Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 5, in line 7, after “steps” to insert:
   , as specified in the notice,
2. (2) on page 5, after line 21, to add:
   1. (4) For the purposes of subsection (3) reasonable cause shall, in addition to any other grounds which a court may consider reasonable, include the imposing of an undue financial burden in respect of the steps required to be taken, without any offer of financial aid by the Minister.

I should briefly like to motivate these two amendments. Firstly, in terms of clause 3(1) it is provided that—

The provisions of this clause merely require that all that the Minister need do is to, say, take steps to his satisfaction in respect of the security of this particular installation. The problem about this is that any recipient of such a letter will not know what is expected of him and he will not know what is required in order to satisfy the Minister. If he does not do that, he gets another notice which gives him specified details, and if he then still does not do it, he becomes subject to prosecution. It is our submission that when the Minister says that the owner shall take steps in order to secure the key point, he should also say what he has in mind, because automatically the recipient of the notice will ask what is really wanted in order to satisfy him. I think it would expedite the matter and it would make it easier if he was told what was involved. If it is intended merely to indicate to him that he should take steps in respect of security generally, then that need not be done in terms of clause 3(1); that could be done merely by communicating with him in the ordinary way. We believe that when one writes to a man and tells him that he must take steps to one’s satisfaction, then one should specify what should be done in order to satisfy him.

The second amendment is perhaps a more important one, viz. that if the recipient of a notice in terms of clause 3(2) requiring him to do specific work in order to secure the security of the key point, does not do that, he is subject to prosecution, and the punishment is extremely heavy, viz. the possibility of imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years or a fine not exceeding R20 000, a substantial punishment in any language. Subsection (3) states—

What is “reasonable cause”? We have suggested that this subsection be amended to make it quite clear that “reasonable cause” should include an undue financial burden which would be imposed upon the person concerned if he were to take these steps without any financial aid from the Minister. We indicated during the Second Reading debate that our view was that the people who own these installations should also look after them themselves, in other words that reasonable steps in regard to the security of such key points should be taken by the owners of those key points, and taken at their expense, as security is an obligation that they themselves have in respect of their own assets. If the hon. the Minister, however, requires steps to be taken, steps of such a nature that they would impose an undue financial burden, we would expect that the State would provide for that. It is not enough to say that regulations will be made in regard to what may or may not happen in respect of financial assistance. The issue here is that there is a possibility of criminal prosecution if they do not take the required steps. I should like to put the hypothetical case, a simple situation, where a man has a business which, say, produces an income of R50 000 per year. The steps which the hon. the Minister would suggest— I take a purely hypothetical situation—might involve him in an expenditure of R30 000 per year. Would he be expected to incur that expenditure without any assistance from the State? In our view, he should receive assistance from the State, because that is not the kind of expenditure, in relation to his total income, which he could be expected to incur. There are marginal cases. That is obvious. It is, however, quite clear that what is meant by an “undue financial burden”, is being capable of being taken into account by a court of law, and that the obligation should be on the State that, when extraordinary measures are required, the burden is that of the State as such. The security of a national key point is not only in the interests of the owner of that national key point; it is also in the interests of the State as such and therefore the taxpayer also must make some contribution to it. It is true—and I accept it completely—that the ordinary precautions which a man must take in respect of his own asset, do involve some degree of expenditure. The hon. the Deputy Minister himself said yesterday that he thought that approximately 0,5% of gross turnover would be reasonable to spend. It may well be, however, that the expenditure which is required is of such a nature that there would be an undue financial burden, and it seems to us to be unjust that there should be a prosecution where that sort of situation arises. The important thing to bear in mind is that there are many cases in our courts where it has been indicated that inability to deal with a financial position, is not regarded as reasonable cause in our law. In other words, money cannot be advanced as a defence in our law in the normal circumstances, and unless that is added here, it cannot be advanced. Therefore we ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Yeoville concerning clause 3 and I should like to put certain arguments to him to prove that his amendments should not be accepted. In the first place, he requests that it be inserted here that the notice given should indicate in full what security matters should be dealt with. I should like to mention three aspects in this connection. The first is that there are a vast number of national key points. The administrative work that this will involve will be considerable and, even more important, time-consuming. The second aspect is that I believe that the owner of a specific key point, in other words, the company in control, is itself in the best position to know, in the first place, just what security arrangements should be effected for that particular area. That is why owners are being afforded the opportunity. It is their prerogative, their right, to decide for themselves how those key points are to be made secure. Therefore it is inappropriate to require from the outset that specific arrangements be made. In any event, specific provision is made to provide that this could in fact be done if anyone were to be unreasonable.

As regards the second argument the hon. member for Yeoville advanced, I want to refer to his second amendment. He states—

That is the first basis of his argument. Then he said “without any offer of financial aid”. I think that as it stands here, the hon. member’s amendment has technical shortcomings. In the first place, I foresee that the phrase “undue financial burden” will give rise to court cases to determine what is and is not “undue” in a specific case. I have nothing against court cases. To tell the truth, I make my living out of them. But they are time-consuming. I therefore foresee a delay in effecting these very security arrangements. Indeed, I think that if a person wanted to be difficult, the words “undue financial burden” could enable him to delay taking any steps for two years.

The second point I wish to refer to is “without any offer of financial aid by the Minister”. “Any offer” does not really say anything. If the hon. the Deputy Minister were to offer R2, that would be an offer, although it would not be sufficient.

I think it goes much further than that, however. I think we must approach this aspect in the realization that a national key point is a large organization. If it were a shaky organization, unable to cope financially, it would not be a national key point. Therefore we are dealing here with people who are responsible. In the second place, we must also take it that clause 11 provides that the hon. the Deputy Minister can afford certain financial relief, and we must take it that in the circumstances the hon. the Deputy Minister will act reasonably. I think we should at least wait and see what is stated in the regulations before raising objections in this regard. I think it is perhaps premature to effect this amendment to this point at this stage, particularly since, as I said, this creates the opportunity for people to institute long-drawn-out court cases which would hamstring the whole idea of urgency, viz. that we must immediately give urgent attention to security at key points.

The final point to be considered, apart from the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister will not be unreasonable, is that in the event of such an offence, the plaintiff will of course be the hon. the Deputy Minister of Defence, and I think that in this regard, too, one must be reasonable and not expect the hon. the Minister to complain unnecessarily.

In conclusion, I can understand the hon. member’s amendment, because in law he is correct when he says that financial problems are no excuse, but there are certain built-in safety valves, particularly since the Department of Defence has a record of absolute reasonableness in its dealings with the private sector. That is why this amendment is unnecessary. It will be time-consuming and will militate against the spirit of urgency that underlies this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Pretoria West for his technical analysis of the second amendment. I believe his analysis is correct. Its application will undoubtedly be problematical if a court should have to determine what an acceptable criterion would be as regards an undue financial burden. I am not going to include such a vague condition for co-operation with regard to something which is of national importance, particularly since it will contribute to financial stability and economic prosperity in general. I thank the hon. member for his analysis.

†Mr. Chairman, at this stage I must indicate that I am not prepared to accept either the first or the second amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville. The first amendment loses sight of the fact that clause 8 makes it possible for any owner of a key point to take such measures as he himself may consider necessary. However, if upon inspection it becomes clear that these measures fall short of the standard laid down by the National Key Point Committee, a notice will be served upon him setting out the details of what is required to meet those standards. I think the hon. member is also losing sight of the fact that these clauses also apply to the State. The State is equally bound by these provisions.

Surely the State is going to pay for it.

The fact is that a certain standard of security has to be maintained.

Are they going to prosecute a head of a department …

However, be it as it may, the hon. member’s first amendment would actually destroy the very spirit that has so far been created by the policy followed in respect of national key points.

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

May I just complete my argument? I must remind the hon. member that the National Key Point Committee has been in operation since the early ’Seventies. It has so far by way of persuasion, co-operation and agreement been able to identify 633 national key points.

I can now state that an estimated 85% of these are already giving the fullest possible co-operation. They act according to their own standards and to their own light, but if it is pointed out to them that their standards fall short, they accept the guidance of the National Key Point Committee. That is the situation at present. Why should we destroy this policy of gentle persuasion to get people to co-operate? I think the hon. member for Yeoville is perhaps the strongest supporter of private enterprise doing its own thing. I therefore cannot accept this amendment because it will really destroy the policy we have followed and the degree of success we have had in obtaining the co-operation of the private sector.

As far as his second amendment is concerned …

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether it is not so that no prosecution can take place unless in terms of clause 3(2) a written notice has been delivered in which the steps that must be taken and the period in which they must be taken, are specified?

Of course. I thank the hon. member for Durban Point for his explanation. It is quite correct. No prosecution can take place prior to proper notification concerning the requirements of the National Key Point Committee, which will in effect be the Minister. I thank the hon. member for his question.

I cannot accept the second amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville either. As far as financial assistance is concerned, I want to say that the package that is offered at this stage, includes the financial aid specified in clause 11(1)(d), a provision which opens up the possibility of some form of assistance being given. However, this is not a Bill in which to deal with any form of financial assistance. That is my attitude.

Mr. Chairman, I find the attitude of the hon. the Deputy Minister a little bit surprising because we have often heard during this session that South Africa is practically in a state of war, that things are difficult, that we are being threatened from outside and that we really have to take drastic action in many respects in order to secure our situation. In the Bill before the House it is provided that key security points be informed by letter that certain measures have to be taken in order to secure those points. I fail to understand why he should not immediately tell them in that letter what he requires, because if it is left up to the individual, who is perhaps not an expert on security matters, the chances are that he would spend money in order to try to bring about a situation which he thinks would be acceptable, only to discover later that it is not. He then gets a letter with specific instructions, which means that he must again spend money on security measures. This is not only a waste of time, but would also lead to a waste of money. Following up that argument, there is absolutely no reason why the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville should not be accepted.

With regard to the second amendment, the hon. member for Pretoria West suggested that most of these key installations obviously would be large undertakings. But nowhere in the Bill is it stated that they are going to be large undertakings. They are not all going to be Sasols. We should know that many of the threatened areas are situated in our less densely populated parts of the country. A key position, a key point, could well be a farm on which there is, for example, a rather large dam serving a community. It could be a piece of land, of real estate or a section of a farm which is not large. The expense involved in bringing about the necessary security measures could well be disproportionately large for that particular person. Therefore the argument advanced by the hon. member for Pretoria West, that we are talking about large installations, is just not true, and it is very likely indeed that disproportionately large sums are going to be required to bring about those security measures. So I can only say that we must insist on the amendments as proposed by the hon. member for Yeoville.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member did not take the matter any further, because he failed to deal with my argument that so far we have succeeded in obtaining the co-operation of more than 85% of these installations.

Then this Bill is not necessary.

We have established a fixed procedure and policy of persuasion. If we cannot persuade people in an amicable fashion, we go ahead and serve notice, and eventually resort to coercion. Therefore, I think the hon. member must first deal with what I have said about the established practice before I can agree to anything he has suggested.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. the Deputy Minister’s argument about gentle persuasion has one weakness, and that is that if the purpose of this Bill was gentle persuasion, it would not be necessary to have a mailed list standing behind it. The reality of the situation is that, quite obviously in the majority of cases, there will in fact be gentle persuasion. In the overwhelming majority of cases there will be no problem. We are dealing here with those cases where gentle persuasion would not work. That is the issue that we are debating. We are not debating the 99 cases that are going to work, but the 100th case where there is going to be a problem. That is my answer to the hon. the Deputy Minister and, with great respect, he has not dealt with it.

I want to deal with the arguments which the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Pretoria West have advanced. Firstly, the argument is that an “undue financial burden” presents a difficulty in interpretation. But it presents no greater difficulty in interpretation than the words which are being used, viz. “reasonable cause”. There are innumerable judgments on the words “reasonable cause” demonstrating how difficult it is to assess what “reasonable cause” is under certain circumstances. Both the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Pretoria West have been practising advocates and are aware of that. They know of the difficulties in connection with “reasonable cause”. They also know that the inability to provide the money to do something is not regarded as reasonable cause in this kind of context. To that neither the hon. the Deputy Minister nor the hon. member for Pretoria West tried to answer, because they know that is a fact. Every lawyer in the House knows that. That is, therefore, a problem that exists in these circumstances.

Then we get an argument from the hon. the Deputy Minister which, with respect, actually puts the hat on it. He said this does not only apply to the private sector but also to State departments. This actually proves the whole thing, because it would mean that the head of a department could be prosecuted for not carrying out the necessary precautions in respect of a key point because the hon. the Minister of Finance had not provided for that in the Estimates and he therefore had no money to use for that purpose. That, surely, cannot be the intention. Surely, the financial ability of people to do what is required must be a material fact. We cannot get away from that.

Then we get the argument that further on in the Bill powers are granted to make regulations, powers which include the ability to provide for a form of compensation. However, firstly there is no obligation on the hon. the Deputy Minister to make such regulations and, secondly, we do not know what is going to be in those regulations. How can we, who are supposed to be and are the guardians of the interests of the public, rely on the fact that the Minister will make regulations which will be satisfactory. That may or may not be the case. Surely, our duty as the guardians of the rights of the public is to say that it should be provided for in the legislation. That is what we are asking the hon. the Deputy Minister to do in these circumstances.

It is not a question of playing with words or difficulties of interpretation. The hon. member for Pretoria West said that if the Minister gave R2 that would be enough. He knows, and every lawyer knows, that no court would regard that as being financial aid. The hon. member for Pretoria West is quite a good lawyer and not the fellow he is making himself out to be, and he knows that the court would interpret financial aid as having to be assessed for what it really is. That really is the test. The court will say that financial aid must be paid in the context of the project and cannot be what the hon. member for Pretoria West has suggested.

With great respect to the hon. the Deputy Minister—and I do not want to take up undue time, but it is my duty to try to persuade the hon. the Deputy Minister—I would ask that the House should agree to this amendment because of the fundamental principle that, while there is an obligation on people to take ordinary precautions for the safety of their own property, in extraordinary circumstances when it is in the national interest the fiscus in fact also has an obligation to contribute towards that. It is not only the man who owns the business or the factory who is then in jeopardy, but the country’s interests. That is why we believe the fiscus should make a contribution.

Mr. Chairman, I find myself in the extraordinary position of absolutely agreeing with the hon. member for Yeoville that I am an excellent fellow. I think I am quite good and I agree with him there. I should like to be able to say the same for the hon. member for Yeoville, but I shall withhold my praise until I see that he really understands my argument. If he does not understand it, I shall have difficulty assessing his intellectual capabilities.

Some advocates advocate bad legislation.

Let me turn to the amendment. The hon. member said that “undue financial burden” is no more difficult of interpretation than “reasonable cause”. I agree with him: “Reasonable cause” is a most difficult concept to interpret in law. However, if one reads the amendment carefully, one finds that it provides: “… include the imposing of an undue financial burden …”. I should like the hon. member for Yeoville to follow my argument now.

If it is capable of being followed.

We shall settle that in a moment. As I was saying, it provides: “… include the imposing of an undue financial burden in respect of the steps required to be taken, without. One has to read this in its context. If any offer is made, the aspect of undue financial burden is qualified and does not come to the fore, and that is the point I have tried to make. So once the hon. the Minister makes an offer, the question of undue influence does not come into the fore anymore. That is the legal argument I am putting to the hon. member, but that is not actually the point. We do not want to be legalistic. What we want is to do the best we can for our country. That is the point. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister’s choice of the words “gentle persuasion” was an excellent choice, and I should like to compliment on that choice, because gentle persuasion presupposes deployment. The hon. member for Yeoville served in the armed forces and will therefore understand what I mean when I say “deployment”. In the case of gentle persuasion, one has all the people working together at once, without each and every individual having to be singled out and told what to do. What is at issue here, I think, is the question of haste, speed or urgency, and that is the point that those two hon. members did not argue. They did not make mention of the fact that the situation we are in is one of urgency. I can only support the argument of the hon. the Deputy Minister and say that if anybody does not understand the argument, it is certainly not the fault of the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (a) by any person in so far as it is strictly necessary for the performance of his functions in regard to his employment in connection with, or his ownership of, the place concerned;
2. (b) when authorized by the Minister.

I should like to motivate this amendment very briefly. I believe this type of information is not information which of necessity needs to be publicized. There are circumstances, however, in which it obviously becomes necessary to communicate it, for example, when it concerns the employment of people who are connected with the strategic points. Therefore there must be provision for that.

There may also be circumstances in which the Minister himself may like to see particular information publicized, or where he may deem it necessary that it should be publicized. Therefore I have moved the amendment to this effect.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

As it reads at present, clause 5(2) provides that a member of the S.A. Defence Force can be compelled to perform certain functions. However, when he performs such functions, the question arises as to whether he is protected by the Defence Act or not. My amendment is merely aimed at ensuring that all the protective measures and powers enjoyed by such a member in terms of the Defence Act, will also apply to him in terms of the legislation under discussion.

I should therefore be obliged if the hon. the Deputy Minister would consider accepting this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria West supported me so well under a previous clause that I am inclined to accept his amendment, although our legal advisers say that it is superfluous. However, my approach is that the hon. member for Pretoria West is moving the amendment to ensure that the members of our Defence Force who will indeed become involved in this regard in one way or another, will enjoy the necessary and maximum protection, and to ensure that this does in fact happen, we are following the rule “rather overlap than leave a gap”.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, I just want to receive an assurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister that this clause is intended, as I read it, to cover a situation that where there is a direction by the Minister to an owner in order to do certain work, the mere fact that that direction is given would not result, if damage is caused by that direction, in the State being liable, but that, and I think the wording of the clause is clear, the owner himself, if he does his work negligently, would be subject to whatever civil remedies there were or were not in those circumstances. Also that it is not intended to give indemnities to other matters beyond what I have referred to, viz. that when the Minister gives a direction that work is to be done and the owner does that work negligently, the State is not liable.

Mr. Chairman, I was under the impression that clause 7 is very clear. It states—

This provision will cover the State, the Minister or any person liable for any loss or damage as a result of bodily injury in respect of any act that may be performed as a result, firstly, of any committee’s activities which the Minister may direct should become involved, or any other person, for instance a member of the Defence Force, who may be employed. If the hon. member for Yeoville would just clarify his argument on “owner”, I shall be able to reply to him more fully.

Mr. Chairman, I think the sole point in relation to the obligation of the owner is that nowhere in the Act is any indemnity given to the owner of a point where work has to be done, in respect of negligence, or any other act that arises from carrying out the instructions of the Minister. In other words, there is no indemnity in respect of the owner. The indemnity is in respect only of the State, the Minister or any person in the service of the State. There is no indemnity in respect of the owner of any key point.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear that the owner will be carrying out work on his property. How then can he be indemnified? Surely, he must suffer the loss himself if he does the work negligently. On the other hand, if it involves an infringement on an adjacent property, surely the common law would then apply. One cannot possibly invoke the provisions of this clause.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 7, in line 35, after “Minister,” to insert:
   or except as may be strictly necessary for the performance of his functions in regard to his employment in connection with, or his ownership of, or as may be necessary to protect, the place concerned,
2. (2) on page 7, after line 38, to add:

Before dealing with my amendments I should like to just deal with clause 10(1). This provides that—

It means, in fact, that every place which is designated a key point now really becomes a prohibited place in terms of the Official Secrets Act, and anyone who performs any such act, is guilty of an offence. In view of that, one actually has to look at the Official Secrets Act to see what the implications are. The implications appear to be very wide, because both sections 2 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act now would tend to apply, and that means that, even though the heading in terms of section 2 is “Espionage” its actual wording goes much further than just espionage. The one problem which does exist is that the section reads that—

1. (a) approaches, inspect, passes over or is in the neighbourhood of or enters any prohibited place; or
2. (b) makes any sketch, plan, model or note … or
3. (c) obtains, collects, records or publishes or communicates to any person any …

Therefore a whole variety of things that may happen. The difficulty that I see in this is that the wording contained in this paragraph, is in fact difficult of interpretation, even in respect of the Official Secrets Act. I think that we are going to have a similar problem in respect of the national key points, which now fall under section 5 of the Official Secrets Act. I have no problem with section 5, which deals with the obstructing of guards at prohibited places. Therefore there should be no difficulty in that regard. Some elucidation, however, on how section 2 is seen, would be of assistance. I do not want to move an amendment, because I think that people who do pass on information to an enemy in respect of what could be useful to them with regard to a key point, in other words something like the passing on of a plan of a factory to someone who intends to use it in order to attack that factory, that obviously is a hostile act to the Republic. Section 2, however, is a very difficult section to interpret, and I think it may be even more difficult when it relates to a national key point.

Then there are two other matters which arise from my amendments. Firstly, my first amendment is similar to the one I moved in respect of clause 4, and that is that it is necessary to convey information concerning the duties which a man carries out in his employment, or which arise from his ownership of the property. That information can obviously only be conveyed or publicized to people who have a duty to receive it. The second amendment, however, is more important and strikes at a far more important issue, namely the amendment which relates in the main to the wording of clause 10(2)(c), where it is stated that any person who—

That is the one issue. The second is—

If I may deal with the first one, namely “furnishes information relating to the security measures applicable at or in respect of any national key point”, we take the view that, if someone conveys information in that regard, that can be information which can be used by someone who wants to attack the place. The issue has been raised, however, as to what really is the position where it is known, to a newspaperman for instance, that the precautions at a particular place are inadequate, and he wishes to expose them with a view to getting the Government to take action in order to ensure that the place is protected. That, to my mind, seems to be a legitimate argument, provided that it is done with the intention of seeing that it is protected, because if it is merely publicized in order to make the information available and nothing is going to be done in order to protect that situation, it would be a hostile act. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to react to that, even though I have not moved any amendment in regard to it, because in principle the view that we take is that the details of the security arrangements at any particular place should remain confidential.

The second one, however, creates a bigger problem, and that is that one cannot, in fact, publicize that any incident have occurred at any particular place. I indicated in the Second Reading that what we have to do is to try to draw a line between, on the one hand, the interest of the public and, on the other hand, the necessity to keep certain matters secret so as not to assist people who want to commit hostile acts against that installation.

I can quote, if necessary, at some length from the Steyn Commission’s report which advances the view that we hold on this matter, namely that somewhere one must draw the line between these two things because one cannot have the situation that, when for example there is a massive pall of smoke over an installation and everybody knows that something has gone wrong, no one is able to publish that or say anything about it. In those circumstances rumours will fly around and morale will be lowered. In paragraph 259, for example, the Steyn Commission, in dealing with the necessity to expose certain things, indicates quite clearly that in many cases it is necessary to do so because it assists the cause. In their recommendations, in paragraph 502, they said—

That is the principle that I seek to apply here and that is why my amendment reads—

I stress the words “will in no way assist any activities relating to terrorism, sabotage, espionage or subversion”. It is quite clear from this that we are endeavouring to draw the line—and I think we have succeeded in this—between, on the one hand, the interest of the public, the media and the people who know what is happening in order that there is not a situation of secrecy, of morale being adversely affected and of rumours spreading and, on the other hand, the possibility that those who seek to destroy the installation and who seek to obtain benefit from this kind of destructive action will be assisted. That is the purpose of my amendments.

Mr. Chairman, in respect of the first amendment I think the hon. member for Yeoville has a point and I shall support it. I do not think there is anything further to add to what he has said on that. A person in such employment will from time to time be required to convey information to people which affects the actual operation of the key point.

I still have in regard to subsection (2) the difficulty which I raised in the Second Reading debate. Subsection (2)(c) forbids reports in respect of any incident that occurs at a national key point. Taken to its ridiculous extreme, one could not report the retirement of the managing director or somebody’s marriage or engagement, although that literal interpretation is obviously not intended.

That is not an incident.

I would say that retirement is an incident.

It must be an incident as defined in clause l(ii), i.e.—

It is “incident” as defined.

Sorry, I did not see that definition. Well, in that case I do not support the hon. member’s amendment, because my concern was the vagueness of the term “incident”. I must admit that I missed the definition. With “incident” defined, I agree that that is something which should not be published without permission.

Even if there is no way of assisting terrorism by it?

I do not think it is possible for a journalist or a person reporting an incident to determine whether or not publication will in any way assist terrorism.

That is the point. You are right.

How can anybody other than those concerned with the security of the place determine whether publication is going to help anyone? As far as any incident connected with terrorism or sabotage, etc., is concerned, I think the only people who can determine the effect of publication will be those who know the whole picture and not a reporter who sees smoke and decides that the public should know about it. I am sorry, but by assisting me, the hon. member has lost my support for his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville has advanced his arguments in such a responsible way that I would prefer to agree with his amendments.

I think his first amendment is in line with the amendment to clause 4 which we have adopted and for that reason it ought to be accepted.

As far as his second amendment is concerned, I should like to refer back to the words the hon. member himself used in this respect. He asked whether a newspaperman would be entitled to publish his opinion if he should find that inadequate steps had been taken to ensure the security of a certain installation.

No, he cannot. I said that.

Obviously he cannot. But of course this clause is no blanket measure to clamp down on the publication of all information. What the newspaperman should do is to go to the Minister and ask for his authority to publish that information.

The second argument the hon. member advanced referred to the question whether details of an incident as defined in clause 1, an incident such as a pall of smoke rising into the clouds for everybody to see, should be published or not. There is one very important principle contained in the Steyn report. The principle stated in the Steyn report is that the people who are to decide what is to the advantage and in the interest of the security of the country, are the people who are in charge of national security. The fact that the whole country should know about a cloud of smoke rising above Sasol or anywhere else, is quite a different thing. I think the main thrust of the arguments and submissions in the Steyn report is to the effect that the Government and the people in charge of internal security must decide whether or not in a particular instance people have the right to know.

As far as his second amendment is concerned, there are three arguments I, on behalf of this side of the House, should like to advance why it is imperative for us not to support it.

The first point I want to make is that, if we allow newspapers to publish any incidents, we would be allowing the newspapers more than we allow an ordinary person in respect of the furnishing of information. In the discussion on clause 4 we dealt with that matter.

This amendment does not deal with newspapers. It does not mention them.

Of course not. I assumed that the arguments advanced by the hon. member when he mentioned newspapers, would be covered by the amendment, otherwise there would be no sense in the argument. The first argument will give reporters and newspapers as such more authority and freedom than it would give the ordinary person who works at an installation.

The second point I want to make is that I agree with the hon. member for Durban Point. His argument is well founded. How would an ordinary newspaperman decide whether or not a certain activity will assist terrorism, sabotage, espionage or subversion? It is obviously impossible. Therefore I do not think it is possible to accept this amendment and also to secure the security of an installation, because the two are mutually exclusive. What will happen in practice is that a person, or a newspaper, will publish information about an incident. Then there will be protracted proceedings in court to decide whether this had in any way assisted activities relating to terrorism. By that time the damage would have been done. I think the hon. member will accept this argument. I must say that I agree with the spirit in which he has put his argument. Based on the hon. member’s second argument, I do not think we can accept this amendment.

The third point I want to make, and I am sure the hon. member will assist in this, is that the Defence is now incorporated in assisting against terrorism. The Defence Act says that no activities relating to the countering of insurgency will be published without the prior permission of the Minister, but through the hon. member’s amendment we will now let in by the back door the possibility to counteract or negate that particular provision in the Defence Force Act.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the first amendment by the hon. member for Yeoville, but not his second amendment. I think the hon. member for Durban Point summarized the crux of the matter very effectively when he found serious fault with the second amendment, because the implication of the amendment is that the person who is to judge whether an incident may be published or not, first publishes it, and then the damage is done. The issue here is, purely and simply, the prevention of harm to our national security effort. Apart from any argument, the technical problem we have with this amendment by the hon. member for Yeoville is such that we cannot even look at it. To that must be added the fact that the activities he has in mind are terrorism, sabotage, espionage and subversion. If he had come forward with another idea which was perhaps more comprehensive, we could perhaps have discussed the matter, but through his amendment he is limiting the activities. This means that they are being narrowed, whereas that is not the only action that can be taken. If I understand the hon. member’s amendment correctly, he is in fact neutralizing the first provision which the Official Secrets Act, with all its deficiencies, makes applicable. It appears as if this could be the effect. Therefore I cannot accept the hon. member’s second amendment.

To sum up, I want to say that I accept the hon. member’s first amendment, but I cannot accept the second amendment. I want to thank the hon. member for Pretoria West for his exposition.

In reply to the questions of the hon. member for Yeoville, I want to say to him that the Official Secrets Act, with all its alleged deficiencies, is in fact being made applicable mutatis mutandis. The implication is that if the Official Secrets Act were to be improved at a later stage, the legislation, as improved, would apply. Therefore I cannot accept the argument and the misgivings of the hon. member for Yeoville in regard to this point. If the Official Secrets Act is improved, it goes without saying that this will apply here as well. The activities that are by implication being included here relate to section 2 of the Official Secrets Act which concern espionage, to mention only one. The section provides, inter alia, that—

That is only one of the activities. What about section 5 of the Official Secrets Act which relates to the obstruction of persons on guard at prohibited places? This affects the second principle in the Bill.

I agree with that.

The hon. member says that he agrees with that. However, I just want to explain to the hon. member that I cannot accept his misgivings about the applicability of the clause. Time does not really permit us to go into this further. I think that in the Second Reading debate yesterday I replied more than adequately to the point made by the hon. member with reference to the Steyn Report. I want to say once again that the spirit of the Steyn report, as I understand it, is that the interests of the State and the interests of the public must be weighed up against one another. We consider it in the interest of the public that we use news as a strategy in this instance and that we utilize the information that is released as it suits us best in the combating of terrorism, because that is what is involved.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to react briefly to some of the arguments that have been raised. With respect, arguments have been advanced which do not seem to relate to the wording of the Bill. The hon. the Deputy Minister said the amendment is technically no good because I am limiting it to terrorism, sabotage, espionage and subversion. If that is so, then the Bill is technically no good, because I took those words as being the definition of “incident”. The definition of “incident” given in clause 1 is—

If the hon. the Deputy Minister actually wants to cover something else, then I regret to say that he has not covered it in terms of the Bill. The very reason why I settled for these words, which come from the definition of “incident”, is that the whole provision only relates to incidents. In other words, if my amendment is no good, the Bill is no good. How can he then possibly advance that argument? This is now the second occasion in relation to this clause that it is demonstrated to me that because of the rush people quite innocently do not appreciate what this Bill is about.

The second point I want to make to the hon. the Deputy Minister is that it is quite clear that a penalty is imposed which is a very heavy penalty. The argument was raised by him and by the hon. member for Durban Point of how one decides. If one publishes anything, one takes that chance in any case. If one publishes something in relation to any of these things, one is guilty of an offence. In exactly the same way, if one publishes anything which assists the activities of terrorism, then in terms of my amendment one will be committing an offence.

Let me give the hon. the Deputy Minister two examples which demonstrate this. Firstly, in terms of the provision as it stands, if there is a pall of smoke over Johannesburg, a newspaper cannot report that pall of smoke. With respect, to my mind that is nonsense. This has been worded in such a way that, quite obviously, its scope is now far too wide. Before the newspaperman can report a pall of smoke, he will have to find out whether it is actually related to an incident, because if it is, he will be committing an offence. To my mind that is wrong.

Let me reply to that. I am in a hurry.

The hon. the Deputy Minister may be in a hurry, but I think it is important to protect the interests of the public.

You are a “herrie”.

You are misleading the public with your …

I am not. I am going by the wording of the Bill. He need not wave his hand at me. That is quite unnecessary. The second example is that in terms of the Bill one cannot telephone for an ambulance.

That is nonsense. You are being absurd.

That is the point I am making: I agree that it is nonsense. Let us read what it says.

You are coming with absurdities.

That is the point. The clause is worded—

That is the problem. I am therefore saying that, when one telephones for an ambulance, when one phones someone to tell him one has a problem, when one reports that something has happened, one is not assisting “terrorism, sabotage, espionage or subversion”. That is why we persist with this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville is definitely overworked. I think he is not appreciated enough. I think his colleagues are busy destroying his intellect and, of course, his ability to analyse legislation. He has just advanced, with conviction, a nonsensical argument. I shall tell him why I say that. I have told him that “terrorism, sabotage, espionage or subversion” would mean the narrowing down of the activities of terrorists, and for that reason I cannot accept that. I cannot accept it because terrorists operate on a broad front and their activities cannot be defined. What does the hon. member, however, do? He does not link up “terrorism, sabotage, espionage or subversion, with “incident”. He links it up with “any activities”, because his amendments states—

The word “incident” is there.

No, not relating to “terrorism, sabotage, espionage or subversion”. If a judge had to interpret this—and there is a judge sitting just behind the hon. member for Yeoville—he would have to interpret the word “activities” which is narrowed down to include “terrorism, sabotage, espionage or subversion”. I say I cannot accept that because the activities of terrorists are not merely related to “terrorism, sabotage, espionage or subversion”. I think I have made the point very clear now. The hon. member referred to the definition of “incident”. If the hon. member had said “activities relating to such an incident”, that would be another story.

But it says that.

That would have been a different story, but his amendment states “activities relating to …” The point is that “activities” cannot be narrowed down to just these four aspects. If the hon. member had merely used the word “incident” throughout, that would have been a different kettle of fish. I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, let me explain the amendment further to the hon. the Deputy Minister because he seems to have a problem in reading it. First I shall quote the amendment—

Remember the word “incident” is included—

Let me now quote the relevant provision in the hon. the Deputy Minister’s own Bill. In the Bill “incident” is defined as—

I think that if the hon. the Deputy Minister has listened to that, he must concede that his argument has no validity whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I should like to motivate this amendment briefly. We have no objection to the power to make regulations, particularly where they are concerned with the appointment of guards and in so far as financial aid is concerned. Also in so far as the regulations will relate to the powers of the guards, we have no objection in respect of the searching of persons, the examination and the seizure of articles in the possession of those persons. We are quite content with the wording of the clause as it is in that regard. However, two further powers are to be given to the guards referred to in this clause: Firstly, the power to arrest and, secondly, the power to apply reasonable force. We have no objection to either of those two powers being given. But in regard to the actions which take place on the part of the S.A. Police, the law normally provides, as we understand it, that any arrest or application of force only occurs if the person concerned has a reasonable ground to suspect the commission of an offence.

In this particular instance, as the guards are, in terms of the Act concerned with the prevention of terrorist activity, sabotage, espionage or subversion—as appears from the definition in section 1, to which I referred just a short while ago—we believe that the guard, before he takes this drastic action, should have reasonable grounds to suspect that. We therefore move as an amendment that before any arrest or application of force is to occur the guard concerned should have reasonable grounds to suspect that sabotage, espionage, subversion or terrorist activity have or may be committed. In other words, he is entitled to act in order to prevent it and he is entitled to act after it has occurred. Quite obviously, if one is going to shoot somebody, one should have a reasonable belief that he is going to commit an offence before one shoots him. If one is going to arrest him, one should have a reasonable belief that one is arresting him because he is either going to do something or has already done something.

Mr. Chairman, I have a problem with the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville. I would rather deal with a stipulation of this nature by regulation, because there may be other limitations which we should impose. There may be other conditions.

Are you going to put it in the regulation?

I shall come to that. I have sympathy with the view of the hon. member for Yeoville on this issue. We have a precedent for this in section 40 of the Criminal Procedures Act, where more or less the same stipulation has been made. Therefore I have sympathy with his attitude. However, we have the problem that, in terms of section 40, the courts apply an objective test, which is rather stringent. We are dealing here with terrorists moving in areas which are prohibited, for instance. In curbing the powers of a guard in such a way that he, as a reasonable man, has to ascertain that he can suspect a person on reasonable grounds of being involved in a criminal act, may, at this stage, defeat the objectives of this whole exercise. What I am therefore asking the hon. member to accept, is that, when we draft regulations, we shall do so in conjunction with the other departments concerned, such as, for instance, the Departments of Police and of Defence. We shall also do it in conjunction with the S.A. Railway Police. We shall also be able to refer to other powers bestowed upon people involved in similar duties. The hon. member can, of course, refer to schedule 3 of the Criminal Procedures Act where there are certain references to this material. I therefore ask the hon. member to accept that we shall deal very carefully with this particular power. We do not want to let loose people who do not exercise their powers properly. On the other hand, we do not wish to curb the powers of people in such a way that they do not do anything, or are frightened of being prosecuted if they take necessary steps. If the hon. member accepts that, I can give him an undertaking that we shall look at this particular issue extremely carefully when drafting the regulations.

Mr. Chairman, I have to accept the hon. the Deputy Minister’s bona fides, but he has not actually given me the undertaking that he will include a provision similar to this. However, he said that he would consider it and would endeavour to fit it in within the ambit of what could be done. What I shall do for him in return, is that I shall not call for another division. We shall note our objections and hope that he will put the appropriate clause into the regulations.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, all of us in this House will agree that the conflict situation which exists in South Africa at the moment can only be successfully resolved if all groups are directly involved in the new constitutional plan for South Africa. I believe that all of us are agreed, as we consider the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill, that if we are to secure such constitutional agreement there must also be economic development and economic stability. Finally, we are agreed that, if one is going to have economic stability, not only does one have to have sound economic plans but also political stability.

When one looks at the conflict in South Africa and the proposals in order to try to resolve that, one thinks immediately of the hon. the Prime Minister’s statements since he became Prime Minister, his statements of reform, and also those of some of his Cabinet colleagues. As we look back on this session of Parliament, I think that one has to concede that the promises that were inherent in the hon. the Prime Minister’s programme and in his reform statements have simply not materialized. Secondly, one thinks, obviously, of the interim report of the Schlebusch Commission, and in particular of the recommendation that there ought to be a President’s Council.

I want to remind the hon. House today, on the eve of our going into recess, of a statement of intent which was publicized a few months ago by some of the key homeland leaders. It is a statement of intent regarding a possible consensus solution in respect of South Africa’s future. Because of the positions those leaders hold and because of the support that they can still command, I believe that it is very important that this House should reckon with their proposals. The statement of intent was undersigned by Chief Gatsha Buthelezi, Messrs. E. J. Mabuza, Mopeli, Ntsanwisi, Phatudi, Sebe and Skosana. This is a list of people who carry a great deal of responsibility in South Africa and I believe that their voices need to be heard. The second reason why I believe that this statement is important is that it is a document which is remarkably moderate and which was put out in the belief that both the internal and the external situations are becoming increasingly explosive. Thirdly, it is a document which specifically seeks to avoid—I quote from the statement of intent—

Fourthly, this group of Black leaders maintains that its intentions are positive and it seeks to change present unfavourable trends and to immediately establish a sense of purpose, confidence and initiative in the country and among all its population groups.

Then it sets out certain non-negotiables, which I believe are important to look at. They describe these as non-negotiables and desirabilities for South Africa. Firstly, they state that most Blacks—and this is their words—“would prefer a unitary State but are prepared to look at other alternatives”. I think this is very important, because in the debates in recent days many speakers have made comments which suggest that the total Black community in all its diversity is committed to a unitary State. It is quite clear that there certainly are some who have made that statement. One thinks of the Coloured leadership, for example, and certain urban Blacks who have made this statement consistently. This statement containing the non-negotiable aspects has been made, however, by a group of people who do carry considerable weight at the moment. They acknowledge that most Blacks would prefer to see a unitary State, but are prepared to look at other alternatives.

Secondly, they say that completely separate homelands are not acceptable to the majority of Blacks. No matter how we, and in particular the Government with its own plans, may respond to that, it is of the utmost importance in this year, 1980, for us to listen carefully to what Blacks themselves are saying.

Thirdly, they say that statutory discrimination in any form is not acceptable and should be abolished with the greatest possible urgency. Here again, I believe it is vital for this Government, without any further delay, to have such a body set up so that the Black and White communities of South Africa cold together look at what they believe to be discriminatory and could then find the best possible way to move away from that with the minimum of delay.

You have just opposed it.

No, not at all. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens says that we have just opposed it.

Exactly.

We opposed the body the hon. member is referring to because it is discriminatory and we do not believe that there should be discrimination. The very reason why Blacks are not prepared to serve on it is that they believe it is discriminatory. If that hon. member does not understand that, he understands nothing of the basic conflict in South Africa.

Fourthly, they say that the allocation of land cannot be based on the Black Land Act of 1913 and the Development Trust and Land Act of 1936, but should be done on a more equitable basis. This is also an area which is fraught with all sorts of complications and I therefore believe we have to hear what these leaders are saying.

There are two further points which they state as being non-negotiable. The first is that the retention of one nationality and of one South African passport is a non-negotiable prerequisite for the majority of Blacks. I believe that this issue of citizenship is a very important one. It is certainly one that is brought to our attention again and again. We receive complaints, particularly from urban Blacks, that when they for example register their children or apply for pass books when they have lost them, they are told again and again that the stamp that must appear in it is no longer that of South Africa, but that of the homeland from which they originated, no matter how long ago that was. There is a deep bitterness regarding this and therefore it comes as no surprise that in the statement of intent of a number of key Black leaders they should state this as one of the non-negotiables.

As far as the last non-negotiable is concerned, it is—and I quote from the document—

Let them speak for themselves.

He is quoting them.

That is exactly what they say. However, not once have I heard this particular statement debated in this House. I believe it is of the utmost importance that we do not simply disregard what they are saying in public outside of this House. We seem to go on as though they have not said a word. I should like to say to that hon. Deputy Minister that the main reason why I am deliberately introducing this in this House—it is not only for the record—is that in our planning we can take into consideration the wishes and the desires of moderate people, moderate Black leaders. Unless we do that, how on earth are we going to cope with those who are more radical?

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

Of course.

My question is: What about presenting all those plans and ideas to the President’s Council?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Whip has asked a very stupid question. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that Blacks will not be on the President’s Council. Did he not know that? That is the very point. Against this background, when moderate leaders make such a statement of intent, what do we do? We leave them out. This is the Government’s disastrous response.

But they will have a chance to consult with the President’s Council.

When will the hon. member ever learn that, if one places people in what they believe to be a subservient position, they will resent it deeply and one will then actually prevent what one really wants to have take place? That is the whole issue. The greatest tragedy that we have seen unfold in the last few months is that this statement of intent, which has never once been raised in the House and which is a moderate statement of intent which all of us can at least look at, although we may not agree with everything …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he will concede that the terms “radical” and “moderate” are very relative terms?

Yes, I agree with that. However, will the hon. member for Mossel Bay concede that the true meaning of the word “radical” is getting to the root of the matter?

Exactly, but …

Thank you very much, because that is exactly the point.

I differ from you on what a radical is.

If we do not get to the root of the matter, which is that there is a conflict situation in this country which cannot be resolved unless it is resolved by all the groups in this country, we will never, never find a solution. That is the point.

You are best equipped to know about the meaning of “radical”.

It is easy to fling words across the floor of the House and to call people radicals. In a sense I would say that I am proud to be a radical in the true sense of the word, which means getting to the heart of a matter and not playing around on the periphery, but in the pejorative sense there is no doubt about it that this party, which is so often accused of being radical, is a very conservative party in the main spectrum of South African politics. [Interjections.] Of course it is. There is no doubt about it at all.

I want to refer now to the constitution, because these Black leaders have referred specifically to the constitution. The document states—

I believe that this is a welcome note which is being sounded.

I agree with you.

Then why on earth do we not meet them halfway and respond in the same generous spirit? Secondly, they state—

What more can we ask of them? The document states further—

This is the statement made directly by people who command enormous support, but the moderate Black leaders of South Africa are under attack and siege right now. I accept that the term “moderate Black leaders” is a term which has to be freely interpreted. I would regard Chief Gatsha Buthelezi, Dr. Phathudi and Prof. Ntsanwisi, for example, as moderate men.

And Mandela?

The fact of the matter is that they are being attacked by a growing number of Blacks who do not want to go that way because they say it is not getting them anywhere. The Government must wake up and realize that, if they want to adopt this kind of approach, time is running out.

You alone realize that.

No. I am sure that the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, and every other hon. member in the House, is aware of the anxious times in which we live. All I plead for is that we interpret that anxiety and that commitment into reasonable legislation which enables the conflict to be resolved peacefully. That is our desire. The leaders who signed this statement of intent are of the opinion that negotiation should be started with the least possible delay so that a meaningful joint statement of intent regarding our country’s future can be signed. The statement concludes by saying: “Such immediate purposeful initiativeseeking action will no doubt serve to reverse the present disastrous trend towards ghastly alternatives.” The writers hope that, if there is that kind of meeting and resolution, “it will create confidence both inside and outside our borders and will set us on the way to realizing the prosperity potential of all our population and fulfilling our leadership role in the subcontinent”.

I want to conclude on the following note: Against that kind of background, the background of that statement, coming from men who at the moment enjoy leadership over millions of people in South Africa, what has the Government done in response to this statement and to this approach, where those leaders have actually set their leadership at risk? I believe that the Government has added yet another insult to the injury it has perpetrated for so long in that it has created a President’s Council which excludes Blacks. That is a severe setback to moderate Black initiative. The Government unfortunately seems blind to the fact that, in its interim action, it has actually contributed to the institutionalizing of conflict rather than the resolution of conflict. Sometimes a small step forward instead of a courageous leap can in reality be a step backwards, a step closer to confrontation rather than to resolution.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of my speech I shall come to the hon. member for Pinelands. We have reached the end of an historic session. South Africa’s constitutional dispensation has been cast in the mould of the Westminister system for 70 years, but during this session that mould was broken. The mould of the Westminister system, which was created for circumstances entirely different to ours and does not afford a solution to South Africa’s constitutional problems, has been broken during this session. Now South Africa’s disparate elements are being placed in a position to work out their own unique constitutional system by way of consultation and the exchange of opinions. South African politics have suddenly acquired a new dimension. Fresh breezes are blowing through the politics of our country. New opportunities are occurring and new paths have been opened.

It is really a pity that the official Opposition is excluding itself from this exciting new political exercise, due to the actions of the far left. It has always been the NP which has had to do the pioneering work in this country, which has had to write history, as with the creation of the Republic, while the Opposition have always had to be dragged along unwillingly. I want to say to the hon. member for Pinelands that after this session, the official Opposition will be branded as the most negative Opposition that has ever sat in the benches opposite. They have opposed every major forward step taken by the Government. Now they are boycotting the President’s Council and they want nothing to do with new instruments that could open new paths. One gains the impression that their heart is not in this Parliament, but is with people outside Parliament who want to take extra-parliamentary action. I want to ask the official Opposition what their dangerous external wings are going to do after this legislation has been accepted. If they are going to try to wreck the President’s Council, they are going to initiate an ominous process of polarization in this country. They could do the country no greater disservice than by teaming up in the future with radical Brown and Black people and inciting them to try and wreck this instrument of hope and expectation, the President’s Council.

You are talking rubbish.

The hon. member for Pinelands says I am talking rubbish. Why, then, do they not take part in this fine new thing that we have created? I shall deal with the official Opposition again at a later stage. We have reached the end of a session in which the stature of the hon. the Prime Minister has increased both within this Parliament and outside it. The people of South Africa have come to know him as a strong man but also as an approachable and just man. There has been better understanding for the hon. the Prime Minister’s visionary 12-point plan, and his initiatives are developing throughout the country. Those who have eyes to see, can see this. During this session there was the result of the significant by-election in Fauresmith, which was a real triumph for our hon. Prime Minister …

I would not call that a triumph.

… and which gave him a mandate to continue. Under our very eyes the hon. the Prime Minister is creating a new, challenging Republic. The results of the Government’s comprehensive strategy will become more and more evident with the passing of time. If there are still people who have doubts about where the P. W. Botha Government is taking South Africa, then after this session there can be no further doubts, now that it has been spelled out innumerable times in this House.

In the matter of race relations this Government has chosen the path of peace and harmony. The Government will ensure justice in South Africa for all the people of our country. This has always been the aim and the endeavour of the Nationalist Government, but the Botha Government has given it new impetus. The Government is creating a just and harmonious dispensation for all peoples and ethnic communities, based on the strong and unshakeable pillars of self-determination and separate freedoms.

In the course of this session efforts have been made to create the impression that the Government and the official Opposition are drawing closer to one another. However, that is not so. The gulf between the Government and the official Opposition is unbridgeable, and has indeed become wider in the course of this session. The gulf became even wider after the PFP had been taken over by the far left group in that party.

Hijack.

With their very definite liberalist view as to the end of the road—and I should like to stress this—in which White, Brown and Black are all on a common voters’ roll in a unitary State with “one man, one vote”, it cannot be otherwise. In the past, when the Opposition and its Press predicted and incited a split in the NP, they themselves split. This has happened again. The struggle which broke out in that party does not merely concern participation in the President’s Council or the suspension of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. This struggle is for the soul of the PFP. That party has reached a crossroads, and there is one reason for that. It revolves around the concept “Black majority government”. The hon. member for Houghton is not present at the moment, but she is a fearless politician. She is straightforward and we know where we stand with her. She has repeatedly spelled out fearlessly that the end result of their policy will be that there will be a majority of Blacks on the voters’ roll. She does not fear Black domination; she welcomes it. She has just repeated that she is in favour of direct parliamentary representation of Coloureds and Blacks on a common voters’ roll. If the franchise is granted to all on a common voters’ roll and within an open unitary community, then in South Africa this must necessarily lead to a Black majority government and domination by the Blacks. The hon. member for Houghton knows that this is so. Moreover, she accepts it as such. In her party there are people who think as she does in this regard, for example the hon. member for Groote Schuur, who stated very clearly as long ago as 1976, in Durban, that he had no objection to Black people being on a common voters’ roll together with Whites. In answer to a further question, he replied that there could also be Black majority rule in South Africa. Moreover, this appears in the Hansard of the Other Place.

Unfortunately the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not present in the House at the moment. However, I want to say to him that he does not have the courage to repudiate the hon. member for Houghton when she states this standpoint openly. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will not dare put her in her place, because he knows that her standpoint is also the standpoint of the entire Houghton clique in the PFP, the clique which really governs that party, and by whom the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is merely being used to attract Afrikaner votes for them and to try and improve the image of the party. Recently that same Houghton clique saw to it that the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout were kicked out of the top executive posts of the PFP. Consequently the hon. member for Yeoville himself launched an attack on this clique by whom he had been kicked out.

Just see where Colin is sitting now.

Of course, it is again that same Houghton clique which saw to it that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was summarily suspended from the caucus of the PFP. I predict today that the overhasty action of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is going to become an albatross about his neck which he will not easily get rid of.

While the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was making his moderate and very realistic speeches in this House, the spiritual mother of the PFP sat next to him, her eyes flashing with indignation. We were able to watch this from these benches, and of course we found it very entertaining. Even then we realized that the long knives were out in the PFP.

Just as the first Schlebusch Commission unleashed the action that led to the split in the old United Party, the present Schlebusch Commission caused a confrontation between the conflicting forces in the PFP. One of the principles endorsed by hon. members of the PFP in the Schlebusch Commission is that the so-called system of one man, one vote in the existing constitutional system could only have destructive consequences. It must surely have been clear to everyone that that was a rejection of the basic ideology of the far left group in the PFP. It must have been very difficult for them to swallow that, and accordingly they decided to carry out a leftist coup.

The hon. member for Sea Point if sitting and laughing while I say this, but he of course knows that he is part of the clique. [Interjections.] It must have been very difficult for that far left group in the PFP to swallow this decision. Accordingly they decided to carry out a leftist coup which cost the hon. member for Bezuidenhout his head. After all, the over-hasty severity with which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition acted is not characteristic of him. Surely it attests to leftist venom which must have driven him to it. At the start of this session I said to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in this House that his best efforts to improve the image of that party would not succeed if he did not put certain elements in his party in their place or get rid of them. However, what happened in the course of this session? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was unable to put those leftist elements in their place. What in fact happened was that they took over the party, as is now evident from the rapid and over-hasty action against the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Therefore I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, at the end of this session, that he might as well give up his efforts to improve the image of that party, because the elements that undermine the image of that party have now taken over the party. I also want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he is going to become a captive of the far-left power bloc in that party. From now on he will have to dance to the tune of the Houghton clique if he is to survive in that party. I also wish to tell him that he will have to guard against his party being forced by those far leftists into extra-constitutional action. It is extremely disturbing that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition permitted himself and his party to be hijacked by this dangerous clique to which the hon. member for Yeoville referred.

In my final minute I want to say that we have reached the end of a historic session. This is so because we have come to the end of the long and epic road of the Senate. It is with nostalgia that one thinks about the Other Place, which is conducting its final sitting today. Looking at the television cameras being installed, one realizes that this is a major event. I cannot agree with the chorus of imitators who, in the final days, so cheerfully disparaged the Senate, as if it had never been of any use. The Senate has left its mark on our history. The Senate has always been a stabilizing factor in our legislative politics, a body which lent dignity to our parliamentary structure. The Senate gave us the benefit of the wisdom of people of experience and maturity, and their wisdom will be missed in this Parliament in time to come.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just spoken spent most of his time dealing with the official Opposition, and I shall leave that matter there.

I should like to refer to the preceding speech, that of the hon. member for Pinelands, who unfortunately is not here now, and his reference to the moderate Black leaders of South Africa. I must say that I agree entirely that they are people who have a tremendous role to play in the future of this country. I have said before that I believe that these Black leaders, the homeland leaders as well as many of the urban Black leaders, are playing a major part in helping to keep South Africa on a stable course to the future. If that is so, however, surely it is those people whose hands we must strengthen, instead of appealing for the release of Mandela and people like that, because it is not in the hands of the Mandelas that the future of South Africa lies. It lies in the hands of the Buthelezis, the Phatudis and the Ntsanwisis.

Those leaders also want him released.

No. This is where we always get the official Opposition interpreting what other people say. What the Black leaders have said is that they want the release of all political detainees. They have never called for the individual release of one person to be set up as a symbol of Black leadership. The Black leaders have never done that.

This is traditionally the occasion when one reviews the session and tries to draw some lessons from what has happened over the past five months. There is no doubt, and it would be churlish to deny, that some good has come out of this session.

We got rid of Malcomess.

There has been good, over and above what my hon. colleague said about our having got rid of, perhaps, some of our odd luggage! The trouble is, however, that, as so often happens with this Government, when it acts correctly, it is so apologetic and hesitant, and it so wraps its actions around with qualifications and half-heartedness, that in the event, even when the Government acts correctly, it is often counterproductive, because it has sown distrust and doubt as to what the motives are. This is one of its problems.

If I were to look for an epitaph to this session, and a lesson to the Government and the official Opposition, it would perhaps be that “the evil that men do, lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones”. That is the problem with even the good things that the Government does. It is so quickly interred, but the evil lives on. This is their problem, viz. to give credibility to change, because the evil of yesterday lives on and throws its shadow on what they are doing. The hon. the Minister of Finance—I must give him credit—with his economic policies this year, his taxation policy, the stimulation of the economy, etc., and the hon. the Prime Minister with his recognition of the role of private enterprise and his attempts to involve it in the national strategy, have brought about positive improvements and made progress possible. The hon. the Minister of Manpower Utilization has brought in new ideas and progress in the labour field. Who would ever have believed that in a few words this Parliament could abolish the Black Building Workers Act without cries to high heaven being heard? I do not know what has happened to a certain Mr. Beetge. I would imagine that he has had a couple of coronaries since then. Who would have imagined that we could abolish the Black Building Workers Act and have unanimous support for that in this House? So there have also been social changes. The trouble is that the hon. the Minister of Community Development makes them by exemption so that he remains the boss. He should say: “It is not my job to decide these things; the local authority where the people live must take the social decisions on the utilization of their own facilities.” We have had the Public Service reorganization which must still be judged. However, these are all positive aspects of this session.

