member for Barberton will follow me as I prove it. I refer to the Roads Ordinance of the Cape (Ordinance No. 19 of 1976). If the hon. member will look at section 35 of that ordinance he will see that it provides how compensation should be determined. It follows the basis set out in section 12 of the Expropriation Act, which we are now trying to amend, with one notable exception, namely section 12(2).

This section of the Expropriation Act provides for the payment of a solatium of 10% on the sum of compensation which is calculated after the compensation has been determined. In other words, a solatium of 10% is payable over and above the compensation, but this amount is not to exceed R10 000. This sum of R10 000 is added to the compensation payable in respect of the value of the land and the amount of actual financial loss. That is to say, a local authority which expropriates land for road purposes is not required to pay this amount of 10%, and the farmer, who is the sufferer, is the person who is going to lose that 10%. I wish the hon. the Minister would write this down in red letters on his notebook. If the hon. member for Barberton will have a look at section 34(19(a) of the ordinance, he will see that there are two subparagraphs, namely (iii) and (iv). Those two subparagraphs provide that compensation need only be paid for materials raised and removed for the purpose of roads if such materials were being exploited at the time of expropriation and for water raised and removed for road purposes if such water were removed from any waterworks. That is the point I have been making all the time and that is the point I would like the hon. member for Walmer also to make a note of, because this means that if the materials raised and removed were not being exploited at the date of expropriation and the water removed did not come from any waterworks, no compensation is payable although the local authority takes the water and takes the material. It therefore follows, generally, that no compensation will be paid for materials and water because that is generally the case. How many farmers exploit their materials? How many farmers have their water in waterworks? Very few! So this means, as a general rule, that no compensation will be payable, none at all.

That is a very serious departure from the Expropriation Act where it is stated that for everything taken by expropriation—a local authority either takes something by expropriation or without expropriation—compensation shall be paid, and that compensation shall be calculated on the market value and actual financial loss, with an additional 10% added, though this must not exceed R10 000. Now where are the farmers of the Cape Province when it comes to this ordinance that was passed by the provincial council last year? Without the amendment of clause 1, that ordinance of the provincial council of the Cape is, I believe, ultra vires, and the fact that it is ultra vires is the reason why the hon. the Minister has to effect this amendment. The hon. the Minister does not want to say that it is or is not so. He is looking at the ceiling at the moment; I hope he gets some inspiration from the ceiling. I believe he owes this House a proper explanation, and I am certainly not going to be fobbed off in the way he tried to fob me off yesterday. I should like to have a proper explanation. I should like to know why he has not gone into the matter properly. If clause 1 were not enacted, the provisions of the Expropriation Act of 1975 would apply, and because they would apply there would be a conflict between the Cape Roads Ordinance and this Act, and it follows that the provisions of the Expropriation Act would apply because when there is a conflict between a provincial ordinance and an Act of Parliament, the Act of Parliament applies. In that case the landowner whose land or materials were expropriated for road purposes would then be compensated on the same basis as any other landowner whose land was expropriated for any other purposes, and I cannot see why that should not be the case. No one, in this debate, has made out any case at all as to why a farmer’s compensation should be different from that of anyone else from whom material and water are taken. We certainly have a preponderance of farmers sitting on that side of the House, yet what do we get? There is not a peep out of them. They are quite prepared to allow their fellow-farmers in the Cape Province to suffer from this for years and years, and know that the farmers of the Cape Province have suffered. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Wynberg will not admit that he has devoted his life to Sir John Cradock. In 1975 we introduced an Expropriation Act. That hon. member says that I look at the ceiling, but he does not look at me when I speak to him. I am not going to quarrel with him. In 1975 we introduced an Expropriation Act because at that time there was nothing. In the Cape Province, roads could be built at will. One could build a road right through a farmer’s vineyard and the farmer did not receive a cent. As a result of our actions there is now an Act which any man can invoke if he is dissatisfied with the compensation he receives. That hon. member is always asking what this side of the House is doing for the farmers of the country.

What does he do for the farmers?