I say again, however, that the reluctance with which so much of it has been done has taken away the effectiveness of it, because this Parliament in this session has been overshadowed by events outside this House, e.g. the events in Rhodesia and in South West Africa, pressures on South Africa from overseas, our growing isolation, and boycotts of schools and buses, strikes, unrest, demonstrations and violence, terrorism and sabotage within South Africa. I do not want to suggest that South Africa is in revolution. It is certainly no worse than Northern Ireland, Miami, Iran or any of the other trouble spots in the world. We are not unique in having troubles, but the troubles are symptomatic of a growing frustration, a growing impatience in South Africa which I do not believe we are moving fast enough to eradicate. There is escalating confrontation and threats and I believe that this is a time when one must call for calm and for responsibility.

I want to say one thing very clearly, viz. that I and this party believe that there can never be proper reform or change out of chaos. One cannot have positive and constructive reform in a state of chaos, and therefore what is happening is counterproductive to the cause which the very people who are instigating the trouble allegedly claim to be serving. Law and order is essential if one is going to have positive and constructive change. This is part of the problem that faces us.

We started this session at the beginning of the year with high hopes and expectations, but what has happened to so many of those hopes and expectations on the road to Paradise? To paraphrase the song: “Where have all the young hopes gone?” We started off with South Africa looking to this Parliament for a complete new deal, for new hope and new direction. I believe that much of that hope is still there, but it has got lost amongst the question-marks which this Parliament in this session has put next to so many of those hopes. Decisions have been postponed and challenges have been sidestepped or evaded. The trouble is that the hon. the Prime Minister is driving a dual control “gary”.

No, that is not so.

He is sitting in the driver’s seat holding the steering wheel, but every time he puts his foot on the accelerator the passenger in the dual control puts his foot on the brake. That passenger is …

A reckless driver.

… figuratively, the leader of the NP in the Transvaal. [Interjections.] I am referring to what he represents in NP thinking. I believe the hon. the Prime Minister wants to press the accelerator, but there is that brake there. My advice to him is to trade in that old dual-control gary on a 1980 model. I am even prepared to give him driving lessons free if he wants them. What is happening, is that the hon. the Prime Minister is getting the nickname “Piet die Woord”, while he should become “Piet die Daad”. What we want is deeds. We have had plenty of words; the time has now come for deeds.

But of course it is not only the Government that has had troubles. There were other great hopes and expectations this year and I want to refer to them briefly in passing. There were great hopes for the official Opposition. There were great hopes that a new super-leader would give the PFP a face-lift, a new approach of constructive opposition and a movement away from confrontation politics. They had had a heart transplant, a rejuvenation treatment, but it was not long before they suffered the rejection as well. After one session the new leader is still there, but he is no longer in the driving seat. He is the mascot up on the bonnet while the hon. member for Sea Point continues to sit in the driving seat.

He is a back-seat driver.

They have a few mascots. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is only one of them. He is the mascot who represents the super intellectuality of the party. He is the super intellectual.

And then there was the super-Afrikaner, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, and the super-patriot, the hon. member for Yeoville. Like the former Department of Information had its fronts, these represented the three fronts of the PFP. And now, after one session, it is one down and two to play.

Where are they now?

I can understand the hon. member for Yeoville’s dilemma. A week or two ago at the University of Cape Town he described himself as a “radical moderate”. He was nearly right. I can see his problem. What he is becoming is a “radicalized” moderate.

Or a moderate radical.

It was at no time more obvious than during this week’s debate on the Republic of South Africa Constitution Fifth Amendment Bill.

However, the official Opposition has made its choice. It has opted out of real White politics and entered the grey area of extra-parliamentary pressure groups and extra-parliamentary politics. This left a vacuum which this party, the NRP, has to try to fill.

I am not stupid and I am not pretending that we have not had a rough time—a bad start to this session. It was inevitable. Our image was dented by one by-election and a defection. The hon. the Prime Minister was made the glamour boy of the Press and was presented as the man with all the answers and with a new vision, the man who could offer a new deal and a new strategy and the man who was going to do everything, while in the official Opposition we had a superman who was going to change the image of the Opposition. The hon. the Prime Minister talks of a total onslaught. Boy, oh boy! If you want to hear about total onslaughts, Mr. Speaker, you talk to the NRP. We know all about total onslaughts. [Interjections.] I admit that we took a knock and that we were temporarily immobilized.

Vause, you mean from within also.

From within. We even had another move, the old story, for a united Opposition. The whole party had to be taken along to act as a salve to the conscience of one hon. member who had changed his political philosophy. Those problems have, however, been sorted out now. We have taken our knock and during the course of this session it has become more and more obvious that, with the direction taken by the official Opposition and the marking time and heel-dragging of the Government, a third option must remain and survive in South Africa. It has been a testing time for this party. The foundation of any party is its philosophy. What was tested in this party this year was whether that philosophy was strong enough and real enough, whether it had sufficient strength in itself, to withstand the onslaught of “Operation Destroy” which was launched against the NRP. In the end it has shown that that philosophy has stood the test. It has come through everything that has been thrown at it and more and more now the danger is not that that philosophy will disappear or will be destroyed. What is happening is that it is being taken over in image, superficially but not in fact, in much of the thinking of the Government and it is being talked about more and more throughout South Africa by people who care and think about politics.

The second test of a party when it is in adversity is whether its members can keep a steady nerve. Here we have had those whose nerve cracked. It is inevitable that under pressure the nerve of some people cracks, but I am proud that this small team, which has now re-welded itself into a cohesive force, had the nerve to see it through and will continue to see it through.

To determine whether this party has a real role, one has to look at what we have to contribute. The fact has emerged quite clearly that we have had a contribution to make. I do not think anybody will argue that through this session in the House, in Select Committees and in debate this party has made a contribution, a contribution which South Africa needs, because it needs a voice of responsibility which can criticize without going overboard, which can make positive alternative suggestions instead of blindly opposing, and which can spark new thinking. That is why this party has been able to stand firm and keep faith with itself. It has answered the question whether we have a continuing role to play in politics, a role to play in the new Republic of the 1980s.

We entered yesterday the new Republic of the 1980s. We entered it with the passing of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Fifth Amendment Bill. This country is moving into a new Republic. I do not pretend that we created it. [Interjections.] However, we foresaw it and we helped to break the political log-jam in South Africa. It was only when the UP disbanded and this party was formed that the political log-jam started to break up. It has broken up and hurt us too as a party but it has served the interests of South Africa. Politics today has become more fluid than it has probably been for decades.

I am a realist. I want to say that, had the hon. the Prime Minister carried through the momentum of his new deal which he forecast last year, had he come to Parliament and carried that momentum through and had he taken over the substance instead of the pretence of much of our thinking, this party would not have had a role to play. We pioneered directions in which the NP is now looking. Within the NP there are people who want to move in the direction that we have signposted. If the Prime Minister had really moved, he would have destroyed us, but as it happened, in the compromising and watering down of his initiative which has taken place this session, this party continues to have a role to play. I believe the hon. the Prime Minister himself wants to move. He wants to move, but the loyalty, the unity of the NP is an obsession which cannot be overcome. The danger of hurting people within the NP has become more important than the needs and the demands of South Africa.

I want to interrupt myself for a moment to say something which should not be necessary, but I get tired of the constant speculation and questions. There is speculation that my party and I are going to join the NP. This is the speculation of sideline experts, but there is another motive, of course. They want to destroy us because they think if the NRP is destroyed, then our followers will all tamely drift into the PFP. [Interjections.] I want to disillusion them, however. I and nobody of my followers are going to join the NP in its present state—the confusion and the marking time into which the NP is bogged down.

What I have said and say again is that if the hon. the Prime Minister moves in the right direction, we shall help him by supporting and doing all we can to encourage those moves, as we did this week with the Constitution Bill and as we shall do in relation to other matters which we regard as being in the interest of South Africa. I am not prepared, however, to sell my philosophy and my principles and my beliefs for easy street comfort or a shortcut of convenience.

That is sensible.

We shall help where we believe the Government is acting correctly; we shall criticize and oppose where we believe it is acting wrongly. There are obvious examples. On the question of law and order, and the security and stability of South Africa we support the Government. On the question of the accommodation of group identity in a structure in South Africa where in the rights and security of the group is protected, I can say that is our basic philosophy. But then it must go beyond an obsession with the group and include a linking together, joint decision-making and working together towards one common destiny. We believe in the decentralization of decision-making, and this is one of the points where we disagree with the Government because of its tendency to centralize power. We believe in the removal of discrimination which the Government claims to believe in. Where it moves towards eliminating discrimination, we shall support it. We reject, as the Government does, forced integration at neighbourhood level, but equally we believe that the local community, where it lives, should have the right to take that decision. We believe in the control of communities over their own intimate affairs at the lowest level where they live, but then we believe in joint responsibility over common affairs. So I can go on with a list of things in respect of which we and the Government are moving in the same direction, even though we do not think exactly the same.

There are things on which we fundamentally differ. One is the Balkanization of South Africa, the cutting up of South Africa and the casting into Umbo of the pieces as independent States. The Government will have to move much more positively towards the concept of confederation which once again this party pioneered and which the Government rejected only last year, but which has now been accepted as part of the policy of the Government. We object, we are totally opposed to the domination of the central Government over all other levels of authority in South Africa. We believe that the Government will have to move into an acceptance that there are grey areas and that one cannot partition South Africa into clear Black, White and Brown areas. There must, however, be grey areas, flexible areas that must be fitted in to the pattern of our society. We believe that those symbols that are seen as symbols of inferiority, e.g. the Mixed Marriages Act and the Immorality Act, are things that should go if we are to show a genuine desire for harmony amongst our peoples. I could go on, if I had the time, with other issues, e.g. the question of the rights of the individual, human rights within the law and within the needs of security, and also the relationship between the executive and the judiciary. These are areas where there are basic differences between us.

I therefore see this party as remaining not only the instigator of new thinking within the parameters of what is real, of what “is” rather than what we would like things to be, but also as a catalyst for maintaining a moderate centre in political thinking in South Africa, to bring together the moderates of this country, to bring them into a common political process—not just the Whites, but the Whites, the Browns and the Blacks, for in each of those groups there are moderates whose destiny lies together. I see this party as continuing to present realistic alternatives. I see it as having a role in communication across the colour line with other races.

I have often pleaded for a new government of national reconciliation. It cannot happen through us at present. That I know now, but it leaves us another role. I do not know if anybody here has ever been involved in a rhino catch. One gets the rhino pointing the right way, but one cannot get it to move. There are people like the PFP, of course, who stand in front waving red flags and trying to pull it along, but it gets stubborn and turns the other way. The way to get a rhino to move when it is a bit dozey after it has been doped is to get behind it and prod it. One prods it with an electric prodder.

It is thick-skinned …

If it is a bit thick-skinned and one cannot get it to move, one lifts its tail and prods it a bit more. [Interjections.] Let me warn the hon. the Prime Minister that this party has an electric prodder, and one of the roles of this party is going to be to prod those in the Government who think as we think, who know that we have to move in this country as we know that we have to move. [Interjections.] I am referring to those people who believe in human dignity, in equal opportunity within one economy, in the protection of minorities from domination, in group control over their own affairs, in joint decision-making in affairs of common interest, in the local option of a community to determine the character of its own neighbourhood and in a common patriotism. In that party there are people who believe in all these things, and I see this party, not only as a party that will try, by example and new thinking, to initiate new movement, but also as a party to prod and push in order to try to make this Government get over its inertia, its fear of confrontation and conflict within its own ranks. This party therefore has a role to play, and we shall continue to play it. We shall play it as South Africans trying to serve South Africa. That is why it is important, here and outside, to have the centre of South African politics survive, and we are going to make it survive.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, this Third Reading Stage of the Appropriation Bill gives one an opportunity of covering a fairly wide field. What I am going to say this afternoon is purely for the record of Parliament.

I have been in Parliament during the eventful past 14 years. During my very first session in this House, the then Prime Minister, Dr. H. F. Verwoerd, was stabbed to death in his seat just opposite to where I was sitting. I remember how my first thought was what could be done. Then I ran out to telephone for an ambulance.

The new Prime Minister, Mr. B. J. Vorster, had scarcely been in office for three years when Dr. Albert Hertzog and three other MPs were expelled from the governing NP for challenging the new leadership direction of the NP. They subsequently formed the HNP.

When I first came here, after a crushing UP defeat by Dr. Verwoerd, who was generally regarded as the great White hope of Southern Africa, the United Party, to which I belonged, nevertheless held 49 seats and had 14 Senators. They were representative in those days of both town and country constituencies. The United Party’s Leaders Committee set out to re-organize the party on a regional basis, and to re-establish the moderate and conservative image that the party had had before it was infiltrated by liberals, who later formed the Progressive Party, after first walking out as a group, when, at a Bloemfontein congress, in 1959, they found that they were unable to persuade the delegates to turn that old United Party of Hertzog and Smuts into a leftist liberal urban party.

Oh, just listen to that! [Interjections.]

Beset by internal problems and faced with much improved United Party organization … [Interjections.]

Are you joining the Nats today, John?

… the NP lost 17 seats to the United Party in the general election of 1970. The hon. member for Houghton retained for the Progs their one and only seat. The United Party made substantial inroads into NP support, especially in peri-urban areas. 1972, however, was the year in which the Young Turks, led by the hon. member for Yeoville and manipulated by their spiritual father, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, decided to hijack the United Party. Their henchmen infiltrated the committees of the party, and they, together with their co-conspirators in the Press, planned to capture control of all party committees and of the party machine at every level, both in the Transvaal and in the Cape. The hon. the Minister of Community Development can testify to the truth of what I am saying now.

First they removed the hon. the Minister of Community Development as the United Party leader in the Transvaal, in a vicious campaign of personal denigration. Then they by way of Press leaks from all committees, inspired a Press campaign of character assassination against every single United Party leader who was not in their camp. Their ultimate objective was Sir De Villiers Graaff himself, and although he was repeatedly warned by those who were loyal to him, he steadfastly refused to believe what he saw happening before his very eyes. He even tried to reconcile the loyalists who were standing by him and protecting him, with the underminers who were plotting against him and who, in reality, wanted to amalgamate that party with the Progressive Party.

The result was a paralysis, and the 1974 election was predictably a disaster for the United Party. The Progressive Party won seven seats and shortly thereafter they were joined, in the renamed Progressive Reformed Party, by the four Young Turks, whom Sir De Villiers Graaff had so generously allowed to be given safe seats in the Transvaal. [Interjections.]

In 1976 Sir De Villiers Graaff launched what he called a new initiative, aimed at establishing a new Opposition party as an alternative Government. The ex-judge Kowie Marais Committee, consisting of little-known United Party men, lesser known democrats and much better known Progs, after sitting for something like three months, brought out a set of 14 political principles as a basis for a new political party. All three party leaders, Eglin, Gerdener and Sir De Villiers Graaff, each claimed that these principles drawn up by this committee accorded with their own party’s principles. When five of my United Party colleagues and myself, all of whom had been the targets of the Young Turks for years, objected to the 14 Marais principles replacing the United Party principles on which we had been elected to Parliament, and also to the continued negotiations between the United Party leadership and the Progressive Party, we were expelled from the only political party to which any of us, and all of us, had ever belonged. After a few months, as independent United Party members, we established the South African Party at a congress in Pretoria at the end of May 1977, a party with identical principles to those of the United Party prior to it accepting the 14 principles manufactured by Judge Marais and his committee. About a month later, what was then left in that party, the party founded by Gen. Hertzog and Gen. Smuts, dissolved as a party on an ice rink in Johannesburg. The next day, after losing the MP for Bezuidenhout and a few cronies, that party formed itself into the New Republic Party. That versatile member, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, immediately found common ground with the Progressive Reform Party, and to the triumphant shouts of the English-language Press in South Africa the PFP was formed. The once great nation-wide party, the United Party, had been smashed by the combined assault of English-language newspapers and leftist liberal political intriguers. I would call them the present-day equivalent of the political forces that tried to destroy the old Boer Republics in South Africa. The United Party’s successor as the official Opposition is a combination of urban armchair liberals and radical left wingers with notions of street politics very far removed from democratic processes. Since I had the misfortune to sit with some of those gentlemen in the same caucus for a while, I can assure hon. members that I know what I am talking about. In actual fact, to substantiate what I have said, we have seen the action this week of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He has been alarmed at what he has seen in the party that he helped to found. He sees that they are playing with fire, and people who play with fire will get their fingers burnt.

Fourteen years after I came here, today they, the official Opposition, that great “verligte” front, that wonderful, new “verligte” dispensation for South Africa that was promised when the United Party was broken up, number 18 and they have one member in the Senate. The small South African Party was returned to Parliament after the 1977 election with three members of Parliament, from Port Elizabeth Central, Walmer and Simonstown.

Supported by the NP.

Two of our former colleagues did not stand for re-election in three-cornered contests. Two others did stand for re-election in three-cornered contests and lost their seats, one to the NP in the platteland and one to the Progs in the city. During the period of time that my colleagues and I have sat here, we have tried to play that role of a responsible and constructive Opposition that we set for ourselves, as have our three colleagues in the Cape Provincial Council. What is more, we have upheld those principles on which we were elected to Parliament, i.e. White unity and White leadership, which, for the edification of my friends on this side, means purposeful leadership and not “baasskap”. During the past two traumatic years for Southern Africa we have tried to play our part in this Parliament as South African patriots.

Our life as a political party, however, has been a short one. Some of us hoped and believed that, from the ashes of the United Party, the South African Party would form a base for a moderate, conservative Opposition party. However, I must be quite frank. This has not proved possible, largely because the Opposition-supporting English-language Press is Prog-owned and Prog-controlled, and, far from being a free Press, its daily newspapers are nothing more nor less than daily propaganda sheets of the PFP. [Interjections.] Most of their political reporters, far from being journalists of independent spirit, are the obvious slaves of the PFP politicians, whose every word they publicize, whose hospitality they eagerly accept and whose political feet they daily kiss in public. The SAP, on the other hand, receives no editorial support whatsoever. Its policies are never examined in political columns, no matter how accurate our forecasts have been …

Does your party have a constitution?

… no matter how many of those things for which we have stood for years have been adopted by other parties and by other politicians, and no matter how well, and from whatever platform, we have put our case. No political party can possibly grow and attract supporters under those circumstances. Voters are being offered only a straightforward choice: between the NP on the one hand and the PFP on the other hand. At the same time we are entering a new political era. The State President’s Council, which will have Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Chinese representatives, will deal with matters of common concern to those who live in the Republic and do not have other homelands, and specially appointed committees and commissions are at present dealing with questions of consolidating the Black homelands and working at improving conditions in Black urban areas. When this has been put into practice South Africa will never be the same again. In my opinion the books of the past have been closed forever, and we must look to the future.

*South Africa has recently shown remarkable progress in various fields. The positive measures announced and put into practice by the hon. the Prime Minister, inter alia, the new constitutional measures, represent unparalleled progress. This does not mean, however, that the dangers and problems facing us, have disappeared. Better sports relations, for example, should not be regarded as a significant break-through in the international field. On the contrary, international hostility towards South Africa is daily becoming better organized. Growing amounts are constantly being spent by certain “friends” on the propaganda campaign against our country. Our open enemies present less of a danger to us than some of our so-called friends. The country still regarded by many as leader of the West has today become too weak to injure its enemies, but is still strong enough to stab its friends in the back. One need only ask the Shah of Iran, Taiwan, Zimbabwe and Israel. We should rather realize that the international hostile onslaught against South Africa will worsen before it abates or is diverted by other world events. The position in Southern Africa as a whole, and in South West Africa and on our borders in particular, is delicate, and I believe it is going to deteriorate. We must be prepared in the economic and military fields. We must build a national unity capable of withstanding the onslaught from outside.

Internally we find that the progress made due to the initiatives of the hon. the Prime Minister, the constitutional progress and the better dispensation for so many of our underprivileged people in various fields, is resulting in the extremists to the left and to the right merely intensifying their onslaughts. The right-wing onslaught and the right-wing reaction cannot be ignored; but it is not so dangerous, since, as far as I know, they do not receive significant support from outside South Africa. One can understand the feverish agitation to organize strikes and boycotts and to violate law and order, since each positive step taken by the Government to improve the position of our underprivileged people weakens the leftist liberal platform of our enemies, agitators and the hostile Press in this country. These people will become more and more irresponsible in an attempt to achieve nothing less than disruption of the positive action of the Government. They hope that by way of unrest, strikes and boycotts they will create a climate among the White voters which will make it impossible for the Government to continue with its positive course of action.

The hostile Press in this country is conducting a well-planned campaign to present tourists and overseas visitors with a distorted image of South Africa and to promote racial friction and White discord. Few countries can afford a fifth column of such magnitude.

There is another aspect of our political life, however, which those who value the safety, the preparedness and the prosperity of the Republic may not lose sight of. I refer to the internal wing of the international anti-South African movement, viz. the PFP. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Bryanston must contain himself.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is that last phrase of the hon. member for Simonstown parliamentary?

Will the hon. member please repeat the phrase to which he objects?

The hon. member for Simonstown says the PFP, the official Opposition, is the internal wing of an international conspiracy against South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I said I was referring to the internal wing of the anti-South African movement, viz. the PFP, which is a political party in South Africa. I was not referring to individuals and even less to individual members of the hon. official Opposition.

I shall consider the hon. member’s point of order. The hon. member for Simonstown may proceed in the mean time.

The harm they do, particularly to internal relations, must not be underestimated. This party has a built-in charm for everyone with a negative approach. They offer a natural home to every feeling of guilt and every feeling of inferiority among the Whites.

You are sick.

The PFP is the five-star refuge for despair, loss of courage and every smouldering tendency to surrender. [Interjections.] Under the protection of the degree of respectability which a recognized political party can afford, they are sowing discouragement, hate and discord.

In view of the gravity of the situation in which South Africa finds itself, the SAP must make certain recommendations. The SAP has never claimed to be perfect, but neither have we ever made common cause with the enemies of South Africa. It is true that we are the smallest political party in this House, but we have never taken second place to anyone as far as the quality of our patriotism is concerned. We wish to, and must, state how we see the road ahead and what we are prepared to contribute towards the creation of a better and safer fatherland.

The preservation and promotion of the free market system and the democratic form of government has always been fundamental to the thinking of this party. That is why we enthusiastically welcomed the new constitutional steps and the discussions of the hon. the Prime Minister with business leaders. We have often said that South Africa is only as free and as safe as we are economically sound. The success of the free market system is indissolubly linked with our economic prosperity, the basis of full employment and of our military power. We believe that we should be ready, in the economic and military spheres, for any onslaught from outside. We believe that while we have to enthusiastically maintain internal safety and law and order, South Africa must continue with a programme which will guarantee a better life for all its people. This imaginative new dispensation in the economical, educational and political fields should be extended, not because of boycotts and strikes, but in spite of them. Every inch of progress made by the underprivileged signifies a defeat for our enemies and their agitators.

The SAP believes that since his acceptance of this office the hon. the Prime Minister has furnished proof of his serious and sincere intent to assure more people in South Africa of a better existence and to strengthen our country against our enemies from outside. We believe that the hon. the Prime Minister will succeed in doing this. We think that the major obstacles in the way of the NP are petty political disputes and White dissension. What is in our opinion of predominant importance at this juncture is true national unity. We believe that the gravity of the situation in which South Africa finds itself, requires drastic action. Throughout South Africa there are thousands of supporters of the old United Party who were left partyless by the dissolution of the United Party and who have since then never found a political home. The bitterness of the old political struggle between Nat and Sap and the traditional party loyalty of our people caused them to stand by a party which no longer exists. Realism has kept them from joining the NRP and patriotism has kept them from joining the Progs. [Interjections.]

Wiley by name and nature!

The sentiments and disputes of the past continued to exist between them and the Government, with whose course of action they actually agree. At this time South Africa needs these patriotic South Africans, both English and Afrikaans speaking, the followers of Gen. Botha, Gen. Smuts and Gen. Hertzog. These loyal people, for whom no sacrifice for their country’s sake has ever been too great, can now forget the differences, the reproaches and the mistakes of the past, and bring about greater national unity, which has always been the cornerstone of their political faith. When South Africa was on its knees during the depression, Gen. Smuts and Gen. Hertzog forgot the political differences of the past and formed the United Party, a party to which so many people are still holding fast today in that belief. The danger facing us now, is far greater and the alternative far more dreadful. Political gain, political honour and political dissension will have to make way for political reconciliation, political co-operation and the kind of national unity which will be the only guarantee for our continued existence.

Let history never record that those who have been prepared time and again to die for their country, were not prepared to extend the hand of co-operation to one another for the sake of South Africa. The former supporters of the South African Party and the United Party are those people who now have to give momentum to those measures which are indispensable to our survival. I believe that time will prove that the finest characteristic of these people, their patriotism, is stronger than the disputes and the reproaches of the past.

The party structure of the SAP has decided that the interests of South Africa could now best be served by dissolving as a party. The six public representatives of the SAP have decided to offer the Prime Minister their support as from 1 July 1980. [Interjections.]

I am all in favour of it.

I am prepared to prove my belief in my people. I shall resign my seat.

That is honesty, and I take my hat off to it.

Throughout my participation in South African public life I have promised from time to time to resign my seat if I should resign from a party to join another party. [Interjections.] This is not really applicable now, because my party has decided to dissolve, but nevertheless I want to prove my confidence in the voters in a constitution as representative of the South African community as Simonstown.

You do not have a chance.

I will at least have my honour. In spite of the dissolution of my party I believe that it is important that the will of the electorate should be proved in the constituency of the leader of the party, which has now taken an important decision.

I give notice that I shall resign on 30 June as member of the House of Assembly. If the hon. the Prime Minister and the electorate of Simonstown believe that I have a further contribution to make, I shall be prepared to fight the by-election, whenever it may be held, on the basis of what the hon. the Prime Minister is now doing for South Africa. I repeat: On the basis of what the hon. the Prime Minister is now doing for South Africa. My colleagues in the House of Assembly and in the Provincial Council are under no such obligation, therefore it is not necessary for them to fight by-elections too, since the party to which they belong, is now being dissolved. I need their support, in any case!

†I wish to thank …

So they can lose their honour, but you must keep yours? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Pinelands entitled to say that the hon. members will lose their honour if they do not resign? [Interjections.]

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

Mr. Speaker, I will gladly do that. I put the following words in the form of a question to the hon. member: “So they can lose their honour, but you can keep yours?” [Interjections.]

What about the hon. member for East London North?

Order! The hon. member for Simonstown may proceed while I consider the point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you on behalf of my colleagues for the firm, but fair, way in which you have treated us. Your personal friendliness and courtesy will not be forgotten. The Secretary to Parliament and his senior staff have been helpful to us beyond the normal limits of their duties. Parliament is indeed fortunate to have such outstanding officials. All other parliamentary servants, from the most senior to the messengers here in the House, have been both courteous and helpful. To all of them—the catering staff, the floor messengers and the cleaning staff—I want to say “Thank you”. Lastly, I want to express to my hon. colleagues here in the House my deep appreciation of our close friendship, their loyal support for me, their help and their self-sacrifices.

Our decision has not been taken easily. We have devoted many years to a particular philosophy and to particular principles. It was easier for us to take this step as a result of the diplomacy and understanding of the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, whom each of us have known since the years we were with him in the provincial council. Our three members of the provincial council are present in the public gallery. To them we express our gratitude for the assistance they give us in our constituencies. To our members, supporters and sympathizers we want to say that our six public representatives have made a decision, as we see it, in the best interests of our country. We hope they and our supporters in every constituency in the Republic will join us in a new political home so as to make that positive contribution that our country needs from all its citizens at this time of destiny and the parting of the ways from an era that is past.

Hear, hear!

Order! I want to give my rulings on the two points of order which were raised.

*The hon. member for Simonstown said that the PFP was the internal wing of the international anti-South African movement. This anti-South African movement does of course have many facets, branches and organizations. Some of them are banned organizations and some are communistic. I think his words implied a reflection on members of the PFP who are also members of this House. I must therefore call upon the hon. member for Simonstown to withdraw the words.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the words.

I consider that also the words used by the hon. member for Pinelands cast a reflection, by implication, on the honour of two hon. members of this House. The hon. member for Pinelands must, therefore, withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them.

Mr. Speaker, having evaluated the present situation of South Africa correctly, the hon. member for Simonstown acted in an honourable way today, according to his convictions and in a spirit of South Africanism on which I wish to congratulate him. I want to tell him that the step he is taking together with his colleagues, will carry not only the confidence and the agreement of his own followers. He will also be most welcome within the ranks of the Government party.

*He correctly pointed out that a total onslaught is being waged on various fronts on the stability and proper order in South Africa. In his usual clear language, to which we have grown accustomed over many years in this House, the hon. member expressed strong opinions on orderly development, a free market system and the security of our country.

Today the hon. member, his colleagues and his followers are taking a step of decisive importance to our country. For me personally, as a person who has been a member of this House for many years and who has the longest uninterrupted service here, it was a great moment to listen to the hon. member, to a person with the integrity and the conviction of the hon. member for Simonstown.

It grieved me to see that there were newcomers to this House who were unable to appreciate this great moment. It is a pity that there are people who do not seem to be able to evaluate such parliamentary occasions as this correctly.

The hon. member has taken an unselfish step. He has taken a courageous step. He has taken his political life in his hands. I welcome him because I have for years had respect for him as an opponent, and because I have had respect for him as an opponent, I shall accord him the same respect as friend and supporter.

His example must make a great impression on all patriotic South Africans today, including those who may differ with him on the standpoints which he adopts.

†He made an important contribution today towards greater unity and the development of a national will, a national opposing will, but also a national positive will in the interests of South Africa. The hon. member intends resigning, as he told us, to fight a by-election. In my opinion he deserves the support of all those who wish to see our country prosper and made safe for all its peoples and for civilization. He can depend on the support of this side of the House in that fight.

*I also wish to assure those of his followers who, together with him, are taking this courageous step, of our wholehearted welcome, and I am speaking on behalf of all hon. members on this side of the House. We find it gratifying to see how South Africa, in these times, is still gathering its children together for the great future which awaits us.

Now that I have congratulated the hon. member and welcomed him and his followers, I wish to dwell for a moment on the hon. member for Durban Point. That hon. member reminded me today of an Afrikaans book entitled Saul, Die Worstelheld. [Interjections.] It is one of the best-known books of Prof. D. F. Malherbe. In it he describes the extremely intense conflict in the mind of Saul, the “worstelheld”. I can understand the conflict in the mind of the hon. member for Durban Point, because he is a good South African, a patriot. For 14 years it has been my privilege to co-operate intimately with him, intimately in this sense that although he was a political opponent, he was also a person who was never slow to respond to the security of South Africa, both in word and in deed. The hon. member is, on the one hand, wrestling with these convictions of his. On the other hand, however, he has ties with the past and prejudices from the past, and I can understand in what a situation of conflict he must find himself.

I have no problems. [Interjections.]

No, the hon. member for Durban Point does have a few problems. I know about them. He has serious problems. I do not wish to exploit them today, for it is merely the natural course of events that there is a growing realization even in Natal that all patriotic South Africans should move closer together. [Interjections.] In his conflict today the hon. member stated, inter alia, that the Government’s problem was that it frequently spoilt what was good because of what it had failed to do, or had done too late. I do not wish to accuse him of gross superficiality, but I do wish to accuse him of negligence in the preparation of what he wanted to say. I am saying this because a great many of the problems with which this Government has to contend and which are frustrating and thwarting its best efforts, are factors which arise as a result of the fact that we are a member of the Free World, and that the Free World finds itself under greater pressure than ever before in its history. The hon. member cannot deny that, nor do I think he will deny it, but he must take this fact into account when he makes statements of this kind.

There is a further question I should like to put to him. If the Government is as weak as he sometimes wishes to imply, and again wished to insinuate this morning, how does he explain the fact that the Government was in a position to introduce such a budget as the one it introduced this year, a record budget for South Africa, which in a time of economic turmoil in the world stands out as a tower of strength?

I gave credit for that.

When there are countries in the Western World which are struggling to keep their economies on a sound foundation, how does he explain the fact that we were able to announce that our expected growth rate for the next year was going to be one of the highest? There is a growing realization in the Free World, as a result of the stability and the conservatism, but also of the sensible evolutionary steps which this Government is taking, that South Africa could in the near future be a bastion for the Free World. I ought to know what I am talking about when I say this.

The hon. member for Durban Point referred derisively to me and said he wanted to give me a piece of advice in the capacity in which I have to hold onto the steering-wheel. “I want to advise the hon. the Prime Minister how he should operate the steering-wheel”, were more or less his words I think.

I said you should get rid of your co-driver.

The hon. member may give me advice if he wishes, but he must now pardon me if I tell him something as well. I thought to myself while I was sitting here, listening to him: The more he accelerates, the more of a speed “wobble” he develops. [Interjections.] The hon. member then wanted to use electrical prodders to egg us on, but then he brought a rhinoceros into this House. With that he renamed his party. I hear they now call his party the “New Rhino Prodder”. [Interjections.]

Oh well, all joking aside, I do have sympathy for the hon. member for Durban Point.

It is not necessary.

I sympathize with him. I want to give him time to resolve his conflict, because he is, as I have said, under great pressure. However, I wish to put it to him that the leadership which the hon. member for Simonstown has displayed here today, is quite probably the best example in these times, which is to make a choice between the forces that wish to create chaos in this country and the forces that wish to guarantee orderly development.

A one-party State.

Just listen to that: “A one-party State,” coming from the hon. member—if I am not mistaken—for Sea Point.

That just goes to show how little confidence he has in himself.

The people who are going to turn this country into a “one-party State” are those people who boycott democracy in its functions. [Interjections.] If this country is to remain a democracy with a party system, the loyal Opposition must also realize its responsibilities when the majority in this House has decided on something. However, I shall come back to this later.

Colin’s interjection was a foolish interjection in any case.

Yes, it was a stupid interjection. That is also why he is no longer leader of his party. [Interjections.] Yes, one must of course always give stupid people a little encouragement. [Interjections.]

You responded to it nevertheless.

To the hon. member for Durban Point I wish to say that I am not now advocating that he should take the direct route which the hon. member for Simonstown is taking. I am not trying to open doors for him unnecessarily. What I do wish to tell him, however, is that he should be careful in his boldness, not to level criticism and accusations at the Government at a juncture in which South Africa should emphasize the positive instead of the negative.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, I hear a grumbling sound from the old judge as well. What would he be grumbling about now? [Interjections.]

Order!

I should like to make a statement today in connection with educational matters.

†I have already announced, some time ago, the Cabinet’s decision in principle that an in-depth investigation into all aspects of education be undertaken. It has now been decided that the Human Sciences Research Council be requested to launch a coordinated and scientific investigation, in collaboration with all interested parties, and to make recommendations to the Cabinet within 12 months regarding:

1. 1. Principle guidelines for a practicable education policy in the Republic of South Africa so that—
   1. (i) The optimum potential of all its inhabitants be realized;
   2. (ii) The economic growth of the Republic of South Africa be promoted; and
   3. (iii) The quality of life of all its inhabitants be improved.
2. 2. The organizational and control structure as well as the financing of education.
3. 3. The consultative and decision-making mechanisms in education.
4. 4. An infrastructure for education that would fulfil the manpower needs of the Republic of South Africa and the self realization of its inhabitants; and
5. 5. A programme whereby equality in education for all population groups can be attained.

*This investigation must be carried out with due regard, inter alia, for the existing situation in education, the population structure of South African society and the means which can be made available for education within the overall national economy. The investigation will be directed at all levels of education, i.e. pre-primary, primary, secondary and tertiary education.

The procedure to be adopted in the investigation was drawn up pursuant to a Cabinet resolution of 17 April 1979, in which the South African plan for human sciences research was approved. Pursuant to this Cabinet resolution the HSRC drew up a plan of action for the conducting of research into general national problem areas and cleared a plan with the Scientific Planning Division of my office, with Government departments, with universities and with other research bodies active in the area of human sciences. The resulting procedure will, inter alia, entail the following:

First, the Human Sciences Research Council has called upon the services of Prof. J. P. de Lange, principal of the Rand Afrikaans University. He will act as research leader of the investigation.

Second: After the necessary consultation, a high-level co-ordinating committee will be appointed from the proposed President’s Council, which will guide and co-ordinate the investigation, and ensure that it is conducted on a scientific basis. The members of this committee will consist of representatives of interested Government departments, the private sector and other bodies, as well as leading scientists from all the disciplines which can make a contribution to the development of education.

Third: All educational bodies will be involved in the subcommittees and work groups of the investigation.

Fourth: The investigation will be conducted on a co-ordinated basis for the various population groups.

Fifth: The investigation will be carried out in the spirit of positive co-ordination, i.e. the available research manpower within as well as outside the HSRC, and all research activities which have been disposed of or which are still in progress will be involved in the investigation on a basis of voluntary co-operation.

Sixth: The Human Sciences Research Council will carry out certain sections of the investigation itself, but will for the most part make its research infrastructure available for the investigation.

Seventh: Priority will be accorded to particular bottlenecks, so that an investigation of these problems can be expedited and interim reports with recommendations on such problems can be submitted to the Cabinet. Where appropriate, alternative solutions to the problem areas in education will be suggested.

Now I should like to say a few words on certain facets of the present unrest in the country, which has been referred to in this as well as other debates. The Government re-emphasizes that, over and above the investigation to which I have just referred, we are in earnest about taking all fair steps to rectify the real grievances which exist among the Coloured communities and other communities. Then, too, the Government does not intend to limit such steps to the Coloured community but it is the stated objective of the Government to improve the living conditions of all population groups in this country, including the living conditions of those whom we represent in this House. The Government will continue its efforts to achieve this objective. If it is properly analysed, this year’s budget testifies to this. Ample funds are being made available over a wide spectrum, and the national administration is being utilized to promote the interests of South Africa and its population communities in various spheres..

Once again I should like to sound a serious warning against the oversimplified conclusions that the continuing boycotts and unrest only take place spontaneously and stem from unsatisfied expectations. I cannot deny that at times justified grievances arise in any community. Nor can I deny that from time to time, in the Coloured community, in our Black communities and in the White community situations arise which the community concerned feels strongly about and which must be rectified. This is only human, and it must happen in any State, in its imperfection. However, to want to imply that the present unrest arose only for this reason, is untrue, it is false. Although the Government is aware of the problems, the school children and the labour sector are also to a large extent being used by radicals, who are enemies of South Africa, to try and bring about the eventual collapse of orderly government and national administration. They are being manipulated and exploited for the personal aims and benefit of these enemies of the Republic of South Africa. I have a series of pamphlets in my possession here which I am not going to quote from. These pamphlets have recently been distributed to spur on the unrest. If one considers the matter chronologically, it is interesting to see with what finesse, with what subtlety, this campaign has been launched and has gradually been caused to spread into areas with which it initially, on the surface, had nothing to do. I have here a pamphlet, dated 8 May, which merely gave notice of a boycott. It was not addressed directly to anyone, but simply stated: “Your child’s future: It concerns you!” No innocent schoolchildren can draw up such a pamphlet. These are sophisticated people who have been properly trained in the art of propaganda and psychology.

Even clergymen.

That is all that was stated in this pamphlet. This was followed on 12 May, when other subjects were added: “Are you interested in your child’s future education?” Reference was at that stage made to education. People were asked to attend a meeting on Monday, 12 May. This was followed by another pamphlet on 26 May. That pamphlet referred to another issue, and the subject was no longer merely “Your child’s future”. It was: “Education, school boycotts, increase in bus fares and Lions’ tour.” This was followed by a pamphlet on 2 June, and at that stage it was not merely dealing with the schools’ boycott. The issue then was expressed as follows: “Stop using buses.” There was further reference to “a special meeting” on 3 June, at which the following would be discussed: “How are we using the boycott? How long are we going to boycott? Do you have problems getting to and from work? Can you help us organize?” This was carefully calculated to lead people step by step closer to the edge of the abyss. Then on 12 June there was a new phase: “Report on meat workers’ strike; report on bus boycott; report on management committees; report on school boycott: Thus: Attention! attention! the boycott continues.”

I have singled out just a few examples because I wish to allege, on the basis of these examples, that a community was being used and abused here to promote other ideas, other motives and other objectives. An onslaught is being made here on the order of the State, and the child is being employed under the so-called philosophy— of which we are hearing more every day—of non-violent action to force the State to take steps against children. This is not only the objective in South Africa; the same is happening throughout the Free World. The same is happening in the USA, and recently in Switzerland, in Germany and also in Holland. It is an orchestrated attempt to undermine the will of the State to preserve order by hiding behind the school uniforms of school children, because inherently a terrorist and a communist is a coward. He always hides, either beneath the cloth of the clergy, or behind other things.

Any right-minded person will realize that the future development which the Government is going to initiate will have a drastic effect on the already limited financial means of both the State and the private sector. South Africa does not have unlimited means. It is, as with any other State, limited in its means because a great deal depends on our productivity and of the scope and possibilities of our development, and from that will stem our means to initiate development with which to raise people’s standard of living, to make education and training available, to house communities properly, to initiate major capital works and to ensure the provision of employment. We have an economy which in fact consists of two economies, on the one hand a sophisticated economy and on the other an African economy, which we have to reconcile with one another and which we have to employ to ensure the best for everyone concerned. The point I wish to make, however, is that continued boycotts and unrest defeat attempts at rectification. They waste money and limit the ability of the State to effect improvements. Violence and unrest affect the savings, the properties, the pensions and the happiness of people.

One achieves nothing with boycotts and violence. With boycotts and violence one destroys what a State needs to ensure the standard of living and the happiness of its people. That is why the Government is making an earnest appeal to parents, to all leaders and other responsible people in the community to co-operate and to restore the situation to normal, to act in a responsible way and to identify the agitators and bring them to book. The community must accept that the damage which is being done and the unnecessary additional expenditure which this causes, can only have a detrimental affect on the rectification of shortcomings. I think it is the bounden duty of this Parliament as a whole, of every party and of every member here, to indicate in a very definite way that we are in favour of the boycotts, non-violent action and violence being brought to an end now. No self-respecting State can afford to allow attempts to create anarchy to continue. The Government has a duty to the population to preserve law and order, and it will discharge that duty strictly, but fairly. However, it would be a serious mistake if any person were to underestimate the determination of the Government in this connection, whoever that person may be.

Those who flirt with organizations and individuals who are committing acts of subversion will have to bear the consequences of their actions. I am issuing a final warning now. The Government once again gives its assurance that it is in earnest about improving the living conditions of everyone and obtaining an acceptable dispensation for all the peoples of the Republic of South Africa. For that purpose, however, it needs time as well as the responsible support of all population groups. Although we are giving this assurance, I must at the same time emphasize that since I accepted this position I have personally gone out of my way in an effort to achieve better ethnic relationships. I have done my utmost and I have incurred criticism, even from my own esteemed compatriots, because I realized that I could only lead South Africa along a road of progress if there was internal peace. I did not do this with the spoken word only; the Government has by means of steps in various spheres striven for a spirit of detente through its deeds. Some of these steps sometimes evoked strong criticism from the ranks of our own White members. I am referring here, for example, to the application of the labour policy, to the reports of the Wiehahn and Riekert Commissions. I am also referring to the utilization of permits under the Group Areas Act to bring essential relief where necessary. I am also referring to arrangements in post offices and I am referring to the important steps which we have taken in regard to the meaningful consolidation of national Black States. I am also referring to the actions which we initiated through the appointment of a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, which later became known as the Schlebusch Commission, and the establishment and constitution of the President’s Council. Surely it was no minor step to abolish the Senate. Surely it was no easy step to abolish a body in which the majority of one’s esteemed supporters, of one’s own political party, had had representation for years. Surely it was an act of faith on the part of the Government to create machinery by means of which it tried to work meaningfully on the future and to create something which would bring about a better dispensation for all of us and for our children.

While I am now discussing the abolition of the Senate and the establishment of the President’s Council, I wish to announce that Parliament will be re-convened later this year to give effect to the decision to elect a Vice State President, who will serve as chairman of the President’s Council. On that occasion, I hope, the Government will also be in a position to introduce legislation to establish the Black Council. The only reason for our not having come forward with this legislation is that we are still deliberating and consulting with the leaders, in their own right, of the national Black States. We do not wish to come forward with legislation before they have been consulted in this matter. That is the reason.

I have said that we have endured criticism because of these steps. The accusation has even been made that I had, allegedly, merely created expectations. Surely I did not merely create expectations; surely I went on to effect changes and bring about renewal in this country. But we are enduring this criticism because we are convinced that we are right, because we consider these steps to be in the interests of the Republic of South Africa and because they are in accordance with our sense of what is fair and Christian. The nation to which I belong was the first to light the flame of freedom in this country. We were the first nation in Southern Africa to light the flame of self-determination and of freedom. This nation did not hesitate, throughout its existence, to say that what it demanded for itself, it did not begrudge others. But it is not prepared to abdicate.

Hear, hear!

This attitude on our part is seen in some radical White circles, some radical circles among the Blacks and in some leftist-radical circles among the Coloured people as a weakness. Apparently they are under the impression that greater radicalism can compel the Government into surrender. We are even being compared erroneously with Rhodesia. All that I wish to say to this this afternoon is that it is a dangerous and erroneous evaluation of the real position. This Government is not acting from a position of weakness, and the people whom we represent are not weaklings. We have 300 years of history to prove it.

Hear, hear!

I am irrevocably committed to the creation of constitutional structures which make provision for the self-government and the independence of the various Black nations of the Republic of South Africa, meaningful consolidation within our country’s financial means and the acceptance of a socio-economic programme aimed at the effective development of the territories of such Black States. We must accord the various Black peoples their right to self-determination, as well as their right to national self-satisfaction. This includes that we must deliberate with one another as equals on matters of common interest and on the interests of Southern Africa.

We are working hard on new initiatives to get the idea of a constellation of Southern African States off the ground. It will be possible to make further announcements within the foreseeable future. However, this is not a process which can take place overnight. We are seeking assiduously for a solution to facets of citizenship which have not yet been solved, as well as for a solution to the urban Black communities in such a dispensation. We are doing all these things, and not unilaterally; there are continuous deliberations and consultations with other people, more so than ever before.

However, I wish to emphasize the following in all earnest: This Government is irrevocably committed to the political right to self-determination of White South Africa. We are irrevocably committed to the retention of a community life for our own people and schools for our youth. Our standpoint is that the White nation must help to guarantee and develop meaningful political rights, a community life of their own and schools for all population groups. A great deal has already been achieved in this sphere during the past 30 years, and through co-operation we can achieve a great deal more.

This afternoon I wish to say this: The political rights of the Coloureds have been a political issue since the previous century, and not an issue only since this Government came into power. It was already an issue in the days of Queen Victoria. For that reason compromises have been entered into and for that reason efforts have been made, in a cunning way, to keep people off the voters’ roll by introducing the old Imperial political ploy of qualifications. Surely this was a low-down way of doing things. Of course it was.

Now I say that we must give thought to those rights; we must work on them and deliberate on them until we find a satisfactory solution. No arrangement has up to now ever satisfied them—not the one which was introduced in the days of Queen Victoria either. But how will we achieve this if we are not prepared to deliberate with one another. That is why I say: Let us emphasize the positive, let us engage in constructive work, and then that spirit of negativism which I warned against at the beginning of this year will disappear. I have repeatedly made an appeal for us to eliminate the spirit of negativism for the sake of the way of democracy. Personally I make no secret of the fact that I believe that a great deal of the cultural and religious interests of the Coloured population are inseparably bound up with those of Afrikaans- and English-speaking South Africans. I should also like to see that we find ways and means to continue to coexist with one another with goodwill, but any renewal or development must take place in a constitutional way. On Tuesday, 29 April, I told the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I wanted to know from him whether he agreed with me that this Parliament was a body which could effect changes and that this Parliament had the final say over those changes. In reply to that question the hon. the Leader told me: “Yes, that is correct.” I then said that we would combat every extra-parliamentary action taken with all the force of the State, and he did not object, and I accept that he still adheres to that standpoint. I am consequently asking him whether he still adheres to this standpoint. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition participates in this Parliament, and this Parliament, he says, has many failings. He said that if he were to come into office, he would change the status of this Parliament. Yet he is still participating in it. Yesterday an hon. member reminded him that he was participating in a Joint Committee, in which he also saw serious deficiencies. If this Parliament has to effect these changes, surely the majority in this Parliament has to take those decisions, and not the minority, not so? Surely the minority cannot form a Parliament. The majority forms the Parliament. Surely it has happened repeatedly that the enfranchised voters have been consulted on the constitution of this Parliament, and that this Government has, time and again, been returned with an increased majority. Today we are growing further. We are going to continue to grow. [Interjections.] I am not saying this because I wish to boast, but the whole spirit in South Africa indicates that, although the White South African is not prepared to abdicate, he is also prepared to do justice to the other population groups. However, we are not prepared to throw our own right to self-determination on the scrapheap. If it is true that this Parliament is the only body which can effect changes, how else than through the majority does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wish to effect changes? As we heard him on the Joint Committee, and as we heard him time and again in this House, surely it is his duty to abide by any decision which this Parliament takes. I am not saying that he must not oppose this decision, but he must help to implement it, because he is a member of this Parliament. [Interjections.]

Where do you get that from?

If he does not do so, he is sitting in this Parliament dishonestly. [Interjections.] If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to obey the will of this Parliament, he is sitting dishonestly here as a member. [Interjections.] Then I accuse him of opportunism.

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. the Prime Minister allowed to cast a reflection on the hon. the Leader of the Opposition by saying that he is being dishonest in opposing certain action … [Interjections.]

Order! No, I did not understand it in that way. The hon. the Prime Minister is making a political speech, and cast no personal reflection on the hon. member.

I wish to ask him why he refuses to participate in instruments which this Parliament is creating?

Will you tolerate no opposition?

I am asking him why he refuses. He mentioned a few examples to us. The hon. member for Durban Point wanted to know from him why he was unable to furnish better examples. I want to know from him: If those examples were incorrect, if it was a sin—and according to him it is a sin—why does he wish to continue to sin? Because he enjoys it? We shall continue, in the months to come, to press him on this point. He will come before the tribunal of the electorate of South Africa, and they have a way of dealing harshly with a person. [Interjections.]

However, I wish to go one step further and put it to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he is tampering with an important democratic principle. He is tampering with a very important democratic principle, because he is conveying the spirit of boycott into the country.

Like Dr. Verwoerd did with the Royal tour.

Like your party did during World War II.

If sin is enjoyable, that does not mean to say that one should continue to sin. Does the hon. member for Groote Schuur not understand the language I am speaking? I shall have it translated for him if he does not understand it. [Interjections.]

Speak Russian to him instead.

There are bodies in South Africa who have extra-parliamentary action in mind, and who are using foreign assistance in the form of funds under various guises. In this connection I wish to refer to the strange attitude of some members of the South African Council of Churches to so-called “non-violent action”. Please note that I have said the “non-violent action” of “some members”, and their attitude in regard to national service, as well as to the spending of some of some of their funds.

In addition there is a huge question mark against the attitude to the South African African National Congress of some bodies affiliated to the South African Council of Churches. I have taken cognizance with pleasure of the fact that the independent Black churches have withdrawn from the aforesaid council. Many responsible South Africans, White as well as Black, are putting earnest questions to this council and the utilization of its funds. Auditors, who have already begun to examine the books of the council, are also asking questions. The Government is also asking questions. In the first place it is for the members of that council to set its own house in order. I hope it will do so.

I now wish to deal with a final subject. It is with sorrow that I wish to make a statement to this House. The S.A. Defence has during the past week carried out a successful ground operation against the Swapo concentrations in South Angola. After the operational headquarters of Swapo, from whence all the operations of the terrorists were co-ordinated, was virtually wiped out at the Moscow base in 1978, a new base was subsequently established elsewhere, a base which was destroyed this week in a ground attack, with air support. This was a high-speed operation, and was carried out as a shock action. The target was well-prepared, and was spread over an area of approximately 75 sq. kilometres, with various strong points which had to be cleared up. The initial attack was over difficult terrain and lasted for approximately six hours. This was continued the next morning in order to clear up the remaining positions. More than 200 terrorists were killed and large quantities of equipment—estimated to be in excess of 100 tons—fell into the hands of the S.A. Defence Force during the attack in the bush-covered area. The process of collecting and removing equipment and the investigation of the site and what remained there, and of what was scattered over the area, has virtually been completed, but not entirely. In this operation the S.A. Defence Force lost 16 soldiers, White and Black, killed in action. The next-of-kin of all these soldiers have been notified. Their names were published this afternoon, and I wish in this way to associate myself with a statement made by Defence Headquarters, by also conveying my sympathy to the next-of-kin of all those who were killed. They made the highest sacrifice to combat communism and terrorism in Southern Africa. Our nation, and their next-of-kin, may cherish their memory with pride. Tribute to these men cannot bring them back to us. Mentioning their names cannot bring them back to us, but remembering them ought to enhance our dedication and service to our country.

Once again I wish to issue a serious warning to the Swapo leaders that wherever they establish their strongholds, from which they direct their operations against us, we shall find and destroy them. We shall not tolerate terrorists taking action against us from a territory beyond our borders and attacking innocent people for whose safety we are responsible. On the other hand, we are aware that joint MPLA-Swapo bases also exist, and the MPLA must take note that by so doing they are simply exposing themselves. However, we have noted with appreciation that the Angolan armed forces have so far refrained from helping Swapo during the present operations. Since it is the declared policy of the Government to live in peace and harmony with our neighbours, I wish to express the hope that the MPLA will continue to maintain this attitude, and will stay out of this fight.

I conclude, as far as this announcement is concerned, by conveying the gratitude of all South Africans to the S.A. Defence Force for this demonstration of its strength and its ability to combat anarchy, terrorism and communism.

†In conclusion I wish to make a few observations on the Republic of South Africa in the present-day international world. Firstly, the fact cannot anymore be denied that the Soviet Union enters the 1980’s in the strongest military position in its history. That is the opinion of all those who make a proper study of this, also in the Free World. Especially after Afghanistan, no doubt can possibly exist about Soviet intentions, goals and ways to achieve it. The Soviet Union applies a global strategy in the northern area of the globe, around the Mediterranean Sea, in the Middle East and in the southern hemisphere. In Africa it is Southern Africa which figures the largest in Soviet and Western interest. East German units take part in training and other activities in some States north of us, States such as Angola and others. The Republic of South Africa is a vital point to the west, economically and strategically, but should Marxism take control here, it can become a choking point to the West. Only foolish people will ignore these facts, whether they are in Governments elsewhere or not. Major reserves of many strategically important raw materials are located here, e.g. chromium, vanadium and manganese, to mention only a few. More than 50% of Nato’s oil passes through the Cape sea route. The West will stumble without a stable Republic of South Africa. Western Europe will stumble without us. Our industrial potential, our modern harbours, including Simonstown in its modernized form, and our military strength, is of the utmost importance to the Free World. To deny these truths and facts is dishonest and the height of suicidal opportunism. We have the will to maintain our position of strength. I sincerely believe that the vast majority of South Africans want us to remain a bastion of hope for all those who reject the despotism and the military expansionism of Marxist Russia and her satellites. I wish to call on all South Africans today, all those who believe in evolutionary development and good neighbourliness in this country, between its different peoples, to support the Government in its efforts to safeguard the future of our country.

Order! I asked the hon. the Prime Minister whether he would be prepared to withdraw the word “dishonest”.

Mr. Speaker, if you will just tell me what I said, I shall consider it.

Order! The hon. the Prime Minister said the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, by sitting in this House, was being dishonest.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but with all due respect you are interpreting my words wrongly. I suggest that we first look at the Hansard report.

I shall leave the matter at that, but I was under the impression …

Mr. Speaker, you were under the wrong impression. I said that if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition refused to accept and carry out the decisions of this Parliament, then he was being dishonest in sitting here.

Order! That is how I understood it.

Surely I am not saying that he is dishonest. After all, I accept that he accepts the decisions of Parliament.

Order! For the time being I shall leave the matter at that.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister ended his speech this afternoon on a somewhat sombre note, and I want to say at once that I associate myself with his words of sympathy concerning the soldiers who were killed in action. It is clear that the fight against terrorism is going to make very heavy demands on all of us and that we shall all have to make our contribution to ensure that the struggle will be successful. Secondly, the hon. the Prime Minister made an important announcement concerning the appointment of a commission of inquiry into education matters. I think that all members of this House, and the Government in particular, are aware of the gravity of the situation in education. We received several telegrams about this in the course of the week. I think the hon. the Minister of National Education is aware of this. I therefore believe that the appointment of such a commission of inquiry will be generally welcomed by all population groups. I am gratified to hear that it will cover the education of all population groups. The third remark relates to the announcement by the hon. member for Simonstown.

†From a political point of view the announcement is not of any real consequence to me, because I always believed that the hon. member for Simonstown belonged on that side of the House. From a personal point of view, however, and as a parliamentary colleague, I want to wish him well, and I hope that he finds it comfortable in the party he now wants to join, and that they too will enjoy his company. I can assure him that I am glad I was in the House to hear him say it this afternoon, because after the remarks he made about the Press I know I would not have been able to read about it in the newspaper tomorrow morning.

*Only this sovereign Parliament can bring about constitutional change in a peaceful way. Therefore, in spite of its deficiencies, I believe that people who are interested in peaceful constitutional change must participate in this Parliament, but with all respect, the hon. the Prime Minister is making a fundamental error of reasoning when he says that for that reason I should support everything that passes through this Parliament.

I never said that.

If that is the case, there can be no Opposition. [Interjections.] We can look at Hansard. I am quite prepared to abide by the decisions of Parliament, but I need not support them. I accept that there is a Group Areas Act, but I detest it. It is a fundamental principle of my party that it must disappear. I shall go to the White electorate …

Does that mean that you have the right to break that law?

Of course not, but surely I am not breaking a law if I do not participate in the President’s Council, or does the hon. the Prime Minister want to force us to take part in it? After all, I am not breaking a law.

It is the will of this Parliament and you ought to abide by it. [Interjections.]

What kind of logic is that? I do not infringe the Group Areas Act, but that does not mean that I support it.

But you do live in a group area.

I have no choice.

Why do you not go and live in Athlone?

Surely that would be in conflict with a law made by this Parliament. That party made the Group Areas Act, and now the hon. the Prime Minister asks why I do not go and live in Athlone. What kind of logic is that? The hon. the Prime Minister is making an elementary error of reasoning, and if it is shared by everyone on that side, there can be no democratic process whatsoever in South Africa. It would be impossible. In terms of that logic the Government must force everyone to take part in the President’s Council, whether they want to or not. Surely that is nonsense. Why does one even bother to conduct a debate in this House where people can adopt standpoints on matters?

The second point where …

Surely it is an Act of this Parliament.

I am not going to break a law, but I am opposed to it and I do not like it.

Why do you break it then?

How am I breaking it? That Act does not say I must participate. It says that the State President can approach people and ask them whether they want to participate, and surely I can say: “No thank you, I do not wish to participate.” After all, I am not breaking the law by doing that. [Interjections.]

My second question concerns the point made by the hon. the Prime Minister concerning extra-parliamentary action. I do not understand exactly why he had that in mind. I have already discussed this matter with one of the people on the Government side. To me there is a fundamental difference between extra-parliamentary action and unconstitutional action. Sabra is extra-parliamentary. It is an organization that concerns itself with race relations, but it does not form part of Parliament. It is extra-parliamentary, and I think it has a right to be so. When I conduct an election campaign or address an audience and protest against Press legislation, that is extra-parliamentary, but it is justified. It is not unconstitutional. I say that I am opposed to unconstitutional action, but I am not opposed to extra-parliamentary action as such. There is an important difference.

I want to come back to the main theme of my speech this afternoon which, purely by coincidence, concerns the relationship between protest and reform. That is what I really wanted to discuss. In the well-known book, Protest, Reform and Revolt, it is clearly indicated that in times of reform one can expect protest, and it is this interrelationship that I wish to discuss this afternoon in order to see what can be done.

However, before I deal with that, this is the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill, and we are reviewing this session and asking ourselves: “What has happened here? What has happened that is of significance? And what does the road ahead look like?” I think it is correct to say that this session began with a spirit of expectation throughout the country. There was a feeling that we were on the threshold of fundamental reform in the social, economic and political or constitutional spheres, and I want to say, in spite of what the hon. the Prime Minister says, that no one contributed more towards creating this spirit of expectation than the hon. the Prime Minister himself.

Never!

He said things which no other Prime Minister before him has ever said in South Africa. For example, at the social level there was the expectation that we were going to move away from discrimination in a concrete and systematic way. Against the background of the speech by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development in Palm Springs, California, the hon. the Prime Minister called for proposals, for example to improve the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act. The hon. the Prime Minister, like me and like anyone else, knows how emotionally loaded these two laws are in South Africa’s White politics. Therefore one must take it that he did not address this invitation lightly, that he gave it careful consideration and that he deliberately called for proposals to improve them. These two laws, together with a few others, lie at the root of what may be regarded as so-called discriminatory legislation. We therefore came to this Parliament in a spirit of expectation that in the social sphere there would be an effective, systematic and concrete move away from discrimination.

At the economic level, the hon. the Prime Minister held the Carlton Congress. It elicited unparalleled enthusiasm among business leaders. There the hon. the Prime Minister made it clear that he did not intend to permit the Government to place obstacles in the path of the private sector. Let me quote from that speech—

He also said—

This is dramatic and strong language. This is language which creates a climate of anticipation, of expectations, of things that are going to happen, in the economic sphere as well.

In the constitutional sphere, the hon. the Prime Minister appointed the constitutional commission with the tremendously wide terms of reference of investigating the introduction of a new constitution for the Republic of South Africa. This, too, created a spirit of expectation, because for the first time in history, this Parliament was prepared to accept that the existing constitution was not effective and had to be replaced by a new one.

†Now, at the end of this session, how do we assess what we know now against the expectations we had when we came to Parliament? I want to put it that the hon. the Prime Minister has in a very real sense lost his nerve to follow through the climate of change he himself has helped to create. He lost his nerve during this session, and we all know when. I do not want to go into it again. However, when he had to choose between maintaining traditional NP solidarity on the one hand and using the NP as an instrument of reform on the other hand, the hon. the Prime Minister lost his nerve.

[Inaudible.]

He realized that he could not do both.

You are whistling against the east wind.

At least the Prime Minister can hear me, even if I am whistling against the east wind.

I am afraid your whistling is out of tune.

If we look at what happened on these different levels during this session against the background of the expectations we had for social, political and economic change, we must come away with a deep sense of disappointment. At least one can say that economically there has been some movement. This is the field in which there has been the greatest degree of reform. However, the vacillation on, e.g. the 72-hour limit, which was announced by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development and then withdrawn, after which he had to enter into negotiations, simply underlined the fact that political consideration still intrudes on economic development and on the economic terrain.

Socially all the major discriminatory laws are still intact and, as the hon. the Prime Minister has pointed out, we have to crawl away, as it were, from discrimination permit by permit rather than by tackling the source of discrimination, that is in legislation itself.

Politically we are still no closer to cooperation between the population groups in working towards a new constitution which we can all accept and in which we can all believe. Just to show how shallow and hollow the attack of the Government is on us here with regard to our stand on the President’s Council, I put it to the hon. the Prime Minister and hon. members of the Government that if only two or three reputable Black leaders had said that they were willing to assist in and give their blessing to it, the Government need not have spent even two minutes in debate with us on this side of the House. That simply underlines the problem. It is not we who should give legitimacy and credibility to that institution. In fact, we only made our position public after those people had spoken. We know that those people will have to give credibility and legitimacy to it. It is the Government’s responsibility to get their co-operation. I want to say that we are still no closer to that. Instead we have a Government that is hesitant to lead and is sitting at the crossroads, because it cannot resolve its own internal tensions. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that it is dangerous to dilly-dally and that it is better to tell us clearly where we are going and what we can expect so that we can prepare for it.

*I say this in all sincerity and as a plea to the hon. the Prime Minister, because I am aware that reform involves a risk. There is always a risk involved when one begins to move away from the status quo, but when one reforms in an ad hoc, arbitrary, uncertain and half-hearted way, it is not merely a risk, it is extremely dangerous for all of us. Why is this so? It is so because the nature of the problem in South Africa is such that half-hearted reform poses a threat to all of us.

[Inaudible.]

I am coming now to the very points which the hon. the Minister mentioned. The South African economy is going to become increasingly dependent on Black labour. That is a fact, derived from data provided by the hon. the Prime Minister’s own Manpower Advisory Council.

No one denies that.

I just want to illustrate it for hon. members. In 1978 there was an annual increase of 274 000 people in the labour market, 9,1% of whom were White and 77,4% Black. It is calculated that by the year 2000 the annual increase will be 430 000 workers, of whom only 4,4% will be White. Over the next 20 years we shall have to create a thousand employment opportunities per day to accommodate this increase. It is calculated that if we want to maintain an economic growth rate of 5%—I received this figure from the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development—then between 30 000 and 40 000 skilled Black workers will have to enter the labour market. In other words, an increasing number of those who are going to be responsible for the production and generation of welfare and wealth in the future are going to be Black. That is a fact. At the same time, effective political power is going to be controlled by the Whites for the foreseeable future. What is politics? Politics is what Harold Laswell calls: “The process of who gets what, when and how in society.” Politics is nothing but the redistribution of opportunities, prosperity and wealth in a society. I can illustrate this in a striking way. Let us look at the independent homelands in South Africa. I shall take the Transkei as an example. In this year’s budget Parliament’s contribution to Transkei comprises 0,89% of our total budget. That is more than 50% of the budget of Transkei itself. Transkei cannot exist without a decision of this Parliament. Let us take Bophuthatswana’s budget. It amounts to 0,71% of our total budget, but without that appropriation, Bophuthatswana cannot exist.

What about Lesotho?

It does not matter what goes on in Lesotho and other places. I am speaking about the economy and politics here in South Africa. When we look at the non-independent homelands and their ability to create their own prosperity, we see that the Ciskei can produce 19%; Lebowa, 28%; Gazankulu, 28%; kwaZulu, 21% and Venda 22%. For the rest they are dependent on decisions taken in this Parliament. Outside the homelands we can look at the percentage distribution of the budget. 14,75% is spent on defence, 22% on manpower utilization and 1,87% on education and training. These are concrete demonstrations that prosperity and wealth are distributed by this Parliament at the political level. For the foreseeable future, the political …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a question?

I have a number of matters that I want to discuss. If there is time, I shall give the hon. the Deputy Minister an opportunity later.

Therefore, for the foreseeable future the political redistribution of prosperity and wealth is going to remain in White hands. I can find no evidence to indicate otherwise. This brings us to a classic dilemma, and that is that those who will be producing prosperity to an increasing extent are going to be Black and those who, for all practical purposes, redistribute prosperity at the political level, will be White. This is a classic dilemma and it is the source of polarization in South Africa. For the sake of all of us we must understand that this is the source of polarization and conflict in our country. This relationship between politics and the economy cuts right across our plural nature and multi-nationality in South Africa, because it is polarized on a racial basis—not on an ethnic basis, but on a racial basis. Those who take political decisions are White, and those who are, to an increasing extent, going to be taking care of the economy are Black. This is a racial division, and that source of polarization poses a threat to us all.

That is an over-simplification. [Interjections.]

It is a false statement.

How can it be a false statement? I have just quoted the figures to the hon. the Prime Minister. I get the figures from his own office. It is therefore a fact … [Interjections.]

Order!

But it is based on your view.

Is it true that Parliament takes decisions in regard to the budgets of the homelands? Of course it is true. What is the nature of those decisions? [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members expected a fair hearing for the hon. the Prime Minister, and I now expect a fair hearing for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Due to this very relationship between politics and the economy, it is dangerous in the extreme to reform in a half-hearted, ad hoc or arbitrary way in South Africa. To concentrate on one sphere only and ignore the others, only stimulates demands and expectations. This is true; it is simple. Throughout the world, ad hoc and half-hearted reform has almost without exception involved a threat to stability and orderly progress. It is not going to be different in our case. That is a fact.

Let us take a simple example. In the case of the Coloured children, if one were to overhaul the education facilities entirely, but ignore the detrimental effects of the Group Areas Act and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, it would simply make them understand the nature of their own privation all the better and they would simply become more upset. Then they simply set new demands. That is the way the pattern develops. The hon. the Prime Minister himself explained it to us very effectively. The thing expands. Of course there are agitators. Of course there are inciters. However, the question that arises is this: Why are these people successful? Why are these people able to achieve such a degree of support for the points they make? I say this is a question we must ask ourselves and we must consider what contribution we can make in an effort to improve those sources of unrest and dissatisfaction. However, the point I want to make is that we cannot do so arbitrarily and ad hoc. We cannot do a little here and a little there.

The hon. the Prime Minister gives examples of where he says there has been movement. Let us look at those examples. Let us take the Wiehahn and Riekert reports. The two reports concentrate for the most part on the economy. It would be dangerous in the extreme to have large-scale economic progress and prosperity and to overlook or fail to anticipate the consequences of that economic progress in the social and political spheres. In fact, it would be stupid.

Take for example the whole issue of permits in group areas. Every time a permit is issued, it confirms the rule; not the exception. That permit tells him: You are not exempted from this rule to which everyone is subjected. That rule itself is the source of dissatisfaction; not the permit that is issued. I think that is understood, is it not? Therefore, if anyone wants to say at this level that there is progress or that there has been a movement away from discrimination, one can say: Yes, for that particular individual for as long as the permit is valid, but the rule merely confirms the exception made. That is the dilemma one is faced with.

Then there is the question of the arrangements in post offices. Wonderful! I support that wholeheartedly, but if one does something in the post office and ignores it at another level, one merely creates a clear difference between the one situation and the other situation.

I therefore say that it is dangerous to reform in an ad hoc, arbitrary and halfhearted way. It is better to say systematically and concretely: This is the plan in terms of which we are going to move away. The drafting of that plan must result in the co-operation of people affected by discrimination, and then one can make a coordinated effort.

†Therefore what is there to be done? There are no magic formulas for coping with the incredibly complex and difficult situation we have in our country. We cannot simply say “constellation, constellation, constellation” and hope that things are going to come right. There are no wonderful words, clichés or 12-point plans which can be unilaterally declared and of which can be said: They are going to solve our problems. That is the first thing we have to recognize.

Secondly, we must have a declaration of intent from that Government specifying quite clearly where South Africa is going and how that affects the individual in regard to his or her citizenship, political rights and discrimination. It has to be clear. The average person must be able to understand it. To have reform without a goal in mind simply confuses and leads to frustration. It has always been like that. Therefore one has to spell out, in a declaration of intent, where we are going.

Can the President’s Council not do that?

I have no doubt in my own mind that such a declaration of intent must contain at least three elements. I have no doubt in my mind at all about that. One is that every South African is entitled to full citizenship rights. One can look at the results of any analysis that has been done and of all research and one will find that confirmed. Citizenship is non-negotiable. One sees that throughout. I am not saying what kind of citizenship. In the final analysis, there are various ways of looking at it and accommodating it. [Interjections.] That every person is entitled to South African citizenship, however, is non-negotiable. That must be accepted. Secondly, every person is entitled to full political participation without domination. That, too, is non-negotiable. One can look at all the suggestions that have come from all over, from different political movements, to find that substantiated.

One man, one vote.

I am not even committing myself to that at this stage. I am saying that in a declaration of intent one must at least commit oneself to the principle of full and effective political participation. Thirdly, there can be no constitution that enables the Government of the day to discriminate, by means of legislation, against other people on the basis of race. At least those three conditions are a basic minimum for any declaration of intent.

Let me put it to that Government: If that Government is prepared to commit itself to such a declaration, they would take a great deal of heat off the situation, because then one could go to people and ask them whether they were willing to co-operate and to assist so that one could work towards that ideal. One should not simply create a President’s Council and say one wants to see what kind of society one is going to have, whilst stipulating that separate development is non-negotiable even before one sits down to talk.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a question?

I should just like to say another few things first, then the hon. member may ask his question. A declaration of intent of this nature is an important aspect. Once one has that declaration of intent, I believe that co-ordinated action on three levels is absolutely necessary. On the economic level one must try to mobilize all one’s human resources. It is impossible for 2% of entrepreneurs to see to it that one has economic growth. One must mobilize all one’s human resources. On this level I think the Government is making some progress, more progress than on the social and political levels. Again I want to emphasize, however, that if one is only going to concentrate on economic progress, ignoring social and political change, one is really creating a very dangerous situation for everybody in this country, because one will then be fanning the frustrations of those who are economically becoming upwardly mobile without providing the circumstances, socially and politically, for them to realize their aspirations.

This brings me to the social level. At the beginning of this session, during the no-confidence debate, I said that what we needed was an anti-discriminatory advisory council, multiracial, fully representative, and that the members of that council should sit down with the Government and systematically go through the discriminatory practices and come up with reasonable recommendations as to how we can move away from discrimination. That should then be made known so that people can understand what is happening when we say that this is open or that is going to happen, etc. Then they can understand the programme, and that programme will be legitimized in terms of the declaration of intent. They will then know where the society is moving.

Thirdly, politically it is vitally important for this Government to begin the process of effective negotiation for a new constitution now, and not tomorrow or the next day, and when I say “negotiation”, I mean negotiation. I am not talking about “consultation”. There is nothing wrong with consultation, but consultation and deliberation are not the same thing as negotiation. Consultation—if I have to say it again—means that one is giving advice with regard to how one wants one’s own grand plan to succeed. Negotiation means that each side has a plan and that they are trying to find compromise solutions which they can both agree upon. There is a vitally important difference between those aspects as far as South Africa is concerned. So, if we look at the President’s Council against the background of all these things, we see that it is an advisory, consultative body. I have no objection to that, but we must not confuse that with the process of negotiation which is of a completely different nature and far more important.

Mr. Speaker, in the light of the remarks made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition concerning the three principles to be written into the declaration of intent, and in the light of his remarks about negotiation as against consultation, does he agree that those three principles can be realized, not necessarily by means of a federal constitution, but also by means of a constitution for a unitary State with one voters’ roll and in terms of the principle of “one man, one vote”?

There is no question about that. Of course, I am not trying to make statements about a final constitution now. My submission is that these three principles can of course be given effect to in a variety of constitutions. The crux of the matter is that I believe there is more than just a probability that the vast majority of Black, Brown and Asian people will at least agree with these principles and will be prepared to negotiate in terms of these principles. Then we can see what concessions can be made and what agreements can be reached. That is the nature and the process of negotiation. Therefore I am not arguing about that. My party and I have our own specific idea as to which constitution would be most appropriate for our problems.

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he made the statement, or tried to make it by implication, that the only way in which the groups and nations of colour in South Africa can achieve prosperity is by way of the acquisition of political power and say in a sort of unitary state? Is that what the hon. member wanted to say?

Mr. Speaker, allow me to illustrate it graphically. Effective political power has to do with the redistribution of prosperity. That is so in all societies, and in our own society as well. That is why it is so that when a person creates institutions—whether it be by way of partition, by way of constellation or by way of homeland authorities—and those institutions do not have effective political power or the ability to control their own prosperity, those institutions are not successful and the situation can develop into a source of conflict and dissatisfaction. I therefore repeat— without coming to a final product—that the principle must be accepted that if it is true that effective political power in South Africa is represented in this body, and that the generation and production of prosperity will to an increasing extent become the responsibility of Blacks, this Parliament will have to be the centre of every form of conflict that will occur in this country in the future. That is inevitable. Therefore it is the special responsibility of this Parliament to initiate peaceful methods to ensure that this does not happen. Accordingly, we must weigh up and evaluate all measures formulated here against that yardstick. It is in that light that I have weighed the President’s Council and found it wanting, given the exceptionally complex circumstances surrounding it. That is one of my arguments.

†Finally, this session showed that there was only one real Opposition party in Parliament. I believe that is one conclusion we have to reach. [Interjections.] The other Opposition parties voted with the Government on all the major issues throughout this session. I do not blame them for that. It is their right to do that, but I think they must, as the hon. the Prime Minister suggested, seriously consider whether they really have a role to play in Opposition politics. They should join the Government, strengthen their left or right wing and feel in that way that they are actually making some kind of positive contribution.

*Finally, there is just one other thing I want to refer to. Once again there is a tendency in this House to equate membership of the NP with patriotism and love of one’s country. [Interjections.] I want to state bluntly that hon. members opposite can forget about it. They can be as abusive towards us as they like. They can call us every name they can think of. However, in my heart—and my people believe this too—I am convinced that if there is going to be peace in this country and if there is going to be peaceful development, it will be because the Government is moving towards the position adopted by this party, the PFP. [Interjections.]

Order! Before calling upon the next hon. member to speak, I just wish to inform hon. members—they have probably noticed it already—that we are honoured today by the presence of the hon. Mr. H. J. Klopper, who for 13 years was a respected Speaker of this House.

Hear, hear!

We are gratified to note that he is still in such good health, and we wish him everything of the best.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to address a few words to the hon. member for Simonstown, the leader of a party that he announced today was to disband. Whereas we started this parliamentary session with great expectations, I believe that we have achieved a pinnacle here today, in that we have heard the leader of a party—albeit a small party—stating his case objectively and with enthusiasm and dedication. He very clearly intimated that the important issue was not himself as a person or his followers, but the interests of South Africa. I want to convey my sincere congratulations to the hon. member for Simonstown, the hon. member for Walmer and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central on this positive attitude they have adopted and on the positive steps they have taken. I think it is a step that will find a wide response throughout South Africa.

I now want to turn to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who, at the beginning of the year, spoke about the great expectations which the hon. the Prime Minister had supposedly aroused. He knows of course that a great deal was expected of him as Leader of the Opposition. A great deal was said about his potential. However, we have now reached a stage at which he has been tested as Leader after the first session in which he had to act in that capacity. I clearly recall its being said in the Press, after he had replied to the no-confidence debate: “Here is a leader who can think on his feet.” He disposed of certain remarks by means of witticisms—I do not want to get too personal, but that is what happened. Later I shall come back to the reply he gave me with reference to certain arguments I advanced.

More and more one begins to form the impression that we are dealing here with an academic—and today was no exception— who adopts a naïve approach to practical politics. I must therefore come to the conclusion that despite the fact that the Press described him—and many agreed with him— as a Leader who could think on his feet, he did most of his thinking while sitting down. When one reads the book he wrote together with Prof. Welsh, one realizes that the consistent, logical argument vanishes. Listening to him again this afternoon one felt sorry for him, because one does not wish to doubt his ability to think on his feet. Unfortunately, he has to do most of his work sitting down. Then he apparently encounters problems in the practical implementation of his theories.

I want to link this to the negative performance of the official Opposition under his leadership. We have experienced it throughout the year. We saw it particularly when we discussed the question of the President’s Council, a subject that has been debated here at length. This afternoon the hon. the Leader of the Opposition again tried to give an explanation as to why they could not participate. He intimates that it cannot be regarded as a poor democratic action on their part. However, there is no other way to approach this matter, because the NP has a large majority in this House. The majority has accepted a certain decision here, for which we all have high expectations. We want to create a body, the President’s Council, in which negotiation with other groups is to take place, a body which could be called a “think tank”, which could come forward with new proposals to be considered. The approach is that Black people should not take a seat on the President’s Council because they have been placed on a different political path and their position is different. However, this approach does not suit the philosophy of that party, but it is the point of departure of the Government and of the majority of Whites in this House. Since it does not suit the thinking of that party, they decide that they will not take part. This is therefore a kind of boycott action which we are justified in not accepting.

Looking at the conduct of that party we see that every possible and impossible matter is disparaged and belittled. The hon. the Prime Minister mentioned here this afternoon what had been done in the field of labour. The hon. Leader says it is not enough. He says we must repeal the Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act and the Group Areas Act. That would be enough for them, and then they would co-operate. That would be meaningful in terms of his political philosophy.

However, the hon. Leader of the Opposition has disputes within his own party, and they do not only concern the one person whom they have now got rid of. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition reminds me of what I read about the officer who had to execute the female spy, Mata Hari. He was made extremely afraid of her. Eventually his thinking became confused.

†When it came to the question of execution, he looked at this lady, and then looked at his firing squad, and instead of blindfolding Mata Hari, he blindfolded the firing squad. [Interjections.]

*I gain the impression that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party have become so confused with regard to the problems of the South African situation that instead of disciplining certain people in the party who caused him problems, he got rid of the people who were trying to keep him on the right road and were trying to guide him to think clearly. I think we can tell him this afternoon that he would do well to ask himself: Did I hang the right man?

He belittled the other Opposition Parties. The hon. member for Simonstown said here that he was going to resign on 30 June. There is therefore going to be a by-election. I think this is a golden opportunity for the PFP, who say that our political thinking is wrong and that we approach the whole South African situation wrongly, to go and test the voters there. They must test their thinking and their grasp of the situation, particularly in view of this action in Parliament with regard to the President’s Council. I do not believe they will soon have another such opportunity. After that we can speak again.

I am now going to come back to the arguments relating to the interaction between political power and economic prosperity, for I think there are very important arguments. I think these are basic arguments relating to our problems in this country and throughout the world. The hon. member will have the opportunity to put forward his argument at Simonstown, because the solution is not as easy as he wants to make out.

I have said that it is difficult.

He said that it was difficult.

This brings me to the next point. I want to refer the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to a source which may be acceptable to him. This source is not one of the newspapers who are supposed to support the NP. I want to refer him to what Mr. Harry Oppenheimer said on 22 November 1979, when there was a discussion concerning the hon. the Prime Minister’s proposal as to the constellation of States, because this is relevant. I quote from The Constellation of States, a publication of the South Africa Foundation. Among other things, Mr. Oppenheimer said—

This is very important, but if one wants economic stability, progress, confidence, investments and economic growth, the investor must have confidence in the Government of the country. That is decisive. It is illustrated throughout South Africa, for example in Zimbabwe. Before Zimbabwe became independent, the liberal Press throughout the world and in this country, and that political party, insisted that the necessary changes be brought about in Zimbabwe. They said that the Black man must be justly treated; then there would be an influx of capital and there would be development and harmony. But where are the investments by Britain? Has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition read about them in the newspapers? Where are the investments by private initiative, and by the USA with all its wealth, where race riots occurred recently in Florida because people felt that they were not justly treated? One is living in a fool’s paradise if one thinks that in Africa one need only have Black majority Government, that that is all one needs in South Africa to engender confidence in the investor. Surely one is not going to get that confidence. Surely this has been proved throughout South Africa and is being proved in Zimbabwe now. The political philosophy and the target of that party and their hon. leader is to get everyone together so as to give them all a political say. Surely that would bring that element of uncertainty right into this Parliament.

If you do not do so, you will have uncertainty.

I proved my standpoint by quoting Mr. Oppenheimer’s words. I want to quote what else he said—

That is what Mr. Harry Oppenheimer says: Because private initiative has not been interfered with, because the people in the RSA have been allowed to make profits; that is why we are so successful. Now the hon. Leader is asking that we should bring people together in this Parliament who lack the knowledge and know-how relating to the democratic political process and who will therefore introduce uncertainty here. The Opposition wishes to make these problems to which Mr. Oppenheimer referred, a part of our political process. He refers to the homelands. I do not say this in order to be disparaging, but these people do not yet have an understanding of the economic process of private enterprise.

That is Hennie Smit’s story.

They do not have that experience, knowledge and know-how, and they are inclined … [Interjections.] Go and read Mr. Oppenheimer’s whole speech. I cannot read it all this afternoon. Mr. Oppenheimer said that because we did not interfere in the RSA, because we had political stability and because we gave our private enterprise opportunities, and protected it, we have what he calls “this economic miracle in South Africa”.

If you do not have the manners to listen, then at least listen to your money-lender.

Let me quote what Mr. Oppenheimer also said—

I think that is true. We cannot dispute that—

In other words, Mr. Oppenheimer is here repeating very clearly that the homelands that are becoming independent do not inspire confidence among White entrepreneurs. In contrast, in South Africa, where the Whites retain the say and where one has certainty, people will invest. He intimates this very clearly here. Let me quote—

This is a repetition of his previous statement. I now want to make a statement that Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, probably the biggest businessman in the country, with probably the largest amount of capital behind him, adopts the standpoint that one cannot invest in a State in which there is no political stability and in which the community does not fully recognize the system of the free economy. This is diametrically opposed to the approach of the PFP, who say that we must hold a national convention.

I predict that if we were to succeed in convening a national convention in this country we would immediately jolt the confidence of the investors. It does not matter what the outside world says; I want to tell hon. members that if we seek to bring about changes in this country, as the hon. the Prime Minister said here this afternoon, we shall have to do so with great circumspection and in such a way that we do not shock the Whites in this country who ensure political and economic—I already pointed out that one cannot separate these two—stability in this country. The moment the impression is created that we are heading for a national convention with other groups that do not have the necessary knowledge and knowhow, we shall be faced with political instability, economic deterioration and problems relating to the development and training of, and the provision of work to, these people.

This afternoon the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had a great deal to say about what had to happen. He put forward his method as the only recipe and said there was no other way of doing it, but surely it is very clear that his very recipe will give rise to a lack of confidence. In the field of labour the Government is training Black people and Brown people to participate in the economy. How does one share the economic prosperity of a country? Can one simply sit here in Parliament and share it out? In practice there is little logic in that argument. After all, everyone here is given the opportunity to share in the prosperity. His prosperity is subject to his own productivity. More and more opportunities are being created. Hon. members know what the Government has achieved and what opportunities it has created over the past decade or more.

However, what is the problem with the Black States and with those national States that have become independent? It is that they have not been able to utilize the economic potential of their territories. Surely that is the case. I do not know whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or any other members of the Opposition wants to dispute that. Surely that is the reason. However the Whites, with their know-how, do create political stability and economic progress. His argument now is that one should also involve those people who come here to work, in the political process, at the same level as the Whites. He says that there should be no discrimination. However, if one involves them at that level, then surely one creates problems and uncertainty. Accordingly, we adopt the standpoint that this matter must be dealt with great circumspection.

South Africa is not the only country to do so, but it is the only country that is blamed for doing so. In America there are 7 million Mexicans who work there, but who do not acquire rights. How many million migrant labourers are in the various countries of Europe? There are millions of them, particularly in West Germany and France, but they have no say there. One can read about the problems this causes. Switzerland is held out to the world as a model of stability, economic progress and a high standard of living, but they are unable to involve these elements in their Government. I think that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must go and read what he has written about this, because he comes here with contradictions. However I want to leave the matter at that.

I want to emphasize that he has a naive approach if he thinks that he can retain the basis of stability by introducing other groups in order, by so doing, to bring about economic progress. It simply does not work that way. I think there is a real need for him to consider his and his party’s whole approach to this matter. I know that it is a difficult situation, but he shall simply have to go and do his homework again.

There is another matter I want to discuss, one which the hon. member for Pinelands touched on. The Opposition comes forward with arguments about the allocation of land, and this was also touched on by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. At the moment the Government is attending to the question of the distribution of land among White and Black in South Africa. A commission is giving attention to this matter, but I charged the hon. the Leader of the Opposition with having said the following in a publication—

He also referred to a certain McMillan. He then said to me in summary that McMillan was quoted by Van Bilijon, to whom I had referred him. The argument concerns this, and I want to stress it again today because the Whites in South Africa are constantly being charged with having obtained land from the Black man unjustly, that it is part of the process of the dishonesty of the White man that he is an exploiter. This is the image being created throughout the world. I accuse the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party of regularly using this argument without having any grounds for doing so.

I have always said that it is an irrelevant argument.

I am arguing the point with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition because he mentioned it in his book. When I pointed it out to him, he referred me to Dr. Muller’s book about the Great Trek concerning this matter. I do not want to go into this in detail, but the position is briefly that Prof. Muller only refers to McMillan in the sense that he is a person who endorses and supports the ideas of Dr. Phillip with regard to the Great Trek in South Africa. That is all he does. How can the hon. the Leader of the Opposition quote a person like McMillan, who merely makes the statement that Black people once possessed five times as much land in South Africa than they do at present, as an authority for his statement that the Black people in this country have been wronged? As I said, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to “shrunken remnants of the areas which earlier African societies regarded as their Lebensraum”. Surely this implies that the Whites unjustly deprived the Black man of his land.

I do not imply that.

I am convinced that that is stated in the hon. the Leader’s book. The hon. the Leader told me that if I gave him the details, he would rectify it. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the source I quoted to him, of which Prof. Muller says that it had not been properly synthesized. What Van Biljon’s book does furnish is the figures of the commission of 1903 and 1905 and the basis that existed in 1913. I do not wish to intimate that they were 100% correct, because the surveyors and maps at the time were not as exact as they are today. However, the false image that is being created must be rectified, and I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition agrees with me.

If he consults the book to which I referred him, he will at least get the basic figure and not merely a vague statement or allegation. I should be obliged if he would take another look at it and rectify the matter. I certainly do not wish to accuse the hon. the Leader of the Opposition of wilfulness or illwill, but he told me that it was a scientific work, or he regarded it as scientifically well-founded. I, on the other hand, question it. I have given him my sources, and I should be obliged if he would give the matter further attention.

I want to dwell for a moment on the three points which, according to him, we must include in a declaration of intent, viz. full citizenship, full political participation and no discrimination. Surely it is very clear that when it is one’s point of departure in this country that one divides power rather than shares it, one cannot endorse those three points. However that is not less just. Surely it is not unjust to say to a person, as the hon. the Prime Minister did this afternoon: “I am willing that you should have everything that I claim for myself.” Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party create the impression that the Government has not achieved anything and that we must adapt the basic laws that protect the rights of the Whites. He said that if we did not do that, we should not be doing anything positive. In this regard we accuse them of influencing the people who think that they can push the Government in a certain direction by way of unrest, strikes and boycotts.

Then he talks about arousing expectations. But these people are being encouraged by that side of the House. They are being told: “You are entitled to cause such trouble because the Government has done you an injustice.” I think the hon. members opposite must concede that point. Let us now be honest, since we are reaching the end of a debate in which, in his opinion, we have not really achieved anything. We are very sorry about his negative thinking, but he must surely concede that it is being said to these people that “because the Government does not give you all the rights that we are asking for on your behalf, there is justification for your action.” I object to that in the strongest terms. I stress that as far as political rights are concerned, we in this country have no option other than division. We cannot share it, because then the element of uncertainty will be introduced and that would be to the detriment of the economy.

Despite what the world says, what the party opposite says and what the liberal newspapers say, it has been proved over and over in this country and in Africa as such that the Black man does not yet have the necessary know-how, does not inspire the confidence and does not have the philosophy, as regards his approach to the economy, which will inspire confidence in the Whites with their skills, entrepreneuring spirit and investment capacity. I have given examples in this regard. If we are to make any progress, then the official Opposition and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will have to take another look at their approach in regard to this whole set-up.

Mr. Speaker, some of the points made by the hon. the Minister who has just resumed his seat we shall be dealing with later in the debate. He will therefore forgive me if I do not react directly to his speech.

At the very outset I should like to extend the regret and sympathy of this party to the families of those who suffered bereavement as a result of the engagement referred to by the hon. the Prime Minister in his sad announcement to the House this afternoon. We fight for the ideals we believe in across the floor of the House with words and those words are very often painful, but the young men on our borders are fighting for the country and for all of us with live bullets and too many of them have paid the final price. I think it is important that we should extend our sympathy to their immediate families. We appreciate the sacrifices they have made which enable us to continue with the democratic process in this House.

I should like—and I think it is important in the fluid state of our politics and in the further fluidity that has been brought about this afternoon—to refer briefly to the announcement made by the hon. member for Simonstown about the decision to disband his party so that its members can be given the opportunity to join the Government. I do not want to make any personal attack on the hon. member or his two supporters in this House. I have known all three of them for a long time in politics. I feel that if the actions they are taking are going to be further steps towards breaking up the logjam in our politics, and if they believe that those are the best steps they can take to bring about that break-up in the logjam, they must take those steps. However much we might disagree—and we have disagreed and no doubt will disagree—with the hon. member for Simonstown, I want to place on record, over and above the interjection I made, for which I make no apologies, that I have high esteem for a man who makes that announcement and in the same breath makes the further announcement that he is prepared to resign his seat and fight a by-election on that issue.

Hear, hear! Well said!

To me, as a young backbencher in this House, that is an example which has been sadly, sadly lacking amongst the members of the PFP. If one looks at the 18 members of that party sitting here—only 17 of them now, and there are more to go—one sees that only seven of them have actually been elected to this House in the first place as members supporting the policy they represent at present. Ten of those members—maybe later they were elected as Progs—were however, in the first place, elected as members of other political parties, and not one of them had the guts to go back to the electorate that elected him and say that he had changed his basic standpoint, was resigning from his former party and was going to fight a by-election on the new principles to see whether the electorate agreed to that new philosophy.

They talked about it.

So I want to issue a challenge to the hon. member for East London North who stated earlier this year that there was a chance that he would resign his seat at the end of the session.

He said he would.

I challenge him to resign his seat on the same day as the hon. member for Simonstown to fight a by-election in East London North. If he wins, good luck to him, and if he loses he will realize that he cannot represent a different viewpoint to the one for which he was elected to this House.

He gave the undertaking that he would do it.

[Interjections.] He gave an undertaking to that effect. He was not the first of the hon. members sitting in those benches to have given such a solemn undertaking over the years, i.e. that they would fight by-elections or that they would resign their seats if they changed their political philosophies, so I challenge him …

Ask him to tell us.

If he is speaking in this debate, I challenge him to tell us whether he will have the courage to follow the example of the hon. member for Simonstown, resign his seat on 30 June, at the end of this session, and fight a by-election on the new principles he now espouses. I ask this because I see a very basic difference. The hon. member for Simonstown is prepared to change his political affiliation, but he is prepared to go to the electorate to fight his seat, and perhaps lose it. He is prepared to take the chance of losing his seat so that he can espouse new political principles. [Interjections.] The problem with the hon. member for East London North—and it grieves me to have to say this—is that he changed so that he could hold on to a seat, because he believed that he was changing to a political vehicle that gave him more chance of keeping a seat in this House.

That is an untruth.

He can say it is an “untruth”, and he can shout it as loudly as he likes, but let him go to the electorate and let him test it, because that is what many of his former colleagues failed to do.

They are waiting for him. East London North is waiting for him.

I am glad to see the hon. the Prime Minister back in the House.

We listened with great interest to his reaction to the decision of the SAP. I can understand that the hon. the Prime Minister would be pleased this afternoon to have made more converts to his side. He has every right, of course, to be glad that his party is growing. He also made the prediction that his party would grow further, and I believe he is right. I believe there is every chance that his party will grow still further. That, however, is not the important thing. The hon. the Prime Minister has been in politics for a very long time, perhaps too long, in the sense that the longer one is in politics, the more difficult it is, perhaps, to think of those people who are not represented in this Parliament. Therefore, I hope that the larger the hon. the Prime Minister’s party becomes, the more humble will be his approach to the problems of this country. I offer him this advice as a young member, in all earnestness and sincerity, because what South Africa needs at this time is a statesmanlike leader. I have said it in this House and at report-back meetings outside of this House, and I shall say it again: There is one person who has the position, the logistic support, the strength and the backing to effect changes in this country, and that is the hon. the Prime Minister. Therefore, I hope that the bigger his party becomes, the more clearly will the responsibility to all the people in this country be felt by the hon. the Prime Minister in the decisions he takes, because he is responsible for the future of all of us.

Then, I should like to refer briefly to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. There is a very significant fact which has not been referred to in debates in this House. We have had the drama of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout this week. The significant thing, however, is that he is not the first casualty since the new leader took over. The significant thing, to my way of thinking, is that a very senior member of the PFP, the previous hon. member for Parktown, did not find it important enough, at this fairly critical time in our politics, to see out one full session of Parliament under the leadership of the new hon. Leader of the Opposition. [Interjections.]

That is very, very true indeed.

One can put any … [Interjections.]

You are disgusting.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would just listen to what I want to say …

That is absolutely disgusting.

At this particular time in our politics it is significant …

That you can be so disgusting.

… that the hon. member for Parktown did not deem it his duty to see out a full session of Parliament under a new leader in these very difficult conditions.

You have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about. [Interjections.]

Order!

It then so happened that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was the second casualty under the present leadership of the PFP. [Interjections.]

In a lighter vein, allow me to say something else. The accepted name for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the name under which he has become known, is Super Van. I believe, of course, if it goes on like this much longer, he will become known as Removals Van. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also referred very slightingly to the NRP and to the support it had offered the Government on certain issues of principle. He is entitled, of course, to make those remarks. He is entitled to think that his is the only party that opposes in this House. I am convinced, though, that he is making a very grave mistake if he thinks that blind opposition and protest politics are the most efficient ways of bringing about change in this House. I believe that in the attitude that we in this party—small though it is—adopt, it must be granted to us that we approach things on their merit, and where it is a meritorious case in which we can support the Government, we will have no hesitation in doing so. Against the background of what my hon. leader said this afternoon, namely that there was no chance of our joining the NP, we have indicated clearly the grounds on which we are prepared to support the hon. the Prime Minister and the initiatives that he is spearheading. We have come out with it at the level of the Provincial Council in Natal, which we control. We have come out with it at our meetings around the country, and we have also said so in this House. It would be an absolute mistake for people to say that support on certain specific grounds and conditions means that we are Nationalists. The hon. the Minister of Water Affairs quoted from some of the comments made by Mr. Harry Oppenheimer. Mr. Oppenheimer has stated that on certain conditions he will support the initiatives of this Government. That does not make him a Nationalist, does it? He is a founding, if not a funding father, of the PFP. [Interjections.] When he announces that support, it certainly does not make him a Nationalist. I quote a true liberal, a person whom I believe to be a great South African, although I disagree with him and although hon. members opposite will disagree with him, namely Alan Paton. He has gone on record as saying that, under the circumstances in which we find ourselves, he to a certain extent can support the initiative of the hon. the Prime Minister. Heaven knows, that does not make Alan Paton a Nationalist either. And when we state that on certain conditions we are prepared to support initiatives in the interests of peaceful change in this country, it does not make members of the NRP Nationalists either.

Having dealt with the hon. members who spoke before me, I should like to turn to a subject which has nothing to do with this particular debate, but which I feel is a subject which must be raised in the closing hours of this session, and a subject which is particularly close to my interests in this House and which indirectly and directly touches everyone of us, viz. the looming oil crisis which for the third time in less than 10 years seems to be threatening us and all countries of the world. I know that we are favourably placed in this country, through our Sasol plants and also through our tremendous coal resources, to withstand the crisis which I clearly see looming again, initially in the sense that prices are skyrocketing once more, but secondly, in that the production of oil is dropping.

When one looks at the tremendous chaos in a country such as Iran, one realizes that one need only repeat that experiment in a few other oil-producing countries for the total production of oil in the world to drop even more dramatically. I should therefore like to ask that we give far more urgent attention to this whole question of fuel, its procurement and its supply, than we are giving it at present. I say that in the full knowledge that we have taken great steps forward to bring about an alternative supply of fuel, namely alcohol fuels, and that we have made enormous investments in our Sasol plants and also in the full knowledge that we can make great use of our coal reserves. However, I believe that the full urgency of the looming oil crisis has not fully made itself felt in the Cabinet, and I should like to make an urgent plea that South Africa should aim at total self-sufficiency in its supplies of liquid fuel, that we should aim at 100% self-sufficiency. It will not be easy and it will not be inexpensive. The capital costs will be very high indeed. But in the conditions in which we find ourselves in the world today, I believe it is imperative that we at least set that as a target and do everything in our power to see to it that, when the crunch comes, we will not find ourselves in the situation in which we found ourselves last year, the last time there was a crisis, and previous to that in 1973 with the outbreak of war in the Middle East. The enormous amount of research we do and the question which is thrown backwards and forwards as to whether we should have methanol or ethanol is all very well. It is really unimportant which fuels we are going to produce. Let us take the decision to produce those fuels because there is going to be a lag or a lead time before we can produce sufficient for our needs. Let us take those decisions consciously and, when we are producing those fuels, let us slot them in in the present distribution of diesel and petrol in this country. Let us not argue about minor details such as who is to produce it, how much is going to be produced, etc. The fact remains that we are going to need that fuel and, if we are faced—and I hope it will not occur—with an oil boycott, we are going to need every drop of fuel we can lay our hands on. Let us start the machinery now for producing fuels from all sources from which we know they can be produced, because when the crunch comes, it will be no good at that stage rationing fuel and putting people out of work, thus increasing the unemployment in this country which is one of the major problems which must be faced and tackled by the Government. It is no good in a crisis situation like that coming with a panic reaction and putting people out of jobs for the time that it will take us to produce the fuel that we need to keep the economic development of this country going at a rate which will ensure that we can keep the problems of unemployment and the other problems that face us under control. I make that very urgent plea to any hon. Cabinet members who have an influence on decisions that are taken in that regard.

Finally, I should like to say to the hon. members of the governing party that I believe that we are on the point of a balance at the moment. Things could either go very well for this country, or things need not go so well for this country.

What about your party?

I am more interested in South Africa. I did not join this party to get a seat in Parliament. I came here to try and put up a voice for the future of this country, and I am far more interested in the future of South Africa than I am in the future of this party. If we disappear tomorrow, our philosophies and our viewpoints will not die, because the NP is taking them over day by day. That is the success of this party. Ultimately, the NP will thank us for the fact that we have shown the way in this country through our province, Natal, to the way things should be moving. If ever there is a tribute to the fact that our thinking is right, it is the fact that the Government party is moving in the direction that we have been trying to get them to move in for a long time. I want to say that if this country should be faced with an oil boycott, if the gold price should drop drastically, if we should be faced with on-going civil disobedience, or if all these things should happen together, we would be in a very serious situation in this country. Those things are not beyond the realms of possibility, and it is not impossible that they will happen together. I hope that that will not be the case. I am prepared to use what little influence I have in politics to see that things do not develop in that way.

I believe that we should be working towards using all the resources this country has to offer, the human resources and the natural resources, communication between people where communication has broken down, and the rebuilding of goodwill where goodwill has recently been lacking, taking all the best we can from the human potential in this country and building something for the future, of which we can all be proud. I should like to end with a brief quote from Shakespeare, who said, in Julius Caesar—

It is within the powers of the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government to take that flood and lead us on to fortune. I recommend that he does everything in his power to do that.

Mr. Speaker, for a change I have no quarrel with the NRP, and I can find no fault with what has been said by the hon. member for Berea. I do think, however, that I should take him up on one thing that he said, and I think that that should be the main theme of my contribution here this afternoon. He referred to the hon. the Prime Minister and said that he urged him to act in a statesmanlike manner. The point is that if one acts in statesman-like manner one must bring about purposeful change. The other point I would like to make is that one should have clearly defined goals and objectives.

*I do not think the hon. member for Berea need be afraid that he is not acting as such. It has repeatedly been said in the House that the hon. the Prime Minister is marking time; that he is doing nothing. I think it may be a good thing for me to try to explain in a very pleasant, simple manner what has been achieved during the past session, and also what the future holds, as it has been set out for us.

History will show that in recent times there has been more purposeful action than in any other period in the history of South Africa. In addition, the future has been very clearly marked out for us. We in the NP have no doubt about what the path that lies ahead entails. Therefore, the hon. members of the Opposition may go ahead and ask as much as they wish; we know where we are heading.

I know of many farms in South Africa, abroad too, and one of the problems encountered with farms is the question of succession, i.e. it may happen that one must decide how one is going to go about leaving a farm to one’s heir. On larger farms that problem is generally solved by means of partition. Surely this is true. One finds that the heirs, all of those who are entitled to it, each receive their share. South Africa is also a farm, a big farm, and we must be practical about it. It is the finest farm that I know, and I really hope that some of those members agree. What happened?

Before 1910 there were 15 heirs and three of them received a share of it, but after 1910 there were 12 heirs who were entitled to this farm. According to all the laws of succession, there are nine of them that are entitled to their own share, and there are three others, the Whites, Indians and Coloureds, that are jointly entitled to another share.

This is the factual situation in South Africa. We also find that whereas there was one Prime Minister in 1910, there are 10 today. Development took place in such a way that over a period of time these people established themselves, grew and achieved full national recognition. Then I also want to say that it also often happens with a large farm that as soon as the heirs are settled and know what belongs to them, they start competing for certain things in a cooperative fashion. For instance, they decide that there is only one place where they can build a large dam, and they will build it in such a way that all the components of the subdivided farm will be served by it. Larger implements can also be shared. Therefore, they make certain decisions and make certain rules and regulations. It is also true that on this farm all the pipelines, power lines, telephone lines and canals run through all these farms and that is why there must be joint negotiation on these matters. This is what happens.

What has been done over the past session on this farm, South Africa, in order to make things run smoothly? This farm went through a stage of partition. Dr. Verwoerd had already spoken about this. As partition or separate development succeeds, he said, so will discrimination disappear. In other words, the more successful it is, the more co-operation is achieved.

I want to tell those hon. members who want to ask where we are going, that we are at the centre of a co-operative system, a system in which there is co-operation and development. It is a co-operation, whether one calls it a confederal set-up, or whatever. That is why discrimination will disappear and we will achieve more co-operation.

In the past session this managing director of ours, the hon. the Prime Minister, took certain purposeful steps to promote this co-operative set-up. What did he do? He said that we should reach as many decisions as possible concerning the borders with a view to delimiting them as clearly as possible. After all, hon. members who are involved in farming, know that good, clearly delimitated borders and fences promote good neighbourliness. Small changes can be made later. This is what was done here to promote this co-operative set-up. Similarly, it was decided that we should also discuss labour thoroughly with a view to making labour arrangements for the various components, and to establish wages. This is why the Wiehahn and the Riekert Commissions were appointed. I think it is out of malice that the hon. members are now saying that we are marking time and that nothing has been done. The whole matter has been investigated in order to decide how the administration of this large co-operative setup should be managed. Hon. members know that the number of State departments has been decreased from 49 to 22.

We are living in a time of inflation. In these times one must be on one’s toes. It was essential to identify the industrial leaders and involve them so that they could also begin to make their contribution. This was done too. It is essential for each one of those components to know exactly where they stand, otherwise they are not going to co-operate so easily. In order to bring about certainty in this co-operative set-up and to encourage it, a twelve-point plan was drawn up and the Schlebusch Commission was appointed to deliberate upon it. I am just pointing out a few of all the things that were done. The laws and regulations of this large co-operative farm, South Africa, are going to be reviewed and brought up to date. I want to refer to another important step. During the past week we have debated on and granted our approval to the establishment of a President’s Council to look after the three groups that are going to manage the one farm jointly, inter alia.

What does the road ahead look like? The road ahead is one of co-operation. It has already been said that there will be a bank to promote this co-operative. We have already said that a national conference will take place and that the idea of the constellation of States will be given momentum. It is very necessary for the board of directors that is now going to be appointed, to make progress as rapidly as possible. It is necessary, whether we want to admit it or not, for the directors of this co-operative to meet together, because there are so many things upon which they must deliberate. They must deliberate upon the entire infrastructure and the progress that can be made with it. Many things have to be discussed. Borders have been marked out on the surface, but there are many subterranean riches. The directors have to talk. If the one component has coal, another has gravel for making roads, and another has steel to make ploughshares, these subterranean riches must be discussed jointly. The roads running through it must be discussed and also whether it is necessary to put locks on all the gates. If one post— one border post—costs a million rand, the question arises whether it is necessary to put locks on all those gates. There are many things that can be discussed. It is the co-operative system that has now been put into effect. That is not all. There are arsonists on our borders who set the veld and the forests alight. We must decide together where the most suitable place is and build a lookout tower there, because once these fires are allowed to take hold, they are not going to be stopped. They must be extinguished when they begin.

There are also army worms around the farm. Not only around it, but inside it too. Glancing across the House, I see a few of them. We must consult together on how we can fight army worms here. Dark clouds and locusts are gathering to the North of us, and after all, we know that the only way of combating a swarm of locusts is to destroy them where they breed.

This path that the NP has marked out— the period of co-operative co-operation that we are now entering, requires courage, daring, confidence in oneself and in one’s fellow-man and love of one’s neighbour. It requires courage, and the Government is displaying courage here, because we have confidence and because we have established the basic foundation. This is the path of the NP. It is not the path of the leftist, idealistic liberalists who want to build a tower of Babel, which cannot but lead to chaos and anarchy. This is not the path. Yesterday we experienced the fact that the official Opposition does not want to co-operate with instruments that are being created by Parliament. One wonders whether they realize what a dangerous game they are playing. It is as if a sterility of thought has affected them. It has affected more, than just their thoughts, because if they do not want to think of themselves they should at least think of their children.

That is precisely what we are doing.

How can you expect to achieve anything if there is a movement so far to the left within Parliament? This is one of our basic problems. We must persuade the non-Black leaders to work with us. We shall involve them, because our cause is right. After all, the people also have an audience, but how can they move to the right of the leftist group in Parliament if the leftist group in Parliament is moving so far to the left that they say they are not going to participate in it? Then one can scarcely have any reasonable expectation of those people sharing in this instrument. However, it is not only the leftist element. Here in the country there are also selfish, but rightist people who are simply seeking confrontation, and they will also be destroyed in this process.

Are they sitting close to you?

This path of South Africa has been very clearly marked out. This is my reply to those hon. members who said that nothing has been done. I have pointed out the purposeful action that was taken and I have pointed out what road the Government envisages for the future. This is the path of the National Party and we shall walk it with courage and conviction. This is also the path of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for South Coast has a somewhat simplistic viewpoint. [Interjections.]

Are you going to resign your seat?

I should like to say to that hon. Deputy Minister that, if he wants to know anything about resigning seats, he should ask the hon. members on his side, the hon. members for Constantia, Walmer and Port Elizabeth Central, about that.

Constantia?

They have not crossed the floor yet.

The hon. member for South Coast took a rather simplistic view, likening South Africa to a big farm. Frankly, the solutions down on the farm are not the solutions for a sophisticated State like South Africa. One thing interested me about what the hon. member for South Coast said. He seemed to imply that the road forward for the National Party was the road away from discrimination. I want to ask him whether that in fact is his belief. Does he believe that the National Party is moving, and should move, away from discrimination?