The provinces said that they were prepared to co-operate. The hon. member must bear in mind that we have to have the four provinces with us. The provinces said they wanted an interprovincial committee which could submit a report. The chairman of that interprovincial committee appeared before the Select Committee of which that hon. member was a member, and the hon. member could have put questions to him. After all the discussions we agreed with the province that the ordinance should be amended. Did the hon. member for Barberton not ask that hon. member whether he has read section 34? All four provinces agreed that the issue of strip acquisition should be given attention. In my opinion, all the legislation concerned the buying out of entire farms, but when one is dealing with strip acquisition and sections have to be cut out of farms, specific problems are created and they therefore wanted to include the necessary provision in their ordinance, but any farmer or landowner can invoke this Expropriation Act. However, where do we stand today? The hon. member asks why I did not read the interprovincial report. If he could only understand how many hundreds of reports there are. If the law advisers and the department say that the legislation is in order and we shall be able to achieve our purpose thereby, I really am not going to read the report myself. After all, what we have here is in no way sinister or dishonest. I am trying to do my fellow farmers and fellow landowners in this country a service. I am trying to give them something they did not have in 1975. The hon. member asks that I should give him the report. I said yesterday that I was not interested. The provincial council is a stone’s throw from Parliament. He can go and get the report himself, or the department can take note of it and give it to him. I did not undertake yesterday to give that hon. member the report of the interprovincial committee. He served in the Select Committee. Why did he not put the necessary questions to the chairman of the interprovincial committee? At so late a stage, when we want to finish the work, he asks me about certain details here. I now give him the assurance, for the sake of his peace of mind, that as a result of these steps, Sir John Cradock is finally—and I repeat “finally”— dead. Not even a ghost remains. Not one of those things are left which have been a hindrance to the hon. member throughout his life. If the hon. member would only accept and believe it. After all, we can effect further amendments in the future. When this measure causes difficulties in practice, we can effect amendments. However, the hon. member asks why a person cannot be compensated at market value when his water is used. Does he know farmers? One comes to a farmer and tells him that one is building him a tarred road to town, a road which will pass through his land, and one offers to pay the market value of the land, a benefit he did not have before. Then the road builder comes along and asks whether he can draw water from the river. Show me one example of a farmer demanding money for that under those circumstances. If he comes along and states that he wants gravel with which to build the road—we are now going over everything I told the hon. member yesterday—then surely he will not take gravel from a vineyard in Stellenbosch which is only 15 morgen in extent. The road builder does not do this. The hon. member cannot give me an example of this.

Say, for example, a road is being built through the Karoo and the road builder asks a farmer who has 4 000 ha if he can dig up one-eighth of a hectare for gravel. The farmer will tell him: “Man, I do not want your money—just see to it that if it should rain some day, the water that falls on the road will run into the pit so that I can water my cattle.” That is how it works in practice. I think that the hon. member should accept this measure as such. The issue here is not one of aid; this is what we envisaged.

I shall leave the other arguments at that. I do just want to reply to the hon. member for Walmer. His standpoint is quite correct. I was not even aware that he had been a provincial councillor. His standpoint helps me to convince the hon. member. I was not aware that they were together in the provincial council. I am beginning to like the hon. member more and more. The only problem as far as he and I are concerned is that we both live in Sea Point and the member of Parliament for that area is not up to much.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister maintains that he did not tell me that he would give me the report. I just want to draw his attention to what he said yesterday, viz.—

Now the hon. the Minister is saying that I cannot have the report. How am I to understand this? Must I accept his assurance or must I take it that he is not going to give me the report? I cannot accept what the hon. the Minister has just been saying. I know that in 1813, when Sir John Cradock issued his proclamation, it did not matter if gravel pits were dug and soil taken. At that time the farmer would have said: “Please build the road across my farm, because then I shall at least have a road to my farm.” Today this is no longer the case. This legislation applies to the whole of the Cape Province and not only to the Karroo. It also applies to the costly viticultural regions of Stellenbosch, Paarl, Somerset West, Worcester and Robertson. Roads are built there, too, and gravel, sand and water are taken. That is what I am talking about. I want the farmers in those regions to be compensated. The Minister said that up to last year compensation was not granted. Due to appeals made years ago by myself and others in the Provincial Council, they did in fact receive compensation. However, there was always a turning point, namely Sir John Cradock’s proclamation. That has always been there. That is why we wanted to see it repealed in its entirety. That was the reason for this. The hon. member said that as a result of this legislation the people would be compensated for the first time. This is quite wrong. Farmers received compensation without this amendment. This amendment is not necessary to give them compensation. As a result I simply cannot accept the hon. the Minister’s arguments. I still say that we on this side of the House are concerned about the farmers of the Cape. We want them to receive the same compensation as any other person in the Republic. If this clause is accepted, the divisional councils of the Cape Province will always have the opportunity to treat the farmers as they did in the past as regards the acquisition of water and material from the farmers. What is more, the divisional council will not pay the solatium of 10%. I really do not see why the farmer of the Cape should not also be entitled to that 10%. I stand by this and for that reason I am opposed to this clause.

Mr. Chairman, we have argued for a long time on this particular clause, and I think it is essential that I should express my views on it. I believe the hon. member for Wynberg is right but that he is being misunderstood by members of this Committee. He is being misunderstood most particularly by the hon. members for Durban North and Walmer. They have indicated that his opposition to this clause simply amounts to an opinion opposing the autonomy of the provinces. I want to say that our opposition to this clause is not at all because it allegedly impinges on the autonomy of the provinces. Our aim is simply to defend the right of the farmers of the Cape, as the hon. member for Wynberg has said. It so happens that I do not believe it is necessary to protect the rights of the farmers in the other provinces. I have here the ordinance that has been quoted ad nauseum. The hon. the Minister knows the section of that ordinance to which I want to refer, viz. section 34 of Ordinance No. 19 of 1976. Section 34(1)(a)(iii) provides—

The hon. the Minister conceded that the farmer in the Karoo does not want compensation for the gravel that is taken from his farm. However, does the hon. the Minister know that only in 1973 the Natal Provincial Council passed an ordinance, a counterpart to this particular ordinance, in which it is specifically stated that every land-owner shall be compensated for whatever materials are taken.