I said so. I said the road is one of cooperation.

I just wanted to get confirmation that he believes the road forward for the National Party is away from discrimination. I want to tell that hon. member that, if one is going to move away from discrimination, one cannot only do it in the social and economic fields; but that in order truly to move away from discrimination one has to do it in the political field as well. One has to give citizens of a country the right to sit in the highest councils of their own land and to help to make the decisions of that land because, after all, a State is really the sum total of its people, not just one section of the people, but all the people whatever the colour of their skin.

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

No, he may not. I have a very limited amount of time. That hon. member called us in these benches leftists and liberalists. I want to say to him that, if I have to choose between liberalism and Fascism, I will choose liberalism every time.

The hon. member for Berea asked me a question; or rather he challenged me. I want to say to him that I will make up my own mind. [Interjections.] I do not need anyone to make it up for me.

Will you do the honourable thing?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order! May the hon. member say that we are Fascists?

I heard nothing that was unparliamentary.

Mr. Speaker, if you like, I shall repeat what I said.

Please do.

I said that, if I have to choose between liberalism and Fascism, I will choose liberalism.

The hon. member for East London North may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. To get back to the hon. member for Berea …

Get back to your promises too.

… I will make up my own mind.

When?

I shall also make any statements I choose to make where and when I choose to make them.

Are you going to do the honourable thing? That is all we want to know.

One thing is certain; I do not need my mother to make up my mind for me. [Interjections.]

Do you know why? It is because you do not have a mind at all.

Order!

I want to get to the speech I have prepared.

You have not answered the question: Will you do the honourable thing?

Order!

The speech I have prepared relates to the Second Report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. It has become apparent that the House will not reach that section of the Order Paper where the consideration of the Second Report of that Select Committee appears. I want to say that we in these benches are extremely unhappy with many aspects of the situation that has arisen during the course of this session, particularly in relation to administration boards. I believe we have this in common with every farmer in the country. I believe that through the evidence led before the Select Committee these boards have been proved to be a can of worms. The lid of that can is now open and they are being exposed to the light of day. First of all, I want to refer to bad management. I want to quote what the Select Committee says in regard to this. I would remind hon. members that they took evidence from the East Rand Administration Board, the Midlands Administration Board which is now called the Eastern Cape Administration Board, and the Peninsula Administration Board which is now called the Western Cape Administration Board. In regard to all these boards the Select Committee states (Minutes, p. 258)—

For a Select Committee that is strong language. The recommendation that steps be taken to place these matters on a sound footing is a clear indication that they are not, at this moment, on a sound footing. There are many instances one can quote in this regard, but in view of a telex I received today, I want to refer predominantly to the Eastern Cape Administration Board. I received a telex from the Eastern Province Herald news editor. It is sent from Port Elizabeth and bears today’s date. The telex indicates that—

He is questioning the Auditor-General, and I think the hon. the Minister of Finance should take note of this—

I do not believe that that is the sort of statement that should be made by an official of an administration board in relation to one of the reports of one of the senior members of our Government, particularly in view of the fact that the Select Committee itself said that internal control was very, very weak and that steps needed to be taken. I believe that to a degree this reflects on the findings of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and I believe that Mr. Koch should be dealt with accordingly.

The number of things wrong with that board were incredible. Firstly there is the question of a vehicle renewals fund. During the year there was an irrecoverable claim of R5 985 in respect of alterations to trailers which did not comply with specifications at the time of delivery. There was also a liquor account that was wrong. Then there was also the question of stores, involving a figure of R814 669. I quote from the Auditor-General’s report—

There were losses and deficiencies in regard to damage caused by fire and there were operating deficits. There was also fruitless expenditure. There were costs incurred on the design of a proposed sewage farm, the construction of which was not proceeded with. There was also the question of computer services, and this was a particular mess. Those people blatantly did not know what they were doing in relation to the computerization of their accounts in that administration board. What is more, they appear to have continued blindly on their own, without consulting—in the early stages certainly until all the money had been spent—with other administration boards. In this regard an amount of R185 414 was paid on 31 March 1979 for the delivery and rental of a computer system which, for various reasons, was not advantageously utilized. That was a waste to the State of about R185 000, and yet yesterday evening we in this House heard that the hon. the Minister of Finance had to give an extra R100 000 to that board to pay for some houses that had been erected by the Department of Community Development. So one can go on looking at all these various boards. I have a number of reports in front of me, and in every one can see that the Auditor-General—and this was a view that was shared by the Select Committee on Public Accounts—is extremely concerned at the amounts of money that has been spent, or the bad administration evidenced by the administration boards, certainly those that appeared before us, and probably others as well. Perhaps the most serious aspect of the whole matter relates to funds collected from the public in various manners for the administration boards, funds that were not spent.

To refer to the Eastern Cape Administration Board again—or the Midlands Area Administration Board, as it was known when this 1978-’79 report was compiled— they had external investments of R4 632 000. The Drakensberg Administration Board had similar investments of R6 618 000. The East Rand Administration Board—this one takes the cake—had no less than R22 084 000 in external investments. Finally, the Administration Board for the Peninsula area had the relatively small amount of only R1 444 000. The question which I want to ask is this: Why were these funds stored up and why were they not spent for the purposes of benefiting the Black people who fall under the control of these Administration Boards? To build up an amount of R22 million in one Administration Board alone, when infrastructure needs to be created in these areas, when housing needs to be provided, is something I fail to understand. I should like the hon. the Minister of Finance to listen very carefully to what I am going to say next.

Evidence given to the Select Committee by the East Rand Administration Board reveals that they were not allowed by the Treasury to spend that money. They told us that, and I should like the hon. the Minister to investigate it. Evidence was given. Unfortunately this evidence has not as yet been published, so I have to deal with this from memory. The evidence was to the effect that the East Rand Administration Board put in requests in connection with how much of these funds they wanted to spend, and they were then given another figure by the Treasury, who said they could spend Rx.

Order! As regards the Select Committee, the hon. member is only allowed to deal with evidence that has been published.

Mr. Speaker, I think that in this regard, what we have to know, is why these Administration Boards have such tremendous sums of money available. Obviously, they can invest them externally. Why are they not spending them on the very people who so badly need this money spent on them?

Order! Order of the Day No. 15 shows that the Second Report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts has been tabled. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, could I have a further ruling from you on this particular matter? The fact is that the report has been tabled relating to evidence which was given before the Select Committee on Public Accounts. Is it therefore permissible, in view of the fact that the report has been tabled, that I can comment on evidence or discuss evidence in this House, which was given before the Select Committee and which led to the Second Report?

I have not seen the report yet. Are there any questions in that report relating to that matter? If there are questions in the report relating to that matter—the matter of the investments—the hon. member is allowed to deal with them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The final point which I want to make in this regard relates to the situation which arose during the course of these meetings. When we had the East Rand Administration Board giving evidence before the Select Committee in connection with these very investments, on which the Administration Boards had lost money, we learnt that these investments had been made with two banks, which subsequently landed themselves in serious financial difficulties. We asked of the East Rand Administration Board whether, to the knowledge of that board, any commission had been paid to anybody. The answer was a clear and definitive “no”. We also asked them whether anybody had called on them to persuade them …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May I ask you for a ruling in connection with this matter? As I understand the matter we have a report of the Select Committee before the House at the moment. We have the Second Report of the Select Committee, but we do not have the evidence before us. The evidence has not been published. The hon. member for Malmesbury, who is the Chairman of the Select Committee, is sitting here next to me. He assures me that the evidence has not been published. What the hon. member for East London North is now doing, is to address the House on the evidence which has been given, but which, according to the assurance given by the Chairman of the Select Committee, has not been published. Consequently, hon. members do not have that evidence before them. [Interjections.]

Why are you so worried about it?

It will come out sooner or later anyway. It cannot be concealed for ever.

Order! The hon. member for East London North may proceed.

As I said, they were asked whether anybody had persuaded them to invest with the Rondalia Bank and the answer was: “Definitely not”. Then, on a subsequent occasion, we asked the Curator of the Rondalia Bank, and his answer was that commission was definitely paid. We asked him to whom he had paid this commission and the answer was: Mr. A. E. Nothnagel. At that stage we were not aware who Mr. A. E. Nothnagel was. We then asked on what basis. Apparently he was employed on a temporary or part-time basis by the bank with a view to trying to attract investment funds. I asked an official of the board—and I think this is important— whether he was aware of where this particular gentleman was now working or how he occupied his time, and the answer was: “I do not know”. I found that answer quite extraordinary in view of the fact that it subsequently developed that the A. E. Nothnagel referred to was the hon. member for Innesdal. I wish to say that I was not initially aware of who Mr. A. E. Nothnagel was and I subsequently wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts on 13 May which reads as follows—

I received an answer from the hon. member for Malmesbury, the Chairman of the Select Committee, which states—

In this way we established for the first time who the gentleman was who received the commission from the bank. What one must remember is that he received commission from the bank on funds invested by State bodies.

Nobody believes you.

We in these benches believe that this is a matter which is morally indefensible in this regard. We in these benches do not believe that any hon. member of this House should be entitled to receive commissions on funds placed with private institutions by Government institutions. I then proposed at the following meeting of the Select Committee that the hon. member for Innesdal …

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

No, I do not have the time. I then proposed at the Select Committee that the hon. member should be requested to give evidence in front of the Select Committee. After a delay of a week, a week in which I must point out that any member of that Select Committee had the opportunity to see the hon. member for Innesdal to find out whether he wished to appear before the Select Committee, at the following meeting of the Select Committee the majority of the members of the Select Committee decided against the request. Therefore the matter was not discussed further in the Select Committee. In this regard I want to say that we in these benches believe that for an hon. member of Parliament …

Order! I have made several inquiries and I find that the report has been printed, but not the minutes. That places me in somewhat of a quandary, because S.O. 169 distinctly states that—

I have established that the report has been printed, but not the evidence. Therefore, in accordance with this Rule, the evidence cannot be published or divulged because it has not been printed.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on a point of order? As I understand that rule, the position is that certain things may not be done until the report of the Select Committee has been published. Certain things may not be done, including the divulging of evidence. However, once the report of the Select Committee has been printed, all those things can be divulged. That is the whole principle.

The Standing Order reads as follows—

*I think the hon. member should proceed, or is there another hon. member who wishes to address me on this matter?

Mr. Speaker, I should like to address you on this point. What is the position if that evidence itself has not been published and tabled here? The report may be discussed, but if the evidence has not been available to all the members, how could there be an effective debate on the matter?

What about the report of the Erasmus Commission? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Sir, I have said that this is reprehensible and totally unacceptable to us.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: If you should rule at a later stage that it was inadmissible to discuss the evidence here, does that mean that this portion will be deleted from Hansard?

The position is that the House will not have the opportunity of discussing that report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. This is the only opportunity for doing so. I think it is in the interests of the House and of the country that the hon. member should discuss the matter and for that reason I am allowing him to do so. I shall just check to see whether I am correct in terms of the rules of the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the Government should give a great deal of thought to this matter with a view to promulgating regulations or passing legislation in this House that will prevent instances of this nature taking place in the future. We were unable to have the hon. member for Innesdal appear before the Select Committee, but I believe that there are a number of questions which should have been asked of him in this regard. Amongst these are the following: Firstly, was the hon. member employed for a specific purpose or with a mandate to solicit investments from Administration Boards, noting that his previous employment had been as Private Secretary to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration? Secondly, did he himself suggest or canvass Rondalia to be appointed for this purpose? If not, whose idea was it? How many boards did he successfully canvass? We only had evidence in respect of one, namely the East Rand Administration Board. How much money was invested? What commissions were earned? Sixthly, Sir, did he earn commission from investments made by any other Government or semi-Government bodies? Seventhly, did he canvass anyone other than Government institutions? Eighthly, did he get commission on investments made by bodies other than Government bodies? Ninthly, were there any other MP’s or MPC’s involved? As far as we could establish, there were no other MP’s involved, but this was not easy, Mr. Speaker.

I believe that all these questions need to be answered. We did get a list of people who had received commissions in this regard, from Rondalia Bank. There was another name on the list, a name which I do not intend to divulge in this House. It was not the name of a member of Parliament; I wish to make that quite clear. There was, however, another name involved, and it certainly created further question marks in our minds. I believe, Sir, that the situation that has arisen in this regard is one which is not in the best interests of good government in South Africa. I believe therefore that the hon. the Minister and the members of his Cabinet should give situations of this nature deep consideration. I believe that matters of this nature should not be allowed to happen.

Mr. Speaker, I think we experienced a very unfortunate incident in this hon. House this afternoon. In the first instance I think the hon. member for East London North, as member of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, could have had the decency to show me, as the Chairman, this so-called telex which he received this morning. I was here all day. I expect something like this from hon. members who serve on that Select Committee. Other hon. members of that Committee who received information at least informed me, as the chairman, about it. What is more, the hon. member probably knew by this morning that he would discuss this matter this evening. He could at least have had the decency to come and tell me that he would discuss the business of the Select Committee in this House this evening. Now I am sitting here without notes, without any evidence before me, without the telex, and I have to listen to this tirade of the hon. member for East London North. I think the conduct of the hon. member for East London North is absolutely unfair. I think it testifies to bad taste. What is more, the attitude the hon. member is adopting here is not the one he adopted during the Select Committee meetings.

No. Then he was a coward.

This report of the Select Committee is a unanimous report. Hon. members will see in the minutes that it is a unanimous report. It is recorded there. What is more, it is quite a strongly-worded report in which the committee, after having considered matters, has made strong recommendations to this hon. House. Allow me to point out a few aspects. Reference was made to commission that had been earned. That is correct. But what does the report say? The report says—

In other words, at the juncture when that commission was paid, it was still in order to do so. But the hon. member is omitting to mention that now.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I receive the kind of treatment I received from that side this evening, I am not prepared to reply to their questions.

In terms of the decision mentioned in the Second Report of the Select Committee of 1977, the Auditor-General must receive certain certificates from institutions which take investments from Government institutions. We received the assurance in the committee that those certificates were in fact obtained. In other words, there was no irregularity in this connection. I do not know what the hon. member is trying to insinuate. I now want to turn to the question of Mr. Nothnagel. If that hon. member alleges that he did not know that the name A. E. Nothnagel which was mentioned referred to the hon. member for Innesdal, he is telling an untruth. When that name was mentioned, each one knew that it referred to the hon. member for Innesdal. As chairman of that Select Committee I could take no other decision than the decision which I took. There are prescribed rules as to how a committee must act and I acted in accordance with them. The hon. member knows this. He quoted from letters which we wrote to each other.

There are rules of decency as well!

Furthermore, after having been given this letter, the hon. member requested that we should ask the hon. member for Innesdal to testify. The committee decided that, since a considerable number of recruiters were recruiting for the bank at that stage, and he was one of those recruiters, it would be absolutely unfair to single out one recruiter to testify before the Select Committee simply because he was a member of Parliament. We did not have the time to allow all the recruiters who had been doing recruiting work for Banks to testify before the Select Committee. That is absolutely impossible. Why should one person be singled out? From the very outset that hon. member tried to derive unsavoury political benefit from this matter.

But he is an unsavoury little man!

That hon. member is a motor-car dealer. I want to ask him, if he were able to conclude a contract with a Government department for the delivery of motor vehicles, whether he would say that, because he is a member of Parliament he would not negotiate a commercial transaction with a Government body. The hon. member made a ridiculous statement by saying that the hon. member for Innesdal had done bona fide work for another party. There are few hon. members in this House who do not have another profession as well, apart from that of member of Parliament. It is an absolutely unfair statement and it is a smear campaign by hon. members opposite. [Interjections.] If that hon. member suspected that an hon. member on this side of the House had acted irregularly, surely he knew what the procedure of the House was. He should have asked for a Select Committee to be appointed to investigate an action of the hon. member. That is the correct procedure.

He knows that nothing will come of it.

When the hon. the Prime Minister became the Leader of the NP he declared in a speech from the steps of the Senate that he would strive for a clean national administration. As chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts I want to say in all modesty in this House that the committee decided unanimously—

I want to state today that no department and no individual will be protected by us if they make a mistake. However, we shall always try to be fair and reasonable when we pass judgment. I wish to refer to this report again. We were concerned about the fact that some of the Administration Boards left much to be desired. In our report, on which we decided unanimously—we did not even vote on it—the following is apparent, and I quote from the minutes of proceedings of the House of Assembly of 10 June 1980, page 257—

Furthermore the committee decided—and I quote—

Surely we were not fast asleep in this matter. Consequently the process of improvement and tightening up of the Administration Boards is already in progress. The decision goes on to read—

I have always regarded the Select Committee as part of this Parliament. Here the report is for all to see, in fact, it was quoted in the Press yesterday. Why the hon. member for East London North had to rise here and kick up such a fuss, I cannot say. The only reason I can advance for his conduct is that he is trying to make some petty politicking out of the whole affair. If he thinks that there is any political gain to be derived from this whole affair, he is greatly mistaken.

He is a political pig.

Do you approve of the payment of commission or not?

Order! If I heard the hon. member correctly—and he will know whether I heard him correctly—he must withdraw his statement.

Mr. Speaker, if you heard me say that the hon. member was a political pig, you heard correctly and I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I was not present yesterday when the hon. member for Yeoville spoke. However, I read the hon. member’s speech and I also read the hon. the Minister’s speech. Here we now have two speeches: In the one case the speaker adopted an absolutely positive attitude and when I say that I am referring to the hon. the Minister’s speech. The other speech—that of the hon. member for Yeoville—was absolutely negative. I was disappointed with the hon. member for Yeoville for in all due fairness I think that that hon. member’s party is to a large extent taking advantage of him. I have appreciation for that hon. member’s capacity for work, for during the past few days he has dealt with all the financial legislation on behalf of his party without receiving any support from his colleague, the hon. member for Durban North. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville was on his own here and he could perhaps be pardoned for not having made such a good speech. I think that the services of the hon. member for Yeoville are quite indispensable to the Opposition. In fact, this is the case to such an extent that the clique which he referred to himself cannot expel him because they cannot afford to do so. I think the hon. member for Yeoville knows this. I am very sorry that that hon. member is not present in this House at the moment.

Where is he?

He is ashamed of that man.

One should very much like to know where the hon. member for Yeoville would stand if the hon. member for Bezuidenhout put his case to their Federal Council—or whatever their highest council is.

The clique is the highest council.

Surely those hon. members are both victims of the clique and I should very much have liked to have known from the hon. member for Yeoville whether he is going to side with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout or with the clique on which he himself has commented adversely. Notwithstanding the appreciation I have for the hon. member for Yeoville, he said something at the end of his speech yesterday which I cannot allow to pass without debating the matter, not only with him, but with the hon. Opposition as well. That hon. member said (Hansard, 12.6.80)—

He went on to say—

This afternoon the hon. the Prime Minister replied himself and what a wonderful privilege it was to sit here and listen to him. Even those hon. members must admit that this afternoon they listened to a speech of a very high calibre, to the speech of a statesman. That is why I think it is presumptuous, outrageous and irresponsible to say that the hon. the Prime Minister had merely raised expectations and had done nothing. His actions speak for themselves inside and outside South Africa. To say that he has merely raised expectations is absolutely irresponsible and harmful to the country, because it is just not true.

Every hon. member on this side of the House and every hon. member opposite, the media, the business world, the political world and the world in general know—did we not see a demonstration of this this afternoon and in the by-elections—and the electorate knows that his words are being converted into deeds. The electorate stands behind him. The hon. the Prime Minister has, in the interests of South Africa—and the hon. member for Yeoville admitted this in a debate all of two years ago— consolidated a strong party and a strong Government behind him. There is nothing today which creates more confidence in a country, wherever it may be, than political confidence. The hon. the Prime Minister enjoys the confidence of the businessmen of South Africa. It was he who convened the Carlton conference. Was it not he who pledged himself to the expansion of the free enterprise system in South Africa? Has it not been since that conference that the revival has really gained momentum? Was it not under the regime of this hon. Prime Minister that the public were given a major share in Sasol and that other companies were given the green light to proceed with the manufacture of alternative fuels? What about the Riekert and the Wiehahn reports? Are these not actions that speak for themselves? What about the rationalization process in the Public Service through which 44 departments became 22 and which has brought about more effective administration and a general improvement? Was it not under his initiative that the Schlebusch Commission published a report and legislation was submitted to this House for the creation of vehicles for further constitutional development?

†Is it necessary to point out that exchange control, as recommended by the De Kock Commission, is being phased out, that relaxation for township developers has occurred, that permit-free areas have been designated in the field of road transportation, that certain trading restrictions have been lifted in Black areas, that the 99-year leasehold system has been announced? Is it necessary to point out that the channels for consultation with all population groups were never more open than today?

*The hon. the Prime Minister is devoting his time to dialogue with other population groups for the sake of South Africa. Who has worked with greater dedication on the defence of this country and on the expansion of a local armaments industry than he has? The hon. member for Yeoville and all his colleagues opposite are aware of all these things and I believe that deep down they have to admit that they have appreciation for his work. Every day they reap the benefits of that work.

I take it amiss of them for telling the outside world, which is so financially well-disposed towards us at this stage, that this hon. the Prime Minister merely speaks and does nothing. Since the hon. the Minister of Finance introduced his Vote the South African economy has gone from strength to strength. No one can deny that. Today we find ourselves highly recommended as a field of investment, twelfth on the list, out of 45 leading countries in the world and on the eve of floating a very important public loan in Germany. We wish the hon. the Minister of Finance everything of the best, for, quite apart from the money we are going to obtain, this is a very good test for South Africa’s prestige. It is going to be a long-term loan and we know the longer the term, the more confidence it requires. The fact that this loan is being subscribed for a long term, demonstrates the confidence in South Africa that exists in the financial world today. What is more, it demonstrates that there is confidence in the political stability of South Africa. You, Mr. Speaker, can look it up if you like, you can verify what I am saying, you can examine the statistics and you will find the lower the confidence in the economic sphere, the lower the confidence in the financial level of that country is. It is interesting to note that the largest brokerage house in the USA, Harold, Pears, Stanner and Smith, which traditionally regarded South Africa as a risky field of investment, recently recommended medium to long term investments in the Republic of South Africa most strongly. The actions of the Prime Minister and the Government’s strong and purposeful financial policy is creating confidence. The rand is growing stronger all the time. In The Citizen of 11 June the following headline appeared: “Rand Spot Rate New Milestone”, and the report stated: “The rand spot rate reached another milestone yesterday when it closed at 1,29 US dollars and prospects are that the 1,30 level could be reached before the month end.” This is a sign that this country is prospering. This is proof of a purposeful financial policy which is succeeding. I think the Reserve Bank has now devised the necessary machinery to deal with the liquidity situation and we anticipate that their share issues at 10,8% to the banks and discount houses—of which many are expected to go to the mining houses—will be utilized when they have to make their tax payments. We have also been informed in the Press that the Reserve Bank is prepared and has already started repurchasing transactions in order to protect financial institutions against fluctuating bank rates. All of this serves to strengthen internal financial confidence and world confidence in the South African system. In the commercial sphere and in the sphere of retailing in particular, there has been a tremendous increase in turnover. Just examine the Press reports: “Sales Tax Shows Boom in Spending” and “Retailers Prepare for the Spending Spree”, etc. I have a pile of Press reports here to prove this statement.

The fact of the matter is that during the coming months an increasing amount of money will be available to the public. An estimated R125 million will be in the hands of consumers in South Africa next month. Why? This is the result of reduced taxation, but the hon. member for Yeoville says that “South Africa is over-taxed.” This is the greatest absurdity I have heard in this House for a long time. Surplus capacity in the manufacturing sector is rapidly being absorbed now. Shortages are already occurring in the motor industry. That is why we shall find that real investment will now have to increase. The money is there. The bottleneck is probably labour, but here too the Government has not been fast asleep. We initiated training programmes. We announced the Manpower 2000 Programme. We have reports at our disposal in which certain recommendations are being made. We have the Riekert and Wiehahn reports. However, I am not certain—this bothers me—that the private sector is contributing its share in the training programmes. I have a feeling that at present there is brisk competition for labour, for I am experiencing this in practice. Companies do not like to go to the trouble of fitting a training programme into their normal activities, for this is inconvenient—I can give the assurance that it is inconvenient. The easiest thing to do is to increase the wage structures and buy the labour of the other person who has already been trained. This is what is happening at the moment. I issue the warning that this is a bad trend; we may have to pay dearly for it.

I should like to make an appeal to every section of the private sector, whatever industry it may be and regardless of whether it is in the co-operative sphere, that everyone should try to do a certain measure of training within his own structure.

I should like to say something about the question of food prices and the agricultural policy of our country. The hon. the Minister of Finance indicated that South Africa’s agricultural potential was limited. We have 70 000 farmers who have to ensure that the people of our country are fed. It is true that, despite our limited potential, we have since the Second World War been able to have a higher growth rate in agricultural production than in our population growth.

I have said before, but I want to say today again: Not only do we produce food to meet our present requirements; we have to store surpluses for the dry years, for our country is prone to droughts and agricultural adversity. What is more, we must also produce enough food to be in a position to provide our neighbours with whatever is necessary when agricultural production collapses. This is important.

No industry can be maintained if it is unable to produce at a profit. Recently agriculture has been faced with tremendous cost increases and consequently we must accept that food, the produce of agriculture, is becoming more expensive. There are various ways of providing food inexpensively. The Government is doing its duty as far as this is concerned. Surely we have food subsidies.

However, the question is: How far must one go with food subsidies and with the subsidizing of agriculture. In this regard I want to refer to the European Economic Community. Their agriculture is very heavily subsidized, but the EEC is facing grave problems as a result of this policy of subsidization which is being applied there. Let me read out only one quotation—

This is an awful quotation. What else does it say?

Productivity must, therefore, be increased. This is what the EEC says. I quote further—

If one finishes reading this article in the German Tribune of 25 May, one sees that the situation exists in Europe that there is a surplus of food, that the consumers are dissatisfied because food prices are steadily increasing despite the subsidies, that the farmers’ real income is dropping as a result of inflationary conditions—in brief, no one is happy, no one is satisfied.

That is why I say one must be very careful with a policy of general food subsidization. However, the Government is responsible and knows its responsibility. It will act accordingly in future.

Mr. Speaker, I am not a member of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, so I am obviously not in a position to decide whether or not the conduct of the hon. member for Innesdal was improper. I do not have the evidence before me. I do, however, want to point out that if the hon. member for East London North believes that there is a prima facie case, he should ask for a Select Committee to be appointed to investigate it.

There was no suggestion of improper conduct. If there had been, I would have dealt with it.

Well, Sir, it just shows the difficulty one has when matters are debated without all the facts being available.

The question of morals has been raised by the hon. member for East London North, and I want to point out that we have today had yet another promise from him about his resignation. Originally it was to be at the end of this session, then it was to be before the next election, and now it is to be in his own time at a place he will decide on.

When you changed from the United Party to the NRP, did you resign?

The party was dissolved. There was no party and the membership of that party lapsed. I want to say to the hon. member for East London North that he made an uncalled for attack on the hon. member for Berea, in which he said that the hon. member’s mother made his mind up for him. In fact, Sir, he is moving on very vulnerable ground. We all know the influence his mother had on the fact that he joined that political party. However, Sir, I do not believe that one should raise this sort of thing in debate.

Mr. Speaker, I also wish to make a few comments concerning the decision of the members of the SAP to disband and to join the NP. I do not think this was unexpected; I share the view of other hon. members in this regard. I am sure, though, that some of their supporters will be surprised. I must congratulate the hon. member for Simonstown on his decision to resign his seat. He is the first member to do so since Dr. Bernard Friedman resigned his seat more than 20 years ago. That was, of course, a commendable gesture from the hon. member, but I am not so sure whether these hon. members will fit in with the NP. This is something we shall still have to see. I think the hon. member for Simonstown will find himself operating on the far right of that party. I am glad that those members have been given a few days to decide on this matter. I must say that I am sorry that I shall possibly be losing the hon. member for Walmer as my bench-mate. I think he should search his conscience. If he does so, I think he will find himself in agreement with the philosophy of the NRP rather than that of the NP.

The hon. member for Simonstown made a plea to the old United Party supporters to follow him. I too wish to make a plea to those people who, perhaps out of loyalty, have supported the SAP. They should rather join the NRP. These hon. members are about to join a party which practises policies which were totally rejected by the old United Party. Those policies are totally against the old United Party philosophy and its principles. When one joins a party, one has to defend that party’s policies and principles. The hard reality today is that although the Government has made some adjustments, many repugnant aspects of their policy still remain. These hon. members are not joining a party which has abolished the Immorality Act. Neither are they about to join a party which has abolished the Mixed Marriages Act. They are not joining a party with a clear policy for the urban Blacks. Are these hon. members, from 1 July, going to defend the Mixed Marriages Act, and still try to make out that any true follower of the old United Party’s philosophy can follow in their footsteps? I do not believe that that is possible.

*I should like to return briefly to the announcement relating to education. We welcome it. The terms of reference show that it is definitely going to be the most penetrating investigation into education ever conducted in South Africa. I am very pleased that the other racial groups are also included.

†We have from time to time asked for commissions of inquiry, sometimes under the chairmanship of a judge, but I think that this particular investigation could prove to be far better. I am particularly pleased that there is a time limit to this investigation. I hope that the result of the investigation, eventually, will be in line with what we have advocated for many years. I say that because one can see in what direction the investigation will move, namely the creation of a permanent body or a bureau for the coordination and advancement of education for all groups in South Africa. It is something which we have asked for and which, I believe, is very necessary in South Africa. If one really analyses the statement, one finds that the wisdom of the NRP in advocating in South Africa a federal and a confederal constitutional structure is cropping up all the time. On this basis we will be able to bring about effective co-ordination of education, whilst still allowing each population group to have full say over the education of their children, and also to have—and this is very important—full political say, not as observers, but as participants at all levels of government. It is perhaps in the field of education that the Government will discover the desirability and, in fact, the necessity of our constitutional approach for South Africa. I need only refer hon. members to the third of the terms of reference which reads—

These are matters which one cannot solve just in educational or administrative terms. These are matters which, in the final analysis, really demand a political settlement and, in fact, a constitutional answer. While in terms of our policy it is possible, at all levels of government, to have the people as a part of the decision-making process, the Government will find that it is impossible to do the same in terms of their proposed structure. I have already said on many occasions that we do not only have educational problems in South Africa at present, but that there are also many political problems which have to be solved and that, in the process, the educational problems will fall away. It is clear to me from the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement today and also from his speech where he referred to the boycotts, that he also accepts that the educational grievances as such could never have brought those boycotts about, but that there are, in fact, political factors behind them and that we shall have to apply our minds to solving those factors.

I am also particularly pleased that one of the first terms of reference here is the investigation for the laying down of guidelines so that the optimum potential of all South Africans can be realized. We all live in this country, whether we are in independent Black States, in homelands or elsewhere, and whether we are urban Blacks, Whites, Indians or Coloureds sharing a geographical area in South Africa, and there is one thing that all of us share together, and that is one undivided economy. It is for that reason that it is so essential that we must have a system in South Africa through which one can co-ordinate and plan education. One cannot afford to have varying standards of education when people are competing in the same economy. For that reason it is very important that this particular investigation should have these terms of reference. I feel that the outcome will once again prove that the NRP philosophy has the answer to South Africa’s problems because it offers the only way of solving the problems in education, which are being investigated.

You are dreaming.

The hon. member says I am dreaming, but what I dream today, becomes reality for the NP tomorrow. [Interjections.] The nightmare for us in South Africa is that it takes them so long to do the right thing. Since as much as six years ago we have been asking the Government for such an investigation into these matters, but our request has always been refused. But what is happening now? They are doing it at last and they are using nearly the same words as the words used by us.

†It is also interesting at the end of a session to see how various parties and political commentators label the session. Last year, of course, we had an exceptional session. It was centred around the Information scandal and it eventually resulted in a change of State President, and a by-product of the session was a change of leader for the official Opposition. I do not think anything as dramatic as that has happened this year. In fact, measured against that we have had a rather ordinary session, even allowing for …

Your bench mate, the hon. member for Walmer, has gone.

That was so expected. We had the hon. member for East London North jumping on to what he at the time believed to be the winning wagon which of course we now know seems to have got stuck in the quick sand of constitution-making in the last week or so. In spite of that, there has not been any exceptional event in Parliament this year compared with last year.

In a way, if we want to be really objective —and there are now only two Opposition parties left in the Parliament of South Africa—none of us can walk out of here feeling that we emerge as actual winners. None of us can wear a winner’s garland around our necks. We must accept that reality. However, it is not only true of the two Opposition parties, but also of the Government side. In a way, we, the White politicians led by the Nationalist Government, have once again lost an opportunity to really safeguard the future of all of us, and especially the White people of this country.

We are still leaving far too many problems for posterity to solve. Even if one gives the Government full marks for its attempt to make a start with multiracial dialogue by means of the proposed President’s Council, the hard fact is that today, five months after the commencement of this session, there is nothing we can really show as concrete evidence of an actual improvement in race relations in South Africa as a result of what has happened in Parliament. Yesterday my leader, the hon. member for Durban Point, said that it takes the Government a long time to move. Perhaps one can therefore give them some credit for having moved at last, but I believe that the urgency is far greater now than five months ago. The negative aspects of the session overshadow whatever positive aspects there might be. We will be irresponsible as an Opposition party if we just try to sweep those negative aspects under the carpet.

I think the most regrettable aspect centred around the weakening relationship between the Coloureds and the Government. The apparent inability of the Government to stop the worsening situation is most regrettable. I believe that at the beginning of the year the Government did not help matters at all with its panic move to abolish the CRC after one confrontation with the Coloured leaders. I know that the excuse is given that the Coloureds wanted it abolished. That is not even a half of the truth. It is perhaps a quarter of the truth. The abolition of the Coloured Representative Council was not the act of a Government which was prepared to listen to Coloured opinion, but it was seen for what it was, viz. an act of punishment. I want the Government during the next six months to seriously think about the present situation—apart from what is happening in the President’s Council and in the Schlebusch Commission—and to realize that it cannot be allowed to continue. I believe the very first thing the Government should do in the next session is to introduce legislation which will enable Coloured persons to vote in South Africa, even if only in order to determine who should serve on the President’s Council. I think that, if Coloured voters could take part in an election today for the specific purpose of electing persons from whom appointments to the President’s Council can be made, the Government will be able to get the President’s Council off the ground and then there will be no boycott of that President’s Council. It is in fact the only way in which we can ensure the emergence of an identifiable elected leadership with whom we can consult. This is essential.

*In my opinion there is another aspect which Government members will have to discuss in depth among themselves, and that is the question of the adaptation of the Group Areas Act. I accept that it is impossible for the Government to try and abolish it, but surely the Government has shown that it is able to make adjustments. It is a well-known fact that the NRP’s formula for the application of the principle of local choice could afford a practical way out and a solution in terms of which residential areas in which people will be free to buy and five without any discrimination against any group or community, could be established in an orderly way. I know that the Government is still decades behind in this respect. The fact is that during this session we have on various occasions conducted what were in my opinion unnecessary debates on District Six, debates which could have been prevented had the Government applied a system of local choice. With such a system one would not experience that problem and would, indeed, be in a position to give attention in an orderly fashion to a matter such as District Six.

This session has been the first parliamentary session of the ’eighties.

†It is clear to me that we dare not enter a new decade with the same list of unsolved problems. I have just raised the matter of the political accommodation of Coloureds and the necessity to apply a formula whereby residential areas can be opened or established for all race groups. These are just two of the problems which I believe cannot be left to posterity to solve. The NRP offers a formula of dynamic pluralism which we believe represents a practical way to meet the challenges of our changing situation. The Government also attempts to accommodate plurality in this country, but its view of the problem is far too simplistic. After all these years, it still believes in a sort of static formula and approach. That is why, for example, it still has no policy to really accommodate the urban Blacks or the Blacks outside the homelands. It does not have such a policy, because it will not fall in with its static and rigid concept that, for instance, a Zulu is a Zulu and will remain a Zulu. That is not the issue. The issue is that a person wants to exercise his political rights in the area where he lives. We will find that in the end after there has been negotiation it will be done through group accommodation on a federal and confederal basis as we have been advocating. The NRP’s mission is to continue to advocate that vigorously until we get the Government to move.

Mr. Speaker, before I come to financial and economic affairs, I should like to address a few words to the hon. member for East London North. I want to tell him that even though we may disagree with one another in this House and in the Select Committees, there is nevertheless a sense of fraternity between members which transcends the political boundary. Today he has grossly violated the best tradition we have in this respect. I want to tell him it requires no special skill in life to take every opportunity of treating one’s fellow-man in a shabby way.

Do you approve of them or not?

We debated this matter exhaustively in the Select Committee, and before the hon. Chief Whip expresses an opinion on it, he had better read the evidence first so that he may obtain a proper background instead of just making a noise here.

I think the hon. member for East London North will find that he will henceforth be treated with the contempt and disdain which he in fact deserves, not only by us, but by every self-respecting party. The behaviour of the hon. member for East London North has no merit. It is merely the behaviour of someone who believes that the more shabbily he treats his fellow-man, the more it redounds to his credit. In spite of having had the benefit of hearing the matter debated in the Select Committee, the hon. member has today insulted another hon. member in such a way that he not only owes the hon. member an apology, but in fact has reason to hang his head in shame every time he passes us in the lobby. [Interjections.]

I do not want to attempt to answer all his questions, for I think a fool can ask more questions than there are proper replies to. I want to deal with only three questions which I consider to have a bearing on the matter he broached in such an irresponsible and unkind manner. It is not a question of wanting to cover up a matter, and when I have come to the third question, hon. members will understand why I am making this statement. There is no question whatsoever of a cover-up. It is a matter which we debated on merit, and a specific decision was taken, not only what is said formally on paper, because we also looked into one another’s eyes as colleagues and we had specific feelings about the matter.

In the first place, the question may be asked: Why was commission paid in the case of this specific bank? The answer is simple: Because the remuneration structure of this particular financial institution for this type of work was of a twofold nature. Firstly, a basic, monthly remuneration was paid to people who were employed on a full-time basis in terms of their contract with the bank. This is not just an odd job which is done on a casual basis. The people were all in the service of the bank and received a monthly salary. In addition, they received an incentive commission which represented a minimal percentage of the investment. This commission was not paid by the party which had made the investment and it was also paid without the knowledge of that party. This commission was paid from the funds of the bank. It is a small percentage of the investment that was paid. Surely every institution has the right to use its own structure of remuneration for its employees.

The hon. member for Innesdal was appointed development manager of that bank long before he was elected to Parliament. His picture appeared in the newspaper to announce that he had been appointed development manager of the bank. In that capacity, he did his work just as hon. members occupy themselves during the recess. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. He continued to do his work in that capacity after he had been elected to Parliament and he continued to receive the commission in terms of the remuneration structure of the institution. His recruiting activities were not limited to administration boards. He did recruiting at several other places. To insinuate, therefore, that there is something sinister about this matter, after we have debated it in the Select Committee, I consider to be a degree of shabbiness which is not in keeping with the traditional fellow-feeling which transcends party political boundaries.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I am not prepared to answer any questions on this matter.

I come now to the second question: Was any commission paid after a regulation, emanating from the Select Committee, had been promulgated, in terms of which Government and semi-Government institutions have to get a certificate to the effect that no one at the institutions where it invests …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I am not quite sure whether it is a point of order in the strict meaning of the phrase, but it has come to my attention that the hon. member for Florida may be directly involved in the conduct of the hon. member for Innesdal through his directorship of a certain institution.

That is not a point of order. I shall gladly furnish those particulars myself in my own good time.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether he will be prepared to disclose his interest and consider …

With pleasure. Sit down and I will do it. Do not waste my time.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. May I please continue?

Order! Yes.

If he is prepared to disclose that interest, is the question that arises not that he should recuse himself? [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon. member suggesting that the hon. member for Florida might not give the House the true facts?

No, Mr. Speaker.

Order! Well, then what is the hon. member asking me?

I am asking whether the hon. member for Florida does not have a direct interest, as a director, in the institution that is now being debated.

Order! Is that not casting a reflection on the hon. member for Florida’s attitude in this House?

No, Mr. Speaker, I understand that there is a rule that one may not be present in a debate if one has a direct pecuniary interest in the matter being debated.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I think the hon. Chief Whip is casting a very serious reflection on the hon. member for Florida. He is implying that an illegal or a dishonourable act has been committed here in which the hon. member for Florida was involved. I very strongly object to the implication of what he said.

Mr. Speaker, this means that no hon. member of this House who practises agriculture, for example, may participate in a discussion of the prices of agricultural products, because he has a direct pecuniary interest in the matter.

The hon. Chief Whip is turning this into a farce.

Order! There is no doubt in my mind that the hon. member for Florida may make his speech and give the information he wants to give, but the position is that if the hon. member for Groote Schuur wants to suggest anything derogatory, he will have to come to this House with a motion indicating that the conduct of the hon. member for Florida is improper.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I believe that there is a clear misunderstanding of the intention of the hon. member for Groote Schuur. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to address you?

Order! Well, what is the point of order?

The point the hon. member for Groote Schuur was making is that if an hon. member is known to have a link or allied interest, it is in the interests of good order and debate in this House that that hon. member should merely explain what his connection or relationship is. In other words, he should disclose his interest. This restores confidence in the House and eliminates any possibility of misunderstanding. [Interjections.]

Order! I have given my ruling in this case. The hon. member for Florida may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: A serious reflection has been cast on the honour of the hon. member for Florida by that question, and I ask for your ruling on that.

Mr. Speaker, the Chief Whip created the impression that the hon. member for Florida was deliberately withholding from this House certain information concerning matters in which he had an interest and was then participating in this debate as though he were innocent.

Order! The point made by the hon. Chief Whip was that the hon. member for Florida was the director of the company and that he should disclose this to the House in giving the evidence, something which I do not consider necessary, because all hon. members in this House have some connection or other and are free to discuss related matters. He does not have a personal financial interest in this, and therefore he may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May I just quote you the provisions of section 11 of Act 91 of 1963, the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act.

Order! What is that reference, please?

Section 11, on page 253 of the Standing Rules and Orders. Section 11(1) provides—

I merely say that if the hon. member for Florida in fact is a director of a company which has a particular relevance to this discussion, I feel that he is obliged to disclose it and to consider whether he should not recuse himself.

My ruling is that the hon. member for Florida does not have a direct pecuniary interest in the matter we are discussing. The hon. member may proceed.

This just shows how despicable this type of behaviour is, where people’s personal affairs are dragged across the floor of this House. Before I come back to the hon. member for East London North I just want to say that I have not the slightest objection to disclosing the fact that I was a director of Rand Bank and that I am very proud of the fact that one of the doyens of the Afrikaner Industrialists, Dr. Albert Wessels, asked me to be a director of Rand Bank. Rand Bank has been placed under trusteeship. I have had no connections with Rondalia Bank. That hon. member does not even know that.

My association with Rand Bank came to an end because of fraud which had been committed vis-à-vis the board of directors by an official. The board of directors acted in good faith, but a certain official committed fraud and was subsequently found guilty and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. For that reason, I have no objection whatsoever to disclosing any of my business connections if it is necessary.

The hon. member for Innesdal used to be an employee of Rondalia Bank. In terms of the rules of that bank, he earned his commission in an honourable way. Naturally, the payment of commission to the hon. member ceased when that bank was placed under trusteeship. After that bank had been placed under trusteeship, a regulation was made which provided that every Government or semi-Government institution had to submit a certificate stating that no commission had been paid on either side in respect of any investment made.

If the hon. member for East London North, or the hon. Chief Whip who is now concerning himself with the matter, would in all fairness take the trouble of going into the Rondalia story, they would see that the hon. member for Innesdal was one of literally dozens of people dealing with administration boards and several other bodies. The fact of the matter is that we, the members of the Select Committee, were deeply perturbed by the fact that each of these boards had such an enormous portfolio of investments that it would require virtually the full-time attention of a very senior official if they wanted to be fair with regard to the investment of their funds. We expressed an opinion on that and said that this was nonsense and that it was not their primary task to handle an investment portfolio, but to provide services to Black people. We criticized that practice.

When one examines those figures, one sees that the suggestion contained in the allegations of the hon. member for East London North, i.e. that the hon. member for Innesdal abused his position to have an excessive proportion of the investments of the administration boards invested in Rondalia Bank, are devoid of all truth. As far as I am concerned, it is not seemly to drag this matter across the floor of this House after it has been considered by the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and now to try to involve me as well.

I was telling the hon. member for East London North something about the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and I was also informing him of the tradition of courtesy between colleagues in this House, but now it seems to me that the hon. Chief Whip of the official Opposition did not like this, so he rose and tried to drag me in by the hair after he had received erroneous information from the hon. member for East London North. It is a question, therefore, of one base act being followed by another base act. Is it not true that if we on this side of the House cared to descend to the level of mud-slinging politics and to pry into the private affairs of hon. members on that side of the House, we should find that just about every one of them had some sort of business dealings with the State? Is it not true that the mighty Anglo American Organization, as well as all the other concerns which I can see written on the faces of those hon. members, have dealings with Armscor, or with the State in some way? Of course, another very important matter arises from this. This also brings me to my third question. It is a matter which we debated thoroughly in the Select Committee. Could anyone associated with those banks reasonably have known in advance that those banks would be placed under trusteeship? Could anyone have known this in advance, so that he could have warned his clients to withdraw their investments? Surely the facts are obvious. Indeed, the facts were supplied to us in the presence of the hon. member for East London North. Dr. Ferreira, the trustee of Rondalia Bank, was sitting there in the Select Committee. The hon. member could ask him all those questions. We did indeed obtain certain information from him. The fact of the matter is that for a quite senior official of Rondalia Bank, it was the biggest surprise of his life when he learned that Rondalia Bank had been placed under trusteeship. It was a terrible shock to him. This being so, what were the chances of an ordinary employee of the bank, someone moving on a much lower level in the hierarchy of that bank—and I say this with all due respect to the hon. member for Innesdal—having learned of this in advance and in time?

Since Rand Bank has also been mentioned, I want to explain by the way what happened there. The chief executive of the bank, i.e. the chairman, was on a farm somewhere when he learned, on a Saturday, that the bank had been placed under trusteeship. The fraud that had been committed in that case came as a surprise to all. There was one court case. There was also a strong possibility of another court case. At least one person was convicted and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. What is the reason for playing politics of this kind?

I am convinced that politics of this nature can only be played by a party which has become irrelevant in South African politics, a party which is sitting in front of us at the end of this session, stripped of all illusions, of its entire image and of all the bravado with which it wanted to pretend that it possessed the solutions to the political problems of South Africa. There they are sitting, stripped and impoverished. They have lost. They are simply no longer relevant in South African politics. That is why they are engaging in politics of this nature. It is nothing but a pitiful attempt to denigrate hon. members on this side of the House. I think the time has come for us to treat those hon. members with the contempt they deserve, not only because of this kind of personal conduct on their part, but also because of the politics they engage in, and because of their policy.

You are being completely ridiculous.

I think I should prefer now to discuss other, more pleasant things, matters which are on a higher level and of a more academic nature. I sent word to the hon. member for Yeoville, for the sake of courtesy, that I wanted to refer to the things he said here yesterday. He thereupon informed me that he would unfortunately not be here. Therefore I shall just have to address him in his absence. The first thing he mentioned to which I want to refer is inflation. The hon. member specifically referred to the problems experienced by people in the lower income groups and by the aged because of inflation. I want to say that the hon. member was quite right. We are just as concerned about the devastating effect of inflation on people in the lower income groups, as well as people with a fixed income. I want to allege that the question of productivity is a key to the whole process of combating inflation. We have an inevitable component of imported inflation, but productivity is a phenomenon which cannot be regulated and rectified by means of legislation or by means of any measure emanating from this House. On every level of our business life there is a person or there are persons in a specific organization who are able to accomplish something with regard to productivity. These are people in managerial positions. It is only the person in a managerial position who will know whether the people under him are doing their work and whether they earn the money they are pocketing. I believe that there is an enormous responsibility resting on management in South Africa to do something positive with regard to productivity.

The hon. member for Yeoville also spoke about unemployment. It is true that inflation eats up one’s income. However, when a person has no income at all, he is even worse off than when he is suffering from the effects of inflation. I believe that the steps contained in this year’s budget provide the solution, for if one wants to combat unemployment, there are two things that must be done. In the first place, the necessary jobs have to be created in the short term. Those jobs can be created by means of Government expenditure or by placing money in the hands of the private sector, which then creates those jobs. If those jobs are created by the private sector, we have the best method of creating job opportunities, because in that case it flows from an upswing in the economy itself. In that case it is a structural development which is taking place, and then the job opportunities that are created are of a much more permanent nature than those that may be created by the State on an ad hoc basis. In the hands of the private sector the creation of job opportunities is also a much more productive application of the necessary manpower.

In the second place, however, one cannot just keep on creating jobs in South Africa in the long run. There is a limit to the number of jobs one can create. Therefore we must also appeal to all leaders of all population groups in South Africa to try to persuade their people to keep their numbers in check, in order to avoid unemployment in South Africa in the future, because the economy cannot accommodate an unbridled population increase.

I also want to say something about administered prices. I wonder whether there is anyone left on the side of the official Opposition—perhaps the hon. member for Constantia—who is going to talk about economic affairs. The hon. member for Yeoville expressed himself very strongly on the question of administered prices. I want to ask the official Opposition: Can they rise in this House today and say that there is a single administered price which is exorbitant? If they say it is exorbitant, they must prove it to us. Is it not an absolute fact that one of our strongest economic weapons in South Africa, in terms of internal peace and quiet, in terms of our foreign bargaining position and specifically in terms of our neighbouring States, is the fact that we in South Africa are able to produce enough food? This being so, should we not do everything in our ability to keep the producer on the agricultural land? Is it not a fact, too, that very little horizontal expansion can take place with regard to agricultural production through the development of more land? There is not so much uncultivated land left. Production now has to be developed and increased vertically, i.e. production per unit has to be increased. If one wants to do this, it is a capital intensive affair; in other words, one has to be able to keep one’s producer on the land over a long period.

I should also like to say something about the question of general sales tax. The hon. member for Yeoville has debated this matter ad nauseam in this House. He says that the Government is taxing the poor people by means of general sales tax. I want to ask him and his colleagues today: Is it not a fact that the best way in which the Government can help the lower income groups is by subsidizing their foods, for example, rather than by considering an exemption from the 4% general sales tax? Let us examine the figures. When one considers that brown bread is subsidized by 11,3c per loaf, it means that for every loaf of bread which the consumer buys over the counter, the Government contributes a gross amount of 11,3c, and then it takes one cent out of the consumer’s pocket in the form of general sales tax. Therefore the Government’s net contribution is 10,3c per loaf. Is it not a fact that in the case of the lower income groups, most of those people pay very little in direct taxes? Therefore one cannot make a concession to the person in the lower income group by adjusting direct taxation. When one considers the total subsidies received by the lower income people, is it not a fact that this is a better way of helping them in their need? All things considered, they are people who benefit; they are subsidized by other taxpayers in terms of their consumption of subsidized goods. We who pay direct taxation can never eat enough bread and other food to offset our direct taxes. To the people to whom a bread subsidy of 10,3c per loaf really matters, it is very important to be able to receive that 10,3c. In net terms, they gain by this system of subsidizing.

Let us now forget about general sales tax—it is a good tax and it is a system of taxation which is used by every civilized developed country—and let us rather discuss the subsidizing of food and a way of increasing these specific subsidies. If we want to do something for those people by means of general sales tax, which is only 4%, or 1c on a loaf of bread, for example, we shall be burdening the supermarket and the retail outlet with an enormous amount of administration which is not worthwhile. We have to keep the general sales tax as simple as possible, because other people are collecting it on our behalf. Let us keep it simple. We cannot make any essential difference to the lot of the underprivileged by abolishing it on the so-called basic essentials, or, as the hon. member for Yeoville said, the essentials of life.

He also said that, as he put it, “the public of South Africa are being over-taxed”. I think we have to see that matter in perspective. He mentioned a lot of figures which were suddenly much higher than those that had been budgeted for. However, he is a businessman. By the way, on how many boards of directors does he serve? When one attends a meeting of a board of directors, and management submits a statement of the figures for the first quarter, indicating that on average, the firm has a surplus of 50% on its estimates of the revenue from all the items that were budgeted for, then it is not necessarily a bad budget. A sensible board of directors will look at it and find out the track record of the men who drafted the budget. They will ascertain whether in the past, over a period of a year, those men came close to the mark with their budget figure or whether their estimates were wide of the mark. They will also consider what has changed in the meantime.

I am convinced that if we consider what may happen in the South African economy, we shall find that if one takes it over the period of the entire financial year, we shall come much closer to the figures we have envisaged and budgeted for than is apparent from the short-term figures that have been published up to now. What is the reason for this? The reason is that there has been a large measure of pent-up spending. People have waited to see what will happen, and now they have suddenly started spending. They have heard that they are going to receive increases and they have started spending. They have heard that there are going to be tax rebates, and all of a sudden they have made a lot of purchases. I am convinced that this will level off and that the matter will eventually cancel itself out.

I think we should congratulate the officials of the department who have maintained an excellent track record in the past as far as estimating revenue is concerned. One has only to consider how close the Department of Inland Revenue came to being dead accurate with regard to sales tax during the first year. It is a phenomenal achievement. Their track record shows us that we should be careful and should not follow the advice of the hon. member for Yeoville by suddenly saying that we are going to earn much more and that we should start giving hand-outs at this stage.

We are just as keen as they are to take the additional money we get from taxation and to spend it on the poor, on the aged, etc. Is this not precisely what the hon. the Minister of Finance did last year? When he already had a good amount of money in his coffers, he said that we were going to give the aged a bonus in the form of additional food subsidies.

Surely we have learnt from experience in the past. Surely we learnt an expensive lesson with the gold story. As far as expenditure is concerned, we on this side of the House are conservative. This bonanza we are now going to get, and the revenue which has hitherto been much higher than expected, may be of a non-recurring nature. How can we incur expenses at this stage which will land us in trouble if those expenses perpetuate themselves over the tax years to come?

Therefore I want to say that I should rather support the hon. the Minister of Finance if he waits until he has this surplus money safely in his coffers—we all hope it will happen—before gladly sharing it out according to our priorities. I am convinced that compassion for the underprivileged, and especially for the aged and people with a fixed income, will receive high priority once we have extra money in our coffers. However, we must wait until we do in fact have the money in the coffers, and then do what we did last year.

Looking back over this session and looking at the budget and at politics, one thing is as plain as a pikestaff, and that is that with regard to the economy and to politics, this side of the House has certainly to a large extent tempered its idealism with the realities of South Africa. I think we may expect the same of the hon. official Opposition. It is a fact that in the process of blindly striving after the impossible, one makes impossible what has been possible before. When one strives after the impossible in the economic and political sphere, one also destroys what was possible, and one makes that impossible. This is a lesson that all of us on this side of the House have certainly learnt, economically as well as politically. Therefore I think that this session has been characterized by a dramatic step in the direction of the politics of reality, of what is possible. The hon. the Prime Minister has formulated a very practical objective for us in his 12-point plan. That is the politics of reality. He has formulated objectives for us which we can in fact achieve, and which will not frustrate us endlessly if they eventually prove to be completely impossible, because they are objectives that can be achieved. We must do everything in our power to achieve those objectives that can be achieved, and in the process we should not strive after the impossible, thereby rendering possible objectives impossible.

I think this is what we have the right to expect of the hon. Opposition, because I am convinced of the fact that it does not require much skill to prove that their national convention is impossible politics. They are creating expectations for the realization of impossible politics, and in the process, because they are influential among certain leftist groups, they make impossible, or highly improbable, the achievement of what was possible before in terms of attitudes and political realities.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Florida has made some interesting comments of an economic nature in the closing stages of this Budget debate. I listened with interest and I must say I got the impression that he had not taken careful note of what the hon. the Prime Minister said today. When he dealt briefly with economic affairs, he said what is important for us to realize is that we actually have two economies in South Africa. We are both part of the developed and the underdeveloped world and we therefore have two economies running side by side. However the hon. member today spoke as though all of South Africa was part of the developed world. That was the tenor of his address to us today. He asked: Can we show any single item of administered prices that was excessive, “buitensporig”? The judgment as to whether a price is excessive is very subjective because it depends on who one is.

Take for example the bus tariffs in the Cape Peninsula, which are administered prices. Clearly if one takes it from the point of view of the supplier of the service it is related to certain economic criteria and a reasonable profit margin. Viewed from that point of view one will not say it is excessive, but take it from the point of view of the person who is forced to live far from his place of work, who has not had the advantage of free compulsory education and who is subject to all kinds of economic limitations in the determination of his wage packet, then quite clearly those bus tariffs are excessive. We have to realize that we are not all members of the developed world in this country and that we have a majority of people who are still of the underdeveloped economic world, the Third World, if one wants to call it that, and we have to take this into account in framing our budget of expenditure.

I want to deal very briefly with the speech of the hon. member for Rissik, whom we in this House have come to know as a student of PFP politics. That does not bring him any closer to us but nevertheless we appreciate the fact that he tries to look at PFP policies and politics in a more studious way than many of the other hon. members.

He shows an eager interest.

Yesterday he indicated a concern that we had struck a complete imbalance in our attitude between the rights of the individual and the realities and the rights of the group. He quoted the opening paragraphs of an article which appeared under the name of the hon. member for Houghton, written, I might say, some years ago when there was still a Progressive Party. Nevertheless, I must assure him that our philosophy has not changed. I immediately recognized that extract from the article as one from a pamphlet of the old Progressive Party. I want to read this to him very carefully because he did not read the whole of that article. The hon. member for Houghton said this, and I quote from this pamphlet. I can give him a copy of it for his archives if he would like one. We said that there were two fundamentals, one a fact and the other a philosophy. The fact was that the citizens were multiracial, Black, White and Brown. The second fundamental was a philosophy—and I quote—

I quote further—

[Inaudible.]

I just want to help the hon. member to understand the totality of these things. Listen to this—

Does the hon. member agree with that? I quote further—

I believe the hon. member agrees with that philosophy. While the hon. member might find a different technique for dealing with the problem, I believe he agrees with this party and with that basic philosophy that, while there may be groups in the South African society, groups consist of individuals and each individual is entitled to full dignity and full stature as a South African citizen. The basic difference between the hon. member’s philosophy and technique and our technique and philosophy is that the hon. member wants to base his constitutional structures on enforced group membership, while we say that if groups are a reality—and we acknowledge groups as a factor—this reality will manifest itself in a natural way in the process of political mobilization. We acknowledge it. I do not think the hon. member must start off from a wrong premise. Let us argue about the details of how we can accommodate the individual on the one hand and the reality of a plural society on the other, but do not let us accuse this party of not seeing South Africa in its totality. I hope I have helped the hon. member to understand the basic philosophy and attitude of the PFP better than he has understood it before.

I want to deal with one or two matters, but before I do so, I want to comment, as other hon. members have done, on the session as I see it, or rather, on the situation in South Africa over the past six months while the House has been in session. The most noticeable feature of this session in that sense is that the expectations of millions of South Africans, White, Black and Brown, of “die volk daarbuite”, expectations which were raised by the hon. the Prime Minister, have been dashed, if not destroyed. That is the most significant feature. We entered this session with high hopes, but at the end of 5½ months of legislation and debates we are left with frustration and tension in the South African society.

In the constitutional field there have been a number of important changes, both formal and informal. I believe that one of the most significant steps, although it was taken at a lesser level of Government, was in fact the final or the further destruction of Coloured people’s political rights to the point where today these people have no elected representatives at any level of Government in South Africa. I believe this was one of the most significant steps this Government took. Secondly, if we look at all the constitutional changes put together, some of which we approve of and some of which we disapprove of, we see that during this session there has been a marked shift in the balance between the executive and the legislature in South Africa, that there has been a significant move away from the stature and the importance of the legislature, of this Parliament, and a significant move in the direction of the importance or the influence of the executive.

I believe that, if one looks at the constitutional structures as they are today, the present hon. the Prime Minister wields more statutory power than any other Prime Minister in the history of South Africa. I will give a few illustrations of this. The impact of the streamlining of the Public Service will be to strengthen the authority of the executive. The abolition of the partly elected CRC in favour of a totally nominated Coloured Council is going to strengthen the hand of the executive. The abolition of the predominantly indirectly elected Senate in favour of a completely nominated President’s Council, nominated by the executive, will also strengthen the hand of the executive. The introduction into this elected Parliament of four new members, who will not be elected but appointed directly by the executive, will again strengthen the hand of the executive. The right of the hon. the Prime Minister to nominate a person who is not a member of Parliament to be a Cabinet Minister for 12 months and to take his seat in this House without being a member of Parliament will also strengthen the position of the executive. If one takes together with these formal moves the further restrictions on the freedom of the Press plus the warnings given to SATV by the hon. the Prime Minister, there has been a massive shift away from the legislative arm of government towards the executive arm of government.

The third constitutional showpiece of the session has been the step which this House has taken in the dark. The hon. the Prime Minister said the proposals contained in the interim report of the Schlebusch Commission which have been implemented through legislation are, in fact, a step in the dark. I believe that those proposals will result in the South African structure of government changing in a fundamental way. I do not know how it is going to be changed, but when for many generations one has had a certain pattern of government which has provided the basis for political security and one tampers with it, I believe that changes follow very rapidly thereafter.

If the past six months have been very significant, the most important aspect has been that in the field of government-to-people relationships the frustrations and the tensions amongst the people have never been greater than they are today. I have sensed that these frustrations run through important sectors of the White community whose members are becoming increasingly irritated and frustrated with the present Government. I think we are all uncomfortably aware that among the Black and Brown citizens of South Africa the pot of frustration is just about boiling over. There is already evidence of the precursors of this in the form of school stay-aways, bus boycotts and industrial strikes and even, as was mentioned in the newspapers yesterday, outright defiance of administrative instructions by people who are in the employ of the State and who should carry those instructions out. Concomitant with this, one senses that a resistance movement is developing in South Africa. This resistance movement is starting to manifest itself in two different ways and yet somehow they are related to the same basic cause. The one is in crude, dirty and unacceptable urban terrorism such as we have had in South Africa and which is carried out by a few trained, organized and determined revolutionaries. That is what the attacks on the Moroka police station, the Booysens police station and Sasol were all about. This is urban terrorism by an organized group. The other is the manifestation, not of a highly organized, trained guerrilla group, but of a basic people’s protest involving the masses of the underprivileged and disenfranchised citizens of our country.

Do you agree with it?

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to analyze the situation. These are the realities which face us. Why does the hon. member for Durban North not do a “Wiley” and join the NP as well? These are the realities which face us in South Africa today. I am not trying to score points off the Government. I am as concerned about the situation that is developing as anyone on the other side of the House. Nothing could be more dangerous and potentially destructive than if the small band of highly trained terrorists find themselves being drawn closer and closer to the general peoples’ movement of protest against the laws made by the Government. I believe that if this Government wants to prevent a coincidence of these two elements developing in South Africa it must, right now, when we adjourn tonight— not when the next session of Parliament comes along—apply its mind to the determined, dramatic, positive and reforming steps it must take in order to prevent this. It is easy to say “yes”, but there is the question of the removal of discrimination, there is the closing of the gap between the haves and the have-nots and there is the creation of instruments for real political representation. Let me ask hon. members opposite, especially the hon. member for Piketberg who is an expert on this, what in fact, in the next few months, the Government is going to do about the Coloured people. Is it going to allow Coloured people to remain unrepresented in South Africa, even for the next few months? [Interjections.] Hon. members know what the consequences will be. Take away elected leadership, take away a forum in which one can express oneself, take away the right to fight through the ballot-box, through constitutional means—through parliamentary means, if one wants to call it that—for one’s rights, and the consequences are frustration, first of all, and then a growing sense of solidarity and then increased militancy. This is what is happening. Just look at developments on the Cape Flats. There is a movement from frustration to solidarity to increasing militancy. [Interjections.] I want to ask this Government what it is going to do to cut through this vicious spiral of increasing confrontation between the Government and the mass of the people of South Africa. I want to put it to the Government that this is what it should be applying its mind to in the days that lie ahead.

I want to deal only with one particular field in which it should be acting, because I do not have time to deal with more. I am referring to the field of education, more particularly the field of Coloured education. The hon. the Prime Minister, in a Press statement some time ago, said the Government pledges itself to the goal of equal education for all population groups, and went on in that vein. We are pleased that the hon. the Prime Minister has announced today that he has requested the Human Sciences Research Council to undertake a wide-ranging investigation into this whole matter. To that extent we are pleased. It needs more, however, than an investigation by politically neutral backroom boffins. In fact, today it also needs a political declaration. The political declaration that I believe that the Government should make today, in order to reinforce this investigation by the backroom boffins, is of this kind.

First of all I do not believe that any talk of equal education is going to be adequate until, the Government commits itself to a unified system of education for all races in South Africa. It has to commit itself to a unified system of education in South Africa, with all secondary and primary education being brought under the control of a single co-ordinating body.

[Inaudible.]

He is a fine inhabitant of the Cape and he thought he might corner me with that question.

†However, it does not require national uniformity in administration. I believe that primary and secondary education, at least, is best administered on a regional basis, allowing for the maximum of community involvement. One can have regional administration, but one should have a unified “oorkoepelende liggaam” for a unified educational system as a whole.

Secondly, I am pleased that the Government has indicated that it is moving—and it has to move in this direction—in the direction of involving educationists, from all education departments and all groups in our society, in the planning of the practical steps that should be taken to bring this unified system of education into being.

Thirdly, I hope that the time-table will be speeded up. The Government must convert its general commitment to equality in education to specific goals and a precise, practical time-table for the practical elimination of financial discrimination in the field of education.

*Good intentions are not good enough. A time-table has to be drawn up. It has to be spelt out. There could be a five-year plan, a three-year plan or whatever, but there has to be a plan for the future so that people may see that the Government is now truly committed to taking practical steps towards eliminating discrimination in the field of education.

†Fourthly the Government must reopen all educational institutions and re-instate all students who have been suspended.

Hear, hear!

This does not mean that the government is condoning the actions of the students, but it is demonstrating a desire to find a reconciliation in the present tense and unhappy situation.

Finally, if the Government really wants to get education going again, particularly Coloured education, it must release from detention all those people who are being held in prison but who are not being charged in court or being accused of having committed any criminal action or breach of the law.

I believe that these practical steps which involve a political statement and a political decision are absolutely essential, if there is going to be any hope of bringing education, particularly Coloured education, back onto an even keel in South Africa and restore good relationships between the Government and that sector of the South African public.

I shall only be able to deal with my final point in outline. As we end this session tonight, I believe that there is one group, namely the aged, and particularly those in the cities of South Africa, that is feeling the ravages of inflation and the insecurities of the present time. I believe that the Government should, during the Parliamentary recess, draw up what I call a charter for the aged. This charter should deal with four matters. Firstly, it should deal with the whole question of pensions and retirement incomes, which is in itself a massive subject for examination and improvement. Secondly, it should deal with accommodation and rentals. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Community Development knows that accommodation for older people, at rentals which they can pay, does simply not exist. This question of accommodation and rentals is a vital aspect with regard to a new charter for the aged people in South Africa. Thirdly, it should include a reinvestigation of medical care and medicines with regard to the aged themselves. In spite of our hospital services, there are tens of thousands of older people who cannot afford either to get to the hospitals or to get the medical care and the medicines that are made available to them at their homes. Fourthly, there should be an investigation of the leisure time activities of older people, which should be dealt with in this charter. While I believe there are many clubs, service organizations and other people who are assisting in this matter, the fact remains that in the cities of South Africa older people very often find themselves in lonely and isolated circumstances. I do not believe that the South African society is doing sufficient to show to these old people in South Africa that they are still an integral, a warm and an exciting part of the South African population. I believe that the Government and this House and the wealthy society of South Africa owe it to the aged to draw up a new charter, which will make them know and feel that we in this House really care for them.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech by the hon. member for Sea Point. I must say that listening to his speech this evening, it was clear that he was being more moderate than usual. He asked the customary questions asked by hon. members of the PFP concerning the matters he mentioned here.

The most important question he asked this evening related to what the hon. the Prime Minister was going to do about the problems that at present have priority in the political situation and the problems of the Coloured population group, for example. He also referred to the constitutional development of these people. I just want to remind him that the political party of the Coloureds that was in power in the Coloured Persons Representative Council adopted a negative attitude with regard to the activities and responsibilities of that council. That resulted in that council being abolished and an advisory Coloured Persons Council being appointed. However, this is a temporary measure. I want to remind the hon. member at once that a new dispensation is being held out as a prospect, as a result of which drastic constitutional changes have already been effected by legislation passed by Parliament over the past week. As I have said before, the tragedy is just that hon. members of the official Opposition are adopting the same negative attitude towards this prospect and this new dispensation as the Labour Party adopted with regard to the Coloured Persons Representative Council. Because the changes do not conform precisely with the recipe of hon. members of the official Opposition, as the hon. member for Sea Point made clear in his speech this evening, they are adopting the same negative attitude. They do this because there is a lack of agreement on one specific point, viz. the one relating to the Black people, particularly the urban Black people. It is precisely this that is the tragedy of the present political dispensation in South Africa. However, I want to remind the hon. member that even in the proposals and in the legislation relating to the establishment of the President’s Council, the road is open for the Coloured population. It is for that very reason that it is such a pity that they have set that poor example to the Coloured population and to the leaders of the Coloured population, in saying that because Black people will not have a direct seat in that council, they, the PFP, will not co-operate with that council either. They are therefore telling the other population groups very clearly by implication that they ought not to co-operate in that council either, that they ought not to serve in the council either, that they ought not to make themselves available and that they should adopt the same negative attitude as the PFP. We shall certainly not make very good progress with arguments of this nature. I find it very interesting that when one looks away from this political question a little, and looks back at the Coloured population itself and at its development over the past few decades, then there is one statement that one can make without fear of contradiction. It is that over the past three or four decades, this particular population group has made phenomenal progress, except that as regards their political participation we have reached a crossroads—if I may call it that. However, with regard to their salaries and wages and their economic prosperity, tremendous progress has been made, even more so percentagewise with regard to their salaries than the progress made by Whites in the same sphere. There has also been a phenomenal improvement in housing conditions. It was announced recently, and the appropriate data was provided, that over the past five financial years no fewer than 72 000 dwelling units have been built for Coloureds for an amount of R461 million by the Department of Community Development alone. Apart from that, the private sector spent an amount of R100 million on housing for the Coloured population group. This represents an enormous sum which cannot but have a remarkable influence on the social pattern and the housing standards of the Coloured population.

Allow me, too, to refer to education for the Coloureds. Education and advanced technical and university training similarly indicate to us, particularly in view of the recent boycotts, that the progress made over the years has been phenomenal. What is more, one notes that during this very year, due to the fact that dissatisfaction has come to light, the Government has given special attention to this situation at this time. Allow me just to mention a few interesting figures relating to the decade of the ’70s. This applies to the years between 1970 and 1980. During those 10 years an amount of R974 million was spent on Coloured education by the executive of the Coloured Representative Council—and therefore, of course, by the Government itself. This amount does not include capital expenditure relating to the provision of school buildings. Apart from this amount of almost R1 milliard, an amount of R145 million was spent during the years 1964 to 1980 on the construction of school buildings and classroom space for the Coloured population group. These things attest to the earnest intentions of the Government and the positive action taken in connection with this matter. During the 1980-’81 financial year which is covered by this budget, an amount of R28 million is being voted for the provision of new school buildings and additional classroom space alone. It is estimated that within the next two or three years this figure will amount to approximately R40 million per annum. This is an indication to hon. members that the Government has not closed its ears and its eyes to the requirements of Coloured education and the problems that have arisen in that connection, because it is in earnest in seeking to solve the problem within the foreseeable future because the economic carrying capacity of South Africa and also the Government’s voting of funds has to a large extent been outstripped by the rapid increase in the number of Coloured pupils at school, and apart from the increase in the number of pupils another contributory factor is that these people have been at school longer and are going on to the high schools to an increasing extent, and as a result new high schools have to be built for the Coloured population group from time to time. I am only referring to these few matters because they illustrate just what has been done by the Government, and even now the Government and the bodies in question are engaged in drafting and considering plans and drawing up programmes of what must be done in the near future. However, this cannot be achieved in one month, six months or even a year. That is why I say that it is so interesting not merely that the present schools boycott is taking place, because we could explain that in terms of direct indications such as the non-availability of textbooks, window panes that are still broken and children who are beginning to get cold in the schools in the winter and so on, but also that the schools boycott is continuing, and not only that it is continuing, but that it is being fomented with a serious degree of intimidation of pupils who by this time are tired of the boycott and who want to continue with their work.

The hon. the Prime Minister’s handling of the programme of action at this time is not only praiseworthy, but attests to the serious approach the Government adopts towards this matter. In that regard I want to bring a few other interesting facts to the attention of this House. It is very interesting that the school situation and the children have been selected to launch this boycott and to cause this unrest to develop throughout the Coloured society. This is extremely interesting. When one looks at the report of the Theron Commission, one finds that the problem areas in the life of the Coloureds were not to be found in the field of education. They occurred in other fields. According to that survey and according to that report on the basis of surveys, the Coloured population immediately indicated that its bottlenecks related to other spheres. Let me just illustrate this for hon. members. According to the tables on page 449 of the report, on the basis of a reasonably comprehensive survey and, I think, a very thorough investigation that was carried out by a person of exceptional scientific skill and talent, the figures show that the top priority among the Coloured community is its housing. He points out that 40,3% of these people regard this as their top priority and their biggest problem. The next priority is crime. We do not always realize that these people suffer severely from crime, which flourishes in many of these communities because in the first instance there are so many unemployed people, but also, and in particular, because there is such a considerable element in this population group engaged in organized crime and because it is very difficult for the police to provide the necessary protection at all times. This illustrates the fact that for them this is a very sensitive matter and a very intense problem area.

They also mention matters such as telephones, specifically because in such a situation one cannot call for rapid assistance without a telephone. It is inconvenient to order something, because for the most part, members of the Coloured population do not have telephones in their homes, and they have to conduct their affairs in some other way, while many of our people can make use of a telephone. Therefore they call for a lower crime rate, telephones and police protection. Moreover, 32% of them pointed to public facilities as a problem area, and only at that point was the question of wages raised. One would say that wages should come first. However, they only referred to wages in the sixth place. The question now is what they indicated with regard to schools and education facilities. This was of course while the investigation was in progress, in the mid-’seventies. Of the ordinary Coloured men and women who took part in the investigation and reacted to it, only 3,2% indicated that schools were a major problem for them. To that I want to add that approximately 21% of the leadership group reacted to it in those terms, and probably the majority were teachers who were all concerned with these things and had to work double shifts. However only 3,2% of the ordinary Coloureds regarded schools and school facilities as an important facet of their existence. Now the question is: If housing, crime, telephones, police protection enjoyed such high priority, if they were foremost among the problems and the way of life of the Coloured population group, why then were these things not brought up in the present situation in which the children are beginning to take action by striking and boycotting? This being so, I maintain that it did not suit the people who organized these boycotts to choose those things, because they were unable to derive sufficient emotional dynamite from an insistence that crime be combated, that more telephones should be provided and that there should be more housing. They were unable to do so because they see every day how houses are being completed at Mitchell’s Plain, Atlantis and other places. At the same time the hon. the Minister of Community Development has announced a new scheme in terms of which houses are going to be made available to the Coloured population group on an ownership basis at very reasonable rentals. Therefore they were unable to choose these spheres because there was not enough emotional, political dynamite lying around to keep these things going. Accordingly what sphere did they choose? They chose the youth. They chose the schools, the colleges and the universities, because that is the proven terrain where this type of organization has successfully organized unrest and riots in other parts of the world. The child does not bear responsibility for the house which his parents bought at great expense and for which they have worked hard. The youth has no responsibility with regard to the earning of a salary. They do not really accept responsibility for the peace of the day. They can express themselves in the sensation of riots and, last but not least, stone-throwing. This has been the proven technique in other parts of the world. That is why schools were chosen, because they could provide the emotional dynamite, and this was supplemented by stone-throwing. There had to be provocation and shooting, because as far as the planners the people behind the scenes were concerned, blood had to flow. They took heart when two people were shot, but far more blood had to flow.

What could suit these people better than if hundreds, even thousands of Coloured children were shot dead, if the police were to lose their self-control? That is exactly what they planned according to proven techniques in other parts of the world. What is more, it is done in accordance with the scientific principles of psychology laid down by a Russian scientist by the name of Pavlov, a man who ascertained and proved by way of experiments with dogs that the behaviour of dogs could be conditioned and that the reaction to one stimulus could be transferred to a related stimulus, to such an extent that eventually the animal was entirely dissociated from the original stimulus which had elicited the first reaction. I want to remind hon. members that they saw an example of this a week or more ago on television, concerning the control of dogs so that a different and entirely innocent word, even over the telephone, eventually caused those dogs to attack someone viciously. This is the psychological and scientific background of these techniques. This art has been extended to people, particularly the masses in the world, and is today being implemented in various countries, for example in Iran, the USA, France—wherever these people wish it. Their scientific approach has depth. These school-children no longer know why it all began. They say it is their parents who caution and discipline them and that they are not doing it for themselves; in other words, they are no longer doing it for the sake of school-books, but because there are other things at stake. If one listens to what they say, one will from time to time hear the refrain “the system”. Starting with school books, it has now become “the system”. It is the interests of the child that I want to try and stress in this matter.

The important aim was that the police and the Government should lose their patience at some stage, after which the fat would be in the fire and the whole Coloured community could be mobilized, and the Black people could be mobilized out of sympathy with the Coloured population group, and then the Press, which is ready to lend a hand if given half a chance, would be mobilized, and then, last but not least, world opinion could be mobilized against South Africa. I think that few of us realize how carefully the police and the hon. the Minister of Police have had to tread in recent times. There can be only the greatest appreciation for the wisdom displayed by the Government and the self-control with which the police have been acting in these days. I ask that the Government should arrange that these people be well compensated for their overtime service, because they have remained on duty for long hours and will probably have to remain on duty for many more long hours in the future. Let us acknowledge that to date, the powers responsible for the organization behind the scenes have not been able to achieve their aim, and that is why they are continuing and why they are trying to see whether they cannot at least achieve something by involving the community, for example by carrying on with the display of sympathy for Soweto and the commemoration of Soweto day.

May I conclude this evening by reminding those people who are so concerned that there is another side of this matter, too, namely that we must take into account the patience and forebearing shown by the White community, and that we should not test it too far, because in its planning for the future, in an effort to create a better life and a greater future for all population groups, South Africa needs not only better living conditions for Coloureds and Blacks, but also security and safety, together with better standards of living for White people. Under the circumstances the police and the Government acted with exceptional self-control, tremendous patience and responsibility, and I praise them for that. Let us not only appreciate that, but also convey the challenge of the future to our responsible Coloured leaders against the background of this planned onslaught on our responsible Coloured leaders.

There is another aspect which I also wish to refer to, and that is that the moderate liberal Coloureds are also being discredited in this process. I want to mention three names in this connection. People like Dr. Van der Ross, Mr. Franklin Sonn and Mr. Arendse, the Director of Coloured Education, are deliberately being discredited, as people of whom the Coloureds say they do not know where they stand. Should they also have thrown stones? These are people who are not only cultured people, but are also people occupying responsible positions and who have the welfare of the Coloured population at heart. However, it suits those powers behind the scenes to discredit and bring into disfavour these intelligent and responsible people. Let us just bear that in mind and let us consider our own contributions with a view to all the steps the Government must take and with a view to a new constitutional future.

I now wish to conclude. When the late Dr. Diederichs was sworn in as State President, he asked whether it was not time for us to think and speak about our responsibilities more than about our rights; that we should set fewer demands and put our shoulders to the wheel to a greater extent in order to build a new South Africa. We must therefore uplift our Coloured population from this spirit of negatism and inspire the people of South Africa to enter this greater future side by side, each in his own right, and in his own political right—and I say this to the hon. member for Sea Point, if perhaps he still fails to understand it—with mutual recognition and mutual respect for one another.

Mr. Speaker, I trust that the hon. member for Sea Point has gained clarity and insight from the very good argument of the hon. member for Piketberg concerning the problems of the Coloured people in South Africa. I trust that the hon. member for Sea Point may change his standpoint now that his attention has been drawn to the various facts and factor which actually determine the lot of the Coloured people. However, I shall leave the hon. member for Sea Point at that. He and I do not have much in common, so I shall not discuss him any further.

This House finds itself in the twilight of the fourth session of the sixth Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. As is customary, attention is being given in this debate to the major events during the course of this session. I want to ask hon. members to reflect on the prerequisites for stability rather than on the controversial matters raised earlier in the debate. I want to ask hon. members to reflect on the most important prerequisite for stability, peace and order in the Republic of South Africa. I believe it is extremely important that we should specify what the crucial problems are to which solutions have to be found in the light of the threats that are being made against the Republic, internally and externally. The question arises what factors can ensure that we shall be able to maintain stability in the Republic. I should like to say that one of the most important factors which can ensure peace, order and progress in South Africa is to recognize and defend the fact that ethnicity, group ties and an identity of one’s own are extremely important factors. I believe that the leaders of any group in South Africa, irrespective of the colour of the people of that group, should recognize and defend that basic factor.

If one refuses to recognize the factor of the right to an identity of one’s own, I believe this will lead to conflict, confrontation and ultimate chaos. In this connection I am addressing my remarks specifically to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I believe this is a crucial factor which will determine whether there will be peace in South Africa or not. I think that as a sociologist—quite a prominent one, because he is a professor in that subject—the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will agree with me that there are differences between the various cultural groups in South Africa. Because of historical factors, the boundaries of those cultural groups more or less coincide with the boundaries arising from the colour of a person’s skin. I believe the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will also agree that it is the right of every group to decide for itself whether it wishes to relinquish its right to an identity of its own or whether it wishes to preserve that ethnicity for its own future in the physical and psychological fields. In the first place, I believe that if we do not recognize that ethnicity, it will lead to confrontation.

†In the second place I believe that in order to maintain peace, prosperity and positive change in South Africa we will have to obtain a better understanding of the essential and critical factors which are of importance to each ethnic group. I believe, as I have said before in this House, that the critical factors confronting South Africa today and which are of paramount importance to those who make political decisions in this country, are to ensure the survival of democracy and private free enterprise in parallel with alternative systems of government, traditional, customary, authoritarian or whatever one would like to call it with a social or communal economic system. That is of paramount importance. If we had domination of one group by another it would mean that one or other group would have to relinquish its own traditional cultural history, its value system. There is nothing that a group would like to defend more than its children, than its cultural heritage. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will recognize, and agree with me, that the majority of South Africans, irrespective of colour, still do not subscribe to democracy and private free enterprise as fundamental principles in their value system. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not agree with me then he must say so.

I also believe that if we are to avoid the denigration and reduction of dignity and rejection of people it will be essential for us to recognize the right of other cultural groups to exercise and to practise the kind of governmental system which they accept today. Perhaps by evolutionary process they will move from their traditional form of government and a traditional social and communal economic system into a system of private free enterprise and democracy. I believe it is their right, as much as it is our right to defend our system, to defend the value system which they believe in. I further believe that it is essential that these parallel systems must be recognized in any political dispensation which we expect to work in South Africa. That is why we in the NRP, when we look at the new Republic Party which is going to be developed in the ’80s, believe that only a federal and confederal system can work.

We shall put those proposals to everybody who is charged with the responsibility of investigating alternate constitutional models. We visualize that in the federal area, the non-homeland area, one will be able to put together those groups which first of all believe in democracy and private free enterprise and that we shall live, as common members of greater South Africa, with those other groups, possibly in the homeland areas, that still do not wish to adopt democracy and private free enterprise as part of their value system, and it is their right to have it that way. We do not reject that. We do not say that their system is better or worse than ours, but we believe that we both have the right to ensure the survival of our value systems. That is why we recommend the confederal area to accommodate those people who have the right to their own form of government and economic system.

I believe that there will have to be a better understanding of the position of the Blacks living in urban areas. Both the members of the official Opposition and the members of the Government will have to take note of the aspirations of those people living in the urban and Black homeland areas. I could give research references to any hon. member who would like to have a look at them. Recent research indicates that to date there are no more than 2 million Blacks living in the urban areas of South Africa, out of a total of 9 million, who subscribe to democracy and private free enterprise as a governmental and economic system. Therefore we believe in local option. We believe that it is the right of those individuals living in urban or non-homeland areas to decide for themselves whether they wish to participate in the democratic, private free enterprise system or whether they wish to be associated with the homeland, traditional form of government. It is their right to decide, and therefore we cannot reject the other value system which they may prefer. Obviously there will be certain prerequisites before one can offer a man the local choice, and that is that it will not affect his residential rights, will not affect his right to employment and will not affect his right to send his children to good educational institutions. Guarantee him those things, and then offer any of the 9 million Blacks living in the urban areas the choice of which political system they would like to become involved in, and I would almost put my head on a block that no more than 2 million of those Blacks would opt for political association in the federal area, in other words the non-homeland area. First one must, however, guarantee them those three rights.

Give them the right to change their minds.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member why he is postulating these three prerequisites for local option? If he is stating these three rights as prerequisites for local option, why does he not change his policy leaflet in which the local option offered is to be a carte blanche local option?

I am not quite sure what the hon. member means. What we believe in is the right of each group to decide on these things for itself. They must have an option.

Carte blanche options?

Yes, a carte blanche option between whether the urban-dwelling Blacks will participate in the federal area or in the homeland area, the confederal area.

Recent research by Prof. Le Roux of the University of the Western Cape, research conducted as recently as November 1979, indicates a declining number of urban Blacks who wish to participate in the democratic system. That is the tragedy. It is a tragedy that we should be losing those people. I believe that a better understanding of the attitudes of the urban Blacks is essential for any hon. member who is going to participate in the President’s Council, and I can only recommend to hon. members that they read the research of Prof. John Simpson, of the post-graduate school of the University of Cape Town, whose research was published early in 1980. Hon. members will find—and here I am particularly referring to the hon. members of the official Opposition—that the urban-dwelling Black does not want mixed marriages. Those people do not want it. They do not want to live with Whites either, but what they do want is equal life opportunities, opportunities for economic advancement and for the education of their children and the right to a proper dwelling and a roof over their heads. This is the kind of insight which I believe members, of especially the official Opposition should obtain. They should get an insight into what the real aspirations and attitudes of these Blacks are. Then, I believe that a further prerequisite for stability, harmony and prosperity in South Africa lies in a determination by every ethnic group in South Africa to do the best for its own people, and to redevelop mutual confidence between all groups. That is another good reason why we advocate a federation, comprising four ethnic parliaments to start with.

No …

The hon. member for Winburg must listen. He must not reject it just like that, because I am appealing to him to develop a greater insight into the problem. Firstly, we advocate the establishment of four ethnic parliaments in the federal area, the non-homeland area, the area which will be governed by democracy in the Constitution and a private free-enterprise economic system. Why do we say four ethnic parliaments? Not because we are racists, but because those four groups have the right to determine for themselves whether they want ethnic exclusivity or whether they wish to amalgamate with any other group. But, more important, the pent-up aggression and the fear of group domination in all four groups means that in order to re-establish mutual confidence one must first allow a man the option of exclusivity and group rights. Let us form those four parliaments: an urban Black parliament for which we expect to have two million voters, a Coloured parliament, an Indian parliament and a White parliament. Then each group can decide for itself whether it wishes to amalgamate with another group.

What happens if they change their mind?

I will come to that in a moment. I do not think population groups act irresponsibly. I think the hon. the Minister is thinking of residential rights. I will come back to that later. Perhaps he will ask his Whips to allow me more time and I will then discuss it with him. In order to reestablish mutual confidence between the race groups and to reduce the pent-up aggression that exists between those race groups, it will be necessary to start with the four ethnic parliaments. Then, by their own local option, they can decide whether they wish to amalgamate. In the federal area we will subscribe to the principle of democracy and private free enterprise.

Let me deal with the homeland areas which will come into our confederation by local option. If a homeland area decides it wants total independence, that is its option, but the people in that homeland must have an option to decide upon for themselves, they must have an alternative. That alternative will be to opt for a legislative body or, should they wish to do so, in the long term they can have a closer association with the federation. The critical principle here is that then they must subscribe to democracy and private free enterprise. We believe from modern research, scientific research, that the majority of homeland areas will settle for confederation so that they can run their country with pride and high self-esteem along the lines which they would prefer.

I do not think any Black, Coloured, Indian or White man in South Africa would like to become a second-class citizen of another race group. Let us look at the example of America. Every Black man was whitewashed with legislation and today they are worse off, physically and psychologically, than they have ever been, because I believe the essential criterion for selfesteem is missing. That is pride in one’s own ethnicity and one’s own value system. No party leader, Black, White, Indian, Coloured or Progressive, has the right to deny any group in South Africa the right to ethnic exclusivity nor can we, on the other hand, deny them the right to open their society to other groups should they wish to do so. That is my fight with the Progressive Federal Party. They insist on an open society and say that once we have an open society we have a just society. I have mentioned before in a debate that an open society in a plural society such as that in South Africa is the furthest one can get from a just society. One will get group domination by one group over the other. Sixteen million Blacks in South Africa still do not believe in democracy and private free enterprise and on a “one man, one vote” basis, even in terms of the federal policy of the Progressive Federal Party, one will get Black domination, and Black domination will mean the demise of democracy and private free enterprise exactly as we will see it in Rhodesia.

It is the right, however, of the Blacks of Zimbabwe to decide for themselves what they want. It is the right of the people in Zambia to decide for themselves what they want. The same applies to Qwaqwa, to Venda, to Bophuthatswana and to kwaZulu. It is their own right to have their own value system. What I appeal for, however, is for every political leader in South Africa to recognize the fact that every group, including the Whites, has the right to protect its own identity. Only then can we develop mutual respect for each other. Then we will be able to look at the economic problems of the country, and to go forward.

Then, I should also like to point out to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—and I am not attacking him maliciously; I simply wish to debate with him as a sociologist— that he should consider the consequences of an open society, which he and his party call just. Allow me to come back to the example of kwaZulu, where land-ownership is communal. Land is communally owned in kwaZulu. It is their tradition. It is their custom. I am not saying it will not change, but at the moment land in kwaZulu belongs to everybody as a tribe. Those people, in terms of the policy of the PFP, will have to open up their customary land, which presently belongs to the tribe, to competition with private free enterprise. I should like to remind the hon. the Leader of the Opposition of what happened to the Red Indians of America and of why they are sitting in reserves today. There is no historical doubt about who reached America first. When the first White people arrived there, the Indians were there from plain to plain, from hill to hill, and from lake to lake.

And from buffalo to buffalo.

Pioneers came in, and Buffalo Bill came in, and all those colourful characters that can be mentioned by the hon. member for Umhlanga, who reads cowboy books. [Interjections.] They took over, they degraded those people with liquor … not everybody in America, of course, did that. Not everybody abused those people. Because those Indians could not compete, however, with the expertise and the capital from Europe, they became beggars in their own land. Even today they have to live in reserves. I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he wants to see happen in kwaZulu, Venda and Bophuthatswana the same things that happened to the Red Indians in America. That is what he is advocating. That is what he and his party are advocating. That arises from the lack of recognition of group rights.

Then, of course, I have something to say to hon. members on the Government side. There are sociological institutions in every society which can be used and abused. I appeal to them to re-examine their use of institutions. The fact that ethnicity coincides with the boundaries of colour in South Africa does not mean that one has to be a racist to differentiate between cultural groups. I am very encouraged, I must say, by the signs and the sounds coming from the NP. Let us, however, get some action into it now. We do not have to hide our heads in shame because we are Whites. We do not have to hide our heads in shame because we are democrats or because we believe in private free enterprise. What we have to do, however, is to take cognizance of the real aspirations of those people. This is where the President’s Council comes into it.

What a tragedy that we did not give the Blacks a seat on that council. What a tragedy! I believe that if we had done that we would have started to get co-operation. I should like to tell the hon. the Minister of Community Development, because he is involved with the Coloured people, that unless we make arrangements very quickly to allow the Blacks to participate with us in our consultations, we and the Blacks will have problems. What we are doing is rejecting the Blacks by telling them they must sit in another urban council. I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister that there are natural forces at work, sociological forces, anthropological forces, historical forces, which will prevent group domination.

There are also Whips’ forces if you are not careful!

It seems I am going to get the prodder in a moment if I do not hasten to complete my speech before my hon. Whip has a cadenza.

*The preservation and progress of South Africa rest squarely on the pillars of ethnicity and group identity. What we have to realize is that we must afford every group the same opportunity for progress and development. The most important factor is that we should restore their pride in their own ethnicity.

Mr. Speaker, I have very little fault to find with the speech by the hon. member for Durban North. I think the hon. member made a very responsible and very well-prepared speech here.

We can just be thankful it was not Alf Widman!

What I particularly appreciate is that the hon. member placed such emphasis on the preservation of the identity of the various population groups in South Africa. One’s identity is one’s inalienable and God-given heritage. If one stands by one’s identity, if one insists on preserving one’s identity, that does not mean that one undervalues other people of a different identity or regards oneself as superior to them. If a person is proud of his identity it does not mean that he does not have respect for the identity of another person. In this life, rather give me someone who is proud of his identity and insists on the preservation of that identity than a person who is not proud of his own identity.

The hon. member for Durban North referred to another important point here, namely the issue of land-ownership among Black people. When one looks at this matter in perspective in the traditional Black areas, in the national States, one finds that there is communal ownership, and no one is angry about that. However, as soon as one brings those Black people to the White area and they are unable to obtain private ownership, we are accused of discriminating against them. For example, how much private landownership is there in Uganda and in Kenya today? There is just one thing we must beware of in South Africa. There are people in South Africa who are living in a dream world of all kinds of philosophies that are as far removed from reality as the stars from the earth, and then they want to apply their norms and standards in South Africa that do not obtain and are not valid or respected anywhere else in the countries of the Third World. I shall say what is behind that. What is behind that is that they are trying to prepare a hotbed of revolution in South Africa. That is what is behind it. While I am dealing with this point, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a big fuss here about the question of redistribution of income, the differences in welfare that exist in general among the various colour groups in South Africa. Let me give a little counsel to the hon. young Leader of the Opposition today. The sooner he takes cognizance of the realities that apply not only in South Africa but also in the rest of the world, the better he will understand the problems of South Africa. Generally speaking there are the Whites, who in fact form an integral part of the First World, and then for the most part there are the Black peoples, who form an integral part of the Third World. This is a fact that is as plain as a pikestaff. This is the dualistic economic system we have in South Africa. One cannot simply ascribe the fact that there are differences in income between people of colour and between White and Black, to the policy of this Government. Why is there greater poverty? Why are there fewer education facilities? Why are there fewer human rights? Why is there less Press freedom in the rest of the Third World than there is for our people of colour in this country? And then I ask another question. Why are there such dramatic differences in welfare between the countries of the First World and the countries of the Third World? Why do those differences exist? Does that not also constitute discrimination by the countries of the First World against the countries of the Third World? If, then, there are differences in South Africa that are being blamed on us, why do these people, who preach to us so piously, not bring the countries of the Third World up to the standards and level of welfare that they themselves enjoy? There are differences in life, and they must be recognized as a fact. A debate is in progress throughout the world today—and I call it the North-South debate—and the Willie Brandt Commission, the UN, and various UN agencies are taking part in this debate. The countries that are taking part in this debate today, the so-called North-South debate, are the countries of the First World on the one hand, and the countries of the Third World on the other, in other words, the industrial countries and the developing or under-developed countries. I just wish to point to a few differences in this regard. The population of these industrial countries, or the developed countries—and here I also include the East European States—comprise a mere quarter of the world’s population, viz. approximately 1 000 million. However, they generate 4/5ths of the world’s revenue. The other 3 000 million people, who five in the Third World, that vast majority, only generate l/5th of the world’s revenue. Looking at these proportions, one sees that ¾ of the world population lives in the Third World although they only generate l/5th of the world’s revenue. Are hon. members aware of the disparity between the income of the countries of the First World and those of the Third World? There is a disparity of 13:1. This is a greater disparity than that which exists within South Africa.

Reference is often made to the life expectancy of the people of colour in South Africa. The life expectancy of the inhabitants of the First World is 70 years, whereas for people in the Third World the figure is a mere 50 years. There are no starving people in the First World, while it is calculated that 20% of the populations of the countries of the Third World, viz. 600 million people, are hungry. Why does that not affect the conscience of the world, those people who seek to tell us how we are to govern the country, and who do not want to recognize our good faith and the sincerity of our efforts? Everyone gets secondary school training in the countries of the First World. However, in the countries of the Third World a mere 50% have the chance to become literate, let alone to enjoy secondary education. Therefore there are major disparities between the countries of the First and those of the Third World. I could also mention the example of the manufacturing industries and their production. The countries of the First World provide 90% of the production of the manufacturing industries whereas the countries of the Third World produce a mere 10%. These are disparities that must concern the world’s conscience. They are existing facts. In other words, the differences between people in the rest of the world are greater than the differences between the people within South Africa.

When we look at what is happening in the countries of the Third World we see that it is expected that the non-oil producing countries of the Third World are going to build up a deficit on the current account of their balance of payments amounting to $70 billion. We also see that the surplus on the current accounts of the balance of payments of the oil-producing countries is going to amount to $115 billion. Therefore a large-scale shift of wealth is going to take place. Therefore the countries of the Third World are going to be weakened even further. They are going to become even poorer. Let us consider population growth. The population of the world increases by 1 million every five days and by 74 million every year. However, what is very interesting is that the present world population of 4 000 million is going to be 6 500 million by the end of this century, viz. an increase of 2 500 million, and 90% of that increase is going to be in countries of the Third World, and only 10% of it in the countries of the First World. In other words, in the next 25 years the population of the Third World is going to increase by 2 250 million and that of the First World by a mere 250 million. Looking into the future at the world as a whole, the disparity is going to become greater and not smaller.

Let us now look at the food position in the world. There are few hungry people in South Africa, but in 1960 the countries of the Third World imported 20 million tons of food; in the early ’seventies, 50 million tons; in 1979, 80 million tons, and it is expected that by the end of the ’eighties they will be importing 145 million tons of food. The North Americas produce 80% of the surplus food. One can also foresee that there is going to be a limit to the expansion of food production there and that the countries of the Third World may experience still worse famine and malnutrition conditions than they do at present. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition speaks to the Government as if we are not in earnest in moving closer to parity among the various population groups. He speaks about the redistribution of wealth. I want to give the hon. young Leader of the Opposition some good advice. He is not present this evening.

He went to bed early.

I think he went to sleep because the struggle became too much for him today. [Interjections.] He is not yet very experienced and we know this is a hard game. One needs years of practice before one becomes tough. [Interjections.]

And before one can strike the right blow.

Yes, and before he can strike the right blow. I shall now address myself to the hon. judge. [Interjections.] I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members on that side of the House that in my opinion the hon. Leader made a very dangerous point in this House this evening. I asked him whether he was of the opinion that the only way in which wealth could be distributed and processed was by way of political power. He answered more or less in the affirmative. I have not yet read his Hansard. I want to teach him a few basic rules which he must try to get into his head. [Interjections.] Prosperity—I say this in all seriousness—does not come from nowhere. Africa believed in uhuru. Nkrumah said: “Seek first the political kingdom and all the other things shall be added unto you.” The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and Nkrumah have more or less the same philosophy. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition moves in academic circles. I myself have great respect for academics. Moreover, some of them are my best friends, but I have encountered some extreme naïveté about the realities of life among certain academics. [Interjections.] I am not singling them out as a group. One comes across people who have got very far with their studies and who are still fools. That is a fact. The hon. Leader is putting the idea into the heads of the people of colour in this country that if they have the political power, they will automatically get prosperity and welfare in this country. [Interjections.] I now want to say to the hon. young and inexperienced Leader of the Opposition that he must not concern himself with those philosophies in terms which the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Houghton speak and argue with him, because they are theoreticians, people whose feet are a few metres above the ground.

Let us look at what is happening in Africa. Africa said: “Uhuru will give us prosperity.”

That is the third time you are saying that.

If I were the hon. member for Bryanston I would not even show my face in this House. I would wear a mask and tell no one what my name was. As one parliamentarian to another I now want to say to that hon. member that the moment he begins to learn to make a civilized interjection, we shall begin to tolerate him. However, the hon. member acts in an objectionable way. I am sorry to have to say this to him. They say that empty pitchers make the most noise, particularly if they are thrown against a wall. The emptier the pitcher, the greater the noise it makes.

Let us look at what has happened in Africa. What lesson is to be learnt from Africa and the rest of the Third World? We have had a period of colonialism. The countries of the Third World demanded to be liberated from the colonialists. They said that uhuru would provide them with everything. After all, Mozambique, Angola and Uganda achieved uhuru, but what became of their prosperity? What became of the prosperity of Zaire? It only takes a few months before the petrol tanks are empty, the car is worn out and the windmill breaks down, and then everything grinds to a halt.

The lesson one has to learn in life is that prosperity and wealth are things that one has to work and plan for and that one has to look after. It is only through effort that one achieves them and only through effort that one retains them. Prosperity which one claims for oneself because one has political power or military power, goes the same way as money one gives to a child that one has not educated and taught how to look after that money, with the result that in six months he will have wasted it and become a mere lame duck. However, if one trains him and gives him a job, one helps that child and enables him to achieve prosperity and wealth by dint of hard work. After all, is it not in the scriptures that one shall earn one’s bread in the sweat of one’s brow? However, that hon. Leader of the Opposition and that party are proponents of a dangerous philosophy. They accuse us of creating expectations among people of colour which cannot be realized, but I want to tell them that in the interests of South Africa, they must take care that they do not create expectations by causing people to gain the impression that as soon as they have political power they will be able to have prosperity. A country develops and grows on one condition only, and that is that there has to be stability and security. They must not gamble with the stability and the security that have been built up in this country over more than 300 years. They must not gamble with the future of South Africa and its people.

I want to say to hon. members that the policy of this Government can be summed up in one sentence, and that is that it is our stated intention and endeavour to give all the people of this country freedom, prosperity, stability and security. One of our poets has said that one who refuses to participate is one who murders his nation. I now want to say to that hon. young Leader of the Opposition, who is more or less as old as I am …

It is just that he is more of a wreck.

… and is just a little more of a wreck than I am at this stage, that if he had had more experience and had not allowed himself to be wrecked to such an extent by the hon. member for Houghton and those people, he would not have allowed this historic opportunity to take part in the President’s Council and create a new South Africa in which there will be a place in the sun for everyone, to pass by. I say to him this evening that he is leaving his country in the lurch. He is not satisfied with the President’s Council because it is not to his taste. He is now arguing like a naughty child who, because he cannot have a racing bicycle, does not want an ordinary bicycle. Because he cannot have a Cadillac, he does not want a Mini. [Interjections.] If he cannot have long trousers, then he prefers to go without trousers. [Interjections.] I want to say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that he has an appointment with the future of this country, but he is refusing to keep the appointment. I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, for whom I have respect, …

Pietie, do not preach to me.

I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as one parliamentarian to another, as one South African to another, that he must not refuse his participation. Our descendants will reproach him. Is it not already time for us in South Africa to rise above petty politics? Do we not realize what is going on around us? Do we not realize what is going on in the world? Is it not time to fall in behind the hon. the Prime Minister as one man, not necessarily because one agrees with him politically, but for the sake of South Africa, because in the final analysis, that is what is at issue, and for the sake of the youth and the coming generations of this fine country which God in his mercy has given us? South Africa is a microcosm of the world, and after all, we have only two choices in South Africa. Either we sit down together and plan together and try to create a South Africa in which there is a place in the sun for everyone, or we exterminate one another.

The path of reason, the path of understanding, the path of reasonableness and honesty surely requires of us in South Africa that the Opposition should take part in the process of deliberation and consultation. If everything is not to their taste, then they must negotiate their situation which they foresee as the best solution for South Africa and its people in the President’s Council, instead of standing on the sidelines criticizing like inactive spectators and saying: “It does not concern me.” The hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot ignore the future. I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the future, history, is going to pass a cruel judgment on him and his party. History is going to pass a cruel judgment on him, particularly in view of the standpoint of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that there comes a time in one’s life—I, too, have had to take such decisions—when one has had to stand by one’s principles.

When did you have to take such a decision?

I shall tell you when I took such a decision, because the time has now come for you too, to take such a decision. After all, the hon. Leader believes in consultation. He said so. He must not allow himself to be intimidated by the hon. members for Houghton, Pinelands and Groote Schuur. Their best days are passed. They are over the wall. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition still has a long life ahead of him. I want to say again to him that he must take care that history does not pass a cruel judgment on him and his party. The responsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to keep his appointment with the future. I call to mind the young people of this country, the fine youth we have in South Africa. Yesterday I was privileged to lunch with a group of prominent American businessmen who have been in this country for a number of years. I found it very interesting. They made two remarks which I shall never forget. They said that as soon as one of their people was sent to South Africa, they wrote him off, because after that he did not want to leave the country. I asked them why they stayed here, because I wanted to know. They told me that it was wonderful for them to think that their children could grow up in a country with such a wonderful, healthy youth, where drugs, degeneration, running away and corruption was not the order of the day. In the course of our discussion they told me as one man that it was a wonderful privilege to have a child grow up in South Africa. They all told me that our education system was among the best they had ever encountered, and these are people who have seen the world. Should we not, then, be grateful for this fine country which God, in His mercy, gave to us? After all, we no longer see the ducktail element on our streets.

Except Horace.

Just look at the struggle our young people have to wage on the borders. The hon. the Prime Minister had to announce today that 16 young people had made the highest sacrifice. Why, then, does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party not play their part? While people are dying on the borders, they, the Opposition, must do their share here inside the country so that we can bring about order in South Africa and a dispensation which will ensure peace for us. Some people are paying the highest price on the border. Why then does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not make his contribution for the sake of those young people who have to die on the borders?

No, that is not right.

A reprehensible statement!

Now you are being a huckster.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says I am being a huckster. I have never been more serious in my life than I am now.

History is still going to pass judgment on you.

I have never in my life been more serious than I am now. He who refuses his participation is murdering his nation.

Where were you during the Second World War? [Interjections.]

At that time the hon. member for Bryanston was still a baboon. At that time he was still a baboon. [Interjections.] My next point …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Deputy Minister allowed to refer to another hon. member as a baboon?

Order! Will the hon. the Deputy Minister explain what he meant when he said that the hon. member was still a baboon at that time?

Before the hon. member began to exist in this world, he had the form of a baboon. [Interjections.]

Order! Since it seems that not all members are acquainted with the Afrikaans expression “Jy was ’n bobbejaantjie voor jou ma en pa jou gevang het” (“You were a little baboon before your mother and father caught you”) it would perhaps be better if the hon. the Deputy Minister were to withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it, and if it makes the hon. member for Bryanston feel less like a baboon, I shall withdraw it yet again. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister made the major part of his speech in a very good mood. Towards the end of his speech he referred to an event on our borders which causes all of us grief. He used that event to try to tell the hon. leader that because of those deaths he should do his duty and take part in a political body with which this party is not in agreement. I think that that was going too far. The entreaties of one speaker after the other on that side of the House for the PFP to take part in the President’s Council, proves only one thing, viz. that the NP simply cannot find people to participate in that body.

Surely we are not entreating you. You are entreating yourself!

If they did not have this problem, they would simply have laughed at us and maintained that the President’s Council would in any case be successful without our support. They will go on entreating us for our assistance because, as we know, this egg that has been laid, is a rotten one. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Piketberg made an interesting speech and concluded with a thought which I found very interesting. He asked whether we should not talk more about our obligations and less about our rights. It is interesting that that suggestion was made after the hon. member had referred to and spoken at length about the position of the Coloureds in South Africa. I want to say that I have a great deal of respect for that hon. member and that I am very fond of him. I have to differ from him, however, when he refers to the Coloured community in a paternalistic way. He referred to the abolition of the Coloured Persons Representative Council and said that these hon. members had destroyed that body themselves. He went further and said that the PFP was doing the same with regard to the President’s Council. He went on to indicate in great detail how many houses, schools, clinics and opportunities have been made available to this population group over the past 30 years.

Do hon. members on that side of the House not yet realize that the Coloureds of South Africa are no longer satisfied and content with our persistent belief that we should give them what we consider is their due? That section of our community are simply insisting on the same rights and obligations which we claim for ourselves, nothing more and nothing less. They are entitled to the houses which are being built for them, just as the Whites are also entitled to houses when they fall into that economic group.

You are making a great concession!

No, they have the same rights as we to protection against crime. They also enjoy the same rights when they apply for a telephone service, for example. They also enjoy the same rights when it comes to their educational needs. Since they have, during the past five or six decades, or even longer, built up such an enormous backlog as far as educational facilities are concerned, it might perhaps be said that at this stage that—I am not only referring to Coloured people now, but to all Blacks in South Africa—they have a better or stronger or a greater right to educational facilities, so that they can make up the backlog.

†I should like to devote my main speech to the parliamentary session which is just about over. At the end of a Parliamentary session one looks back to assess the progress that has been made and to try to measure the effectiveness of the Government against its own targets and also in terms of the fulfilment of the expectations of the community. It is fitting that this should be done at this stage, during this debate.

During the months preceding this session Government had had ample time to settle down under its new leader. The Information scandal, which had taxed the hon. the Prime Minister to his Emits, was no longer a factor. South Africa, therefore, was justified in expecting strong and dynamic leadership from a Prime Minister who had at that stage a strong Press going for him and who had also considerable support amongst most sectors of the South African community. The high public expectations were actively encouraged by the hon. the Prime Minister and his colleagues. I should like to refresh the memories of hon. members by referring to the first of a series of key speeches, which was delivered by the hon. the Prime Minister in July last year, at Upington.

Were you there?

No, I was not there. But I do read the newspapers.

Which newspapers do you read?

I have a whole handful of newspapers. Which one should the hon. member like to have? [Interjections.] I am simply reading what is written in these newspapers. I quote—

That is not news. That is commentary.