A good UP Provincial Council.

That is the position in Natal and the same situation obtains in the other two provinces. They have all made provision that a land-owner shall be compensated. There is another remaining factor which appears in this Bill. This particular ordinance, Ordinance No. 19 of 1976 of the Cape Province, in terms of section 68— “shall come into operation on the 1st day of January 1977”. I believe that is why later on in clause 4 we are being asked to make the provisions of this particular Bill operative with retrospective effect to 1 January 1977.

Order! The hon. member may not discuss clause 4 now.

I accept your ruling, Sir. I was simply referring to it. It is for these reasons that we are suspicious of this Bill and it is for these reasons that we believe that it is up to us to protect the rights of the landowner if the Cape Provincial Administration is not prepared to do so. The Cape Provincial Administration having done this to the landowners of the Cape Province, why does this hon. Minister now fall for their story, come to this Chamber and ask us to validate the actions of the Cape Provincial Administration? It is for that reason that we are opposed to this particular clause.

Mr. Chairman, the argument of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South exposes perfectly the fallacy in the argument of the hon. member for Wynberg. What he in fact is saying is: We are not worried about the other provinces; we are only worried about the farmers in the Cape Province. That is exactly the point. He is in fact dealing with an ordinance and he should be talking about this matter in the provincial council. The very fact that he shows that they are correctly compensated in the other provinces shows that what he is talking about is ordinances. He should be addressing himself to the Cape Provincial Council about the Cape Ordinance, No. 19 of 1976. In terms of this Bill no rights are being taken away; this Bill will not derogate from any other rights at all. This Bill applies to the whole of South Africa. The moment he starts talking about the Cape, he exposes the fallacy in their argument.

If any rights were being taken away by this Bill we would obviously oppose it. I adopt the same view as the hon. member for Walmer that if one is going to deal with the interprovincial report, one must take it along to one’s provincial councillor and let him do what he can with it in the provincial council.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban North is quite correct. I cannot differ from him. As has been said by the hon. member for Walmer, this is a matter for the provincial council.

*The major problem in this connection is that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is now, typically, raising smokescreens in order to give the impression that he is championing the cause of the farmers. Would he champion the cause of the farmers if I said they should get a little more for their milk? He would tear me limb from limb. But now he is making a tremendous fuss about this. I should like us to deal with all the other clauses and the Third Reading, too, before half past six. Since the hon. member for Wynberg refers to solatium, I want to tell him that no such thing has ever appeared in any act. When one buys a farm from a man and he has to leave, he is a paid solatium for loss and inconvenience suffered. This is the 10% solatium with a maximum of R10 000

However, when a road is built, the disruption this causes is taken into account and tunnels under the road or overhead crossings are built for him. In fact, the province goes so far that if an uneconomic section is cut off by road, they buy it out, too, or else, in co-operation with Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure they consolidate it with the adjoining farm. The impression must not be created today that we want to make things difficult for the farmers. I want to set right this aspect of the solatium. Hon. members must show me an example in Stellenbosch, for example, and tell me that we dealt unjustly with a man in that case because we built a road across his farm and he is dissatisfied today.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, regarding clause 4 we on this side of the House are worried about the nature of the operation of this Bill and its effects. This Bill is retrospective to 1 January 1977, and the 1975 Act and the compensation court will only consider cases that become before it after the date of operation. I should like to give the hon. the Minister an example of what I consider to be a case of hardship that will be affected by this date. A farmer hired a farm and could not have the lease registered in the Deeds Office because of a prohibition by a fideicommissum—this is an actual case. The owner, the lessor, received a notice from the hon. the Minister’s department that the farm was to be expropriated for defence purposes. The notice was valid from 29 October 1976. The owner did not lodge an objection, and by 27 December 1976 the notice became final. It means that the tenant is suffering tremendous hardship. In this case he is suffering a loss of R50 000 without compensation. The loss is suffered because the law is not sufficiently retrospective. The owner is satisfied that he was compensated, but the poor lessee is virtually left in the street. There are only three possible solutions, and I shall mention them quickly. One is to allow the lease to run on the same terms as before; secondly, to make an ex gratia payment, or thirdly, to make the law operate even more retrospectively. I want an undertaking from the hon. the Minister that he will see that fairness and justice is done in this particular case. I know that there is a bit of a rush on this debate, so I shall conclude with that.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is very reasonable. He has got three alternatives. I shall discuss the matter with him and see that justice is done. We shall be very reasonable in this case.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister tell us why this Bill is being made retrospective to 1 January 1977?

Mr. Chairman, the reason for it being retrospective is that there were delays all along the road. However, it is retrospective only for about five weeks, to cover the time we had to wait for the hon. the Minister of Justice to appoint …

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.