I continue—

Which newspaper said that?

I have many newspapers in which the same speech was reported. [Interjections.]

Order!

I have the report of Die Burger here as well.

Since when does Die Burger write in English?

Hon. members will agree with me that this speech certainly gave Whites and Blacks the hope that at long last we had a man with vision and courage to take the bull by the horns and to change NP policy in order to create a new and meaningful political dispensation in South Africa. Political friend as well as foe were filled with hope and expectation. Also, the hon. the Prime Minister himself was aware of the expectations and acknowledged that they were real and very important. Just to make sure that hon. members do not dispute that that is so, I shall quote again.

*I quote from a speech which the hon. the Prime Minister made at Pietersburg.

From which newspaper?

It is Die Burger. The hon. the Prime Minister said there—

And so it goes on.

I have no objection to your quoting my speech, you must do it well, though.

This is what the hon. the Prime Minister said.

†Expectations had been aroused and the Government was aware of this. That is the point that I want to make. On the strength of what had been said by the hon. the Prime Minister as well as by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, people in South Africa expected that many of the old separate-development laws would be scrapped and that a more peaceful society would emerge. The hon. the Prime Minister himself says—

Obviously, the hon. the Prime Minister was speaking as much to South Africa as he was speaking to the Western World and to the rest of Africa.

This brings me to my next point. Here I must remind hon. members that a great number of friends overseas as well as our vital business contacts were enthusiastically applauding the hon. the Prime Minister’s new initiative at that stage and were waiting with interest to see what action would be taken by way of legislation in Parliament. Against this background, one surely would have expected action during this session of Parliament. I now challenge any hon. member on that side of the House to give an example of one apartheid law that has been withdrawn. Having raised expectations, the Government has failed dismally to fulfil them. Yesterday the hon. member for Innesdal said that expectations are merely raised by the media and by the people themselves. This is just not true. That hon. member will have noticed the great expectations with which the Schlebusch Commission’s recommendations were awaited and he will also have noticed the despair when it was found that those recommendations were to a large extent simply an expression of NP policy.

One wonders whether the NP really understands the need for change or whether it has simply become a party of fine-sounding phrasiology and reaction. Where was the initiative during this last session? What prevents the party from moving away from an ideology which is unpopular throughout South Africa and which, as surely as I am standing here now, will lead South Africa to destruction. I believe that the true reason is to be found in the right-wing dominance of that party. The fact that the hon. the Minister of Tourism has time and time again publicly stuck his point of view that Black and White youths should not play together and that the hon. the Prime Minister has accepted this, indicated to me where the real strength in that party lies.

Therefore, the expected changes have not materialized, and now we are nearing the end of what may well become known as the session of lost opportunity. However, while the NP has not been very active in delivering the goods in Parliament, the hon. the Prime Minister certainly was very active outside of Parliament. I now want to refer to the hon. the Prime Minister’s twelve-point plan which he introduced some eight to ten months ago. He made a number of recommendations which were, in fact, undertakings which his party gave to the community. I want to refer to only one or two of them. The first one which I find interesting in the circumstances in which we find ourselves at present, is this one—

*I want to ask hon. members where this principle, which was spelt out by the hon. the Prime Minister, has brought us today. There is certainly no doubt in the mind of any hon. member in this House that the principle regarding schools, as applied by the NP, simply cannot work. [Interjections.] It has resulted in confrontation, violence and education which is not on an equal scale for White and Black.

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

No, I do not have the time. Unless the hon. the Prime Minister and that party are prepared to renounce that policy in respect of education, we shall always have a conflict between Coloured children and the authorities in this country, a conflict which will escalate into a total conflict which will certainly not be containable.

The next point that I wish to refer to, is the endeavour to accomplish a constellation of Southern African States. Eighteen months have already elapsed since this idea was announced. What has become of this idea? I should like to have a single example of any independent State which is openly prepared to co-operate with South Africa in creating such a constellation of States. There is no such a State, because in spite of the fact that the Republic of South Africa is economically the most advanced country in Africa, because of the policy applied here, no independent African State will be prepared to co-operate with us on a formal basis, as envisaged in this plan.

I now come to the final point, viz. the maintenance of the free enterprise system as a basis for economic and financial policy in South Africa. I want to ask how individuals, if they may not own the houses in which they live could possibly participate in any real way in the free market mechanism. If they cannot operate enterprises wherever they wish and wherever they prefer to do so, how can they participate in the free market mechanism?

If they cannot attend schools which will prepare them to be able to compete in the free market mechanism, how can they participate in these principles? For that reason we are today in danger of the vast majority of all South Africans, all 25 million of them, unless they could accept the system which we present to them as the right one and could make it their own, eventually, and perhaps sooner than we think, looking for another system, which will most probably be Marxism or communism, and in that case we could lose everything we have built up overnight.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wynberg used extreme language to which we must take absolute exception. He called the President’s Council a rotten egg, and I think it is a disgrace that such language is uttered in the House. This is the type of thing that we will not put up with, and that is why the hon. member cannot understand when the Deputy Minister of Finance talks about those who died on the border, because more people will die in this country as a result of that Marxism and Communism.

If they attack us, the hon. member’s party will die here because they no longer want to co-operate with us. The hon. member has not shown the sympathy that the Government has tonight. [Interjections.] The hon. member must look deep into his own heart. His conscience is accusing him because he is not prepared to co-operate with the Government. [Interjections.] We mourn for these people tonight more than ever before. Our hearts are very, very sore. The hon. member does not understand the language that we are speaking. The hon. member must take these matters into account. The hon. member spoke about eternity, but eternity exists only in the hereafter. Eternity is not in this life. It will do him good to look it up in the dictionary.

There are many matters to which I could reply, but nevertheless I want to avail myself of this opportunity to welcome the hon. members for Simonstown, Walmer and Port Elizabeth Central very heartly into the ranks of the NP. We shall see to it that these three people come back to this House for the NP. We shall destroy the opposition totally by means of our organization. A rude awakening awaits the PFP and the NRP with every election in future. Many English-speaking people isolated themselves from the United Party because that party isolated its ideas from the English-speaking person.

Watch it, Sporie.

It is true. Hon. members will see this and if the English-speaking people are isolated from the PFP, they are going to turn against that party because the PFP is opposed to the interests of South Africa, because the English-speaking people, as I know them in my constituency, do not like alienation and isolation. Hon. members may ask the hon. the Minister of Finance, because the other day he was in my constituency, Rosettenville, which used to be an old UP seat. Hon. members should have seen the enthusiasm there! [Interjections.] When the armed brigade of the NP charges the PFP, with the hon. the Prime Minister at the head, the hon. Opposition members will realize how vulnerable they are. Nothing will be left of them. [Interjections.] The NP will go from strength to strength as never before.

This afternoon, the hon. the Prime Minister referred to violence and riots that mean that damage is wrought, the cost of which must be carried by the taxpayer. In this regard I want to refer to incidents that occurred at the Rand Stadium which is situated at the centre of my constituency, Rosettenville.

One afternoon a soccer match took place there between Lusitano and Kaiser Chiefs. There is seating for only 30 000 people in the stadium. I now want to refer to the confusion that exists in the administration of this sporting organization. Computicket sold more than 32 000 tickets for that match. That was not all. More than 7 000 tickets were sold at the gates. A total of 39 692 tickets were sold for that match in the stadium.

At one stage, the number of Black people in the stadium increased to 45 000. More than 5 000 were frustrated because they could not gain access to the field. Originally there were 3 000 Whites in that stadium, but even before the match began, 2 000 left the stadium because they realized that there would be trouble. After riots on that occasion, only 300 Whites remained.

In the newspapers there were headlines such as “violence keeps soccer fans away”, “fears of trouble at mixed matches” and “two die as fans storm Chiefs game”. I quote from one report only—

A woman and two children were also involved in one of these incidents. I quote once again from one of these reports—

Hon. members should now have an impression of what happened there. On that occasion the police had to be called in. The fencing was cut at four places and the crowds pushed through the openings and stoned the police. A parked vehicle was used to force open one of those steel gates. The gates, the fighting and the fences were damaged. A section of 100 metres of the fencing was damaged. The roof gave in as a result of all the people that climbed up on it. Large-scale damage was wrought to parked cars. A resident of the area wrote as follows—

Fortunately, the NP is now holding office over Johannesburg together with the ratepayers of the city. The question is now what the PFP has done throughout the years to accomplish anything for the Black people. There is the hon. member for Bryanston together with whom I served on the council. There is the hon. member for Sandton together with whom I served on the council for 15 years. Where is the hon. member for Hillbrow? What have they done during their period of office to create facilities for the Blacks in their areas? They have not done anything. Then the NP asked for proper sports facilities to be created for them.

It was the NP who finally decided to do something about it. After the voters had approached me regarding the matter, I once again approached the city councillor in question, councillor meets, on the subject. Together we drew up a petition and sent it to the Johannesburg City Council.

I want to pay tribute to three hon. Ministers for what they meant to me during this time. After I had made a representation with regard to all these things that were happening, first Dr. Piet Koornhof, then Minister F. W. de Klerk and after that Minister Punt Janson granted me their full support. The fact is that once again it will be the hon. the Minister of Finance and the NP that will fill this gap and rectify matters there.

Apart from a few exceptions such as Loftus Versfeld and the newly planned Ellis Park, there are few sports stadiums in South Africa that can comply with the basic requirements. Since the introduction of multiracial sport at competition level, which dates from less than 10 years ago, none of the old sports stadiums has been able to cope with the changed circumstances. They are simply being patched up and we would like to bring about a sound disposition between the players and the spectators so that there can be a harmonious spirit once again. It is in fact the Black man who has a special liking for soccer and over the past few years they have shown that it is their national sport.

It is often the lack of spectator facilities and suitable soccer stadiums that antagonizes the population groups, particularly those in Pretoria and the Witwatersrand complex. It is when thousands upon thousands of Blacks have to travel through White residential areas in order to play matches against White teams and even to attend matches between Black teams, that this problem arises to which we must give our attention. This is where spectator control often creates problem situations during matches. It happens before and particularly after the matches, which mostly take place at night, when these people return to their residential areas. The professional soccer league presents matches from approximately March every year until late in the year. The Football Council of S.A., which represents the highest authority in this sport, is of the opinion that many matches could ultimately be played during the course of a year if there was a stadium that could hold up to 100 000 spectators.

As I said, the lack of sports stadiums is the cause of most of the problems that arise outside these areas. I have here a number of newspaper clippings that I could read to illustrate it but I have already mentioned this. The harmonious co-existence of the various ethnic population groups suffers serious damage if clashes of the nature to which I referred, take place. Reports of this kind are then sent abroad and ultimately cause South Africa the greatest damage under the sun. In addition, there is the unnecessary expenditure that must be incurred in order to provide medical treatment to spectators and officials after they have been injured in such clashes.

The image of a sound, pleasurable way of spending one’s free time, i.e. the exercise of sport, is incurring untold damage here. It is the newspapers in particular who are interested in sensational reports that are then read abroad and this means that we have to pick the bitter fruits thereof. In order to normalize matters, in order that people of colour may also obtain enjoyment from the matches and that there can be no destructive, unfounded criticism, we must move away from the idea that the Government must be given the blame for everything, because surely everything that goes wrong, is placed squarely on the shoulders of the NP Government. In order to move away from this, we need the co-operation of the local government bodies. It is these very local government bodies that often do not give attention to these matters.

That is why I should like to ask once again tonight for the construction of a well-equipped sports stadium in the PWV area, which can accommodate 100 000 spectators with ease. The facilities that exist in the country at the moment, are in fact of an inferior quality when compared to international standards. That is why I am asking this in the interest of South Africa’s sporting people so that we may produce more sportsmen of world quality, for stadiums to comply with international standards in future. I am asking for the rest of the world to take note that the Republic of South Africa can also produce champions of all colours and that we can compete amongst one another in a peaceful fashion.

The cost of building a soccer stadium of this kind which can accommodate only 60 000 spectators, is in the region of R10 million at the moment. This is only an estimated price, and an interest rate of 7½% per annum must be calculated on that sum. It would take approximately four years from the planning stage until the stadium has been completed. Here I am referring to a feasibility study that was recently carried out on the instruction of the Department of Cooperation and Development.

I am sincerely pleased that the matter enjoyed the serious attention of the Government and that the Cabinet has already voted funds for this feasibility study. We hope that eventually an international sports stadium will be erected on a site between Johannesburg and Soweto. We hope that the firm that is already carrying out that study, will give it a high priority and that the Government, together with the sporting bodies, will realize that it is an important matter which must receive the necessary attention. This is my request concerning this important matter.

Now I just want to give attention to the PFP briefly.

That’s it, Sporie, tell them!

On 3 February 1960 Mr. Harold McMillan, the then British Prime Minister, referred in this South African Parliament to Africa’s year of destiny. He then uttered these meaningful words—

Yes, how the winds of change have blown through politics! Look how few of them are sitting there now. Did that party’s leftist wing not reject Mr. Harry Schwarz as chairman of the federal executive? Did the reformists not evict the hon. member for Houghton from the Candidates’ Committee? Where is Mr. Gordon Waddell? Is he still, as chairman of the S.A. Regional Council, laying down the law in the PFP? Is the hon. member for Houghton still an enthusiastic supporter of Mr. Cohn Eglin, or has her love been transferred to the present leader? If one reads the newspaper reports, one sees nothing but “Schwarz wing take revenge on Mrs. Suzman”. One sees that in actual fact the PFP is not as wonderful as it makes out. That is why we will defeat it.

How many by-elections have they fought? They did not even come to Eshowe. The leader made a study in order to establish whether they would appoint a candidate there. After all, there are many English-speaking people there, but they did not even come to Eshowe. [Interjections.] They tried in Durbanville, and they were hopelessly defeated there. They never came to Fauresmith. They were not in Swellendam either.

Sporie, are you going to fight Parktown?

One can see those people actually have no hope.

If you do, we can talk about a case of whisky.

Why does the PFP have no hope in these winds of change that are coming? [Interjections.] They took a drastic step by replacing a leader, but not approving it by a congress. They themselves establish who their leader will be.

Who chooses your leaders?

We choose our leaders at the congress.

So do we.

Yes, but they have simply made it a rubber stamp.

Oh, a rubber stamp?

Yes. They have simply made it a rubber stamp.

Why in fact did they make that change? Why are these winds of change hitting them so hard? Because there are double standards. If one reads the newspapers, one sees that Mr. Eglin is praised because he built up the party so wonderfully. They say that that wonderful man built up the party. However, the next moment they say that Mr. Eglin has led the PFP into a dead end. It is so confused that I do not know who is dead— the dead end or Mr. Eglin?

The PFP’s trouble is that it has a policy with no credibility. This is why those people are making such a fuss here tonight. This is why they are calling the President’s Council a rotten egg. They do not realize the importance of this moment. That party has no viability. It is unsure of itself. The English Press has also uttered a lament. Do hon. members know what the English Press says when it talks about the PFP? It says there is a lack of a common goal.

Who says that?

It is what one of the English newspapers said.

Which one?

I do not have the cutting now.

Oh, do not be so silly, how can you quote from nothing?

I shall give him the cutting. Did the hon. member for Groote Schuur himself not say to The Argus that the party has many problems?

Where?

The Argus said it.

Where?

The Argus said that that party has so many problems that it must now expect …

On what date? [Interjections.]

Order!

That is why I say that the PFP is going to stagnate. A cleaning-up process has now begun, and this is why the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has been thrown out. I say there is a secret group within the PFP that wants to carry out a coup in that party. There is no democratic election of a leader in the party. That is why the Afrikaners will not turn to the PFP either.

The PFP is mortally ill; it is dying. That is what I tell them today.

Why is the PFP dying? The PFP is dying because it wants a national convention. It wants to invite the leaders of certain political groups to reach consensus on a new constitution. If it cannot even reach consensus within itself, if it cannot even reach consensus with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, how can it reach consensus with the other people? It cannot do so. It is impossible. The PFP is too divided. Each time it accuses us of a lack of unity, it splits further than ever before. That is why we win more and more seats every election.

It is the PFP that rejects the whole idea of separate Black freedoms. This is the important thing. When the Transkei became independent, they were not pleased about it. Would the PFP oppose it if another nation elsewhere in Africa were to become independent? Would the PFP oppose it because it does not suit its colonial ideas? That is why I say the PFP is too opportunistic.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down, in the one serious moment of his speech made a plea for the erection of an international stadium for soccer within reach of the Black areas on the Reef. I should like to support that plea with all the seriousness at my command.

It is coming.

Well, if it is coming I want to record here my very deep gratitude. We who have been actively connected with the game of soccer in this country for a very long time, all the time it was in White hands, ardently hoped that, when the change-over was made from the old NFL, which was disbanded, to the national professional soccer league, there would be a new period for football in South Africa in which White clubs and Black clubs in South Africa would be able to play together, membership would be mixed and we might even find our way back to international recognition and be able to play in the World Cup series and enjoy all the other things that everybody wants for our sportsmen.

However, what has happened is that there has been considerable disruption and the sort of events the hon. member for Rosettenville referred to. There are the problems of crowd control, adequate facilities and all the other things which are so deserving of our attention. I should like to make the point very clearly that it is not only a question of accommodation at the grounds, but also a question of adequate parking for buses. It is a question of traffic control as much as it is a question of crowd control. I had the privilege to be able to attend the World Cup series in Munich, Germany, in 1974 when 18 000 people went into that one stadium. The way in which that was handled was an absolute masterpiece. I think we would be well advised to have the consultants and people who are responsible for the planning have a look at the way in which that was organized. We must plan for the mass movement of people who are highly volatile at a game like that—let us face it. I think it is terribly important that that should be given adequate attention.

*The hon. member for South Coast came up with a wonderful idea here. He compared South Africa to a large farm which has to be subdivided so that each of the heirs can receive a portion of the farm. I believe this is a striking image which he created. He also said that it was absolutely essential that there should be co-operation between the portions and that they should be managed as one unit so that the one could gain strength from the other. It is not necessary for each one to have a place of his own, to have his own dam and pipes. They can co-operate. The word “co-operation” was the crux of the point which the hon. member made. I think it is essential for us to realize what is actually going on in the thoughts of the hon. members of the NP. While the approach in earlier days was that each homeland should have its own economy, it is quite a different story today. At the time Dr. Verwoerd made it quite clear that each homeland had to generate its own capital within the borders of its own country. Today, however, we have moved away from that approach. Now we see the overall picture of one South African economy again. I believe the hon. member did us a favour by putting his finger on the essence of the matter. If it is true that some of the smaller homelands are perhaps not viable, such viability can now be created by co-operation with the whole of South Africa within a single major economy. That is something we can do for them now, which we can offer them in assisting them to attain viability within their own territories, in co-operation with the totality. Therefore I consider it a very important matter which the hon. member raised.

†I should like to say something now to the hon. the Minister of Finance. I know the hon. the Minister of Finance always gets a bit uptight when, during the course of a Third Reading debate on an Appropriation Bill, nobody addresses him personally. After all, he has to reply to this debate. Therefore I should like to devote the rest of the time I have left to saying a few words about the economy of South Africa.

At the end of this parliamentary session, and at this time in the history of the White man in South Africa, at this time in our political history, we are wallowing in the trough of a wave, as it were. We have reached a point where we are pausing, as it were, waiting for a snatch of the current to carry us to the crest of the next wave, from where we will be able to look down the stream down which we are progressing.

What is happening, however, is that it is not only the one stream in our politics of which we have to take note any more. Until now the one stream has been the White stream. We are now seeing and realizing that, just over the hill, there is also a Black stream. What is going to happen is that these two strems are going to flow together into a broader and a greater stream. It makes me think of the constituency of the hon. member for Eshowe, in which the two big streams of the White and the Black Umfolozi come together to form one stream. From where the Black and the White streams unite, we flow downstream together into the big common sea, which is the world of all of us. What we are experiencing now is a totally new situation in which White and Black, Coloured and Indian—all of us—are going to be at the interface of real political discussion. I think it is extremely important that we should realize that what is happening is that the whole White past that we have had is going to change now into something new.

What we have done by excluding Blacks from this Parliament is that we have moved ourselves into a position in which only new structures can now allow for a coming together of White, Black, Indian and Coloured in meaningful co-operation. I believe it is extremely important that we should realize that as well. Because of the actions of this Parliament in excluding other people from it, the only option which is still open to us now is one of moving out into other bodies. That action has been taken by the Government side in this House during this session in an attempt to achieve a meaningful co-operation among all the groups.

I should like to put it to the hon. the Prime Minister and to the hon. the Minister of Finance that the future towards which we are moving will become ever blacker and blacker. Let us make no mistake about that. Let us accept that fact right now. When we go into the new dispensation we must go into it taking along with us our contribution, our heritage which we have brought to South Africa. We must take that along with us into the Black situation into which we are going to move. What is important is that when we enter that phase, what we take along with us shall be preserved. I believe that is a thought that we all have in mind when we look at the future. The hon. member for Yeoville spoke in this Third Reading debate yesterday. He said there were very, very strong signs of the rejection of the entire system by Black youths. If that is indeed so, and if the system is rejected entirely by the Black youths, we will have a double problem. Then we will not only have ourselves and our own minds which we will have to adapt to a new situation, but we will have to enter into a new situation in which there will already be, among the younger people, those who are meant to be the future leaders of their specific groups, a built-in rejection with which we will have to contend. I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister of Finance that there is only one way in which we are going to be able to succeed. That is by our success, by our achievements in creating wealth, in creating opportunities, in building an economy in South Africa which will draw more and more people into the whole system. Nobody is going to buck the system if he can see himself benefiting from it, if he can see his wife and children benefiting from it, if he can see his standard of living rising continually. In other words, if one looks down the corridors of the future and one can see the doors opening one by one for oneself and for one’s children, then, I believe, it is possible to achieve success which will win over all these people to join forces with us.

I believe that the foundation of that future is the free individual in a free economic society, and the basis of a free economic society is the profit motive. I want to make it quite clear that I regard as being absolutely basic the ability of a man to make a profit and to use that money for his own purposes, for his own family and for his own investment. What concerns me about the current situation, or did concern me a year or so ago—let me be quite honest about that—is that tax is power and over-taxation kills incentive. I want to discuss this matter with the hon. the Minister because I believe that he is engaged in a three-phase operation which is designed to change a system which was in operation a couple of years ago when the people were grossly over-taxed. The hon. member for Yeoville said it and I say it as well. That is my honest belief. I think the system was such that the load of tax fell upon the wrong people to the extent that it was a disincentive to that very small group of people who are the achievers in our society. I make no bones about this. Hon. members can call me a capitalist or what they like, but there is a very, very small group of people in our society who are achievers. They are the ones who make things happen. They are the ones who create employment, who create the jobs, and who make things happen. And in this regard the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance was quite right: The only way Blacks will come into this thing is through employment opportunities, free movement within the work situation and this kind of thing. In my opinion the hon. the Minister has done the right thing this year by, rather than paying higher salaries which simply put people into higher tax brackets, he has cut the tax levels thereby allowing people to take home at least as much money as they would have had had he raised their salaries. They would have then had it net after tax. I think it is terribly important that the hon. the Minister must realize that we appreciate this. We think this is the right way for this to be tackled.

In his opening speech in the Third Reading the hon. the Minister referred to fringe benefits. The only reason why people want fringe benefits is because the rates of tax are too high. That is the simple fact. A fringe benefit is something which is designed to give a man an advantage which is not subject to tax. There is no purpose whatsoever in giving people increases in salary if they are paying 60%, 65% or 70% of their total income to the Government, to our friend the Receiver of Revenue. What we believe is really necessary is a lower rate of taxation. We are quite prepared to see fringe benefits taxed. They are due to be taxed. They should have been taxed, but they have not yet been brought within the net. It was the hon. the Minister’s intention to include provisions to tax fringe benefits in the Income Tax Bill, but it was decided to withdraw them this year.

During the discussion of the hon. the Minister’s Vote in the Other Place I raised the matter of tax-free investments with him. I would appreciate it if he could tell me how I can get this idea before the Standing Commission on Taxation. Perhaps he would refer it to the Commission himself. I believe there is an idea here which can save his department a considerable amount of administrative cost without damaging or hurting the general economic life of the country at all, or affecting the saving pattern of the country, or anything else. The strongest point that the Franzsen Commission made with regard to separate taxation for married women was that, if one gives a tax advantage to the married woman to be taxed separately from her husband and therefore at a lower rate, somebody else would have to pay the tax which was thus lost to the State. So there is no way in which anybody can benefit in the overall picture when people are advantaged in a way which frees them from tax.

It will give the married woman a greater incentive to earn more.

I am not arguing about the married women. I am talking about the tax-free saving schemes, the tax-free investments which are made available. I think that what has happened is that over a period of years it has been necessary, for instance, to generate savings in the Post Office, and the easiest thing was to give people a tax-free incentive to save through the Post Office. It has been possible to do the same thing in the State and in other areas. It was possible in terms of subscription shares. One could put a considerable amount of money into subscription shares, something which the hon. the Minister is now taking action to do away with. I believe that it is possible to do away with the tax-free system altogether, provided one has the absolute assurance that there will be a low enough rate at the marginal rate, so that people who are the achievers in the system will not be taxed to the point where it is a disincentive for them to work, to make further investments, to undertake other business, to expand their operations, and that kind of thing. What we want in South Africa is economic growth at the fastest possible rate we can sustain. I think that what has happened in the past is that the tax system has been loaded with a whole lot of accretions, things which have been tinkered on over the years by various Ministers of Finance, and which have led us into a system which has become totally counterproductive. I think that the hon. the Minister has adopted an attitude which is trying to get away from that. I think the fact that he has taken a decision to bring down the marginal rate of tax, illustrates this attitude. I expect a further cut next year. I said that during the Second Reading debate on the budget, and I repeat it now. Had he continued with his proposals to tax fringe benefits, the people who have the benefit of those, would simply have been back where they were before the rates were cut. That clearly presumes a further cut in tax next time, to give them back the advantage that the hon. the Minister has taken away from them. I should therefore like to suggest that there could possibly be a flat rate at a certain figure, whatever the cut-off rate is. There would obviously have to be a curve up to a particular figure and then a flat rate from there onwards to generate the sort of investment from people who are the achievers— and I put it to the hon. the Minister time and again—investing their money in their own businesses and making the economy go. These are the people upon whom we are going to have to rely for our future and to involve the Black population groups in their millions in the sort of system and the sort of life that we want to see here. I believe that it is necessary to free the economy from the shackles in which it has been held now through a process of development. I think that the thrust of development will come from individuals who deserve to be rewarded. I simply say to the hon. the Minister that this should, if possible, be put to the Standing Committee on Taxation. I believe it is something which would save the department, and I now want to come to that point.

If the administration of this complicated system, where there are all sorts of ways of saving tax-free, could be done away with, it would avoid a considerable amount of bother and fuss, and one could get one rate, something which would have the advantage that sales tax has, namely that it is applicable to all articles and is easy to administer. As soon as one starts to take things out of it, one has to increase the rate continuously in order to come back to the figure of income one had before. There is no way one can benefit one side or the other side. As soon as one starts making exceptions on one side, somebody else is going to be hit on the other side. I want to make that point to the hon. the Minister, and I hope that he will reply in the affirmative. If he could look into this matter, it could perhaps help us in our future.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to say much about the speech of the hon. member for Mooi River. He spoke about financial aspects and taxation in the free market economy.

Tonight I should like to refer to one of the main points of dissension between the Government party, the NP, and the official Opposition, the PFP. Earlier today the hon. member for Simonstown was ordered to withdraw a remark that he made when he said that the PFP is the internal wing of a foreign anti-South African organization.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to refer to a statement which, under your ruling, has to be withdrawn by the hon. member for Simonstown?

I did not hear what the hon. member said, but I think he quoted something that has already been withdrawn, and therefore he may not refer to it again.

I accept that it has been withdrawn.

I want to refer to the campaign of the PFP in their political approach to the South African community. Earlier this year, the hon. member for Pinelands was deeply involved in and even instrumental in a plea for releasing Nelson Mandela. What I should like to refer to, is what led up to this plea. Hon. members will recall that the first body that made this plea, was the Sunday Post, the Black Johannesburg Sunday newspaper, a plea which was then taken up by the South African Council of Churches through Bishop Tutu and by the hon. member for Pinelands. After that it was taken up by the Organization for African Unity, by Black diplomats at the UN, by overseas representatives of the ANC, by President Banana …

And by Gen. Van den Bergh.

… and by people in Mozambique. This plea has its origin in the time when the PFP (Zimbabwe)—the Patriotic Front Party (Zimbabwe) —triumphed in Zimbabwe. Then it was decided, in an internationally orchestrated effort, that a radical leader for the revolutionary powers in South Africa should be identified. This is the reason why a campaign was launched suddenly to ask for Nelson Mandela to be released and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has not yet dissociated himself from the hon. member for Pinelands’s plea in this regard. At one stage he tried to rationalize it and he said that he did not want to be associated with it, but he did not kick the hon. member for Pinelands out of the party as he did the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. In other words, he is prepared to suffer that campaign coming from the bosom of the PFP (South Africa)— I do not mean the PFP (Zimbabwe)— because he did not reprimand him on it in public. Nor has he dissociated himself from that plea. I want to allege that there are other members of the PFP (South Africa’s) internal wing who are prepared to support that plea too. If the PFP (South Africa) associates itself with internationally orchestrated pleas from the UN, the OAU and President Banana, that Nelson Mandela must be released, I wonder. They are not the internal wing of any foreign organization, but they are nevertheless experts when it comes to singing the same tune on international pleas. It is different to being an internal wing of another organization. It is simply an orchestration, a sounding board …

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is continually using the phrase “internal wing”.

I said they were not an internal wing, but only …

You have been referring to the PFP as the “internal wing”.

Mr. Speaker, I clearly said that they are not the internal wing of an international organization.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been referring to the PFP as the internal wing of an international organization. [Interjections.] He has referred to it as being part of an internationally orchestrated campaign. The implication is quite clear that we are in some way treating with the enemies of South Africa.

Order! The hon. member for Klip River may proceed, but he must avoid playing on words that are open to certain interpretations.

I tried to prove that the hon. member for Pinelands was part of an orchestrated international plea to free Mandela, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that that hon. member launched a plea in public for Nelson Mandela to be freed. The question is now what the position of Mr. Nelson Mandela is. In 1963 he was involved in the Rivonia trial and was sentenced to lifelong imprisonment by Judge-President Quartus De Wet. The principal charge against him was one of conspiracy. However, Judge-President Quartus De Wet said that if the principal charge had been treason, he would have considered the death sentence. Mandela was the driving force behind “Umkonto We Sizwe”, which wanted to launch a revolution by guerrilla warfare and a great rebellion in South Africa, which resulted in 192 attempts at sabotage taking place in South Africa at that stage as part of that ANC’s sabotage plan. Nelson Mandela was the leader of the ANC at the time.

Recently there was an attack on the Booysens police station and installations at Sasol were sabotaged. The ANC has said that they were responsible for this. The fact is now that the hon. member for Pinelands associated himself with the Mandela campaign in public and was not reprimanded for it by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition kicked out the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, but the hon. member for Pinelands is welcome in the inner circles of the PFP (South Africa).

I would not say the same for you.

I now refer to this international campaign in which the World Council of Churches and the S. A. Council of Churches are also playing a role. Bishop Tutu has also associated himself with it. It seems to me—and the hon. member for Pinelands will know what this is about—as if the World Council of Churches and the S.A. Council of Churches tend to preach the ideology of revolution. The S.A. Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches are no longer concerned about being known as political bodies. A similar situation took place 2 000 years ago when Israel was occupied by the Romans. At that stage there were Jews in Israel who revolted against the Roman rulers of their country. Here I am referring specifically to Luke 23, verse 18, where he says—

Barabbas’ role in this situation is recorded in Luke 23, verse 19, which reads—

That revolt was against the Romans. In the context of the situation today, the Romans would have considered him a terrorist and the Jews, a freedom fighter. There are certain bodies in South Africa who would say that Mandela was a terrorist and there are others who would say that he was a freedom fighter. I do not want to allege that Barabbas was not a believer. In The Argus of 20 December 1979 it was said that Nelson Mandela is a member of the Methodist Church. The hon. member for Pinelands is also a member of the Methodist Church. [Interjections.] Religion is not at issue here at all, but what is at issue, is whether the S.A. Council of Churches, the World Council of Churches and the hon. member for Pinelands are now being used to spread a theology of revolution. I want to allege that the hon. member for Pinelands is playing a part in spreading the theology of revolution in South Africa. This is being done on a broad front.

Order! The hon. member may not say that.

Mr. Speaker, then I withdraw it. The South African Council of Churches is heavily involved in this campaign, this joint effort against South Africa. I want to allege that it is a false theology and that South Africa cannot afford to put up with this type of ideology, because it is subversive. In addition, it is not a theology, but an atheistic approach. I want to quote from a book in which Dr. Peter Beyerhaus, director of the Institute of Missiology and Ecumenical Theology at Tubingen University is quoted as follows—

The concepts of God and Christ are used from time to time by the World Council of Churches and the S.A. Council of Churches, but definitely not in the sense of a theology. It is, in fact, a theology of revolution. It is a political programme and members of the World Council of Churches—and I would not be the least surprised if members of the S.A. Council of Churches are of the same opinion—insist that “Marxism is the unavoidable political expression of Christianity.” This is the theology that is preached by the World Council of Churches and it is a theology that is also preached by the S.A. Council of Churches. It is that theology that associates itself with the campaign to release Mandela, who is a member of the Methodist Church, not because he is a member of the Methodist Church, but because he is a radical leader of the revolutionary revolt that they want to loose in South Africa. He is the man who cannot make mistakes now, who is in jail, and what could be better for them than to make a plea to people that he should be seen as the leader of this revolutionary force to plunge South Africa into the same revolution in which Zimbabwe has been plunged and in which other countries of the world have also been plunged? I want to make a request of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition here to tell us for once and for all whether the PFP is officially prepared to put up with the hon. member for Pinelands and other hon. members, whom I shall not mention now, preaching this type of thing and getting away with it. If he is prepared to be a tough leader, as the hon. member for Bryanston said, a strong leader, let him prove his leadership by dealing with this type of revolutionary preaching in his own party just as forcefully as he dealt with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Klip River …

Is a “klip” (stone) in the stomach.

… has produced here this evening, in his inimitable way, a tortuous logic in an attempt to attack the Opposition and all those people who are opposed to apartheid, and his attack he launched on some sort of theological grounds. I must say that I have no doubt that he has, in fact, satisfied himself and some of the bigots in his own party, but I wonder to what extent he has managed to satisfy what can be defined as a normal Christian conscience.

I have had the privilege, over the last few months, of attending a number of church services in Coloured and Black areas.

First time in your life.

No.

The hon. the Minister has never been to one in his life.

I have attended those church services as a White, as a member of the Dutch Reform Church and as a concerned, humble and ordinary Christian.

You?

I listened to what those Black and Coloured preachers said to their congregations. I have news for the hon. member for Klip River. Those ordinary, humble South African Christians, who are of a different colour to us, read their Bible, believe in their Bible, believe in their God and believe in the real meaning of Christianity, and they believe that their cause is the cause of justice and Christianity and that apartheid is the cause of injustice and is contrary to Christianity, in fact that it is an evil, a wicked and a vicious system. I have further news for the hon. member for Klip River. The NP may believe that God is with them and with their policy of apartheid, but the Blacks, Coloureds and Indians, humble South African Christians, believe that God is with them and their cause of justice in South Africa.

It sounds as if you are possessed.

I just want to say something about what the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance said this evening. He referred to the death of 16 young South Africans on the border. I think that every South African is deeply shocked by that event and that all of us feel for the families of those boys. After all, all of us have children and relatives who will have to serve, or are serving, or have served South Africa on the border. I want to say that I find it despicable in the extreme that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance sought to score a petty party-political point in this House through exploiting the death of those fine young men. I, as a member of Parliament, was deeply ashamed that another member of Parliament stooped so low. I hope that the Government will in fact have the decency to apologize for the action of that hon. Deputy Minister. What was doubly despicable was that, when the hon. the Chief Whip of my party asked the hon. the Prime Minister across the floor whether he supported that point of view, the hon. the Prime Minister answered in the affirmative.

We have come to the end of this session of Parliament. What South Africa and the world would have hoped to have heard by the end of this session was a message of hope for the people of this country from the leader of the governing party, the hon. the Prime Minister. All of us, even at this very late stage, hoped that the hon. the Prime Minister would spell out some message of hope, that he would have some plan, that he would give some indication of steps that he would take to bring about peace and justice in our society. What did we get? What we got can be summarized in the following words: Threats, certainly, the statements of a bully …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “bully”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. We got threats though. What the hon. the Prime Minister spelt out here can clearly be summarized as follows. The hon. the Prime Minister said that if democracy got in his way that was too bad for democracy. The hon. the Prime Minister spelt out the end of democracy in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister spelt out an inexorable drift to a totalitarian system in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister said that he was declaring war on any form of democratic dissent in this country. The hon. the Prime Minister said that he would establish a system, in so many words, which would be needed in order to carry out his policies. If one reads through the Hansard of 50 years ago, one finds that Gen. Hertzog, the Prime Minister at that time, in March 1930, I think it was, had the following to say—

I think that the hon. the Prime Minister of those times, one of the great leaders of the Afrikaner people, knew what he was dealing with. He knew his own people. He knew that neither the Parliamentary system nor democracy was safe in their hands and he had the perspicacity to know that in approximately 50 years from that time his people would be in the forefront of the destruction of democracy and the Parliamentary system in South Africa. We had the absurd statement, the absolutely absurd statement of the hon. the Prime Minister that those who oppose the President’s Council, those who refused to serve on the President’s Council after it has been established through legislation in this House, will in effect be guilty of a criminal offence. I want to say that, of the many absurd statements that have eminated from that Government and its leader, this must surely go on record as the most absurd statement that has come from the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister spoke about extra-parliamentary bodies. There is always an attempt to associate us with extra-parliamentary bodies. Is it not true that this Government is the product of one of the biggest and most sinister extra-parliamentary bodies that has ever existed in the history of the world, namely the Broederbond? Is the Broederbond not the body which planned the political success of the NP? Is the Broederbond not the body which planned the undermining of the English community in South Africa? Is not the Broederbond the most sinister secret organization, which undermined and subverted and usurped the institutions of our country for one particular section? Why have we landed ourselves in this most unfortunate situation? Why has South Africa landed itself in a situation in which a Government besieged from inside and under pressure from outside, with a lack of faith in itself and in its future has reached a situation in which all South Africans other than its own supporters have turned their backs on this Government, a situation in which 90% of the South African population are in confrontation with the Government? Why and how has South Africa reached this unfortunate situation? Why have we reached a situation in which the Government today believes and says that only totalitarian measures can save them from the consequences of their own folly?

You really are a “clown”, at this time of night.

I think there are many reasons and many theories that can be put forward. One of the theories involves the battles within the ranks of the NP, particularly the ideological battle between the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Public Works. We have been watching that battle and we have been concerned about the future of South Africa as a result of the consequences of that very battle. [Interjections.] What has happened is simply this. When the hon. the Minister of Public Works first challenged him on a ideological basis, when the hon. the Minister of Public Works said that he opposed Craven Week and the participation of Coloured school children together with White school children in rugby—which, after all, is not such a tremendous deviation from any of the principles or policies of this country—the hon. the Prime Minister, very bravely, and to great acclaim, reacted with fury and with determination, because he believed that he was going to carry his whole party with him. Suddenly, however, he was confronted with a possibility of a total breakdown within the NP. Everybody knows—and we saw it in this House—how little groups gathered together —Treurnicht-mense, P.W.-mense—in the lobby, in the corridors, everywhere … [Interjections.]

Where is Japie? [Interjections.]

I happened to be in the Transvaal at the time, and the Transvaal members of the Provincial Council sided almost en masse with the hon. the Minister of Public Works. The hon. the Prime Minister then had the fight of his life.

You are stark raving mad.

The NP was petrified because they thought they were facing the prospect of destruction. Then, of course, a very significant thing happened. The hon. the Minister of Public Works repeated his challenge, the challenge which had upset the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. the Minister of Public Works repeated that challenge in precisely the same words. What happened then? The hon. the Prime Minister sat there with a sickly grin on his face. He decided to sit through it and to take no action at all. In doing so he admitted that he had been beaten. He admitted that he was the captive and the victim of the right wing of the NP. He also admitted that he had neither the influence nor the power to persuade his party to accept reform and new ideas. Subsequently the hon. the Prime Minister decided he had to do something. He decided to build for himself a cocoon of security and power in order to deal with his right-wing, and with the so-called left-wing in his party. Throughout this session of Parliament we have witnessed a whole series of measures to this effect. There has been, for example, the strengthening of the National Security Council, the whole total rationalization plan of the Civil Service, which, in fact, was supposed to reduce the bureaucracy in the country, supposed to reduce the costs of that bureaucracy, supposed to bring about a more streamlined organization. What do we have now? I believe we have now a far more costly organization. Instead of 18 Cabinet Ministers—God forbid!—we now have 20 Cabinet Ministers. We have in fact a much more topheavy bureaucracy. We have a bureaucracy apparently established in order to strengthen the hand of the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government. We also have the action of the hon. the Prime Minister in which he abolished the Senate. Now, why did he abolish the Senate? He did that simply in order to get rid of the majority of members of the Senate who happened to be supporters of the hon. the Minister of Public Works. [Interjections.] We have now also reached the position in which the hon. the Prime Minister has introduced a measure which makes provision for members to be nominated to this House. We also had the admission by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development that once the principle has been established one can bring in many, many more. We also had an admission from the hon. the Minister of the Interior, that as far as he was concerned, those people, in an 82:83 break, could create the balance of power. What we do have is a strengthening of the “Wit baasskap” establishment. Then we also have the NRP supporting that “baasskap” establishment. [Interjections.] Of course, if their policy is not one of “Wit baasskap” then it is at least one of “Wit Bolsskap.”

If their policy is not “Wit baasskap” then at least it is “Wit balskap”! They are now having wet (“nat”) dreams with the NP. This session is not a session of hope for the future. This session is a sad story of total failure. Last year, via the speech at Upington, via the visit to Soweto, via the visit to the homelands, via the indaba with businessmen at the Carlton Hotel, there was a carefully orchestrated public relations programme to create the image of the new Prime Minister as a man who was determined and who had the power and the influence to bring about enlightened reform in South Africa. At the end of last year all of us, even those of us in the PFP, were filled with hope that something good was going to come out of 1980. But what has happened this year? This year, step by step, as the months of the session of Parliament went by, the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government have destroyed that image that was built up. Today more unemployment than ever before exists. A situation exists where the entire Coloured community is in confrontation with the Government. A situation exists where the Coloured community, who for the last 150 years have been subject to deceit and betrayal from the White people of this country, who over the last 150 years have lost all their political powers and all their political influence, and who have in fact been isolated from the White man, do not have a single body in which they can vote. They do not have a single elected representative. They are in total confrontation with the White man and very close to the point where they will give up all hope of the possibility of peaceful change. That is an event of 1980.

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

No, you sit down. We were told that this was going to be the year when discrimination was going to be removed. We all expected the Group Areas Act, the Mixed Marriages Act, the Immorality Act and many other apartheid measures to be amended or removed, but not a single piece of worthwhile legislation was introduced to remove discrimination in this country. Palm Springs is one thing, but back on the ranch, of terug by die plaas by Palmietfontein, it is an entirely different thing.

The last and most hopeless aspect of this whole story is the total failure of the Schlebusch Commission’s proposals. After sitting for so long, after winning an election in 1977 on a particular platform to produce a new constitution, we have a situation today where the Schlebusch proposals have in fact produced just about nothing other than a President’s Council which is in disrepute, which is rejected, which neither the Coloureds, the Indians or the Blacks want to know anything about, which is destined to failure and which cannot possibly make any contribution to the future of our country. Under these most deplorable and unfortunate circumstances, what can be done? We have listened to the hon. the Prime Minister, but he had no message worth delivering. I do not know why he actually bothered to talk in the Third Reading. I do not know why he bothered to say the things that he did. It was no message, it brought no hope and it was nothing to go on. We therefore call upon the Government: You have got six months to go home and to think …

As slowly as you like.

You have got six months to go home to think about your political sins. You have got six months to go home to think about something worthwhile to do for our country. There will probably be an election in November. It will be a good thing if there is an election in November so that we can clear the decks, so that we can possibly get a new Government with a new mandate, so that we can possibly get new people on that side—you should try to get hold of a few verligtes so that you can get them elected.

*I take it that if they cannot find “verligtes” they will see to it that they get a few “verligtes” into this House by way of nomination. That would mean something.

†What we ask this Government to do is to come back with a new plan, a new attitude and a new approach at the next session. They should forget about the President’s Council. It will not get off the ground. It is a total failure, a flop. They should accept it as such so that we can get away from it. The Government should come back here with a plan to exploit the reservoir of goodwill and willingness to co-operate in all race groups. They must, however, create a system in which it can be done. The Government must launch a programme for the re-education of the public of South Africa. Let them use television to inform the public of the potential for peaceful change in the creation of a just society, but in an honest and proper way. The Government should produce a declaration of intent, such as our hon. leader has asked for. We shall support them to the hilt if they support the declaration of intent of the hon. Leader of the Opposition—and it need not necessarily be in the same terms, if they want to draw up a similar one themselves. What I should like to ask is that the Government must please learn before it is too late. Let not the hon. the Prime Minister come back and say what the former Prime Minister of Rhodesia said after the events there: “Any animal which is unable to adapt to its environment, perishes.” We do not want to perish. We do not want our country or any of its peoples to perish. We do not even want the members opposite to perish, except in a political sense. We do not want to perish and we depend on this Government to take a lead in preventing war, in preventing violence and in producing the plan for peaceful change for our country.

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to decide how one should react to the hon. member for Bryanston. One moment one feels like ignoring him completely. The arguments that he raised here, have certain characteristics. He always simplifies, he always exaggerates and he is extremely insulting. I now want to say something to the hon. member for Bryanston and it is my considered opinion. When he rises to his feet, there is no one who can accuse him of any charisma whatsoever.

I want to tell the hon. member for Bryanston today that he said a number of things here that are not detrimental to the Government as such, but that are in fact detrimental to South Africa, and this is because he tried to state facts which are not facts, because he is trying to hold up an image to this House, this country and the world which is a completely false one. For instance, I think of his misrepresentation of the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister. How can this hon. member come to this House with a clear conscience and tell us that all we have had from the hon. the Prime Minister, were threats? Surely it is simply not true.

How can he rise to his feet with a clear conscience and tell South Africa and the world—because these things are broadcast to the world—that the hon. the Prime Minister said: “If democracy gets in my way, it is too bad for democracy?” How can the hon. member say this? This is the type of charge that is laid against us in the Council chambers of the world, and surely it is false. After all, we have a democracy in South Africa, as we are represented here today. The Government also has a policy and an ideal with regard to every other person who lives in South Africa. The Government is involved in a programme of constitutional development, but all we get from that hon. member, is that he says that the hon. the Prime Minister has “declared war on every form of democratic protest” today. Surely this is completely untrue. When did the hon. the Prime Minister say today that he has declared war against every form of democratic protest? Surely the hon. the Prime Minister did not say this. I want to accuse the hon. member of saying things in this House that are untrue. He should be ashamed of having done so. [Interjections.]

He made another accusation that I should like to take up with him. I think he said, with reference to general Hertzog, words to the effect that Hertzog knew that democracy is not safe in the hands of his people. Who are those people? They are the Afrikaners. I do not know in what context genl. Hertzog said those words and whether he has been fully quoted, but is the hon. member really launching an attack on the Afrikaner? Today the Afrikaner is the strongest power in Africa and he has always been, and he is not nor will be prepared to give up his vocation on the Southern tip of Africa in future and cause it to degenerate. He is doing his duty and he will do so with regard to everyone living in South Africa. I notice that he spoke in English when he launched the attack. He must know that he must not try to attack the Afrikaner because it will backfire on him and he will get hurt.

Today he said: “Ninety per cent of the South African population is in confrontation with the Government.” Surely this is totally untrue. I must congratulate him because this helps our enemies. The people who are abroad, where a UN debate came to nothing because there were no speakers due to the fact that the boycotts, incitement and riots in South Africa did not run their course, would like to hear that. I cannot say, I am not going to say and I do not want to imply that he incites unrest either. I shall never do this, but does he think that what he says contributes towards peace in South Africa?

If you listen to it.

The statement has been made time and again in this House that this side of the House is contributing towards a polarization between White and Black people. It is statements like his that bring about a White-Black polarization in South Africa. I point an accusatory finger at him. Let us look the facts in the face. Who wants polarization between White and Black in South Africa?

You.

Your laws.

It is not the friends of South Africa who want it. This Government is aiming at ethnic development and division of power between the various ethnic groups in South Africa in order to create a situation in South Africa where everyone can live in peace and love. The hon. member made a contribution towards White-Black polarization today, but one of the largest contributions to it has been made in South Africa by the attitude of the official Opposition because they will not participate in the President’s Council.

With that step they have made it virtually impossible for Black people to participate in the President’s Council. The President’s Council was criticized and insulted even though it is a constitutional body in the RSA. The hon. member said that it is a flop. [Interjections.] It is definitely a serious contribution towards White-Black polarization to act in an insulting and derogatory manner towards a body that has been established for the very purpose of bringing about consultation and negotiation. For the enemies of South Africa outside, who want revolution in South Africa, it is a prerequisite for that revolution. The prerequisite for a White-Black revolution is that there must be a White-Black polarization in this country. Each of us must put a watch on his tongue, look at the facts of South Africa in an objective, honest manner and ensure that we do not foment that White-Black polarization. That hon. member fomented that White-Black polarization today. To the right of the spectrum is Jaap Marais and his henchmen who do this by means of the insulting, racist remarks that they make and together with those people the hon. members of the Opposition like the hon. member for Houghton are bringing about that polarization. I tell him that the children of South Africa will reproach him for this and that he will not be able to deny it.

We are now in a period of time in which constitutional debates are being held. In this regard I want to dwell for a moment on certain aspects of the PFP’s plan for the future. In an official document on policy, the PFP says that they do not want a unitary state. However, I want to take this aspect further now. I think that any difference that there may be between the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, is irrelevant. During the course of this year the hon. the leader of the Opposition spoke about “consultation” and “negotiation” a few times. He said that consultation was not enough and that he was in favour of negotiation. In an article that appeared in The Argus this week, he said the following, inter alia—

There is another aspect that I should also like to include in this discussion, viz. the whole question of the “negotiables” and “non-negotiables” when our constitutional dispensation is discussed. I now want to ask the PFP, the official Opposition, across the floor of the House what their “non-negotiables” are. It is very clear to me that the “non-negotiables” of the official Opposition are of such nature that they do not necessarily include a federation. In official policy documents the PFP—I want to refer to this—say that they will not participate in a constitutional dispensation that does not comply with their “fundamental principles”. In other words, they have a number of “non-negotiables”. I now want to refer to these “non-negotiables” of theirs.

In the first place they say that there must be a national convention. This is a “non-negotiable”. In the second place they say that there must be full, equal civil rights for all South Africans without discrimination on grounds of race, colour, religion or sex.

The first argument that I want to raise, is that these “non-negotiables”, i.e. equal civil rights can be complied with in a unitary constitution and in a federal constitution.

The third “non-negotiable” is the “sharing of political rights by all citizens without the domination of one group by another”.

Without domination. That is the point.

That is quite correct. That is what is stated here. This requirement can be complied with just as easily in a unitary constitution as in a federal constitution, because it simply means that there is no opportunity for the domination of one group by another in terms of the constitution. It means that there must not be a situation like the one that we had today in which one group governs other groups that are not represented in this House of Assembly. That requirement that he being stated as one of these “fundamental principles” can be covered in either of the two constitutional forms.

The fourth “non-negotiable” is that there should be an open community. There can be an open community in terms of either of these two constitutions.

The fifth “non-negotiable” is “the right of all people to maintain their religious, language and cultural heritages”. People, not groups, are referred to here. It reads—

The question is whether one can also achieve this in a unitary state and whether one can only achieve it in a federation. This “fundamental principle” of theirs can be complied with in both a federal constitution and the constitution of a unitary state. The next one is—

Here too there is nothing that is characteristic of a federation alone. The last one reads—

This too is a fundamental principle that can be complied with just as easily and fulfilled and embodied in the constitution of a unitary State and a federal constitution. The point that I want to make, is that hon. members of the PFP have a constitutional programme that contains certain non-negotiable principles, and these principles can fit in equally well in a federal constitution as they fit into a constitution of a unitary State. This means that we now have to look at what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says about “negotiation”. He reproaches the Government for not wanting to negotiate. He says—

I concede that it is their official plan and policy that it should be a federation. Now they go to the national convention while they give notice beforehand that they have seven non-negotiable principles and not one of those non-negotiable principles are characteristic of a federation. In other words, they are not going to a national convention with a non-negotiable federal concept. The party has no principle that is non-negotiable and can refer to a federation alone. Their official document states clearly that consensus is a requirement for a national convention. Consensus must be reached.

I want hon. members to imagine the great national convention in their mind’s eye now. All the Whites and Black are sitting their together. Earlier today the hon. member for Pinelands said in the House that the majority of the Black people are in favour of a unitary State. He also said the Coloureds and Indians are in favour of a unitary State. Now the party wants to seek consensus at the national convention. At the national convention a Black man rises to his feet and says to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition:

†“Dr. Slabbert, I agree with your seven principles. I underwrite your seven fundamental principles and I accept that they are non-negotiable. However, I do not want a federation. I want a unitary State and I want these principles to be written into the constitution of a unitary State.”

*An important question arises from such a national convention. Will the PFP be prepared to surrender its federal plan at a national convention for the sake of consensus?

That is a ridiculous question.

I want to ask the hon. member for Sea Point whether the PFP would be prepared to surrender its federal plan at a national convention for the sake of consensus? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Sea Point simply has to say “yes” or “no” across the floor of the House.

You are talking nonsense.

No, I am not talking nonsense. I am not talking nonsense, because it is not in my nature to talk nonsense. I am trying to be fair and reasonable. The people are sitting there at a table at the national convention and the federal plan is not part of the “non-negotiable principles”. I ask the hon. member for Sea Point to reply to me across the floor of the House whether the PFP is prepared to give up the idea of a federation for the sake of consensus. “Yes” or “no”? I ask the hon. member for Sea Point. He is a senior member of that party. [Interjections.]

†I want to ask the hon. member for Sea Point this question. Would the PFP be prepared, for the sake of consensus, to surrender its policy of federation?

Do you still write to Andries, yes or no?

You are asking stupid questions now.

I am not asking stupid questions. I have laid the basis for this question.

*I have laid the scientific foundation for this question. [Interjections.] Let us understand one another properly. Those people want a national convention and they say that there must be consensus at that convention. However, they also say that they have “non-negotiable principles”. There are seven of them, and not one of them is characteristic of a federation. Therefore, I put the same question to the hon. member for Sea Point once again. I challenge him to reply “yes” or “no”. [Interjections.] I challenge the hon. member for Sea Point across the floor of the House. I challenge him to tell it to this House.

†Would the PFP be prepared, for the sake of consensus, to surrender its principle or policy of federation? [Interjections.]

*Then I ask the Chief Whip, the hon. member for Groote Schuur. Would the PFP be prepared, at a national convention, to surrender federation for the sake of consensus? [Interjections.] He does not want to answer the question. However, he is the man who does so much talking there. What about the hon. member for Bryanston? I challenge the PFP to reply “yes” or “no” to this question today. [Interjections.] What about the hon. member for Johannesburg North? Surely he can pass judgments. Cannot the hon. member for Johannesburg North answer this simple question for us?

I have already answered you.

Do you still write to Andries, yes or no?

Order!

I challenge the hon. member for Johannesburg North to give us the answer. Is the answer “yes” or “no”. I did not hear properly.

Do you still write to Andries, yes or no?

No, I no longer write to him. I have already written. [Interjections.] Now I have answered the hon. member’s question. Now he can answer my question. [Interjections.]

†The hon. member for Pinelands has just entered the House, so let me put the question to him. At the national convention

Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member answer a question?

If you answer my question, I shall answer yours. At the national convention, would the PFP …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I am prepared to answer the question if I am given a few minutes to do so.

Order! That is not a point of order.

Yes, that is not a point of order. I want to ask the hon. member for Pinelands this question across the floor of the House. In view of the fact that not one of its seven non-negotiable principles is related to federation, and can just as easily fit into a unitary State, is the PFP prepared to surrender its concept of federation at a national convention in favour of a unitary State in order to reach consensus?

Arrange the national convention and we will answer it.

The hon. member for Pinelands is simply sitting there. He does not want to reply. Surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not going to disappoint us? Is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition really going to disappoint us at this late hour—it is 20h50? [Interjections.]

Order!

What is the question?

Order!

In view of the fact that not a single one of the PFP’s seven fundamental principles which they describe as non-negotiable in their documents, necessarily relates to a federation, but can just as easily be satisfied in a unitary State or in terms of a unitary constitution, and in view of the fact that the PFP says it wants to reach consensus at a national convention, would the PFP be prepared to surrender the federal plan in favour of a unitary constitution for the sake of consensus?

Please repeat the question.

I cannot hear.

You do not know what is going on.

No, the issue here is the essence of a political debate across the floor of this House. If one votes for the PFP, is one going to have a unitary political constitution, one man, one vote, on the voters’ roll, or is one going to have a federation? These are the alternatives. Now the hon. member for Pinelands says that most Black people want a unitary State. He said so today. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is in the House now and he is the man who was responsible for drawing up the seven non-negotiable principles. He knows what I am talking about now. Now all the Blacks and all the Whites come together and sit there at the national convention and everyone says that they agree with the fundamental principles of the PFP. But those principles do not mean a federation. I accept that the PFP is going to say that it wants a federation and that it is going to try to negotiate it. But now it is shot down and that convention says no, we do not want a federation; we want one man, one vote on the voters’ roll in a unitary constitution for the Republic of South Africa. Now the question is: for the sake of consensus, will the hon. the Leader of the Opposition be prepared to surrender his federal principle?

This leads to domination and we say no. If there is domination, we say no.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says this, I want to challenge him to tell this House why then, it is a non-negotiable principle.

No domination. That is “non-negotiable”.

No, paragraph 3 reads: “The sharing of political rights by all citizens without domination of one group by another”.

Exactly.

Exactly, but then I want to argue this point. Anyone can stand up at that a national convention and say that if everyone is equal, if everyone has the same rights and the same constitution and the same voters’ roll and everyone can vote, why should one group dominate another? The objection to a unitary constitution is the objection that we have today, viz. that the constitution says here is one White group that has the power to govern other people. This is what is being referred to here. At any national convention it will be said that a unitary constitution does not mean domination of one group by another. This is the argument that is going to be raised there.

Repeat it, I did not hear.

At any national convention the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will be told that a unitary constitution, one man, one vote, on one voters’ roll, will not lead to domination of one group by another, because everyone is equal. After all, the constitution will not say that a certain section of the population alone can vote. Surely that argument will be raised and then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will have a problem. The problem is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is reproaching the Government. He says: “Negotiation, on the other hand, presupposes the willingness to allow meaningful discussion on other options”. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now says that his federal concept is a “non-negotiable principle”, why did he not include it in his principles? He did not, because it is not. The hon. member for Pinelands wanted to put a question to me. Now is his opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member for Pretoria Central whether he has heard any good jokes lately?

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member for Pinelands that I reply to intelligent questions from the Opposition, but I do not answer jokes.

I conclude by telling hon. members on that side of the House that I should like to conclude this year as I began it. After everything that has happened this year, take it from me: It is nice to be National.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can be of assistance to the hon. member for Pinelands. He asked whether we had heard any new jokes recently. I have just heard a joke about a teacher. Standing in front of his class, he drew a circle on the blackboard and told the class: “That is a circle and contains 180 degrees.” One of the pupils stood up and said: “Sir, that could not possibly be correct. If it is a circle, it must have 360 degrees.” The teacher replied: “Stupid, don’t you know there are small circles and big circles?” [Interjections.] I trust, Mr. Speaker, that that will satisfy the hon. member for Pinelands for the moment.

It will, because he is a small circle. [Interjections.]

The debate which has now come to an end, covered a very wide field, and my problem is how to reply to it, particularly since I want to do so within the space of a few minutes. However, I shall do my best to reply to this debate as well as possible.

In the first instance I want to convey my very sincere thanks to the hon. the Prime Minister for his contribution to this debate. I believe that the speech which we had from him today is yet another proof of his calibre as a leader and as a Prime Minister of South Africa.

Hear, hear!

We owe him a debt of thanks for having given us that fine message. What absolutely amazes me is that after the hon. the Prime Minister had made that speech and conveyed that fine message, the hon. member for Bryanston stated that he had expected a message of hope from the Prime Minister. Either he must have been elsewhere and not in the House or he must have been fast asleep, but I do not know … [Interjections.]

It is just that he is completely “toe”.

Yes, I think it is just that he is completely “toe”.

As “toe” as “Tupperware”.

I should very much like to associate myself with the sympathy conveyed by the hon. the Prime Minister to the next-of-kin of our brave young soldiers who have given their lives to South Africa over the past few days. We cannot ask more than that of anyone. We can be very proud of them.

I think that the session which is now coming to an end has been a remarkable one. We had major disruption in the ranks of the NRP Opposition, when the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South left them. Then, earlier this week, we had a still greater disruption in the ranks of the official Opposition when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was kicked out of their caucus. I believe that the consequences are going to be far-reaching. We have also seen today how our hon. friends of the SAP have come home, in a body.

Hear, hear!

We are gratified that this has happened. I have known the hon. member for Simonstown for many years now. We played cricket against one another for many years, and I always thought—it was always somewhere in the back of my mind— that this man would join the NP one day. Today it has happened.

†I should like to say that I am very glad too that the other two musketeers, the hon. member for Walmer and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, have joined him. That means that we have three musketeers here and three musketeers in the provincial council. I think they are going to make a very good contribution to the political life of this country. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I can well understand the sensitivity of hon. members of the official Opposition. I think this must be a very heavy blow to them.

You can have them with pleasure.

Sour grapes.

Be it as it may, I want to refer just briefly to a few points that were raised in this debate. The hon. member for Yeoville spoke first. He made the remarkable statement that South Africans were being over-taxed. I say that is one of the most remarkable statements that he has ever made, and he has made many remarkable statements in my time in Parliament!

Are you not going to have a surplus at the end of the year?

One must think that a country like South Africa has reduced the upper marginal rate of taxation from 72%— that is including the compulsory loan levy which has now been discontinued—to 50% in a matter of two or three years. One must also bear in mind that our general sales tax is 4% whereas in most countries it is 13%, 14%, 15% and even 16%. One must also think of countries such as Sweden and Norway where the percentage of taxes as a proportion of the gross domestic product is 53% in the case of Sweden and 47% in the case of Norway. In the United States of America it is more than 30%. In South Africa it is only 20%. That is a very good guide. Taxation as a proportion of a country’s gross domestic product is one of the best indicators, and the hon. member for Yeoville says that South Africa is overtaxed. In fact, at this moment taxation in South Africa, in terms of incidence, compares more than favourably with most countries of the world, and the facts are there. I can quote many other things in this respect, but I leave the matter there.

The hon. member for Yeoville has repeatedly raised the question of an index-linked bond and tackled me yesterday for not having introduced this sort of bond which he says will assist particularly those people who are being ravaged by inflation, those people who are in receipt of fixed incomes. He urged that attention be given to the introduction of an inflation-linked bond for the aged. In support of this, as I understood him, he referred to the example of the national, index-linked savings certificates available in the United Kingdom. Very briefly, I should like to say that unlike conventional certificates, where interest accrues periodically, the repayment value of index-finked certificates, subject to their being held a year, is related to the movement of the United Kingdom general retail price index. These certificates do not provide the aged individual with current inflation adjusted income as the certificate must be held for at least one year and must be redeemed before any benefit will accrue. Furthermore, the certificate must be held for at least five years in order that the individual may become entitled to a bonus of 4% on the purchase price. It is so that any bonus payable is free of income tax. Now, who is the person who is eligible? Every man who has attained the age of 65 years and every woman who has attained the age of 60 years is eligible. It is only once persons have attained the aforementioned age that they may purchase or hold these retirement issue certificates. Thus once again, the advantage of these certificates is diminished as it does not allow a person to invest at a time when he in all probability can best afford to do so, that is before he has retired. Then, too, the number of certificates, which have a unit value of £10, which may be held by any one individual varies, depending on the specific issue number. Thus an individual may hold only 500 units of the seventh and earlier issues, 1 000 units of the eighth issue, and so forth. The redemption value of the certificate is calculated as follows. They call it a repayment value and it is equal to the purchase price times the ratio which the index figure applicable to the month of repayment bears to the index figure applicable to the month of purchase. Therefore there is no relation to the movement in interest rates, among other things, in determining capital value.

In South Africa, in contrast to the above position, a taxpayer may, even after the reduction in respect of subscription shares has been taken into account, have investments of almost up to R135 000, yielding R9 225 per annum tax free interest and dividends. Therefore, unlike the position with the aged in the United Kingdom, here a person must build up an investment portfolio during his lifetime which could ensure him of a substantial tax-free income in his later life when he really needs it. The various tax concessions, however, are of assistance to investors in general. It is obvious when one bears in mind that to produce the same net yield at the same rate of interest, should the interest be taxable, and investor will have to invest R145 600. I am not saying that the idea of a so-called index-linked bond has no value at all, but what I am saying is that I think that our system in South Africa, as compared with the British, is superior. Therefore I cannot see the reason why we should change our approach to these matters in favour of that type of system. One of the troubles with regard to an index-linked bond or any kind of index-finked number, is that one is in fact really conceding that inflation goes on forever. I think that that also creates a very doubtful psychological state of mind.

I won’t go beyond that as far as the hon. member for Yeoville is concerned, because I want to be short.

*The hon. member for Wynberg said, inter alia, that African States would not co-operate with South Africa.

I said “formally”.

But what does “formally” mean? The hon. member should really do his homework. The hon. member would do well to ascertain what is in fact going on between South Africa and several Black African countries. It is a fine story, and that story will be told one day. Then the hon. member for Wynberg will realize that he must be a little more careful before he makes this kind of statement. What is the aim of such a statement? Surely that is not right.

I was referring to the constellation of States.

That is in total disregard of the facts; it is an absolute misjudgment of the situation. The hon. member should really be more careful.

†I listened to the hon. member for Mooi River with interest. He raised some interesting points. He stressed the importance of a free enterprise economy, the profit motive, the giving of opportunities to people to improve their positions, etc. He also stressed the importance of allowing proper incentives to the achievers, the innovators. He then went on to say that he thought we should look very critically at tax-free investments. In fact, he thought we should abolish tax-free investments because that would mean, he said, reducing the marginal rates of tax further. That is a possibility, but I think that what we want to remember is that these tax-free investments have really been devised as an inducement to people to save on a regular basis, not so much the wealthy person who suddenly comes with a very big amount and buys up, as they have done, subscription shares to the value of R150 000 in one go. It is really the systematic putting aside of part of one’s income every month or every year and using a tax-free investment as an inducement. It is, however, something we can look at more closely. I am not saying that it may not have some merit. We have to be careful that we do not weaken the inducement to save on the part of, let us say, the ordinary man in society. That was the motive behind the tax-free investments when they were first devised. Then I think the hon. member supported the principle of taxing fringe benefits as a method to eliminate some of the worse anomalies that have arisen in the system over the years. We can no doubt come back to that some other time. However, on this question of tax-free investments, I will ask the Treasury to look closely at it again, and if necessary we can also refer it to the Standing Commission on Tax Policy. It is closely tied up with that.

I do not know what came over the hon. member for East London North today. He made such a negative speech that one wondered what he was really trying to achieve. He tried to deal with the report of the Select Committee which has not been dealt with by the House. Nor has the evidence yet been made available. He attacked the hon. member for Innesdal on what, to me, seemed no proof at all. What proof has he got? He was speculating.

It is in the evidence.

No, according to his own speech he was simply speculating, and I could not help thinking, as I listened to him making what I thought was a completely unjustified attack on a fellow hon. member of this House in very poor taste, that this was muck-raking of the worst kind, [Interjections.]

Do you approve of the principle involved?

That is the only word I can use for what he said. [Interjections.]

*I think the hon. member for Malmesbury did a great deal of good when he replied to these unfounded allegations, and I think that the Hon. member for East London North ought either to withdraw those allegations or to prove them—something he has not done.

†The hon. member for East London North then came under fire from the NRP for not following the hon. member for Simonstown who said that he would resign his seat. We will see how he progresses in the future. [Interjections.]

*There were a number of very interesting and constructive contributions from this side of the House. I have already said that I am not going to speak at length and I hope that hon. members on this side of the House will not take it amiss of me if, in consequence, I do not deal with their speeches in detail.

To conclude, there are a few things I want to say about how I see the situation as a whole at this juncture.

†When I listen to hon. members of the official Opposition in particular I sometimes have to pinch myself to realize that they are actually talking about South Africa. They seem to live in a completely different world. The best example of that today was the hon. member for Bryanston, who thinks that if he gets hysterical and shouts he is making some kind of point. Meanwhile he has completely missed the whole issue. What have we got in this country today? We have got an economy which is the envy of the world today. It is just so. This country’s economy is burgeoning, and I can only be grateful. Maybe good fortune is also involved, but maybe there is also just a little good management on the part of the Government. This then is the position whereas the rest of the world, the world economy as they say, is in great difficulty today. We are in a position of strength. Our external accounts have never been stronger, our growth rate is increasing, and we are, as far as unemployment is concerned, improving by leaps and bounds.

It is true that we have an unacceptably high inflation rate. I concede that immediately, as I have done for some time. However, I do not think anybody can accuse the Government of not taking the steps which a Government can be expected to take to endeavour to control the inflation rate. It is a very serious world phenomenon today. One only has to look at the position in other countries. In America the inflation rate is almost 20% and in Great Britain almost 20% while in several other countries it is in the category of 14%, 15% or 16%. It is a very serious matter indeed. At this moment I cannot go fully into these matters. My own feeling is that the greatest blunder that was committed in this field was committed when in 1971 the Americans made the dollar inconvertible into gold. They closed the gold window, as they say, and ever since the dollar has been in great trouble and ever since then inflation has become worse and worse. Maybe we can discuss some of those things again at some other time. We have had many opportunities to discuss financial and economic affairs and policies in this House during this session and maybe we can also do so ahead.

However, I do want to express my own tremendous disappointment at the attitude of the official Opposition to the constitutional developments taking place in this country today as a result of the initiative of the hon. the Prime Minister. How any party which calls itself responsible can conceivably say that they will not co-operate in order to make the President’s Council a success, is absolutely and completely beyond me. That is the party which tells the world that we must consult and consult and consult.

Do you want us to help you fly a leaden balloon?

The hon. the Prime Minister and the commission which has been appointed have come up with this scheme to give effect, as never before, to proper consultation to obtain the advice of leading South Africans of all races. The Blacks, as hon. members perfectly know, will also be consulted. But the official Opposition are not prepared to go along with it and they have not been able to give the country a satisfactory answer as to why they do not want to go along with it.

Why do you exclude the Blacks?

However, their attitude does not matter. I take the liberty to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that however eloquently he has talked on this issue, he has not given this country any kind of sensible reason why his party will not go along with this. It simply is not there. The people of this country have noticed it. I think that if ever that party has suffered a reverse, it has suffered it on this issue.

Why are you so worried about it?

No, I am not worried about it. I think that hon. member should be worried about it. I am expressing my disappointment, not my worry. I am disappointed that as a South African he will not go along with this. I am expressing my deep disappointment about it, not my worry, because let me assure the hon. member for Musgrave that whatever his attitude may be, we are going ahead with it. We will increasingly go ahead with the creation of these instruments for proper consultation and we will increasingly devise methods to present to the country a constitution which really conforms to all the very considerable requirements with which a constitution for South Africa will have to comply today. That is a great challenge.

Are you referring to the de jure or the de facto Leader of the Opposition?

That is quite an interesting question and one which might take some time to clarify. However, I take the point the hon. member for Durban Point has made. I think that this debate has again shown to the people of South Africa the absolute hollowness and superficiality of the official Opposition when it comes to these great constitutional issues which should enjoy the active participation and support of every South African this day. We are not being dogmatic. We are not thrusting things on anybody. We are trying to create reasonable, workable instruments with which we can devise something which is really worthwhile and which will really help to take this country to the great future which awaits it.

*As I stand here this evening, I am full of confidence, not only in the economy of South Africa, not only that the standard of living of all our people will continue to rise and that prosperity is awaiting us, but also that the hon. the Prime Minister and this party will find a way to design a constitution which will be of the utmost value for this country. I want to conclude by expressing my full confidence in this connection.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As has become customary with a Bill of such a technical nature and for which only a limited debating time is allowed, a draft Bill and comprehensive explanatory memorandum were once again made available to hon. members some 10 days ago.

The matters dealt with in this Bill can be classified into three main categories, namely those relating to—

1. (a) amendments flowing from the budget proposals—some of which are part of the tax reform programme and others which are in the nature of tax concessions given for various reasons;
2. (b) measures for plugging certain tax avoidance loopholes; and
3. (c) measures aimed at improving our tax structure generally, of which some are housekeeping measures in the administration of the Income Tax Act.

As the explanatory memorandum deals very fully with all the matters contained in the Bill, I will not go into details, but will confine my speech to highlighting certain features and to giving more background to the proposals.

The most important matter flowing from the budget for the man in the street is the tax relief that could, by good management and, to some extent, by good fortune, be brought about this year. I do not think that anyone will contradict me if I say that the tax relief granted to individual taxpayers this year is the biggest ever in the history of taxation in South Africa, especially if the loan levy—which also affects the amount of take-home pay—is taken into account. The relief given this year must not be seen in isolation, but must, together with that given in 1979, and also in 1978, be viewed as a package in our continuing effort towards tax reform. Although the importance of the taxes yielded through the increased gold price is not minimized in weighing up the contributory factors that led to the relief, one must not lose sight of the fact that the tax rates structure is not a short-term measure and any worthwhile changes must be founded on more enduring sources of revenue than a gold price which is subject to fluctuations over which one can exercise very little, if any, control. The more enduring and dependable revenue source on which to base future tax planning is the general sales tax, which has supplied just that extra fiscal muscle required.

The tax relief has had the effect of not only ameliorating the serious so-called “fiscal drag”, but there are distinct indications that the turning point has been reached in the effect of the new tax rates in relation to real after-tax incomes. A graph compiled by an economist of a well-known bank shows that both as regards the average and above average earnings the fines have not only levelled out, but have also started moving upward about as strongly as they earlier moved downward.

Two important structural changes are being brought about. The first involves the tax rates for individuals, as dealt with in clause 1 and schedule 1 of the Bill. Not only has the separate rate table for unmarried persons been abolished, but the structure of the rate has been changed. Due to the introduction of a system of rebates, i.e. a deduction of fixed amounts from tax, as contained in clause 5, the rates are now based on taxable income and not on taxable amount, i.e. taxable income minus abatements or personal allowances. The lowest marginal tax rate of 8% now covers taxable income up to R6 000. Thereafter the marginal rate progresses more evenly until it reaches a maximum of 50% applicable to that portion of taxable income which exceed R40 000. In the case of an unmarried person the same rate is applied, except that a surcharge of 20% is added to the tax calculated after deducting the rebates from the gross tax. The maximum marginal rate of 50%, in the case of single taxpayers, is applicable to that portion of taxable income that exceeds R28 000.

The second structural change is the return to a system of tax rebates. This feature was fully discussed during the budget debate, and I do not intend covering the same ground now, except to say that, because of one of the disadvantages of the system of abatements, namely that it was not neutral and gave varying relief as income increased and as the abatements diminished, it was found that at certain income levels persons with six and more children either received very little benefit from the relief measure introduced, and in some cases could even pay more tax than for the 1980 tax year.

The hon. member for Florida drew attention to this matter in the course of the budget debate and pleaded that relief be given. Hon. members will understand that in a comprehensive rate adjustment such as we have had, coupled with a structural change in the rebate/abatement sector, where there was a return to neutral rebates, it was obvious that there would be certain areas where the uneven progression which previously existed under a system of diminishing abatements, would clash with a smoother tax curve. The number of taxpayers affected was relatively small, and to single them out would have made the tax computation unnecessarily complicated. On the other hand, it would have been rather unfortunate if, amid all the rejoicing, some had to pay more tax than before. It was therefore decided to grant interim relief in the form of an additional rebate of R50 for each of the sixth and subsequent children qualifying for rebate. This is dealt with in clause 5, in the proviso (aa) to the new section 6(3)(a). This relief measure will entail a sacrifice of tax of approximately R300 000. It will not, however, affect the tax yield for the 1980-’81 financial year as the adjustments will only be reflected in assessments which will be issued after the close of the financial year.

A further matter of general interest in the field of rebates and personal deductions is the separation of the insurance premiums from medical and dental expenditure. In the past these two personal expenditure items were lumped together and treated as an abatement which diminished as income increased. I dealt with this separation in my budget speech and also mentioned that the maximum deduction for actual medical expenses would be R1 000 in respect of married persons under 60 years of age and R2 000 for those above 60 years of age, while the maximum deduction for unmarried persons would be R750 and R1 500 respectively. It has also been decided to extend the items qualifying for inclusion as medical expenses to cover payments made to registered optometrists, homeopaths, naturopaths, osteopaths, herbalists, physiotherapists, chiropractors and orthoptists.

A final matter in regard to the reduced personal income tax payable for the 1981 tax year to which I want to refer, is the tax deduction tables for employees which come into operation as from 1 July 1980. As a result of the substantial relief given, the bringing into operation of a tax deduction table from 1 July, without taking into account the taxes overdeducted for the period 1 March to 30 June 1980, would have resulted in substantial adjustments having to be made on the issue of the assessments for the 1981 tax year. This would have resulted in a serious distortion of the net tax yield during the 1981-’82 financial year. To overcome this, and due to the buoyancy of tax revenues during the 1980-’81 financial year, it was decided to make an adjustment to the deductions for the next eight months to bring the aggregate deductions for the full year closer to the actual liability for that year. Depending on the circumstances early next year, it may be necessary to bring out revised deduction tables as from 1 March 1981 to remove the adjustment made to the 1 July 1980 tables. I am mentioning this well in advance so that the Government cannot be accused of increasing tax rebates without parliamentary sanction when revised deduction tables are brought out. This happened in the past when a similar adjustment was made some years ago. There are a few other matters flowing from the budget such as employees’ housing (clause 8), investment allowances (clauses 9 and 10), working married women’s increased deduction (clause 15) and the deduction for the physically disabled (clause 17), but these are adequately dealt with in the explanatory memorandum and I shall therefore not comment further. The second major item dealt with in the Bill is:

Measures for plugging loopholes

A new phrase has appeared in tax parlance, namely, “tax avoision”, which indicates the moral blurring of the legal distinction between avoidance and evasion. Tax avoidance, which is described as “efforts within the law to minimize tax payments”, has also been defined as “the re-arranging of one’s affairs in an artificial manner … for reasons only of avoiding tax”. One of the more prevalent forms of tax avoidance is a scheme of dividend-stripping by shareholders in a private company. Clause 6 attempts to counteract one of the facets of dividend-stripping, but investigations are continuing into ways and means of more effectively countering the tax consequences of dividend-stripping. If a solution is found, I shall have no hesitation in asking Parliament to approve further measures, if need be retroactively, for combating this form of tax avoidance. It must be remembered that the taxation of the income of a company has two legs to it, namely, the direct tax on the company’s profit and thereafter the taxing of the dividends declared by such company in the hands of shareholders who are natural persons. In the case of a private company where there is a close fink between the shareholder and the company a decision of the company to declare or not to declare a dividend is in fact a decision of the shareholder in whose hands the dividends are to be taxed. Where a shareholder would therefore like to secure for himself the benefit of a dividend distribution without incurring the liability for tax on such dividend receipts, he can resort to the device of taking a loan from the company and continue to do so whenever there are profits available for distribution without ever incurring a liability for tax on receipts which he can freely use as if they were in fact income which accrued to him. The provisions of clause 6 are in fact designed to place a loan from a private company and a dividend distribution by a private company on an even footing. A shareholder can escape the effect of what is envisaged by clause 6, where he wishes to avail himself of the profits of his company, by the simple device of declaring a dividend rather than by drawing off such profit in the form of a loan. The argument that the company resorts to the granting of loans rather than to the declaration of dividends as it does not want to divest itself completely of the funds but ensure that they can be recalled when needed, does not hold water in the case of the private company/ shareholder relationship.

I want to emphasize that it is only in the case where the company has profits and reserves capable of distribution at its disposal and prefers to pass on such profits to shareholders by means of loans rather than dividends, that the provisions of clause 6 will come into operation to the extent that the shareholder to whom the loan is paid could be deemed to have received an equivalent amount as a dividend. An exclusion is provided where the Commissioner is satisfied that the loan was an ordinary commercial transaction in the normal course of the company’s business.

*Another aspect of tax evasion, which is also being dealt with in the Bill, is the use of subscription shares as an investment for earning tax-free income, rather than a facility which was aimed at encouraging people —especially the person of smaller means— to build up capital for themselves by way of regular, disciplined monthly savings, which they could invest and on which they could earn an income. The investment was consequently formulated in such a way that after a fixed period in which the investor could not make use of any of the interest earned by his money, and it was added to his capital, the built-up capital and accumulated interest became available for utilization by the saver as he saw fit. From this schemes were gradually developed for the re-investment of the funds which became available in this way, and so rotating, or so-called “snowball” schemes developed. I wish to emphasize that these schemes are commendable if they are operated in the spirit in which this kind of saving was intended, namely the building up of capital through regular savings. However, when they are deliberately aimed at investing already existing capital sums in such a way that they provide the investor with a not inconsiderable tax-free income, it is most certainly time to see whether the granting of the full tax exemption is still justified. In the course of my budget speech I announced that the present maximum tax-free investment of R150 000 per person, could under the “snowball” scheme provide a married couple, where both husband and wife had an investment of R150 000, with a tax-free income of R21 000 per annum. Even an investment of R150 000 in aggregate will provide at least R10 500 per annum tax free, and hon. members will agree with me that this generous exemption cannot be justified if it is borne in mind that, firstly, revenue which is obtained by exertion or by entrepreneurial skill is taxed in full, and that as far as investment income is concerned, the sum total of the maximum of all other tax-free investments amounts to only R94 714, as against this single tax-free investment of R300 000 per married couple. Not only will the phasing out be accompanied by as little disruption as possible of a person’s investment choices, but a person will, even if he were to retain his investment in building society subscription shares, still earn a good return on it after tax, since the dividends which are not entirely exempted will, as with all other dividends, be partially exempted.

The phasing-out programme will take place as follows—

Any dividends on the excess over the exempted amounts will, as with all other dividends, be partially taxable. It has been alleged that the withdrawal of the exemption will have such a detrimental effect on those who made provision for their old age through investment in subscription shares that it would force them to lower their standard of living. This is not the case at all, as will be apparent from the following. Suppose the dividends from an investment of R150 000 in subscription shares under a rotating scheme is the only income which a person over the age of 60 years will have after his retirement, and the interest rate at which the dividend is calculated is 7%. He will therefore receive a gross dividend of R10 500, of which the dividends on R50 000 are exempted, i.e. R3 500, and this consequently leaves him with an income of R7 000, of which the taxable portion is two-thirds, in terms of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, i.e. R4 667. The tax on R4 667 at the proposed scales for 1981 for a person over the age of 60 years will amount to R53, or 0,5% of the gross return on the investment. Even if he and his wife had jointly invested R300 000 and the dividends on that amount were their only source of income, the tax on the gross dividend of R21 000, after deduction of the exempted amounts, would amount to R933, or 4,7%.

I am convinced that hon. members will agree with me that such a tax will not lead to the standard of living of the pensioner having to be lowered to any appreciable extent.

I come now to the category of provisions which are aimed at improving the tax structure in general, or what could be described as housekeeping measures, of which the following are the most important:

Clauses 9 and 10 extend the investment allowances in respect of machinery and factory buildings, respectively, for a further year while, as I announced in my Budget Speech, the Standing Commission on Taxation Policy is investigating the entire question of fiscal incentive measures.

Clause 13 creates machinery by means of which I am able to extend the concession in regard to donations to educational institutions other than universities and colleges while Parliament is not in session, and that such extension will elapse unless it is ratified during an ensuing session by Parliament. The reason for this is that an inquiry along these lines which is at present in progress and which I mentioned in my Budget Speech, could not be finalized during the session by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue owing to pressure of work and, should it be possible to find a solution to the administrative problems and to decide on such an extension, it will be desirable to introduce it as soon as possible instead of waiting for a statutory amendment during the next parliamentary session. The question of training is becoming more urgent by the day, and an unnecessary waste of time is undesirable.

Another important amendment is the one contained in clause 18, which inserts a new provision, section 24C, in the principal Act in regard to the determination of the taxable income in respect of contracts which extend over more than one year.

As the Act reads at present the total amount which may be received by or which may accrue to a person, which also includes a company, is his “gross income” which forms the basis on which his taxable income is ultimately calculated. An advance payment on a contract for goods or services rendered over a period which extends over more than one tax year will consequently be subject to tax in the year of receipt while the expenditure connected with the contract could occur in the next year and could not then be referred back to the first year. This is not only a tax problem, but also an accounting problem and is at present receiving attention from the S.A. Institute of Chartered Accountants. This procedure brought about a distortion in the taxable income in that the total results of a contract were not taken into consideration, but each year’s receipts and payments were dealt with separately. This amendment seeks to distribute the advance payment by way of a reserve so that it may be set-off closer to the time at which the expenditure is incurred.

It will be observed that clause 19(1)(d) of the Bill inserts a new subsection in section 27 of the principal Act, which deals with the amalgamation of two or more agricultural co-operatives. In terms of section 94 of the Co-operative Societies Act the amalgamation of co-operatives is a simple procedure. The existing co-operatives cease to exist and out of their ashes a new co-operative arises which takes over all the assets and liabilities of the previous co-operatives. From an administrative point of view this arrangement is attractive, but for the purposes of income tax it entails serious disadvantages for the co-operatives. Any assessed losses which the former co-operatives may have had, dies with them, and in future the new co-operative may not claim any allowance in respect of amounts which were owing to the former co-operatives and which subsequently became irrecoverable. Other problems also exist in connection with assets on which wear and tear and other allowances are deductible. The proposed amendment is aimed at eliminating these disadvantages, and will consequently make the amalgamation of certain co-operatives, which is deemed desirable for economic reasons, possible. The amendment comes into operation on 1 April 1977, the date on which co-operatives became liable to tax in terms of the new rules. The question may well be asked why this provision has not also been extended to ordinary companies. The simple answer to that is that companies registered in terms of the Companies Act are subject to other rules, and that upon amalgamation or take-over, the existence of all the companies concerned is not summarily terminated. It is consequently within the means of the companies to arrange their affairs in such a way that they are not detrimentally affected by the provisions of the Income Tax Act.

The technical background to the amendment introduced by clause 20 is set out in the explanatory memorandum. The practical effect of the amendment will be that where a new mining complex is commenced which, although it is essentially a new deep level gold mine, cannot be classified as such but only as any other deep level gold mine, it will in future be possible to calculate the capital allowance at the 10% rate and not only at the 5% rate. In other words, the substance and not the form is being taken into consideration.

In terms of paragraph 5 of the first schedule to the principal Act livestock which is purchased for breeding purposes can be brought into account at cost if the purchase prices exceed certain amounts. The gradual erosion of the value of money has entailed that farmers had to assess larger numbers of purchased breeding stock at cost every year, instead of bringing them into account at their chosen values. This gave rise to an entirely artificial situation in which a farmer could find that a large portion of his herd had to be valued at cost, something which was never the intention. The proposed amendment contained in clause 23 raises the qualifying amounts by approximately 50%, which ought to remedy the position. A similar adjustment was made in 1976.

This covers the more important amendments introduced by this Bill, and I trust that hon. members will have found it easier, after my explanations, combined with the information which appears in the explanatory memorandum, to understand a technical Act of this nature.

Mr. Speaker, strangely enough, I always look forward to a debate on the Income Tax Bill, because it gives one an opportunity of talking about things which actually are very important in relation to the ordinary things in life, without getting involved in political disputes. I want to discuss the Bill in that fight again tonight, even though I must tell the hon. the Minister that I do not really enjoy the midnight scene as far as income tax debates are concerned. We really should have a better time to discuss so important a matter. I think we should arrange the affairs of this House in such a manner that we should not discuss so important a measure at an hour such as this.

We are wide awake.

Some of us are. If one looks around this House, however, and sees that only one quarter of the hon. members are present, it does not exactly demonstrate a great deal of enthusiasm for this debate on the part of at least three quarters of the House.

Let me start off by saying that, firstly as far as the explanatory memorandum is concerned, the practice is one for which we again want to thank the hon. the Minister for the co-operation that one receives from the department. As the hon. the Minister knows, we had a pretty rough time here in regard to the Income Tax Bill and its drafting and its withholding in the final analysis because certain things had happened which perhaps we should not refer to. I think, however, that that was not very fair on us. We shall, however, forgive the hon. the Minister this year and hope that he does not do it again next year. I should like to make one appeal to the hon. the Minister with regard to the fringe benefit provisions. We shall not debate that tonight, but I believe that they are now in such a form that they should again be published for general information. I think it is desirable that that should be done so that between now and the enacting of the legislation there should be every opportunity for everybody to see them in their present form, particularly because they have been circulated to a variety of institutions and organizations. I believe that the community as a whole should see these in their present form and be able to offer their comments because it is one thing letting the organizations see them in order to make their comments, but it is another thing to let the general public see them, once again in something that is approaching closer to what will probably be the final form. I would like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to do that.

I have already referred, in another debate, to the Commissioner in his new capacity, but what is fascinating—and here again we see it in clause 6 of the Bill—is that there is a continuous battle of brains between the tax lawyers on the one hand and the tax accountants and the office of the Commissioner on the other hand in regard to the game of how one can avoid paying tax. I am not very happy with the new word the hon. the Minister quoted because to me there is only black and white in tax; there is no grey. There is either tax avoidance or tax evasion. It is one of the two. The one is legitimate and the other not, and when one is in the grey area, one is playing with fire. I, with respect, do not like the word that was used which tends to merge those two concepts.

I do not like it either.

Well, at least we agree on something. That is already progress. So let us keep to those two terms and watch that battle of wits, which of course is weighed in favour of the Commissioner because, whenever the tax lawyers manage to find a legitimate loophole, the law comes along in order to close it. It is the game and it will go on virtually forever. As long as there is taxation; there will be lawyers who find legitimate ways of avoiding it, and those are perhaps lawyers one can take one’s hat off to. It is those who do the evasion who should really be dealt with.

This particular provision in clause 6 is, I imagine, probably not going to be the last word on this subject because we shall probably have more legislation on this in future. However, I think two things are important in respect of this. Firstly, there is some degree of confusion, which arose as a result of the tabling of the tax proposals before people saw the Bill, as to whether or not it will be legitimate to draw on existing loan accounts. On my interpretation of this clause I think it is very clear—and I hope the hon. the Minister will confirm it—that there will be no objection to drawing on a loan account which is in credit; in other words, it is only the creation of debit loan accounts which this clause is really designed to deal with. Secondly, the profits must be of a distributable nature because, if they are in non-distributable reserves, quite obviously one cannot declare a dividend in those circumstances. I think those two points are clear from the clause, but I think that the wording of the original supplementary tax proposals were of such a nature that there has been a degree of confusion about this. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will clear it up in his reply.

Then, I would like to touch on the matter of the debate between rebates and abatements. This is actually quite fascinating because, if one looks back in history, one sees that in 1914 the Income Tax Act introduced abatements and that that continued until 1941 when rebates were introduced. Then we had the Franzsen Commission which made certain recommendations as a result of which we went back to abatements in 1972; and now in 1980 we are going back to rebates. And every hon. Minister of Finance, on every occasion when a change was made, told us that it was a change for the better. They cannot all be right.

Now you are waking us up, Harry.

I am trying to keep you awake. This is a very fascinating subject which I am sure the hon. member for Verwoerdburg does not know anything about, but which he should know about. That is why I want to keep him awake.

I find this fascinating and interesting that the reasons which the hon. the Minister has advanced for rebates being good are the same reasons, in reverse, which were advanced in 1972 when we were told that abatements were good.

I now want to deal with the recommendations of the Franzsen Commission. It says the following (R.P. 24/1969, para. 85, p. 22)—

On either score we do not have any quarrel with that. In paragraph 87 it says—

In other words, in most countries there are abatements and not rebates. I quote further—

That is precisely what the hon. the Minister has done until now. He has, in fact, reduced abatements as income has increased. I quote further—

I think the hon. the Minister should actually now commit himself, if I may use this phrase. I have little doubt that in his reply he is going to say that this is the best system there is, in the same way as in 1972 exactly the opposite was said. The hon. the Minister will concede that this provision he has introduced is actually of benefit to the high income earners. Previously the high income earner received nothing, because as the abatements were reduced, he ended up with no concession at all, whereas now he is going to get something. To that extent this appears to assist the high income earner in these circumstances.

I now want to make some suggestions in regard to the proposed new section 18A(5) which deals with the question of education and training, a provision which the hon. the Minister himself described as being important only a few moments ago. I believe that one should go a little further in respect of the concessions which are given for education. We should not merely regard them as donations to institutions, but as aids for the education of a person’s own children. In particular I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that as the rebates in respect of children are, in fact, not really that substantial, if one looks at the actual effect of the rebates at the marginal rates of tax, nobody can educate or bring up a child on that. Obviously that is so. The cost of the higher education for average children who cannot get bursaries or scholarships, but who are well able to get through university, places a tremendous burden on the middle-class people of South Africa. I believe that they should be allowed to deduct, as an abatement, the expense they incur in respect of education at institutions of higher learning. I want to make that appeal to the hon. the Minister because I think it is in the interests of the country and of producing the trained personnel who are needed in the community. I think it would help the middleclass earner. For the very rich man it is not a problem. For the man who has a very bright child it is not a problem. The person who cannot afford it at all can probably under normal circumstances get some kind of bursary, but the middle-class earner is the person who is really involved here.

[Inaudible.]

What is the hon. member’s problem?

We say you are making an intelligent speech.

There is no problem, the hon. member may proceed.

It is midnight. As it is the witching hour, there must be something in the air. [Interjections.] As long as nobody turns into a pumpkin, it is all right.

Some people are just that naturally, but I exclude you.

Thank you very much. After that levity, may I now proceed? The other point I want to make to the hon. the Minister is that at the present moment there is a restriction which was imposed because there was abuse in regard to the making of donations to the National Bursary Fund, where one designates who that bursary should go to. There is little doubt that there was abuse. There is a specific case that I would like to recommend and that is in connection with the many trade associations and business associations who would like to make bursaries available for people to be trained in their particular trades. There seems to be no reason why one should not get a tax exemption in this regard. If, for example, the Optical Association decides that South Africa needs more optometrists and they believe they should make a donation to the National Bursary Fund to make bursaries available for people to be trained as optometrists, there can be no question of abuse. In fact, it will assist that particular occupation and ensure that there are enough people in that particular occupation to meet the needs of the country. Obviously they would do that when there was a demand for that kind of person in the country. That is not allowed at present, but I believe that it should be allowed. I make that appeal to the hon. the Minister and I hope he will see his way clear to dealing with it.

The next point I want to deal with concerns the question of taxing share options. Legislation was introduced in order to turn the profits on the exercise of share options into income as such. As a result of that share trust schemes were created and, as a consequence, the provisions of the Act relating to share options were avoided. In the kind of society we have, where we want to encourage private ownership in companies and to have as many people as possible in South Africa have a stake in the capitalist system not only from the point of view of being a worker but also from the point of view of owning a share of the capital, I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to cause the concept of share options to be reviewed.

The hon. the Minister will permit me to again quote an example from the United Kingdom. There they legislated share options out of existence. They made the legislation as harsh as could be. However, they have now re-introduced provisions in order to allow the worker, the individual, to get small amounts every year in respect of which he is not taxable. This means that the ordinary worker starts getting a stake in a capitalist society in that form. I believe that that is something we should encourage in South Africa. I am not asking the hon. the Minister to open the share options scheme completely so that one can get options in respect of shares where there can be hundreds of thousands of rand involved, but to open it so that the small man can obtain an option in respect of shares without having to be involved in a share trustee scheme which is normally only available to the top executives in companies. I ask the hon. the Minister to open this so that the small man can obtain, say, R2 000 or R3 000 worth of shares per annum which can be taken on the basis of not being income when that option is exercised. In that way I think the hon. the Minister would be striking a real blow for the encouragement of private enterprise and for people to have a stake in the kind of society that the hon. the Minister says he would like to see in South Africa. I ask him to look at this scheme, as it has been revised in the United Kingdom. He need not necessarily follow it exactly, because nothing needs to be slavishly followed, but he could evolve a scheme that is suitable for South Africa.

I now want to come to the question of subscription shares and the media for saving. The hon. the Minister knows that we are opposed to the concept—to his concept—of making subscription shares taxable. We still hold the view—nothing said here has changed our opinion—that people who have vested interests in this should not suddenly find themselves being adversely affected by it, that the scheme could have been modified and the abuse removed, and we still believe that the elderly people, despite what has been said in the hon. the Minister’s speech, will still suffer a degree of prejudice. We would, in fact, like to have the scheme revert to what it was. We also do not understand why subscription shares should be limited to 7½%, because the hon. the Minister’s intention is to make them taxable, except for R50 000 per taxpayer in due course. If interest rates change, as they do vary in the building society movement, it does not appear to me to be logical to freeze those shares at that level, so I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider that, but he can come along with a proposal that those shares, and the return on them, can float just as any other investment in the building societies is entitled to float.

I now want to come to an issue that I raised with the hon. the Minister in the Finance Vote, and that is the question that the tax-free investments the Government offers, those that are offered through the Post Office and the Treasury, have been kept at the existing levels for so long, with inflation ignored. That is something I cannot understand. Let us take one of the most attractive savings media, in which the public should be encouraged to save. I am referring to national savings certificates. Why has the amount remained at R15 000 for so long? Why do we not take inflation into account and allow the amount also to be increased from time to time so that the same real value of money can continue to be invested in it? The same sort of thing applies to Post Office Savings Certificates. The hon. the Minister said that one of the reasons why he had to deal with subscription shares was that if R150 000 per person could be invested, this would compete unfairly with Government investment, but the remedy is in his own hands in that his other investments should be increased in amount to keep up with inflation.

In passing I should just like to mention one further thing about index bonds. The hon. the Minister knows I cannot make a financial speech without referring to index bonds. The hon. the Minister was a little naughty tonight. He really was. What he did was to select one form of index bonds when he knows that I sent him, under cover of a letter, more than a year ago, not one form of index bonds, but two forms of index bonds that are available in the UK. There is one in terms of which one makes regular monthly payments and which does not have the characteristics to which the hon. the Minister referred. He was a little naughty, however, and he did not refer to that. He created the impression that there was only the one kind of bond and then he compared that with the tax-free investments in South Africa and was even naughtier, because he did not refer to the other tax-free investments in the UK which are similar to his tax-free investments. So really he has been very …

We shall try to think of a nice word for you, Harry.

I shall think of a nice word a little later, but he really has been very naughty at this time of night. One should not really do that in these particular circumstances.

He can no longer express himself.

No, I can, but in spite of the time of night I am trying to choose the right words.

†If I may, I should also like to touch on the question of beneficiation. I think beneficiation is something that is reasonably close to the heart of most of us. However, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the incentives which have been given for beneficiation and which are referred to in clause 11 really have the effect that they are intended to have. I believe the incentives given are not enough at the moment and I think they should also be reviewed.

I should also like to just touch on two other points. The first is medical expenses. I believe that if we were to allow a fixed amount for medical expenses, it would in fact from an administrative point of view be much easier to apply than to have to keep vouchers and prove the individual items. I do not believe that we should really be looking for individual worth. I know that the authorities normally accept the figures as they are submitted by the taxpayer, but it does involve the keeping of vouchers, the keeping of records and, if necessary, checking them and, therefore, I believe a fixed amount will be much easier. I also want to suggest that to allow in respect of insurance a deduction of only 10% of the premium with a R75 maximum is not meaningful. It is not a real incentive to save through the medium of insurance. I think the hon. the Minister should before next year look again at that situation. One last thing I should like to deal with is the …

Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker, it is only ten past twelve. One last point that I should like to deal with is the question of equalization of rates. The farmers in South Africa have enjoyed the privilege of equalization of rates for some time. I have no objection whatsoever to that. Because of the vicissitudes and problems of farming, I think it is absolutely reasonable. However, I should like to make the appeal that professional people should in their first five years of practice have the same benefit. Quite obviously, the problems in regard to professional practices are not the same as those of the farmers, but professional people sometimes are faced with the same vicissitudes which arise in farming. We have on previous occasions asked that this should be applied generally. However, if this cannot be done, consideration could at least be given to allowing this for professional people who start their practice, who start off in their profession. If it could be allowed for an initial period in their practice, I think that would be of considerable advantage and benefit and would in the long run cost the fiscus virtually nothing and would at the same time make life easier for young people who are going into a profession.

I have covered a wide variety of matters and, whereas there are matters in this legislation which, as I have indicated, we do not approve of, those we do approve of are in the vast majority and therefore we will support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville, looking at the clock a little while ago, said that he was afraid that somebody might be changed into a pumpkin. Fortunately, that did not happen, but I think he changed into Santa Claus. He asked for a number of things about which I have no desire to engage him in battle. I think this is a happy hour and I would appeal to the hon. member for Yeoville not to spoil the congenial and constructive atmosphere of this hour of the night by being too long-winded in the Committee Stage.

I fully agree with the hon. member that tax should only be black or white; tax should not be grey. In other words, tax must be determined in advance. One must be able to determine one’s tax well in advance in order to be able to do one’s planning accordingly. I believe the fact that he mentioned tax on fringe benefits—something which is on the cards for South Africa—was very appropriate. It was very appropriate, I believe, to apply his statement to Black and White and thus putting the pending fringe benefits tax into perspective. I believe that in the past, until now, fringe benefits could not be calculated exactly in advance. It used to differ from receiver to receiver in a way which depended on the negotiations between the taxpayer and the local Receiver of Revenue. I believe the onus is now on people in the private sector to bring their systems in order and into fine with the requirements of properly and honestly calculated tax.

*Since we are standing on the threshold of a new era, in which the taxation on fringe benefits will once again evoke wide-spread discussion in the private sector, it is, I believe, very important that the following statement be made, viz. that fringe benefits are normally granted to people who are prepared to work harder, people in senior positions, people who are prepared to carry a little extra responsibility. These are people who normally receive their remuneration in natura, instead of necessarily receiving it in cash. These are people at the top of the management scale in companies. Now, it is true that there are usually people at the bottom end of the scale who are also prepared to work a little harder and to accept a few more responsibilities. For example, they work overtime. They even work so-called Sunday-time. But they never have the opportunity of receiving a part of their remuneration in natura, by way of fringe benefits. They are taxed in full on the amounts they receive in cash. Of course they are able to calculate in advance what tax they are going to pay. That is why, I think, it is very logical that the private sector and others should now take cognizance with reference to the report which was circulated, of what is on its way and that everyone should now put his own house in order and understand that what is being sought with the system of a tax on fringe benefits is merely fairness and reasonableness.

I should also like to avail myself of this opportunity of thanking the hon. the Minister for his reaction to the representations I made to him, on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill, when I asked that special attention and special relief be granted to people in the income category between R14 000 and R16 000, with five or six children, people who would derive few or no benefits in terms of the tax scales announced at that time. I convey my sincere gratitude to the hon. the Minister for giving consideration to the matter and for the fact that these people, too, are going to derive a little extra satisfaction from the tax rebate they are going to receive.

I think it is also appropriate to convey our sincere gratitude to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue and his staff. If there is any person, I believe, who is never too busy to speak to one or to assist one in solving a problem, it is the Commissioner of Inland Revenue and members of his staff. I should like him to know that we on this side of the House greatly appreciate his accommodating us in this way.

My final word on taxation is the following. I believe we are taking an important step— the hon. the Minister will probably furnish the hon. member for Yeoville with proper reply on this subject—in establishing the tax structure on this basis. The most important benefit arising out of this is, I believe, that it is now a more useful policy instrument than was the case before. This is, therefore, possible now, and that is why I said earlier that it was a “happy hour”. One is not always so fortunate when discussing taxation. The Income Tax Bill under discussion is a happy event, as it represents rebates pertaining to a wider series of aspects of the Act. The benefits arising out of it are that it stimulates demand and further investment and that it will result in the further growth of our economy by way of increased employment and the creation of more employment opportunities.

I content myself with that. I gladly support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we shall support the Second Reading of this Bill. As I explained to the hon. the Minister in an earlier debate, I think the policy he has followed this year, of cutting tax rather than increasing salaries, is the right way of going about things. We shall support the Bill for that reason, because we think it is a very, very realistic way of advantaging people. [Interjections.]

There is no such word.

I like that word, because I think it is a lovely word. It means to help people by affording them advantages.

It is a non-word.

It is a convenient way of affording people advantages. In this way they are given real advantages instead of being pushed up into a higher tax bracket, which is what would have happened had their salaries been raised. As I have said earlier, it rewards incentive and as I see it, it tends to be more realistic from the point of view of what a person takes home, which I think is all-important.

There are several other matters I should like to deal with. Firstly, there is the matter of rebates. The hon. member for Yeoville has already dealt with all these things and I do not want to repeat them. But the motivation which was given for this in the White Paper was sufficient to convince me. Certainly, the fact that the people about whom I spoke earlier, viz. the achievers in our society, are going to draw an additional benefit from the fact that they now get a rebate rather than an abatement, is enough for me to say that I support the system.

We have debated the question of subscription shares before and I do not think that it is necessary to go into this matter again, except to say that I think the hon. the Minister is going to cause a considerable dislocation to a large number of people and that there is going to be a considerable amount of money which is going to be looking for a home, because when the money invested in subscription shares begins to draw tax, I think it is going to be withdrawn from the building societies. I am convinced in my own mind that it is not going to remain at the present level at which it is invested and that the hon. the Minister is going to find that people who have considerable sums of money invested in building societies are going to withdraw that money and are going to look for another home for it.

Then I should in particular like to welcome three measures which are of advantage to the farming community. Firstly, there are the advantages to co-operatives which I welcome. I must say that the one I welcome in particular is that contained in the proposed paragraph (b) of clause 19(1)(g), whereby the co-operative can now claim an investment allowance for buildings which are set up for the fattening of cattle—and that is limited to the members of such a cooperative. In our area we have a large co-operative which is busy doing this and which is actually exporting cattle live. I think this is an advantage which these people are going to appreciate very much indeed. I know that the hon. member for Heilbron wants to talk about the other question, that of cattle values, and I am not going to infringe on his territory because I know he knows a great deal about it.

I suppose the hon. member for Yeoville is unable to raise the matter in this debate, but I understood that he was going to raise the question of deductions for security purposes which has been introduced in another debate. The matter has already been canvassed, and I would support very much indeed that in the case of any security measures which have to be undertaken by firms to secure key points and by anybody else who might feel himself threatened, as farmers might in some of the more outlying areas, allowance should be made that people should be allowed to claim this sort of expenditure as a deduction from taxation.

The last point to which I wish to refer is a point the hon. member for Yeoville also raised, namely the question of people in the middle class being able to deduct amounts which are devoted to educating their children at university. I have a little difficulty with this in view of the contribution that the State already makes to the expenses of students at university. If I have the figure right, somewhere between 75% and 80% of the total expenditure at university is in fact carried by the State. The fees as such are really a very minor portion of the expenditure of carrying a student at a university.

It is a very major factor for the parents.

I realize that; it is a considerable sum of money, but with the amount that is already borne by the State, I think it might well be stretching it a little bit too far to ask that further deductions be granted from the taxes paid by people who have children at university.

With those words we should like to support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, although one usually starts the morning with much vigour, I shall not use my energy to detain the House for very long. To begin with, having examined the original draft Bill and the question relating to fringe benefits and having listened to many representations on that, I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for withdrawing the entire provision relating to fringe benefits. As the hon. member for Yeoville has said, this should be published for information. I want to suggest that the hon. the Minister considers it. Because it is such an involved matter and one which requires much study and has a lot of implications, he could perhaps consider calling a symposium by his department, so that all representatives and interested parties could attend it and their views could be exchanged in the one day, as was done some time ago in regard to the Driessen Commission for Transport. One found that very helpful to the hon. the Minister and the department, and I think that might be the case here as well.

The second point I want to raise is one also mentioned by the hon. member for Yeoville. It is something I also feel very strongly about, and I am referring to the question of subscription shares. The hon. the Minister gave a good example in his speech, and I have no quarrel with it, but he might just like to consider that it takes 36 continuous months of saving to start this fund. That means quite a sacrifice for a lot of people. Having been told that if they have subscription shares, although they only get 7% interest on them, they would also get a tax concession, some people built their total financial structure in such a way as to be geared for subscription shares. I think they feel very much let down now because of the fact that this system is being phased out. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider allowing existing schemes to remain as they are. If he wants to phase out or bring in a system with regard to evolving future funds, that is in order. One has no quarrel with that. As far as the existing one is concerned, my appeal is for him to leave it as it is. The hon. the Minister will also consider that, although building societies are flush with funds at the moment, there were times in the past when they were not so flush and there will also be times in the future when they will not be so flush, when the money will not be available to people who apply for building loans. Queues of young people wishing to start homes will again be formed, and months may pass before they can get sufficient funds to build their homes or to take occupation and transfer. This is, therefore, a means of not only providing a tax saving device to the members themselves, but also of bringing funds into the building societies so that they can lend to other people as well. I think that in those circumstances the hon. the Minister should seriously consider allowing this to remain as it is.

The third point that I wish to raise has a bearing on section 21quat of the Act. I have an amendment which is printed in my name on the Order Paper and which the hon. the Minister may have noticed. I think there might be a difficulty there, because I framed it originally when I had in mind that subsection (1), as printed in the original Bill, would be repeated, but in this Bill, subsection (1) does not appear, but only subsection (2). The main provision for the exemption is in subsection (1), so I have an amendment on the Order Paper which might have difficulty in mustering with legal minds in so far as validity is concerned. However, the heart and the spirit is there, and I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister. In welcoming the provision for an increase from R600 to R1 200, the position very simply, is in terms of section 21quat, that if one has a physically handicapped husband or wife, one can get tax exemption of R1 200. A couple may have a child, however, who is physically handicapped, and there is no tax reduction with regard to such a child or stepchild. I actually know about a case of a couple with twin children, both handicapped, who cost their parents an enormous amount of money. I feel that the hon. the Minister would not lose much in the way of taxation if he were to consider such an exemption. There cannot be many people involved. The hon. the Minister must understand, however, that where a couple has physically handicapped children, they should at least receive the same benefit for their children as exists for a handicapped husband or wife. I do not think that is unreasonable, and although the amendment I have placed on the Order Paper may not be accepted in the Committee Stage, I urge the hon. the Minister to bring about an amendment to section 21quat of the Act as soon as possible to include children or stepchildren. My last appeal to the hon. the Minister—I am not going to have an argument with him tonight about it—deals with donations in regard to works of art, artefacts, museums, art galleries and libraries. The hon. the Minister knows that I feel very strongly about this, because we have corresponded on this issue. I have had representations from museum associations who feel that it would assist them, because their budgets are very tight. Donations from institutions are very small. If we want to advance the cultural heritage of this city, I appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider this. He will not be opening the door indiscriminately. We already have a situation where it can be given for education. There are national study loans and bursaries. So, in a way, the door is already open. Therefore, I do not think that it would be very difficult to extend it to art galleries, museums and libraries, and that is my appeal.

Mr. Speaker, I want to spend just a moment or two on a very familiar subject, viz. separate taxation for married women. I want to say right away that the reduction of the marginal rate is of course a great help. I think one must admit that immediately and it ought to entice some women to return to their professions, and so contribute towards the GNP. Raising the level at which super tax starts to R4 000 is also a help. Increasing the deductible amount from R900 to R1 200 is not, I think, going to impress anybody at all. That is a minor concession and I do not expect to hear great hurrahs coming from the working women.

I had hoped that the hon. the Minister would take another step—short of separate taxation, to which I shall come in a moment—which he did say last year that he would investigate, viz. to widen the tax bracket, but he has not done that. It still goes up in jumps of R1 000 until one gets to, I think, R16 000 and then it is a R2 000 jump until the maximum figure of R40 000 is reached. Then, of course, it is a 50% flat rate thereafter. I think that that could have been considered and it would have been very helpful, obviously not at the very high levels but at the medium-income levels. There has not yet been any real in-depth survey made to discover exactly what it is that the fiscus is likely to lose if separate taxation is introduced in South Africa and I think the time has come for this to be done, more particularly as we have this obvious bottleneck in the skilled professions in South Africa which I believe is a hindrance to our growth rate. It would be a good thing if the hon. the Minister would tell us whether he would consider introducing such a proper survey to try to estimate how many married women, who are well trained, will not work because it is simply not worth their while at the present stage. How many of those women would be drawn back to the labour or the professional field, would contribute their skills to the GNP in South Africa and thereby help to increase the amount of money coming into the hon. the Minister’s coffers. I know that a departmental survey has been made, but it has not been an in-depth inquiry and I think the hon. the Minister will agree with that. Certainly, many of the professional women, e.g. the medical and business women, have submitted memoranda to the hon. the Minister to try and persuade him to consider a proper survey with the object, obviously, of introducing a separate taxation system.

The other point I would like to make is that it is really very humiliating to women to find that, while they have to reveal their earnings, their husbands may very often— this is true in a number of cases anyway—be earning less than their wives, but they do not have to reveal anything as to what their income is. Women find it very humiliating not to have a separate tax identity in this day and age in South Africa. I want to put those proposals to the hon. the Minister at this late hour, hoping that at least we can possibly get him to reconsider the situation for next year.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hour is not too late for me to make a special appeal to the hon. the Minister on behalf of a very impoverished and, I think, neglected institution of great importance in South Africa. I am referring to the S.A. National Gallery. The opportunity to refer to this is given to me by the proposed section 18A(5)(a), which provides—

That is contained in clause 13. The fact is that the S.A. National Gallery houses a very important patrimony of our nation. Apart from enjoying, as any national gallery does, a great deal of prestige, it is also a most important educational institution, because it sets the main artistic standards by which the art of a nation may be judged. If one compares the national galleries of any nation, one finds that those which carry the highest prestige, are those which contain a representative selection of the best works of art of every era including contemporary trends. For purposes of adult education and to promote high standards of art in the country, there should be a point of reference where people can go in order to further art by comparison and by cross-fertilization with the most important artistic works in the country.

I should like to refer briefly to the position of the S.A. National Gallery. The fact is that the S.A. National Gallery shares in the subsidy of R511 000 granted by the Government to all national galleries and museums in the country. Of this sum, the S.A. National Gallery receives R328 000 of which 78% is spent on salaries, maintenance, upkeep and organization, leaving the princely sum of R30 000 per year for the acquisition of major works from other countries or in South Africa itself. Anybody who has any idea of the value and cost of important works of art today, will realize that R30 000 goes absolutely nowhere. If one compares it—although it is not an entirely fair comparison—with the National Gallery of Canada, one sees that the National Gallery of Canada receives a total of $6 400 000 per year while the S.A. National Gallery receives a sum which is roughly l/20th of that amount.

What is the position of the S.A. National Gallery? I want to refer to a semi-official document which has been prepared by the S.A. National Gallery. I quote—

I think this argument speaks for itself. The point is that most national galleries, which are prestige points for a nation and a high point for exhibiting the quality of art and civilization in a nation, are funded or assisted from three sources. The first source is Government subsidies, the second is donations by the public from deceased estates and the third is donations inter vivos by people who are alive and receive some tax relief by making these donations.

As regards the first source it will be argued on another occasion that there is a strong case for greater subsidy by the fiscus to an important institution like South Africa’s only national gallery.

Provision is made in section 4 of the Estate Duties Act for bequests from deceased estates to national galleries to be exempt from taxation, in other words to be excluded from the valuation of the estate if bequests or loans—it refers particularly to loans—are made by notarial deed for a period of not less than 50 years. Any South African who wishes to leave works of art to a national gallery may do so by notarial deed for 50 years and exempt that part of his estate from estate duty.

The one we are particularly referring to this evening is the discretion we are giving to the hon. the Minister in this Bill to exempt those who make donations to educational institutions, other than universities or colleges which are already taken care of, such as the National Art Gallery or museums or collections. The amount of loss involved to the fiscus will obviously not be very great, but the amount of advantage to the national gallery could be very great indeed, because it would clearly be attractive to persons who might wish to make some kind of benefaction of this kind if they could enjoy the kind of tax exemption for which the hon. the Minister has made provision in clause 13 of the Bill before the House. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to have regard to the very high educational value and the very great importance of maintaining this prestige factor in our cultural life and to apply his mind, within the discretion he is taking upon himself, and will be granted this evening, to provide assistance along the lines I have indicated.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that hon. members on this side of the House are, as usual, wide awake at this time of the morning. [Interjections.] There is a matter I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister in respect of clause 23 which is concerned with farmers’ taxable income derived from farming. I want to refer in particular to purchased breeding stock. As hon. members know, ordinary livestock which is purchased at a lower price is calculated at ordinary standard values for income tax purposes. However, livestock which is purchased above a certain price fall into the category of purchased breeding stock. Clause 23 now stipulates that the minimum amounts at which the livestock is purchased, are now being increased. We are very grateful for this concession, but I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister that in view of the present circumstances it would, in my opinion, be far better to do away with this item on purchased breeding stock. We have already done this to a certain extent in the case of implements. My reason for this request is briefly as follows: When we have to purchase breeding stock, we are principally interested in the quality of the livestock being purchased. It is in the interests of farming as well as in the interests of South Africa that our breeding stock should be of the highest possible quality, for the better the quality of livestock being used, the higher the production per unit. When, according to the present system, one then has to pay 25% of the cost incurred in purchasing the cattle every year over a period of four years, one obtains an exemption of 25% of what one has spent every year. This means that because 25% of this amount is taxable in that specific year, the farmer is unable to put sufficient money aside to purchase the best quality livestock. The result is that he has to purchase livestock that are not really suited to his breeding policy. In the second place, the minimum prices we now have here, are in actual fact not much higher than the ordinary daily market value of the livestock. It is virtually impossible to obtain a worthwhile stud bull for R1 000 today. I do not want to go into details but if the price paid for a pig is higher than R115, it has to be placed on this purchased breeding stock list and then a 25% tax has to be paid every year. I can assure hon. members that the market value of the meat of any large pig is very easily R150. Consequently we are in reality making very little provision here for what is happening in practice. If any of these animals die, they are written off for tax purposes in any event, and if one were to sell any of these animals at a profit, one pays tax on the transaction in any event. That is why I say that the State will not lose much if it merely makes use of the normal system of taxation. I think it will definitely be in the interests of the farmers to do so, and I am sure it will be in the general interests of the country.

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how wide awake the House still is. I have not looked at my watch for a long time, but I see now that the time is marching on towards one o’clock. I thought it was about eleven o’clock.

You have three minutes to reply.

The later it gets, the merrier some people get and the more they talk. I shall, however, confine myself to the various ideas that were raised and be as brief as possible. I should like to start with the hon. member for Yeoville.

†He asked that the cost of educating a child at university should be tax deductible. As the hon. member for Mooi River pointed out, one has some difficulty here because about 80% of the cost of running universities is already borne by the State. Bursaries, where needed, are available on a generous scale too. If parents are not all that well to do, the tax saving would probably be small. On the other hand the wealthy would receive tax relief which they really do not need. I am not saying that there is not merit in the suggestion, but obviously one needs time to study most of the suggestions that have been made. One also needs time for discussing them with the head of the department, and in some cases I suggest also perhaps further study by the Standing Committee on Tax Policy. I am giving my first reaction to this. There may be some difficulty because of the very considerable assistance the State is already rendering, first of all directly through the contributions to the cost of running universities and, secondly, by way of bursaries and so on.

Mention was also made of donations to study loans and bursary funds. I do not know whether I have completely understood the hon. member for Yeoville. Was he possibly referring to what I would call conditional donations, for instance. A donating on condition that B’s child gets a specific bursary?

No. Only from organizations. Not from private people.

Well, that is something that would be an extension of the existing systems; so I should like a little time to look at that further.

This brings me to the question of the equalization of rates. The hon. member asked that this should also be granted in professional practice, at least for a certain period of time, up to five years I think he said. Of course, this problem goes very wide. You have the case of authors, entertainers, painters, artists and I dare say even boxers may be involved who would also claim, I suppose, that they suffer disadvantages. Obviously, we would have to look at the full implications, and therefore I cannot immediately decide whether it can be accepted.

The question of rebates and abatements is an interesting one. I must say that I am intrigued myself by the change which takes place in the official view from time to time. I would, however, point out that the Franzsen Commission did in fact point to the weakness of abatements by immediately building in a run-off of the abatement. The commission did therefore not simply accept the abatement system, but suggested that it be done by way of a run-off. The department’s experience over the years where abatements were enforced, has convinced it that fixed rebates have more advantages than disadvantages in relation to abatements. That is the very definite conclusion they draw from their studies. We therefore hope it works out well. The hon. member said that the rebate would tend to favour high income earners. I am not so sure that that is correct. If one compares the starting points for taxation under the proposed rebate scheme, one will notice the following: For married it is now R2 100 whereas it was R1 500; for married with one child it is now R3 750 whereas it was R2 100; and for married with two children it is now R5 000 whereas it was R2 700. I think that should have to be taken into account.

The fellow who earns R28 000 gets nothing at all.

Well, we can look at that. However, this is a factor that will have to be taken into account.

As regards share options, the hon. member wants to encourage the worker to have a stake in a company. My comment would be that share options need not militate against having a stake in a company as no tax implications arise where the option is taken up on the date the option is granted. The tax arises where the employee only exercises his option on a rising market with a view to selling. Again that is just an immediate comment and we should like to look further at it. It can obviously do with more careful study.

The hon. member put two questions to me regarding clause 6. He asked whether there was any objection to a shareholder drawing on a loan account which is in credit. I take it that in these circumstances the company owes money to the shareholder and is merely repaying its loan. If that is so, there will be no objection, as the shareholder is in fact not receiving a loan. I think I agree with that. Secondly, he has asked for confirmation that the available profits of the company are of a distributable nature and do not include non-distributable reserves. A categorical “yes” or “no” cannot be given in answer to this question. The general approach is that the profits are in fact distributable. If the company has reserves which by law it is not allowed to distribute, for example share premium accounts, then those reserves will be left out of account. It is a different matter if the reserves are non-distributable merely because of a resolution of the company. In such a case the company can pass another resolution making the reserves distributable. These matters would have to be discussed more carefully. I should like to take this up with the Commissioner as soon as possible so that he can bring his mind to bear on the problem and he may himself, want to consult the Standing Commission on Taxation Policy.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether, if the company in question is an investment company and its memorandum and articles restrict the distribution of profits of a capital nature, that would not then result in this specific stipulation being applicable?

Mr. Speaker, I should want to check on that before replying to the hon. member’s question. I should not like, however, to differ from the hon. member on that point.

The hon. member for Mooi River referred to the possible deduction of expenditure on security operations involved in the new scheme of things. Interestingly enough, this matter was also raised in the Other Place yesterday evening, and I undertook then to have the matter carefully investigated. It is a new thing. I think the suggestion made in the Other Place was that not all outlays would necessarily qualify, but that more exceptional items of outlay as a result of this new scheme ought to be taken into account. We shall have to go into this very soon and see what can result.

The hon. member for Mooi River also spoke about subscription shares I think. So did the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member for Yeoville said he was not very happy about reducing the amount of the present “snowball” scheme. I should like to mention to the hon. member for Mooi River that it is certainly a minority of the holders of this kind of investment who hold those big amounts. If one takes the numbers involved, it would seem that the bigger majority hold much smaller amounts than that maximum. I believe that means that the general effect of reducing the maximum amount is not going to be quite as bad as it might seem. We think this is quite consistent. There is quite a considerable degree of support for this among the various people whom one consults. It is felt that this amount has got rather out of alignment.

The hon. member for Yeoville raised a further point in asking why we did not increase the amount in regard to other kinds of tax-free investments, and particularly today, I dare say, under a falling value of the currency. That is something the hon. member raised before and which the department is already investigating.

Then, as far as beneficiation is concerned, the hon. member for Yeoville asked whether the incentives were effective. We do think so, but this is obviously something which one keeps under review all the time. Furthermore, the hon. member also asked me about medical expenses and why there was not a fixed amount allowed. I think the hon. member will probably agree that if one can in fact handle a system in which the actual amounts are allowed up to a maximum, the system is, of course, more accurate. The department has the means to do that in a manner which, I believe, is rather more scientific.

The hon. member for Mooi River also returned to what he had said earlier this evening. I was delighted that he spoke with approval of our attempt to link the increase in salaries in the Public Service with substantial reductions in tax. The tax reduction there is very significant. As far as the economy as a whole is concerned, that is certainly better than simply to keep tax constant and to give bigger salary increases, which would be more inflationary. In this way one will also not have the same effects on fiscal drag. In other words, people will not be pushed into higher brackets so rapidly at a progressive rate of tax. I quite agree with what the hon. member said in this respect.

He also supported our moves in connection with the amalgamation of co-operatives, and I think this covers most of the points he raised.

The hon. member for Hillbrow and the hon. member for Yeoville both spoke about fringe benefits and asked that any proposals which are going ahead should now be published in the interest of the public. The hon. member for Hillbrow also, I think, suggested that we might have a symposium. The Commissioner for Inland Revenue informs me that he proposes to arrange for wide-ranging discussions among interested parties, not unlike the type of thing that the hon. member has in mind.

The hon. member for Hillbrow also raised the question of concessions being made to donors of works of art to institutions, e.g. gallaries, etc. This matter was also raised earlier by him, and that is also being looked into.

I cannot commit myself on this now. It is one of many matters that have been raised and we will study them carefully.

You have not dealt with concessions relating to the physically handicapped.

No, I am still coming to that. While I am thinking of works of art, the hon. member for Constantia did not place a formal amendment on the Order Paper, but I would like to point out that this is a suggested amendment to clause 13. I should also like to point out that section 18A of the principal Act was introduced on the recommendation of the Franzsen Commission, for the sole purpose of encouraging and assisting the training of skilled manpower, for which of course a very urgent need still exists. The hon. member was kind enough to give me advanced notice of his thoughts on this; so I have been able to go into the matter a bit. The objectives of the National Gallery, however meritorious they are, are not of a kind which it was intended to promote under section 18A. Of course, it can be said that we should extend our views on section 18A, but I am giving the existing position. Therefore the suggestion that the hon. member makes cannot easily be supported by me at this point, for the same reason that many requests in the past to extend the scope of application of this section to other fields of activity have had to be refused, viz. that any departure from the clear principle upon which the section is based will inevitably lead to legitimate claims for numerous further concessions in regard to donations to other equally deserving causes, such as religious and charitable institutions. I am referring to the actual thinking and the motivation for section 18A. Nevertheless I have sympathy with the hon. member for Constantia and I should like to have an opportunity to take up this matter with the Commissioner to see whether a case exists to broaden this without throwing the matter so wide open that we have all sorts of practical problems. However, we shall talk again about that.

This brings me to the hon. member for Hillbrow. He moved an amendment to clause 17, viz. on page 23, in line 20, after “R1 200” to insert “provided that expenditure incurred in respect of a physically disabled child or stepchild of the taxpayer shall be deductible on the same basis”. The amendments proposed by clause 17 of the Bill before us are really designed to do two things: Firstly, to remove the idea of a means test which is at present in the principal Act and, secondly, to increase the maximum permissible deduction from R600 to R1 200. That is the point. I have some difficulty with the proposal in its present form. Firstly, it would enable the taxpayer to claim expenditure in respect of a child who is not entitled to a rebate and, secondly, it would enable him to claim a deduction of up to R1 200 in respect of a disabled child in addition to the R1 200 to which he may be entitled in respect of himself and his wife. But I have great sympathy with people in this category. I think that the suggestion has merit in principle, and this is something we shall give urgent further attention to.

The hon. member for Houghton raised two or three points. The one was the question of the widening of the tax bracket. The size of the bracket is dictated by the parameters, that is, at what point the maximum has to be set to obtain the required rate of tax. I think the hon. member would have noticed that a start has been made. For instance, the first bracket now is from R0 to R6 000, while it used to be from R0 to R1 000, and from R16 000 the brackets now are R2 000 instead of R1 000; so we are moving in the right direction. We shall see how far we can go.

The hon. member also raised the question of the separate taxation of married women. I have a note on this, and, although the hour is late, I wonder if I cannot just put my point of view, which starts by saying that nothing in this changing world is static and, least of all, tax systems are static. That is a promising opening. That this is so, is clearly shown by the fact that, although various commissions and committees have recommended the retention of the existing system in terms of which the incomes of married couples are taxed jointly in the hands of the husband, the question whether such income should be taxed jointly or separately continues to be reviewed by the taxation authorities, as is demonstrated by the design of the latest income tax return forms. That design is aimed at obtaining more reliable statistics in regard to the incomes of married women. It must, however, be emphasized that it is not only a question of finding a generally acceptable system which would not increase the tax burden of single-breadwinner families, without at the same time resulting in an undue sacrifice of tax revenues. There are also serious practical and especially logistic problems which prevent the summary introduction of a system of separate assessments at this stage. As was pointed out by the Standing Commission on Taxation Policy when it reported on this matter in 1976, the main cause of the dissatisfaction with the existing system was probably to be found in the high marginal rates of tax prevailing at the time. I think we are ad idem there. The substantial reductions of these rates and other concessions which are now proposed, particularly in the Bill before us, should do much to resolve this aspect of the problem, though it will not, of course, eliminate it. Whereas at the time of the report, the earnings of a married woman were being taxed at an effective rate of 11,2% in the case of a couple without children, where the husband earned R5 000 and the wife R3 000, that rate will, for the 1981 tax year, only be 5,3%, which is less than half. The reduction in the effective rate at which the earnings of the working wife will be taxed in the current year of assessment, is even more significant in the higher income group. In a case where the husband earns R10 000 and the wife R8 000, the rate will now be 20,25%, as against 32,23% in 1976. Where the husband earns R20 000 and the wife R10 000, the rate will be reduced from 50,72% in 1976 to 32,8% in 1981. With this example, it means that the wife will now be left with R6 720 of her income after tax, as compared with R4 932 five years ago. I may say, in this regard, when we talk about the wife’s tax, what we are doing is to look at what the husband earns, at what the wife earns and at what the two together earn. Then we take the tax on the husband’s income, subtract it from the tax on their joint income, and say that the difference is the wife’s tax. Now what happens if one starts with the wife’s tax first and then finds that the husband’s tax is much higher? What I am doing is taking the most disadvantageous position. I am taking the husband first, then the wife and then adding them together in order to get the wife’s tax at a higher progressive rate. So this is the worst reflection of the wife’s tax. I have a table here which I think is quite revealing, and if the hon. member would care to have it I shall send it to her with pleasure.

Finally, I think it is important to note that the reduction of up to R1 200 from the earned income of a married women will for the 1981 tax year have the effect of reducing the couple’s liability for normal tax by at least R96 in the lowest and by as much as R600 in the highest income categories. So we are moving in the right direction.

Another point the hon. member made was that maybe we should have a very thorough survey made of all the facts. A good deal of work is being done and the department is being very active, but we are certainly giving further very close study to this and I would like the hon. member to know that. I would like all my good friends among the ladies who tend to criticize us rather heavily to know that too, because we are not simply letting the matter lie. I can assure the hon. member that on the estimates we have made, to simply do this now quickly, would cause a very substantial amount of tax revenue to be forfeited. The amounts are very large, but of course one can try and phase these things in if we can convince ourselves to adopt such a practice right away. We shall certainly give very close further thought to the matter.

*As far as clause 23 was concerned—it relates to the purchased breeding stock—the hon. member for Heilbron said that it would perhaps be better to remove that item of purchased stock. This is, however, something we shall have to give very careful consideration in view of the case the hon. member made out here this evening. I thank him for his interest. I think he will realize that it is impossible to give an immediate answer to this, but we shall go into the matter further.

I wish to tell the hon. member for Florida that I am glad we were able to make this small concession in view of the representations he made during the budget debate, and I think that it is something which will eliminate the unfairness in respect of that small number of taxpayers to whom he referred.

Mr. Speaker, I trust that I have replied to most of the questions raised.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I promise that I will not keep the House for very much longer than half an hour. [Interjections.] I think it is essential that we record our viewpoint regarding the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville. I hope he will not be gone too long.

Obviously the provision concerning sales tax exemptions can be used to different ends, depending on what particular object one has in mind. The hon. member for Yeoville moved an amendment that the House decline to pass the Second Reading of the Bill on the basis that the hon. the Minister has not granted sufficient exemptions on foodstuffs and certain other essentials of living.

For the benefit of the hon. member for Yeoville and other hon. members I should just like to explain why this party does not believe that to be a very wise strategy. In the first instance it will be recognized that the total tax is, as the hon. the Minister of Finance has indicated earlier, only 4% as compared to a GST overseas of some 13%. In the second instance it will also give rise to a very difficult practical problem if one starts granting exemptions, because every householder, when he buys food, buys a mixed basket of foodstuffs, some of which are imported luxury goods which are not essential to them at all. It therefore becomes quite a practical problem to the grocer or the till checker to differentiate between certain specific foodstuffs. However, on the other hand, one can also imagine the effect it will have on the productivity of the till operators if they should become involved in this kind of discriminatory work.

I should also like to point out a very important aspect which I am sure the hon. member for Yeoville had not taken into account when he moved his amendment, and that is that, if one considers that the GST, which is a form of taxation, comes back to the State and is then ploughed back to the benefit of the whole population, it will be appreciated that the investment of 4%, even on foodstuffs, is still indirectly to the benefit of the general population, in particular the poor. It should be appreciated that of the amount of R1 500 million on GST the hon. member for Yeoville was so concerned about, an amount of approximately R300 million which is the excess over the estimate for the year, can now be used for further subsidies on essential foodstuffs. If the hon. member for Yeoville would look at the cyclical nature of taxation benefits, I think he would appreciate that for practical reasons, because one does not have to have the administrative machinery which one has to finance, the consumer is going to benefit indirectly and directly from the GST. We would propose that rather than reduce the 4% GST on foodstuffs, any surplus on GST be used for greater subsidies on essential foodstuffs.

Lastly, I should like to point out to the hon. member for Yeoville that this administered rate of 4% is really relatively insignificant against the total amount spent on food.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member why then his party opposed the introduction of sales tax in toto and used the same argument that, if there were to be sales tax, it should not be levied on the essentials of life and foodstuffs? Why did they change their mind?

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question indeed. I think we opposed it because, originally, it looked as if this was going to become a turn-over tax. The hon. member for Yeoville may remember that he used exactly the same argument. I remember the hon. member’s speech in the Second Reading and the objections he raised in that speech. However, that is de facto something with which we have to live and we must try to make the best of it. In the final analysis, the GST has worked extremely well. I think the fact that the economy is growing significantly illustrates the good financial management we have in South Africa.

I should also just like to point out to the hon. member for Yeoville that it is far better that we have the 4% GST on food and that, if there is a surplus, that surplus be ploughed back as subsidies on essential foodstuffs, rather than to remove GST with all the concomitant administrative difficulties which will probably result in further non-administered costs which in any case will have to be borne by the consumers. Then I want to point out to the hon. member for Yeoville as well that the 4% which I mentioned earlier, is relatively small in terms of the total amount which is spent on food. If one looks at the cost of living index it runs at a minimum of 14% per annum on foodstuffs, and that 14% goes back to the retailer and the entrepreneur and there is no benefit at all to the consumer. We are quite happy with the GST as it is on foodstuffs at the moment, and therefore we regrettably will not be able to support the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Durban North for the very positive contribution he made to the debate. I appreciate his support.

*The hon. member for Yeoville asked why an explanatory memorandum had not been issued this year. I want to tell the hon. member that I shall do my best to furnish hon. members with explanatory memorandum next year. As a result of the tremendous pressure on the department it was unfortunately not possible to issue an explanatory memorandum in respect of general sales tax as well this year.

†The hon. member for Yeoville alleged that I had said on a previous occasion that only a very small amount of money was spent by the lower-income groups in respect of the basic essentials of life and on foodstuffs and that I quoted statistics which were in direct contradiction to the statistics collected by the people who determined the various poverty datum lines in South Africa. That is not correct. On previous occasions I dealt with basic foodstuffs because that was the point at issue. I still have my notes here which I can read to the hon. member fully. Those notes were based on a calculation made from a study undertaken by the market research bureau of the University of South Africa. The ratio of food to other commodities holds good to this day and shows that if by basic foodstuffs the hon. member meant meat, milk, bread and maize products, expenditure on these items constitutes 10% of the total expenditure of the lower-income groups.

You mean that was all they had to eat? You must be joking!

I am referring to basic foodstuffs. That was the point at issue at the time of the argument. Therefore, at an income level of R2 500, the tax on basic foodstuffs, i.e. R250, amounts to R10,83 per month. The fault does not lie with the sales tax, but with the fact that the lower-income groups are not always paid a living wage. It is to be hoped that with the big tax relief given to entrepreneurs, they will also have regard to their employees and improve their living conditions.

Secondly, the hon. member for Yeoville asked that we should finally decide on the add-in and add-on system as far as GST is concerned. Views have been canvassed among the business communities, but it was found that at present they are not yet prepared to have a uniform system. As they are the people who have to collect the tax, their views must be respected. The hon. member for Yeoville also made a point about the difficulty in determining what is a foreign-going ship and also asked what the decision would be on a ship operating between Transkei and South Africa.

*The Commissioner will have to base his judgment on the evidence submitted to him by the shipowner, since he has to use his discretion whether such ship, taking into account its tonnage, type and other data, does in fact qualify for the exemption. The fact that it is a South African ship means that income tax also has to be paid on the ship’s operations and in the case of subsequent doubt, it can in this way be ascertained whether, and to what extent, it is a foreign-going ship. The Commissioner does not foresee any real problems, but the hon. member’s question did bring to light that when a ship which was previously classified as a foreign-going ship is no longer being used for that purpose, there is a loophole since the tax is not collected at that stage. We shall have to examine this loophole and tighten up this aspect of the Act.

The other question pertained to a ship which primarily or invariably plied between a harbour in the Republic and, for example, the Transkei. It would then be regarded as a foreign-going ship, provided it were used for the conveyance of cargo and persons.

†The hon. member for Yeoville also asked why we could not have the same definition for “financial leases” in all the pieces of legislation. It must be remembered, however, that these pieces of legislation, e.g. the Credit Agreements Bill and the Sales Tax Bill, have different purposes. The definition in the sales tax legislation suits the purpose of that legislation. This brings me to the question of financial leases for leased property situated in another country. In this connection one must remember that we are dealing with a transaction concluded within the Republic. Every country is entitled to tax transactions concluded within its borders. Here an exemption is being provided to prevent double taxation and not in order to confer a benefit. It will be remembered that the countries we are dealing with are mainly neighbouring countries, such as Lesotho, Botswana, Transkei, etc. Between those countries and the Republic there are, of course, no customs barriers.

I come now to the hon. member for Mooi River. The hon. member says that the Commissioner of Inland Revenue is like a dentist. I also want to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that a dentist usually removes the source of the pain. [Interjections.] I must admit that the hon. member did lodge a plea, last year, for exemption for coal, etc., used by hoteliers for heating purposes. It is on the strength of that that we granted this exemption. This also applies to certain farm services.

The hon. member for Mooi River also mentioned the fact that the law was becoming more intricate in regard to leases. I can tell the hon. member that these items are usually dealt with by highly skilled people in the banking world, and these provisions are drawn up in consultation with them. They are not ordinary mortals.

*The hon. member for Wonderboom referred to transformer capacities of 3 150 KVA, and also to generators. There is no doubt that a generator is used for the generation of power. Accordingly the installation and maintenance services in respect of generators are always taxable, regardless of whether the generator is large or small. There is a measure of doubt as to whether transformers are always used for the generation of power. Sometimes they are used only for reticulation purposes. Nevertheless the motion of the hon. member will be examined during the recess.

The hon. member also mentioned financial leases and referred to the rate of taxation of other countries. This is an important point to which we can give very thorough attention, but it should be borne in mind that 4% is just about the lowest sales tax rate in any country in the world. In the immediate vicinity, where the most financial leases occur, there is either no taxation, or the taxation is 4% in those cases as well.

The hon. member for Wonderboom also mentioned the question of doubt in clause 5. He said the word “doubt” was too subjective. The general principle is, therefore, that doubt arises where there is a difference of opinion. What follows, arises out of an exchange of views and a discussion as to why the one party’s view differs from that of the others. The concept “reasonable doubt” is applied every day when it has to be decided how a reasonable person would have acted in a given situation. What is at stake here is an exchange of views on the conduct of a dealer. When the Commissioner is of the opinion that the circumstances do not reflect very clearly, in the Act or regulations, or general decisions based on the Act, that the other person could not have formed a different opinion to the Commissioner, he has to give him the benefit of the doubt. In a department which deals with this type of situation of doubt every day and which works with people who do not act uniformly, the Commissioner does not foresee problems with the application. If problems do arise which give rise to unreasonableness, that provision will be re-examined.

†The hon. member for East London North made a point about the increased costs of farmers’ inputs. If costs are increased by any one input so as to have an appreciable escalation in cost to the consumer, it will be investigated. By escalation is meant that it will have the effect of increasing the ultimate sales tax payable by ½%. In the case of fuel for the delivery of crops, this is to maintain neutrality in regard to transport undertakings that do not get tax-free inputs. The hon. member also asked why the provisions regarding foreign-going ships did not also apply to aircraft. The position of aircraft is not as clear-cut as that of foreign-going ships, and further investigations will be undertaken during the recess in this regard. In the case of foreign-going ships, their trade is conducted mostly beyond the borders of the Republic, whereas there are different types of aircraft flying wholly or partly to destinations in other countries but conveying passengers or goods between airports in the Republic before embarking on the final foreign leg of the journey.

*Mr. Speaker, I still want to refer to the amendment to the Second Reading moved by the hon. member for Yeoville, in which he moved that we should exempt basic foodstuffs from GST. If we want to assist needy persons, the exemption of certain basic foodstuffs from the provisions of the General Sales Tax Act is not the appropriate way of doing so. In that case we shall simply complicate this tax system. The exceptions will place businessmen in a very difficult position, for it should be borne in mind that it is not we who collect this tax but the businessmen. Furthermore we are going to increase the costs involved in the collection of this taxation and create a further opportunity for tax evasion. The administration and control are going to be very difficult. I want to say in all honesty that this side of the House has a great deal of sympathy for the consumers, for needy people in particular. I think we should rather keep this tax system as broadly-based as possible and allow as few exceptions to the rule as possible and that we should rather think in terms of increased food subsidies in future, in order to assist those people.

I also just wish to refer very briefly to the speech made by the hon. member for Wonderboom. That hon. member referred in glowing terms to the department and the work it is doing. I thank him for that. I think the hon. member very definitely made a most intensive study of this legislation.

The hon. member for Griqualand East displayed a positive approach. His contribution also attested to thorough study and dedication. I want to congratulate the hon. member, who is still a young member here, very sincerely on his contribution.

Then there is one further point I wish to refer to. I want to associate myself with the hon. member who congratulated the hon. member for Stilfontein on the serious appeal he made for quadruplegics and others. I think the exemption of sales tax on the items being used by these people was actually a monument to the hon. member for Stilfontein.

Mr. Speaker, I just wish to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he accepts my amendment.

I beg your pardon. I am sorry that I did not furnish the hon. member with a reply in that regard.

The hon. member’s amendment cannot be accepted. [Interjections.] In the first place “foodstuffs” have not been defined in it, and it includes everything, from maize products to caviar and other exotic foodstuffs. [Interjections.] I cannot exempt foodstuffs from this tax. This is simply the way matters stand.

I am referring to my amendment which is printed on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker, I think we should first dispose of the Second Reading of the Bill. [Interjections.] However, I wish to assure the hon. member for Yeoville that we shall give attention to these matters during the parliamentary recess. We do have the powers to make amendments. We shall be very sympathetic in our consideration regarding pace-makers, etc. But I cannot tell the hon. member at this stage what exactly we are going to decide. As he himself will know, these matters require a considerable amount of study. Of course one must be very careful with exemptions, since they could give rise to a demand for further exemptions. However, I give the hon. member the assurance that I shall accept and consider the principle contained in his amendment. The hon. member may rest assured that I shall do that. When we meet here again next year the hon. member may as well see whether I have kept my word or not.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. 5. Crutches.
2. 6. Pace-makers and other mechanical aids to organ functioning.
3. 7. Any other item which in the opinion of the Commissioner is an article used exclusively by physically handicapped persons.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

New clause to follow clause 11:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Substitution of “Commissioner” for “Secretary” in Act 103 of 1978.

New clause agreed to.

Title:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Amendment agreed to.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to make a personal explanation. On persuing the Hansard report of the speech of the hon. member for Florida during the Third Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill, I find that, on raising a point of order, I used the words—

The purpose of asking the question was to ascertain whether the hon. member for Florida had a pecuniary interest in the matter. I had no intention of reflecting on the integrity of the hon. member, and I therefore withdraw the words in question.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In laying this Bill before the House, I would again this year draw the attention of hon. members to the important, although subsidiary, role which the revenue laws play in our overall tax system. At a time when many may have expected taxes such as stamp duty and transfer duty, to be dying of old age, they continue to perform with great vigour, reflecting, no doubt, the return of business confidence and the upsurge in economic activity.

Stamp duty collections are expected to rise this year by 23% to R150 million, while transfer duty collections are expected to yield no less than R95 million even after the concessions which were announced in the budget speech. Even estate duty collections are expected to yield approximately R49 million, and that despite the generous further reliefs which I shall deal with later. All in all, the four major revenue laws are expected to yield no less than R314 million during the current financial year.

To abolish all or anyone of these taxes, as I am so frequently urged to do, would cause, as hon. members will readily appreciate, a sizable hole in revenue which would have to be made good in some way or another. Even the loss of estate duty—some R49 million— would most certainly not go unnoticed. It is that particular duty which is, of course, the most constant target of attack, and it must be admitted that some of the arguments put forward in that connection, are not without merit. Equally valid arguments can be advanced, however, for the retention of the duty, while the arguments put forward for the scaling down of the other taxes cannot be ignored. In the result, the most that can be done is to grant such reliefs as we are able to afford, bearing in mind the overall programme of tax reform referred to in the budget speech of the hon. the Minister. This, as I shall try to explain, the Bill is designed to achieve.

Of the 25 clauses in the Bill no fewer than 12 relate solely to the change in the title of the head of Inland Revenue from “Secretary for Inland Revenue” to “Commissioner for Inland Revenue” who is responsible for the administration of the various tax statutes other than customs and excise. That change is of course due to the rationalization of the Public Service and the bringing together of the various financial departments under the one new Department of Finance. The clauses involved are numbers 1, 3, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22 and 23. Clause 4 also effects similar amendments. The remaining clauses provide for (a) exemptions from marketable securities tax and stamp duty of sales and registrations involving South African Reserve Bank securities; (b) an increase in the exemption level from transfer duty of transactions involving residential property and certain machinery provisions made necessary by the passing of the Share Block Control Act, 1980; (c) an increase in certain estate duty exemptions and a new reduced scale of rates for estate duty; and (d) a new exemption from stamp duty in respect of the registration of transfer of shares purchased under arbitrage transactions by persons not resident in the Republic, South West Africa, Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland or any country which formerly formed part of the Republic. I shall now deal with these amendments in greater detail.

Firstly, South African Reserve Bank Securities: The Reserve Bank has since 1968 been empowered to issue its own securities but, in fact, has never done so. Should the Bank at any time decide to act in terms of these powers, it would do so in the course of its functions as a central bank and not in the ordinary course of its banking business. In these circumstances it would be unreasonable to charge marketable securities tax in respect of transactions in Reserve Bank securities on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange or stamp duty on the original issue of securities or the registration of transfer of such securities. The amendments effected to the Marketable Securities Tax Act by clause 2 and to the Stamp Duties Act by clause 21(1)(a) provide for the necessary exemptions.

Secondly, transfer duty: I shall deal first of all with the rates of duty applying in respect of acquisitions of property by natural persons and the exemptions which apply in respect of acquisitions of residential property by natural persons.

In terms of section 2 of the Transfer Duty Act, where property is acquired by a natural person duty is payable at the rate of 1% on the first R20 000 of the value of the property and at 3% on the balance. However, where a natural person acquires a dwelling— including a flat held under sectional title— having a value of not more than R20 000 the transaction is exempt from tax in terms of section 9. Similarly, where a natural person acquires any unimproved land for the purpose of erecting a dwelling house thereon the transaction is exempt from tax if the value of the land is not more than R8 000.

The amendment effected to section 2 of the Transfer Duty Act by clause 5 of the Bill raises the level to which the 1% rate applies from R20 000 to R30 000. The effect of this amendment is that in respect of any dwelling costing more than R30 000 the transfer duty is reduced by R200. Under the amendment effected by clause 6 of the Bill the exemption levels in respect of dwellings and building lots acquired by natural persons are increased to R30 000 and R12 000 respectively.

These amendments apply in respect of acquisitions of property on or after 1 April 1980.

The amendments effected to the Transfer Duty Act in terms of clauses 4(1)(b) and 7 of the Bill arise out of the adoption of the Share Blocks Control Act, 1980.

The latter Act repeals section 23 of the Sectional Titles Act, 1971, and lays down rules for the operation of share block schemes which are schemes in terms of which a share in a company confers a right to, or an interest in, the use of immovable property. One of the rules having a bearing on transfer duty is to be found in item 8(1)(b) of the first schedule to the Share Blocks Control Act which provides that any company operating a share block scheme shall transfer a unit of property into the name of the person having a right to the use of the unit if that person makes a written request for the transfer.

Clause 4(1)(b) of this Bill amplifies the definition of “date of acquisition” in section 1 of the Transfer Duty Act by providing that for transfer duty purposes the date of acquisition of property acquired in terms of the item 8(1)(b) referred to a moment ago, shall, unless the provisions of section 9A apply, be the date on which the person having the right of use in the immovable property applies in writing for the unit of property to be transferred into his name.

Clause 7 of the Bill in turn modifies the provisions of section 9A of the Transfer Duty Act in order to take into account the passing of the Share Blocks Control Act, 1980, but it does not change the principles. The effect of these provisions is that where a person is, prior to the date of commencement of the latter Act, the owner of a unit held under a share block scheme and he puts in a written request for the transfer of the unit into his name, he has an option open to him under the Transfer Duty Act. He may elect that the provisions of section 9A shall apply, in which case transfer duty will be calculated at the rate ruling on the date on which the right to occupy the unit became vested in him, which was possibly some years ago. The value of the property will be the cost to the person of his shares in the share block company plus the portion of any loan obligation allotted to him under the Share Blocks Control Act.

Alternatively the person may decide not to make use of section 9A, in which case he is deemed, in terms of the amendment effected by clause 4(1)(b) of the Bill, to have acquired the property on the date on which he put in his written request for transfer, and duty will be payable at the rate ruling at that date and be based on the value of his unit at that date.

In practice most persons taking transfer in terms of the Share Blocks Control Act will probably find that although the value of their unit has increased since they acquired their right of use, the rates of transfer duty have been reduced to such an extent that it will not pay them to exercise the option available under section 9A of the Transfer Duty Act.

*The Bill proposes further very valuable concessions. I shall begin by dealing with those that have a bearing on estate duty.

As a result of representations made to me and to the Department of Inland Revenue, last year’s legislation made provision for the exclusion from the definition of property deemed to be property in terms of the Estate Duty Act, of the capitalized value of an annuity paid by a pension fund which wholly or partly survives the deceased and which, after his death, is paid out to another person, usually his widow. During the debate on the Bill an urgent plea was made to me to extend that particular concession to the capitalized value of annuities which survive the pensioner which are paid by retirement annuity funds. For reasons set out in last year’s speech I could not see my way clear to acceding to that request at the time. However, further attention was given to this question during the recess and it was decided, on reconsideration, that it would indeed be reasonable to make the required concessions. The amendment introduced by way of clause 10, gives effect to this decision and is applicable to the estate of any person who died or dies on or after 1 April 1979.

I pointed out earlier that consideration cannot, unfortunately, be given to the abolition of estate duty at this stage. It is, however, the policy of the Government to keep this duty as low as possible, and in accordance with this policy it is proposed in terms of clause 11 to increase considerably the deductions in respect of investments in the form of policies of insurance, public stock and bonds which are taken into account in determining the net value of an estate. In the case of policies of insurance, the amount of R40 000 is increased to R50 000, whereas, in the case of public stock and bonds it is increased from R80 000 to R100 000. As hon. members are aware, the deductible amount which may be invested in stock and bonds is so much of the difference between R100 000 and the amount which is owned in the form of policies as does not exceed R50 000. Therefore, where the return on policies is R30 000, for instance, the value of stocks which may be deducted, will be R70 000. I draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that these deductions are being increased for the second consecutive year. In 1978 these two deductions amounted to only R35 000 and R70 000 respectively. There are further deductions from the net value of an estate in order to determine the dutiable value. There are four such deductions, each amounting to R35 000, namely the standard deduction, the deduction in respect of a spouse who survives the, deceased and the deductions in respect of children. The amendment effected by clause 12, has the effect of increasing each of these allowances to R37 500.

I now come to the last and perhaps the most important amendment which stands to be made to the Estate Duty Act this year, namely the introduction of new scales of tax, in terms of which the highest scale of 35% is only reached with a dutiable value of R400 000, compared with the present figure of R300 000. Furthermore, the lowest rate, i.e. 10%, will be applicable to estates with a dutiable value, i.e. after deductions, of up and including to R50 000 and not only R10 000 as is the case at present.

The effect of all these concessions is that in cases where the estate of a deceased person includes the amount of R50 000 accruing from life assurance policies, such amount, if the deceased is survived by a spouse and two children, will be sufficient to cover the estate duty payable on an estate with a net value of R490 000. The comparable figure in terms of the existing provisions of the Act is R363 636.

The final amendments of significance effected in terms of this Bill relate to stamp duties, in particular, the registration of transfer of marketable securities purchased on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange by aliens in terms of arbitrage transactions. Hon. members will recall that the duty on marketable securities and the duty in respect of the registration of shares are to a certain extent supplementary. If a share is purchased on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange and the duty on marketable securities is paid in respect of that particular transaction, the registration of transfer of the share in the name of the purchaser is exempted from stamp duty. Where the share is acquired outside the Exchange, there is no liability for the tax on marketable securities, but stamp duty is payable on the registration of transfer.

There are, however, exceptions to this rule. Transactions in terms of which aliens purchase shares on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange in terms of arbitrage transactions, have always been exempted from the tax on marketable securities. The broker who acts on behalf of the foreign purchaser will often immediately register the shares in question either in his own name, or in the name of a nominated company. This is done to protect the rights of the purchaser and in respect of such registration, there has since 1972 been an appropriate exemption in item 15 of schedule 1 of the Stamp Duties Act. However, when the registration of the shares is transferred to the true shareholder from the broker or the nominated company, there is no exemption that can be claimed, and because duty on marketable securities was not payable, the stamp duty of 1% is therefore payable.

Repeated representations for the granting of an exemption from stamp duty in cases where arbitration is involved have been made to me and my department over a period of several years. It is claimed that the margins at which brokers do business have been cut so fine that the stamp duty of 1% has had the effect that foreign brokers avoid the Johannesburg Stock Exchange as far as possible and instead, buy South African shares on the New York, London or European Exchanges. As those who made representations put it, “Johannesburg has become a market of last resort”.

After careful consideration of the representations, the conclusion was reached that the required exemption would indeed attract additional transactions to the Johannesburg Stock Exchange and that bigger turn-overs on that market would have an advantageous effect on the domestic economy. The amendments effected by clauses 20(1)(a), 20(1)(b) and 21(1)(b), have been designed to give effect to this exemption and, at the same time, to ensure that the concession is confined to arbitrage transactions involving aliens. They will come into effect on 1 July 1980.

Except for clause 24, which is self-explanatory, I have covered the whole Bill. Especially in the field of estate duty, provision is being made for significant tax reductions and I can, therefore, very strongly recommend that this legislation be adopted immediately.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to a 20-page speech by the hon. the Deputy Minister, delivered at 2 o’clock in the morning. Despite the length of the speech and everything that he said, I still intend voting for the Second Reading of this Bill … [Interjections] … and I intend doing so without much delay. I shall merely deal with a couple of points. First of all the hon. the Deputy Minister dealt with the fact that stamp duty and transfer duty are all increasing. The reality is, however, that despite the fact that rates do not go up, inflation is causing total revenue to increase, and that is obviously the reason for it.

Secondly, I should like to make the point that this is a relatively unique Bill because it does not actually result in any increase in the tariffs on any of the matters referred to in the Bill. Thirdly I think it gives further encouragement to home-ownership and, fourthly, it deals with one of the aspects relating to retirement annuities which we have asked for in the past.

The other point that I think we need to mention is that we welcome the provision in connection with arbitrage transactions. We welcome it because it should actually produce more business for South Africa in this respect, taking business away from other stock exchanges and transferring it to ours.

Lastly, I should like to refer to the issue of transfer when it comes to share block schemes. In most cases the people concerned have already paid the 1% transfer duty, and in the event of conversion to a sectional title scheme, if transfer duty is payable we believe that those people should get the credit on the 1% transfer duty that they paid when they took transfer of the shares, because in many cases they can be compelled to take transfer. In fact, a sectional title scheme can be applied to their building, theirs possibly being a minority attitude when it comes to a choice between whether there should or should not be such a scheme. The fact of the matter is, however, that most of those people took transfer when there was not even a sectional title law in existence, or when they could not, for some or other reason, get sectional title. So it does seem to us that they should get the credit for that 1% that they paid on the transfer of the shares. With those few remarks, let me indicate that we shall be voting for the Bill at Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has really done very well by not showing any emotion with regard to this very important legislation, because throughout the world provisions like these, particularly where the age-old concept of estate duty applies, are inclined to give rise to emotion-charged arguments. I want to congratulate the hon. member on seeing all the provisions of the legislation in the right perspective, for saying thank you and being pleased together with all of us that it was not necessary to increase rates in this legislation.

It is nevertheless important to tell the hon. the Minister on this occasion that one is extremely grateful that he handled these very difficult matters in particular in such a competent way. If one refers to estate duty, there are both negative and positive elements with which one is faced. There is the negative element, because a pre-requisite for estate duty is death. Secondly, one can never establish when that duty must be paid and thirdly—and this is important and applies to everyone—no one knows on what day we must pay that tax and because we are not always given notice, we do not know how much it will be either. Since the recess is ahead, and I do not want our colleagues to go away empty handed here tonight, I want to tell them that if they are married, keep their wives with them, have a few children and their estate is not larger than R255 000, they will not have to pay estate duty one day.

Mr. Speaker, it is my personal opinion, but I think we can tell one another what the ideal should be. In this regard we do in fact have two possibilities. On the one hand we can idealize that estate duty will be phased out over the years, and on the other hand we want to idealize that our brilliant hon. Minister will continue to make these very fine concessions, deductions and relief, so that estate duty will be paid in future by those who do not find it difficult to do so.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches support the Second Reading of the Bill. We especially welcome the provisions relating to arbitrage and to the abolition of transfer duty, in the case of houses, up to a figure of R30 000 and in the case of land, up to a figure of R12 000. As regards the question of estate duty, I want to say that one obviously welcomes anything that is done to relieve the burden of estate duty, particularly in relation to those in the farming community. Anybody who has anything to do with farmers knows what a considerable burden this has been in the past, and how much attention has been given to this matter by the agricultural unions over the years. I think the hon. member for Yeoville put his finger on the truth of the matter when he said that this was merely keeping pace with inflation. However, Sir, I would like to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister something which appears to me to be something of an anomaly. In the table on page 4 of the Estimate of Revenue (R.P. 3—’80), we find that, in spite of all the concessions which have been made, it is estimated that an amount of R48 800 000 is estimated to be collected in the form of estate duty during 1980-’81, as against R44 500 000 in the previous year, giving one an estimated increase of R4 300 000. I do not see how one can estimate for a larger amount when concessions have been made which should produce a smaller amount— unless the Department is expecting more people to die during the year! I would welcome an explanation from the hon. the Deputy Minister in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to bring one point with regard to transfer duties to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister. A slight anomaly exists. Section 2 of the Act determines the amounts at which transfer duties at 1% and at 3% are to be paid. I just want to point out that an important principle applies in the case of farms. This is that the dwelling unit and the farming unit are not separated. Whilst in a town one would have the position where certain units would be subject to the payment of the minimum transfer duties of 1%, or would be totally exempted from them in terms of the new section 9(12), in the case of farms one would never have the position where the farmer would not pay any transfer duties or the minimum amount in transfer duties, with regard to a dwelling unit. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to investigate the possibility of establishing a distinction between the dwelling unit and the farming unit on a farm. We already have the principle in the Sectional Titles Act that small units can be transferred in certain circumstances.

There is a second aspect in this regard that I should also like to bring to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attention. This is the point with regard to the active farming unit. Under present-day conditions, it is true that the transfer duties on farming units are normally 3%. However, in the case of ordinary companies, shares are transferred in terms of the Stamp Duties Act, of which the rate is lower. Therefore, what I should like to know, is whether it does not amount to an anomaly under these conditions, because transfer duties of 3% are usually levied on farming units, whilst other business enterprises are transferred at a lower rate in terms of the Stamp Duties Act. I should like to bring this matter to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I shall appreciate it if he would investigate the possibility of rectifying the matter in this case.

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member for Carletonville that both the matters that he raised, will enjoy our sympathetic attention.

The hon. member for Mooi River wanted to know why we are going to receive a larger revenue from estates this year than in the previous financial year. He also wanted to know how we can predict this. It is very easy to predict, in the sense that we know when people die. Those whose estate duty is collected this year, are already deceased. Their estates are assessed in terms of the higher tariff because they died before 1 April. It is in fact a great pity that they died before 1 April. Of course, it is much cheaper to die now. However, this is the important reason why the amount is going to be higher. There is a drastic decrease in this year’s rates in comparison with those of last year.

I can just mention one example by way of illustration. Last year, there was an estate duty of 14% payable on an estate of R400 000. The estate duty this year will be only 9% on the same estate. Therefore it is a dramatic decrease.

This Government kills us all in any event. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, of course I am not talking about the hon. member for Durban Point now. He is already deceased, and simply has to die still. [Interjections.]

I thank the hon. member for Newton Park for what he said here. Of course, we know that he is an expert on estate duty.

†The hon. member for Yeoville asked a question in connection with people who have already paid transfer duties under the share-block system. My reply to that is that under the share-block system people pay stamp duties on shares, and not transfer duties. Previously they had only the right of occupation. Now they obtain ownership. That is the difference.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, referring to what I said earlier this evening during the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill in connection with the hon. member for Innesdal, I wish to stress that I did not say or intend to say that he had acted in an illegal manner or in a manner which constituted a contravention of any regulation. What I did say was that the system under which he participated should be prevented by regulation or legislation.

Order! Since we are engaged in explanations, hon. members will recall that I said I considered it in the interests of the country for the report of the Select Committee to be discussed here. Of course, at that stage I simply had the administration boards in mind. I was quite unaware of the fact that the action of the hon. member for Innesdal would also be raised here.

Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House, I just want to express a word of sincere thanks to you, the Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Chairman of Committees for the way in which this House has been guided during this session. My thanks also go to the parliamentary staff for their dedicated service to all of us during this year’s session. Then, too, my sincere thanks to hon. members of the House, of all the parties represented here, for their co-operation. This contributed to the business of the House being conducted in a good spirit this year.

I should like to wish the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and everyone present here everything of the best and also wish them a very pleasant rest. I hope that we shall meet here once again next year in good health.

Mr. Speaker, I now move—

1. (1) Mr. Speaker may accelerate or postpone the date for the resumption of business;
2. (2) Select Committees may sit without the unanimous concurrence of all their members;
3. (3) Mr. Speaker may appoint and discharge members of Select Committees; and
4. (4) Mr. Speaker may refer papers to Select Committees.

Before adjourning the House, I should just like to convey a few words of thanks on behalf of the Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Chairman of Committees, as well as on behalf of the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary and the Under Secretary and other officials, to the hon. the Leader of the House, the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Durban Point, as well as to all hon. members for their co-operation and support during the past session. On behalf of all of us I also wish to thank the Police for the efficient services they have rendered here during this session. I also thank the Press and the SABC for keeping the country informed of the business of Parliament.

Question agreed to.